Social Exchange Theory
Maja Crawford, Makayla Ediger, Kevin Honas, Sarah Lawless, and Perla Zamorano
Department of Communications Studies, Law, & Political Science Fort Hays State University
COMM 490 VA: Issues and Applications in Communication
Brittney Reed, M.S
March 15, 2026
Social Exchange Theory (SET) is a widely used framework for understanding how humans form and maintain relationships through communication. SET explains that individuals evaluate relationships based on perceived rewards and costs, often seeking relationships that are more rewarding. These perceptions influence whether individuals continue, strengthen, or distance themselves from the relationship. Over time, scholars have expanded the theory to include concepts, namely reciprocity, comparison levels, and power dynamics. By reviewing the historical background, key scholars, major theoretical extensions, and modern research trends, SET offers a strong framework for understanding how communication influences relationships. A practical application of this can be seen in the relationships college students have with their professors. In these dynamics, students evaluate the rewards in that relationship, such as gained knowledge, mentorship, and more. Depending on what they value, the rewards can outweigh the costs in this relationship, such as the loss of financial stability due to tuition. Some students might think that the knowledge they get far outweighs the cost of financial instability, but on the other hand, some do not find it worth it and are likely to not pursue the relationship and drop the courses.
Development and historical background of the theory
According to Thomas & Iding (2011), in social exchanges, “people weigh the potential benefits and risks of social relationships. When the risks outweigh the rewards, people will terminate or abandon the relationship” (Cherry, 2010, as cited in Thomas & Iding, 2011). Consequently, social exchange theory has become a broad concept that focuses on several scientific disciplines, such as management, social psychology, and anthropology. It is better understood as a family of conceptual models rather than a single theory (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). According to Duong et al. (2024), “Perceived benefit (or positive impacts) and perceived cost (or negative impacts) are fundamental components of both Social Exchange Theory and Extended Social Exchange theory” (p. 2). The social exchange process begins when an organizational actor or perpetrator treats a target individual in a positive or negative fashion. In response to the initiating action, the target may choose to reciprocate this treatment with good or bad behavior of their own. Social exchange theory predicts that in reaction to positive initiating actions, targets tend to reply by engaging in more positive reciprocating responses and/or fewer negative reactions (p. 480). Positive interactions include justice and organizational support. On the other hand, negative actions may consist of incivility, abuse of supervision, and bullying. Researchers have also concluded that the social exchange theory is a broad framework that can describe almost any finding (Ahmad et al., 2023).
Historically, the origins of social exchange can be traced back to the 18th century, specifically with Adam Smith, a social philosopher who struggled to understand the mechanisms of social relationships (Cole et al., 2002, p. 144). Modern theorists generally agree that these exchanges are anchored in self-interest and are characterized by interdependency or “mutual dependency” (Huston & Burgess, 1979, as cited in Cole et al., 2002). However, an argument emerged between two different thoughts: the individualistic approach, supported by George Homans as the founder, which places individuals’ wants and desires at the center of social action, and the collectivistic approach, which Claude Levi-Strauss is considered a catalyst for, which asserts that social actions gain prominence if they contribute to the existence of society (p. 145).
To build this individualistic approach, Homans adopted axioms from both classical economic theory and behavioral psychology (Kullberg, 1977, p. 10). His work was unique because he made explicit rules and developed general theoretical propositions of behavior as social exchange (Kullberg, 1977, p. 11):
Success proposition: The more the action of a person is rewarded, the more likely they are to perform it.
Stimulus proposition: If an action someone performed was rewarded in the past, the more likely they are to do the same in a similar situation.
Value proposition: The more valuable to someone the result of their action is, the more likely they will perform that action again.
Deprivation-Satiation Proposition: If an individual receives a specific reward too many times, it loses its charm, so they are less motivated to work for it.
Aggression-Approval Propositions: If someone does something expecting a reward, they become upset when deprived of it. If they get a reward that was expected, they are likely to continue the behavior.
Rationality Proposition: Individuals not only look at how big a reward is from an action, but also at how probable it is that they can get it.
