Social exchange theory | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision
- Revision Notes
- Aug 5
- 17 min read
Updated: 6 days ago
For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025
AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 55 minutes
Social exchange theory explains romantic relationships as exchanges in which partners consider their rewards, costs and possible alternatives. These Social exchange theory A-Level Psychology revision notes explain how the outcome of a relationship is compared with a person’s expectations and with other available options. You will also evaluate whether relationships can really be understood through personal gains and losses. The theory follows explanations of how potential partners are selected and prepares you to compare profit with fairness between partners.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define social exchange theory as an explanation of romantic relationships.
Explain the roles of rewards, costs and relationship outcomes.
Explain how a comparison level affects relationship satisfaction.
Explain how comparison with alternatives may influence whether a relationship continues.
Apply social exchange theory to unfamiliar relationship scenarios.
Evaluate the strengths and limitations of the theory.
Revision Notes 📚
Social exchange theory A-Level Psychology revision overview
Social exchange theory proposes that people evaluate romantic relationships by considering what they receive from the relationship and what the relationship costs them.
The theory assumes that individuals generally seek to:
Maximise rewards.
Minimise costs.
Achieve an outcome in which the benefits exceed the costs.
Remain in relationships that compare favourably with their expectations and alternatives.
An AQA multiple-choice question summarised the theory as the view that individuals focus on getting more out of a relationship than they put into it.
Social exchange theory is therefore an economic explanation. It applies ideas of gain, loss and comparison to romantic relationships.
Rewards within relationships
Rewards are the positive outcomes or benefits a person receives from a relationship.
Possible rewards include:
Companionship.
Emotional support.
Affection.
Intimacy.
Security.
Shared interests.
Enjoyable experiences.
Practical support.
Social approval.
Rewards do not have to be material or financial. A person may regard feeling understood, supported or valued as an important reward.
What counts as a reward is subjective. For example, spending every evening together could be rewarding for someone who values closeness but less rewarding for someone who values independence.
Costs within relationships
Costs are the negative outcomes, losses or disadvantages associated with a relationship.
Possible costs include:
Time and effort.
Arguments.
Stress.
Compromise.
Loss of freedom.
Financial expense.
Emotional distress.
Giving up other opportunities.
Supporting a partner through difficulties.
A cost is not necessarily something a partner does deliberately. Travelling a long distance to maintain a relationship may be a cost even when both partners behave supportively.
As with rewards, costs are subjective. The same experience can be judged differently by different people.
Calculating the relationship outcome
Social exchange theory proposes that people consider the relationship’s overall outcome by comparing rewards with costs.
Relationship outcome=Rewards−Costs\text{Relationship outcome} = \text{Rewards} - \text{Costs}Relationship outcome=Rewards−Costs
If rewards are greater than costs, the relationship has a positive outcome.
If costs are greater than rewards, the relationship has a negative outcome.
Relationship pattern | Likely outcome |
High rewards and low costs | Strongly positive |
High rewards and high costs | Depends on their relative importance |
Low rewards and low costs | May be acceptable but not highly satisfying |
Low rewards and high costs | Negative |
The theory does not require partners to assign literal numbers to every experience. The formula represents the judgement that the person receives more from the relationship than it costs them.
Worked example of relationship outcome
Suppose Alex rates the rewards from a relationship as 15 and the costs as 6.
Relationship outcome=15−6\text{Relationship outcome} = 15 - 6Relationship outcome=15−6
Relationship outcome=9\text{Relationship outcome} = 9Relationship outcome=9
The positive outcome suggests that Alex receives more from the relationship than it costs.
However, this calculation alone does not show whether Alex will be satisfied. The outcome must also be compared with Alex’s expectations.
Positive outcomes do not guarantee satisfaction
A relationship can have more rewards than costs but still be judged unsatisfactory.
For example, a person might think:
“This relationship is generally positive, but I expected it to be much more supportive.”
