Social Exchange Theory

It is hard for me to point out the greatest weakness of interpersonal communication, so, in this section, I will discuss about what I think as the most questionable part of interpersonal communication: Social Exchange Theory (SET). I will start with a brief summary of the theory, including some examples of its usage in some areas of research. Then, I will move to the reasons why I consider this as the most questionable part of interpersonal communication. I will end this section with a suggestion for future research.

Summary of the theory

Stafford (2008) attributed Social Exchange Theory (SET) to famous psychologists, Thibault and Kelley, and sociologists, Homans and Blau. Having its root in the field of economics, this theory views human interaction as akin to a marketplace in which people exchange valued items. Laying at the core of the theory are three key points: reward, cost, and resources. Reward is any part of a relationship that has a positive value, such as wealth, promising career, emotional support, etc. Cost, on the other hand, is any element of a relationship that is valued negatively, such as time, efforts, etc. Resources are anything that have value and can be exchanged, such as money, love, information, etc.

The fundamental assumption of this theory is that humans are rational beings that want to avoid cost and seek for reward. For example, according to this assumption, a young woman who is faced with a situation in which she has to choose one man that she can marry with will likely consider a man who has the most resources and will require her the least cost in the relationship. Also included in this assumption is the concept of self-interest. Self-interests, according to Stafford (2008), “drive individuals to a...

... middle of paper ...

...rd’.

Suggestions for future studies

To deal with its testability, first we need more studies like Foa and Foa (1976) did. I suggest that carefully designed studies in various cultural settings, with a representative number of participants, would be necessary to strengthen their work. With this done, a widely acceptable distinction of costs and rewards could be constructed and therefore provide a means to test the theory.

Expecting studies to solve the problem with individual differences, altruism and agapic type of relationship in the near future may not be reasonable, because these issues would be difficult to deal with. Following Stafford (2008), I would say that perhaps the most reasonable change that further research should do is to shift the focus from viewing communication as a means of resources exchange to considering it as the resource itself.