The previous propositions suggest that we act not on whim but on the calculation of all our previous experiences, and if our effort is worth the payback. It also supports reciprocity, and if a behavior worked before, we are likely to repeat it. Ultimately, these help explain why individuals might stay in a relationship and the reasons we might leave.
While Homans focused on individual motivations, the field expanded and included broader perspectives. In 1949, Claude Levi-Strauss introduced the collectivistic view of social exchange theory to explain how human societies are built. This theory rests on two main ideas: First, SET is a uniquely human behavior, and secondly, even though individuals have self-interests, those desires can't hold a society together on their own. This generalized model of SET involves multiple individuals, and the multiparty approach allows for even broader social connections (Cole et al., 2002, p. 145).
Following an individualistic approach, Peter Blau refined the economic basis of social exchange by arguing that people are drawn to relationships where they believe they will be rewarded. Since these come with risk, building trust over time is important. Blau’s theory ultimately suggests that high-quality relationships don’t come immediately, but instead trust needs to be earned slowly and mutually (Cole et al., 2002). To understand how these ideas were refined into a specific model used today, it is important to examine the contributions of the theory's primary scholars.
Key Researchers and Scholars
Although there have been multiple viewpoints of the Social Exchange Theory, there is one concept they all agree on: social exchange consists of a series of interactions that generate obligations. These are seen as interdependent and based on the actions of another person (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). There have been four main figures identified in the concept of social exchange: George Homans who's axioms we previously mentioned, John Thibaut, Harold Kelley, and Peter Blau.
In 1958, Homans tried to identify and advance the theory of “social behavior as exchange”. He did so by publishing his argument in Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms (Emerson, 1976, p. 335). His inspiration for the book came from the urge to look at sociology through the lens of psychology. The focus of the book is to explain social structures based on the actions of individuals who have not intended to create these structures. His contribution to sociological theory is regarded as the pioneer of further developments of social exchange theory. Although Homans built a foundation in SET, many believed that the theory was incomplete and needed refinement (Enayat et al., 2022).
Thibaut and Kelley (1950) strengthened the general approach by showing that we don't just look at our own rewards, but we also compare our relationships to others and experiences in the past. Peter Blau’s Exchange and Power moved the theory further and assured its future in the field. Blau gave more emphasis to technical economic analysis, while Homans focused on the psychology of instrumental behavior (Emerson, 1976, pp. 335-336). Blau’s point of view is that SET assumes the basis of social life is exchange; the processes of social exchange set in motion other processes: integration, differentiation, organization, power, and opposition. Blau also argued that to understand the laws governing social structures, one first needs to understand the laws governing their constituent elements within social relationships between individual members of small groups (Wylezalek, 2021).
Szmatka & Mazur (1996) delved deeper into the social exchange theory through orienting strategies, working strategies, and competing theoretical programs. The orienting strategy held Homan’s arguments that social theory should be based on “operant” psychology, the idea that actions are shaped by rewards or punishments we receive in our interactions with others. Szmatka & Mazur further this by analyzing the way status and authority are reward structures used to control individuals' actions. Essentially, they made the theory more than just the interactions of everyday people, and that of a tool for organizations like reward and cost tactics. They transformed the theory to help understand how people’s actions are conditioned and molded by social structures.
Social Exchange Theory has evolved through the contributions of several key scholars who have expanded on the central ideas. George Homans laid out the foundational information by explaining social behavior through psychological principles of change, with other theorists, such as John Thibaut, Harold Kelley, and Peter Blau, broadening the framework to include group dynamics, power structures, and social systems. All these perspectives share the main assumption that social life is built on reciprocal interactions that create interdependence among individuals. Continuing developments by Szmatka and Mazur show how the theory continues to remain relevant by exploring how individual behavior and social structures influence one another. Altogether, these contributions demonstrate that SET provides a framework for understanding how relationships, organizations, and social systems develop through interactions and exchange. While these scholars established core foundations for the theory, modern scholars have developed several extensions to account for different specific scenarios.