Another person could experience the same balance of rewards and costs but feel highly satisfied because their expectations are lower.
Social exchange theory therefore includes a comparison level.
The comparison level
The comparison level is the standard against which a person judges the outcome of their current relationship.
It represents the level of reward a person believes they should receive from a relationship.
This standard may be influenced by:
Previous relationships.
Relationships observed in other people.
Expectations about romantic relationships.
The person’s general beliefs about what they deserve.
The current relationship is compared with this standard.
Current outcome compared with comparison level | Predicted judgement |
Outcome is above the comparison level | Relationship is likely to be satisfying |
Outcome equals the comparison level | Relationship meets expectations |
Outcome is below the comparison level | Relationship is likely to be dissatisfying |
The comparison level concerns satisfaction, not necessarily whether the person will leave.
Worked example using a comparison level
Alex’s relationship outcome is 999.
Suppose Alex’s comparison level is 666.
9>69 > 69>6
The relationship outcome is above Alex’s comparison level, so the theory predicts that Alex will be satisfied.
Now suppose Taylor has the same relationship outcome of 999, but Taylor’s comparison level is 121212.
9<129 < 129<12
Although Taylor receives more rewards than costs, the outcome falls below Taylor’s expectations. Taylor may therefore be dissatisfied.
📌 Exam tip: Do not assume that a positive outcome automatically means satisfaction. Always check the outcome against the person’s comparison level.
How experience can affect the comparison level
Comparison levels may differ between individuals.
A person whose previous relationships contained few rewards may develop a relatively low comparison level. A relationship offering moderate benefits could therefore exceed their expectations.
A person accustomed to highly rewarding relationships may develop a higher comparison level. The same moderate relationship may fall below their expectations.
This explains why two people can judge similar relationship outcomes differently.
Comparing the relationship with alternatives
A person may also compare the current relationship with possible alternatives.
An alternative could include:
A relationship with another person.
A potential partner.
Being single.
Greater independence.
A different lifestyle.
The question is not simply:
“Is my relationship rewarding?”
It is also:
“Would another available option produce a better outcome?”
A person may remain in a relationship with some costs because the available alternatives appear worse.
Alternatively, a person may consider leaving a reasonably rewarding relationship if a much better alternative appears available.
Comparison level for alternatives
The comparison level for alternatives refers to the standard used when comparing the current relationship with other possible options.
Current relationship compared with alternatives | Likely evaluation |
Current relationship appears better | Continuing the relationship is more likely |
An alternative appears better | Leaving or changing the relationship becomes more likely |
No clear alternative is available | The person may remain despite dissatisfaction |
The alternative does not have to be another romantic partner. Being single may appear preferable if the current relationship has high emotional costs.
Satisfaction and dependence are different
Social exchange theory distinguishes between liking the relationship and judging it better than the available alternatives.
A person can be:
Satisfied and dependent, when the relationship exceeds expectations and alternatives appear worse.
Satisfied but less dependent, when the relationship is rewarding but attractive alternatives exist.
Dissatisfied but dependent, when the relationship falls below expectations but alternatives appear even worse.
Dissatisfied and less dependent, when the relationship falls below expectations and better alternatives exist.
This distinction helps explain why dissatisfaction does not always lead immediately to relationship breakdown.
Applying rewards and costs to a scenario
Consider this scenario:
Morgan says, “Jamie is always there when I need support, and we have a great time travelling together. However, we argue about money and maintaining the relationship takes a lot of effort.”
A developed application would explain that:
Emotional support is a reward.
Enjoyable travel experiences are rewards.
Arguments about money are a cost.
The time and effort required are costs.
Morgan will evaluate whether the rewards exceed the costs.
The resulting outcome will be judged against Morgan’s comparison level.
Avoid simply listing details. Explain whether each detail represents something received from the relationship or something sacrificed because of it.
Applying the comparison level
Now suppose Morgan adds:
“My previous relationship was much less supportive, so this relationship feels very good.”
