Couples Counselling and Social Exchange Theory
Weighing the pros and cons of any relationship could bring on much confusion at times. The moments when love feels effortless versus the times when frustration takes center stage is at the heart of Social Exchange Theory.
This psychological framework, first introduced by George Homans in 1961 and later expanded by Thibaut and Kelley in 1959, suggests that relationships function like an economic transaction. Each partner assesses the costs (the challenges, conflicts, or sacrifices) and rewards (the joys, companionship, and support) of staying together. When the rewards outweigh the costs, satisfaction follows. But when the scales tip the other way, doubt and regret can creep in.
Social Exchange Theory explains why even the most committed relationships face turbulent moments. It acknowledges that both marriage and single life come with their own trade-offs—no situation is entirely perfect. Thibaut and Kelley applied this theory specifically to intimate relationships, highlighting the patterns of interdependence between partners. If you reflect on your own romantic relationship, you’ll likely recognize this balance at play. What keeps you committed? Is it the emotional security, the shared experiences, or the deep connection? And what challenges test your patience? While love may not be a strict numbers game, understanding this dynamic can help partners navigate the inevitable ups and downs with greater awareness. I often take time in each counselling session to help couples understand how they may have reflections about their relationship that align with Social Exchange Theory. As a psychologist, I think it's important that clients become aware of the theory and how it is put into practice. Ultimately, relationships are a continuous exchange, a delicate dance of give-and-take. The key is ensuring that, in the grand equation of love, the rewards make it all worthwhile.
Every relationship has its highs and lows. Your partner’s bad habits—whether it’s reckless spending, a short temper, or a tendency to leave dirty dishes in the sink—can feel frustrating. But often, these drawbacks are balanced (or even outweighed) by the rewards: kindness, unwavering support, and deep emotional connection. This balance of costs and rewards plays a crucial role in relationship satisfaction. Especially when times are tough. This is also why I believe that Gottman's 5-1 principle is really based on this principle. Gottman argues that couples need to do 5 good things for their relationship so that when they have one bad moment, it is essentially cushioned.
The same principle applies to family dynamics. Siblings, for example, are more likely to treat each other with respect if they believe they’ll receive the same in return. A mutual give-and-take can help resolve conflicts and restore harmony in familial relationships. At its core, Social Exchange Theory explores this cost-benefit ratio in human interactions. Whether in marriage, friendships, or family ties, people subconsciously weigh what they’re receiving against what they’re giving. This process even extends to decisions about commitment—should I stay, or is there something better out there? (Datillio 2010)
One of the most complex aspects of this theory is how individuals perceive and interpret their relationship costs. A woman whose husband has been unfaithful, for example, might rationalize, “It only happened once—it’s unlikely to happen again.” She may weigh the emotional pain of betrayal against the cost of losing the relationship entirely, ultimately deciding that staying is the lesser of two evils.
In this way, the mind plays a significant role in shaping relationship decisions. Perception, expectations, and personal values all influence how we measure the “worth” of staying versus leaving. Love, after all, isn’t just about emotions—it’s a complex calculation of what we’re willing to endure for the people we cherish.
Dattilio, F. M. (2010).Cognitive-behavioral therapy with couples and families: A comprehensive guide for clinicians.The Guilford Press.