Major extensions or Variations
Social Exchange Theory (SET) is a tool many researchers use to help guide their efforts to understand the why and how people interact and connect. They use social exchange theory, as well as others that are similar or in comparison. A modern extension of social exchange theory (SET) was developed by Kumashiro et al. (2008). The model of personal-relational equilibrium (PRE) explains the way people regulate tradeoffs between their competing concerns. Kumashiro et al. (2008) suggest that individuals develop strategies in the pursuit of maximizing personal and relational fulfillment, and these tend to yield moderate gratification of their needs. This model suggests that the relational exchange comes within an individual's personal and relational needs and is similar to SET, but instead of focusing on intrapersonal exchanges, it focuses on interpersonal exchanges and equilibrium. The personal relational equilibrium emphasizes the value of time, space, and energy, and individuals' own identity rather than just their relationships. SET values profit and suggests that rewards are valued and that there is a general standard for these, while the PRE model employs concepts of homeostasis, suggesting individuals seek an equilibrium and that the value for the rewards is personal to the individual. This helps explain why people value relationships differently from one another, since the given rewards might satisfy their personal needs while unsatisfying another person who has the same relationship. Kumashiro et al. (2008) state that “An optimal equilibrium standard describes the relative tradeoff of concerns that a given individual experiences as comfortable” (p. 95). They also mention that equilibrium standards vary on these three dimensions: whether the optimal equilibrium region is centered on 50/50, to what extent specific activities simultaneously gratify the two domains, and the range of tradeoffs an individual experiences as acceptable.
By moving away from a universal standard of "profit" and toward a personal standard of "homeostasis," Kumashiro et al. (2008) account for the subjectivity of each unique human experience. This explains why a relationship that appears "unbalanced" or "costly" to an outside observer may be perfectly satisfying to the individual, if it aligns with their unique equilibrium of personal space and relational connection.
While the PRE model focuses on the internal balance of the individual, other researchers have extended social exchange theory to comprehend the complexities of professional environments. To investigate and understand the nature of the diverse social exchange relationships among employees in the workplace, Cole et al. (2002) developed the Workplace Social Exchange Network (WSEN), drawing on multiple social exchange research. This model was further developed by drawing on the work of Seers, Petty, and Cashman (1995) concerning reciprocity. Cole et al. (2002) emphasize that employees can feel the need to pay back their good treatment, so it is acceptable to guess that they will work harder as a result. In the workplace, social exchanges can occur among an individual, their organization, their supervisor, and their work group. The WSEN framework demonstrates how these three domains interact, as Cole et al. (2002) state that “it is plausible that all three of these exchanges not only contribute to the explanation of positive work outcomes individually but that they contribute simultaneously as part of a workplace social exchange network” (p. 143). Furthermore, they argue that “exchange dynamics in organizations are not complete without consideration of employee exchanges with another very important organizational entity—the work team” (p. 143).
By examining perceived organizational support (POS), leader-member exchange (LMX), and team member exchange (TMX), the WSEN is intended to understand the social structures in the workplace and is a “multilevel approach to understand the gap in organizational life between microfoci like individual needs to macrofoci like organizational culture” (p. 143). The WSEN is intended to depict “complementary (as opposed to mutually exclusive) exchanges between the organization, supervisor, work team, and employee” (p. 154). Much like the Personal-Relational Equilibrium model suggests, individuals seek balance in their personal lives; the WSEN suggests that employees seek a similar equilibrium across multiple professional domains to achieve optimal work outcomes.
Moving beyond the structural network of the workplace, the Affect Theory of Social Exchange (ATSE) introduces the role of emotion and culture. ATSE focuses on how instrumental exchanges lead to the development of affectual attachments and how affective attachments emerge in environments dominated by impersonal exchanges (Vanzella-Yang & Abrutyn, 2022, p. 320). Vanzella-Yang and Abrutyn (2022) extend this framework to suggest how culture contributes to social cohesion and under what conditions it remains an advantage or a symbolic exclusion. Their primary goal is to demonstrate that shared cultural tastes can lead to positive emotion, which can then lead to maintained affectual attachments. The authors note that the “joint-tasks ATSE is so concerned with are fundamental to formal organizations” (p. 320), but they suggest caution regarding social hierarchy. While ATSE works well when there is power symmetry, a joint environment is harder to achieve when there is asymmetry (p.321). To address this, their framework proposes that shared tastes "smooth the social distance between partners" (p. 322), particularly when those tastes are "internalized" rather than merely "stated" for social desirability.