This suggests that Morgan’s comparison level has been influenced by the previous relationship.
Because the current relationship provides more support than Morgan previously experienced, its outcome may exceed Morgan’s comparison level. Morgan is therefore likely to judge it as satisfying.
AQA has previously credited application in which a person compared their current relationship with the relationships of friends. This was identified as use of the comparison level.
Applying comparison with alternatives
Suppose Morgan also says:
“Being single would give me more freedom, but I would miss the emotional support and companionship.”
Morgan is comparing:
The rewards and costs of the current relationship.
The rewards and costs of being single.
If companionship and support are judged more valuable than the increased freedom of being single, the current relationship may compare favourably with the alternative.
If the freedom of being single becomes more rewarding, the alternative may appear more desirable.
A complete application process
When applying social exchange theory, work through the scenario systematically.
Identify rewards.
What does the person gain from the relationship?
Identify costs.
What does the relationship require or take away?
Consider the outcome.
Do the rewards appear to outweigh the costs?
Identify the comparison level.
What expectations, previous experiences or observed relationships are mentioned?
Identify alternatives.
Is the person considering another partner, being single or a different lifestyle?
Reach a prediction.
Is the person likely to feel satisfied, remain dependent or consider leaving?
Distinguishing social exchange theory from equity theory
Social exchange theory and equity theory both refer to rewards and costs, but they make different predictions.
Social exchange theory | Equity theory |
Focuses on maximising personal rewards and minimising personal costs | Focuses on whether each partner’s outcomes are fair |
Predicts that individuals prefer profitable relationships | Predicts that unfair relationships produce dissatisfaction |
Concerned with what a person receives relative to costs and comparisons | Concerned with the balance between each partner’s contributions and benefits |
A person may prefer to receive more than they contribute | Over-benefiting as well as under-benefiting may create inequity |
The key distinction is:
Social exchange theory focuses on personal profit, while equity theory focuses on fairness.
This distinction is developed in how fairness affects relationship satisfaction.
Distinguishing comparison level from comparison with alternatives
These terms are easy to confuse.
Concept | Question being asked | Main prediction |
Comparison level | “Is this relationship as good as I expect a relationship to be?” | Influences satisfaction |
Comparison with alternatives | “Is this relationship better than the other options available to me?” | Influences dependence and the possibility of leaving |
A person may therefore have a low level of satisfaction but remain because no better alternative is available.
Social exchange theory and Rusbult’s investment model
Rusbult’s investment model develops ideas found in social exchange theory.
Both explanations consider:
Relationship satisfaction.
Available alternatives.
Why a person may continue or leave a relationship.
However, Rusbult’s model adds the role of:
Commitment.
Intrinsic investment.
Extrinsic investment.
The investment model can explain why a person remains in a relationship even when it appears to offer relatively few rewards. Investments such as shared experiences, emotional effort, mutual friends or possessions may make leaving costly.
This development is covered in commitment, satisfaction and investment. AQA mark schemes have described Rusbult’s model as an extension and improvement of social exchange theory.
Social exchange theory and relationship breakdown
If a relationship’s costs rise or rewards fall, its outcome may move below the person’s comparison level.
If attractive alternatives are also available, relationship breakdown may become more likely.
However, social exchange theory does not describe the detailed interpersonal process through which a relationship ends. This is addressed by the phases of relationship breakdown.
Evaluating social exchange theory
Strength: the theory provides clear predictions
Social exchange theory identifies several factors that can be applied to relationship behaviour:
Rewards.
Costs.
Relationship outcomes.
Expectations.
Alternatives.
These concepts produce clear predictions.
For example:
Satisfaction should be greater when the relationship outcome exceeds the comparison level.
A person should be more likely to consider leaving when alternatives appear more rewarding than the current relationship.
The theory can therefore be applied systematically to relationship scenarios rather than simply stating that people remain together because they are happy.
