- Hey there welcome back, Alex Lyon here,
today we're talking about
social exchange theory
from Altman and Taylor.
But we are working out of
Beebe and Masterson's book
on 'Communicating in Small Groups',
so let's get into the details.
So Altman and Taylor gave us
this Social Exchange Theory,
and it's really implies
this economic exchange
or the metaphor for how we make decisions
about the relationships and the groups
that we participate in.
So the theory explains human
behavior in relationships
in terms of costs, rewards,
profits, and losses.
So costs would be the
mental effort it takes to be
in a group or a relationship.
There is some anxiety or
potential embarrassment, time,
effort, frustration,
in other words, you have to
put out effort and energy
into any relationship and those are costs.
That's something that
you have to put up with,
I guess you could say.
But there are also rewards,
which is why we get in
relationships at all.
There's pleasurable
outcomes like fellowship,
companionship, belonging, satisfaction,
positive achievement and status,
depending upon the kinds of relationships
and groups that you are in.
And here's how the
theory essentially works.
We are looking for profits in other words,
more rewards than costs and
we're trying to avoid losses,
which is more costs than rewards.
The bottom line is the
theory predicts that as long
as the rewards outweigh the
costs, then the relationship
or your group membership will continue,
it will be profitable and you'll stay
in that relationship or the group.
If however, the costs
outweigh the rewards,
and then you get those losses
that you will not likely
stay in the group.
I wanna make a note that Altman and Taylor
are not saying, this is
how you should line up
all your relationships
and with pencil and paper,
figure out the costs and rewards.
What they're saying is this
when they observe people,
this is how we decide what
relationships to be involved in
and now we tend to evaluate
the cost and rewards.
In fact, you may have done this, right?
You may have met somebody
new or joined a group,
and after a little bit of experience,
you may have decided, you know what?
I just don't think this is worth it,
I don't think I'm gonna
be involved in this
because you're thinking
the costs are too high.
You don't maybe use those words
where you think it's not worth it,
or "I don't have time for that," right?
But other times you find
yourself wanting to show up
and wanting to hang out
with certain people,
because you anticipate that
you will have those rewarding
experiences and it will be worth it,
it will be worth the time
and effort of showing up.
There are some additional concepts
that are not in the Beebe
and Masterson's book
that I'm pulling from Em Griffin's book,
on 'First Look at Communication Theory'.
And the three concepts
are the mini max principle
of human behavior.
And that is that we as people
seek to maximize those benefits
and minimize our costs.
So that is the way we go around
and evaluate potential situations
as we go about our day,
we're looking for the
highest possible rewards
and the lowest possible costs.
Additionally, we have
a concept that's called
the comparison level.
Think of this as a thermostat,
you set your thermostat in
your house or certain level
because that's the cutoff
that balances out the maximum
amount of comfort, with
the minimum amount of costs
that you are willing to pay.
And we have in our minds,
a comparison level,
or a thermostat, what level,
what mixture of costs and
rewards are we willing
to put up with in
relationships that we have?
So you might not, not have
any other relationships,
but you may meet somebody
and you may decide,
"Oh, I don't think I could put up
with that kind of behavior from a person,
or I can't take that drama,
I don't need any more drama in my life."
You just have a comparison level,
It's a gauge that you use to evaluate
your choices about group
membership, about relationships.
There's also something called
a comparison level
alternative and this has
to do with other alternative relationships
that are available, potentially.
This is where we look for
the best possible available
outcomes in other relationships.
So this is why, for example,
people are more likely to
leave a job or a relationship,
it's when they have a better
job or a better relationship
waiting for them.
There's an alternative,
a comparison level,
but there's an actual alternative.
People will tend not to quit their job
if they don't have another one lined up,
people are less likely,
the research shows to leave a relationship
unless there's another
relationship available.
Presumably what we believe
to be a better one,
we would never leave a good relationship
for one that we know is going
to be bad, but you anticipate
that the other one will
be more profitable,
comparison level alternative
I think that's fascinating.
So again, Altman and Taylor,
not saying this is how
you should live your life,
they're just describing the
way people do live their lives.
They're observing and explaining
the way we make decisions,
and an economic metaphor
is one of those ways
to make sense of our relationship choices.
So question of the day,
can you think of a particularly costly
or rewarding relationship
that you've had in the past?
And I would love to hear about it
in the comment section below,
of course, don't name names we're not
here to make anybody else
look bad, keep it anonymous.
But if you have a relationship
where this theory resonates
and makes sense, we would
love to hear about it below,
and I look forward to
reading those comments.
So thanks and I will see you next time.