Their framework operates through three main propositions. First, the authors argue that shared tastes directly drive "positive emotions" and help actors "develop/maintain affectual attachments" (p. 321). Second, they suggest that in open networks, tastes act as "network opportunity structures" (p. 322) that increase the frequency of interactions. Third, in forced work pairings, attachment is "greater to the degree that interactants share common tastes" (p. 322), as these tastes provide a non-work basis for connection.
These extensions of Social Exchange Theory show that connection is more complex than a simple "profit" calculation. While the PRE model explains how individuals find homeostasis between their own needs and their relationships, the WSEN framework shows how this balance extends into the workplace across supervisors and teams. Finally, the ATSE extension identifies the "cultural glue" that makes these connections work. Together, these models suggest that whether in private life or formal organizations, people are constantly seeking a balance that is both personal and social.
How the theory relates to society and culture
The Social Exchange Theory connects deeply to society and culture because it explains how social norms, values, and expectations shape the way people evaluate relationships (Blau, 1964). While the theory focuses on rewards, costs, and reciprocity, what counts as a “reward” or a “cost” is not universal. These judgments are influenced by cultural background, societal standards, and shared beliefs (Triandis, 1995).
One important cultural influence is how societies define fairness. In individualistic cultures, such as the United States, people often evaluate relationships based on personal satisfaction and individual benefit (Triandis, 1995). If someone feels they are not receiving enough emotional support, recognition, or opportunity, they may reduce communication or leave the relationship. In more collectivistic cultures, however, individuals may place higher value on group harmony, loyalty, and long-term obligation. In these settings, people may remain committed to relationships even when personal rewards are lower because maintaining social harmony is viewed as a greater benefit (Triandis, 1995).
Cultural norms also shape comparison levels, which are the standards people use to judge whether a relationship is acceptable (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). These standards come from family upbringing, media messages, religious beliefs, peer groups, and societal expectations. For example, expectations about romantic partnerships, friendships, or workplace relationships differ across cultures and social groups. What one culture views as supportive communication may be seen as intrusive or insufficient in another. Because of this, Social Exchange Theory helps explain why misunderstandings can occur across cultural contexts; individuals may be using different standards to measure value and reciprocity (Fiske, 1992).
The theory also relates to broader social structures, including power and inequality. Early scholars, such as Peter Blau, emphasized that exchange processes create patterns of power within society. When one individual or group controls valued resources such as money, information, or status, they gain influence in the relationship. This idea extends beyond personal interactions to finstitutions like workplaces, governments, and communities. Social hierarchies can be understood as ongoing exchange systems in which certain groups have greater access to rewards, creating dependency and imbalance (Cook & Emerson, 1978).
In modern society, Social Exchange Theory is especially visible in digital culture. Social media platforms operate heavily on perceived rewards such as likes, comments, followers, and visibility. Users often share content with the expectation of social validation in return. When engagement decreases, individuals may feel that the “cost” of posting outweighs the benefit. This demonstrates how cultural shifts toward online interaction have not eliminated exchange principles but instead reshaped how rewards and costs are experienced (Ellison et al., 2007). Beyond traditional validation, a recent study researched the anonymous digital community r/Philippines subreddit. The study revealed that the exchange processes can often be driven by “hedonic benefits” like humor and self-expression. In this space, the cost of participation is the time and effort required to create content like the memes the study specifically dives into. This is weighed against the rewards like community reputation referred to as “karma” on Reddit and perceived social support. This suggests that in anonymous communities, the SET principles of cost and rewards remain motivators for engagement (Tuazon & Ebardo, 2025). This Filipino meme subreddit can also be compared to the r/AITA (Am I the A******), where anonymous individuals can share their story and get feedback from other online users, sharing their private life as a cost and gaining advice as a reward.