Strength: the theory recognises individual differences
The comparison level explains why people do not judge the same relationship in the same way.
One person may be satisfied with a particular balance of rewards and costs, while another is dissatisfied because their expectations are higher.
This makes the explanation more flexible than a theory claiming that a fixed number of rewards will satisfy everyone.
It also recognises that previous experiences and observed relationships can influence current judgements.
Strength: the theory explains why dissatisfaction may not lead to leaving
Comparison with alternatives distinguishes satisfaction from dependence.
Someone may judge their relationship negatively but remain because:
Being single appears worse.
No more rewarding partner seems available.
The practical costs of leaving appear high.
This is useful because relationship behaviour cannot be predicted from satisfaction alone.
Limitation: rewards and costs are subjective
What counts as a reward or cost varies between individuals and situations.
For example:
Frequent contact may be rewarding for one partner but restrictive for another.
Financial support may be highly valued by one person but less important to someone else.
Compromise may be experienced as a reasonable part of a relationship or as a significant cost.
This subjectivity makes rewards and costs difficult to measure consistently.
Researchers may ask participants to rate these experiences, but the meaning of each rating may differ from person to person.
Limitation: the theory may oversimplify relationships
Social exchange theory reduces romantic relationships to exchanges of benefits and costs.
This may overlook:
Emotional attachment.
Loyalty.
Moral commitments.
Shared identity.
Concern for a partner’s wellbeing.
Behaviour that is not motivated by personal gain.
A partner may accept substantial costs because they care about the other person, not because they expect an equal or greater personal reward.
The theory may therefore provide only a partial explanation of complex relationships.
Limitation: the assumption of personal profit may be too narrow
The theory proposes that individuals focus on getting more from a relationship than they put into it.
However, people may also care about whether the relationship is fair.
A person receiving far more than their partner may not simply feel pleased with their high reward. They may feel guilt or discomfort because the relationship is unequal.
This limitation is addressed by equity theory, which focuses on the fairness of each partner’s outcomes rather than personal profit alone.
Limitation: people may not continually calculate rewards and costs
The theory can suggest that partners constantly assess the advantages and disadvantages of their relationship.
In everyday life, these calculations may not always be conscious.
Partners may pay greater attention to costs, rewards and alternatives when:
The relationship is already experiencing problems.
A serious disagreement occurs.
An alternative partner becomes available.
A major decision must be made.
This creates uncertainty about whether cost-benefit comparisons cause dissatisfaction or occur because dissatisfaction has already begun.
Limitation: better alternatives do not always produce relationship breakdown
Social exchange theory predicts that attractive alternatives can make leaving more likely.
However, partners may remain because they have made significant investments in the relationship.
These may include:
Time.
Emotional effort.
Shared possessions.
Children.
Mutual friendships.
Plans for the future.
This suggests that comparison with alternatives alone is insufficient. Rusbult’s investment model may offer a more complete explanation of commitment and persistence.
Strength: it contributed to later relationship theories
Social exchange theory provides concepts used in later explanations, particularly satisfaction and comparison with alternatives.
Rusbult’s model develops these ideas by adding investment and commitment. This shows that the basic exchange approach has theoretical value, even if it cannot explain every relationship outcome by itself.
However, the need for an expanded model also suggests that the original theory is incomplete.
Overall conclusion
Social exchange theory offers a clear framework for understanding how people may evaluate romantic relationships.
Its strongest contributions are:
The distinction between rewards and costs.
The role of personal expectations.
The recognition that alternatives affect dependence.
The explanation of why dissatisfaction does not always lead to leaving.
Its main limitation is that romantic relationships may involve more than personal profit. Fairness, attachment, commitment and investment can influence decisions even when a simple cost-reward calculation predicts otherwise.