Moving away from the digital culture, SET also helps explain civic participation and community involvement. People are more likely to volunteer, engage in activism, or support community initiatives when they perceive social, emotional, or symbolic rewards. These rewards may include a sense of belonging, moral fulfillment, or social recognition (Walster et al., 1978). In this way, exchange processes contribute to the formation of social bonds and collective identity. Potential costs for civic participation in individuals would be time and energy spent on volunteering hours, emotional labor, and constantly being put at the forefront of social issues, which can cost you mental health, financial loss, or instability is also due to transportation and what you don't make at work on the days you participate in events.
Overall, Social Exchange Theory remains a vital framework that proves society is built upon ongoing patterns of reciprocal interaction. While cultural values influence what individuals perceive as fair, rewarding, or costly, social structures shape who holds power within exchanges (Cook & Emerson, 1978). Far from being an outdated concept, the theory is essential for life because it connects interpersonal communication to broader systems of culture, inequality, and institutional life. The theory demonstrates that everyday communication decisions contribute to larger social patterns. The examination of how individuals use communication to navigate these rewards and costs remains an indispensable tool for understanding the mechanisms of how humans build relationships.
The Role of the Theory within Communication Studies
Social Exchange Theory says that people communicate with each other based on what they think they will gain from the interaction and what it might cost them. Rewards can include support, affection, information, or feeling appreciated, while costs might include stress, time, embarrassment, or emotional effort. In communication studies, this theory helps explain why people choose to talk to certain people, avoid others, or change how they communicate over time. When someone feels like a relationship gives them more good than bad, they usually communicate more openly and feel closer to that person. When the costs start to outweigh the rewards, communication often becomes more tense, limited, or sometimes stops completely (Cook et al., 2013; West & Turner, 2021).
A big part of this theory is reciprocity, which essentially means both people feel like they are giving and getting something back. Communication works best when both sides feel valued. If one person feels like they are always giving, listening, helping, or sharing but not getting the same effort in return, they may start to feel unappreciated. When that happens, communication can slowly decrease and sometimes lead to misunderstandings or conflict. Because of this, social exchange theory helps researchers understand why some relationships break down or why people start pulling away from conversations (Emerson, 1976).
Another important idea in the theory is the comparison level. This is the standard people use to decide whether a relationship is good or not. These standards usually come from past experiences, cultural expectations, and personal needs. Because everyone has different experiences, two people can see the same interaction very differently. One person might think a friend is being very supportive, while the other person might feel like the friend is not doing enough. Social Exchange Theory also addresses the comparison level of alternatives, which means people sometimes think about whether they could get better communication or support from another relationship. If someone believes another relationship could provide more rewards, they may reduce their communication or even leave the current relationship (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).
Social Exchange Theory can be applied to many different areas of communication. In personal relationships, it helps explain how friendships and romantic relationships grow stronger when both people feel rewarded and supported. In workplaces, the theory shows why employees are more willing to communicate when they feel respected and valued, and why they may shut down if communication feels risky or not worth the effort. In online communication, the theory also explains why people share posts or personal updates because they expect support, likes, or interaction in return (West & Turner, 2021).
Overall, Social Exchange Theory is important in communication studies because it shows that communication is often influenced by how people judge value, fairness, and balance in their relationships. It helps explain how relationships begin, how they grow stronger, and why they sometimes fall apart. Understanding these ideas can help researchers and everyday people better understand how communication choices affect the quality of their relationships (Cook et al., 2013; Emerson, 1976).
Recent developments or current research trends
Although Social Exchange Theory was first developed several decades ago, researchers still use it today to understand how people communicate and maintain relationships. As communication environments have changed, especially with the growth of technology and online interaction, scholars have continued applying the theory to new areas of research. Even in modern settings, people still tend to think about relationships in terms of rewards, costs, and whether the interaction feels fair, which reflects the core principles of exchange processes discussed in earlier research (Lawler, 2001).
One area where Social Exchange Theory has expanded is digital communication and online communities. A large amount of interaction now happens through social media platforms, online forums, and other digital spaces. Even though these interactions are not face-to-face, people still evaluate whether participating in these spaces is worth their time and effort. For example, users may look for rewards such as support from others, recognition, useful information, or simply a sense of belonging. You can see this clearly on platforms like Instagram or TikTok, where people often share posts or comments expecting likes, replies, or some type of interaction in return. Chen and Li (2017) found that trust and reciprocal communication play an important role in whether individuals stay active in online communities. When people feel that others respond to them, support them, or contribute back to the conversation, they are more likely to remain involved. In this way, the idea of reciprocity still applies even when communication happens through technology rather than in person, which is also supported by broader relational exchange frameworks (Lawler & Thye, 1999).
Social Exchange Theory has also been widely applied to modern workplaces. Researchers often use the theory to better understand relationships between employees, supervisors, and organizations. In many workplaces, employees evaluate whether the effort they put into their job is matched by recognition, support, or opportunities in return. Cropanzano, Anthony, Daniels, and Hall (2017) explain that feelings of fairness in organizations are often shaped through these types of exchange relationships. When employees feel that their contributions are valued, trust in leadership tends to grow. Because of that, they are also more likely to remain committed to the organization. However, when workers believe their effort is not recognized or rewarded, frustration and disengagement can occur. These types of situations help explain why Social Exchange Theory is often used to study employee satisfaction, burnout, and turnover within organizations, especially in relation to perceived organizational support and obligations (Shore & Tetrick, 2009).
Another area where the theory has been applied is health communication. Communication between patients and healthcare providers can also involve exchange processes that influence trust and cooperation. Patients often evaluate their experiences based on whether they feel heard, respected, and clearly informed. When doctors provide clear explanations, empathy, and support, these interactions can function as relational rewards that strengthen the relationship. On the other hand, poor communication may lead to frustration or a lack of confidence in the provider. Researchers have found that these exchange dynamics can influence whether patients follow medical advice and continue working with the same healthcare professional.
Researchers have also begun combining Social Exchange Theory with other theoretical perspectives to better understand the emotional side of relationships. Early versions of the theory mainly focused on logical cost and benefit calculations. More recent research recognizes that emotions, trust, and feelings of belonging also influence how people evaluate interactions. Molm, Schaefer, and Collett (2007) explain that trust and commitment often develop when individuals take risks in relationships and receive positive responses in return. When people feel emotionally supported or valued, those rewards can strengthen relationships over time. This shift is seen in recent studies that combine social exchange theory with Social Identity theory, showing that the dynamics in social exchanges can not be confined to fit everyone. Specifically, researchers have found that while social support can create a strong organizational identity, this can lead to their commitment to keep them in unsupportive environments (Simbula et al.,2023).
Taken together, these examples show that Social Exchange Theory continues to be relevant in modern communication research. Whether people are interacting through social media, working within organizations, or communicating in healthcare settings, they still evaluate relationships based on what they give and what they receive. As communication continues to evolve through technology and changing social environments, Social Exchange Theory remains useful for explaining how individuals build trust, maintain connections, and decide whether relationships are worth continuing. A list of communications-based careers where social exchange theory is most prevalent includes, but is not limited to: Public relations specialist, human resources manager, sales representative, marketing manager, counselor or therapist, customer service representative, recruiter or talent acquisition specialist, negotiator or mediator, advertising executive, and social media manager.
Conclusion
Social exchange can be viewed as a two-person interaction that focuses on individual rewards or as a systemic process that sustains society and organizations. While there is an existing debate between individualistic and collectivistic goals, an integration of these perspectives highlights the complexities of individuals and their relationships. Whether human interactions occur through social media, the workplace, or at school, people evaluate their relationships based on the give-and-take factor of the theory. Ultimately, Social Exchange theory provides a framework that helps understand how people trust and reciprocate behaviors based on personal benefits that drive interactions and communication choices that shape our social and professional lives.