The theory is therefore useful as a starting point, but it is not a complete explanation of relationship maintenance or breakdown.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Social exchange theory | The explanation that people evaluate relationships by considering rewards, costs, expectations and alternatives | Outline the theory or apply it to a relationship scenario |
Reward | A benefit or positive outcome received from a relationship | Identify companionship, support or enjoyment in a scenario |
Cost | A negative outcome, sacrifice or disadvantage associated with a relationship | Identify arguments, stress, effort or loss of freedom |
Relationship outcome | The overall result obtained by subtracting costs from rewards | Explain whether the relationship produces a positive or negative result |
Comparison level | The standard against which a person judges the current relationship | Explain how past experiences or expectations affect satisfaction |
Satisfaction | The extent to which the relationship meets or exceeds the person’s expectations | Predict the result of comparing the outcome with the comparison level |
Alternative | Another possible relationship, being single or a different lifestyle | Apply comparison with alternatives to decisions about staying or leaving |
Comparison level for alternatives | The standard used to judge the current relationship against other available options | Explain dependence or the possibility of relationship breakdown |
Dependence | The extent to which a person relies on the current relationship because alternatives appear less rewarding | Explain why a dissatisfied person might remain |
Personal profit | A relationship outcome in which a person’s rewards exceed their costs | Distinguish social exchange theory from equity theory |
Investment | Resources connected to a relationship that may be lost if it ends | Evaluate social exchange theory using Rusbult’s model |
Commitment | The intention to maintain a relationship over time | Explain an element added by the investment model |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Match specific words in the scenario to psychological concepts. In the 2022 examination, successful students linked references to a “good deal” with rewards outweighing costs and connected comparison with friends’ relationships to the comparison level.
Examiner hint: Do not write a complete essay when the command word asks you only to explain or apply. The 2022 examiner report noted that some students wasted time by adding evaluation to an application-only question.
Examiner hint: Use several details from the stem. Answers without explicit application received very limited credit in the 2022 mark scheme, even if they contained accurate descriptions of the theories.
Examiner hint: Distinguish the relationship theories accurately. A “good deal” and personal benefit indicate social exchange theory. A relationship that “balances out” indicates equity. Time, effort and shared possessions may indicate investment.
Examiner hint: Do not confuse personal profit with fairness. AQA’s 2020 multiple-choice question defined social exchange theory as focusing on getting more out than is put in. Balancing effort and gain is closer to equity theory.
Examiner hint: When applying comparison, specify what is being compared. A person might compare the current relationship with previous experiences, other relationships or available alternatives.
Examiner hint: Maintain specialist terminology. Use reward, cost, relationship outcome, comparison level and alternatives, rather than relying on vague phrases such as “the relationship is good”.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Defining social exchange theory as fairness
Why this is incorrect:
Social exchange theory focuses on whether the individual receives sufficient rewards relative to costs. Fairness between partners is the focus of equity theory.
How to improve:
Use the memory aid:
Exchange = personal outcome.Equity = fair outcome.
Mistake: Treating all relationship experiences as objectively rewarding or costly
Why this is incorrect:
The value of an experience depends on the individual.
How to improve:
Explain why the person in the scenario is likely to view a particular experience as a reward or cost.
Mistake: Assuming rewards must be financial
Why this is incorrect:
Rewards can be emotional, social, practical or physical.
How to improve:
Look for support, affection, companionship and enjoyable shared experiences as well as material benefits.
Mistake: Saying a positive outcome guarantees satisfaction
Why this is incorrect:
The outcome must be compared with the person’s comparison level.
How to improve:
State whether the relationship exceeds, meets or falls below expectations.
Mistake: Confusing the two comparison processes
Why this is incorrect:
The comparison level concerns expected relationship quality. Comparison with alternatives concerns other available options.
How to improve:
Ask:
“Does this meet my expectations?” for the comparison level.
“Could I do better elsewhere?” for alternatives.
Mistake: Assuming an attractive alternative automatically causes someone to leave
Why this is incorrect:
Investment and commitment may discourage relationship breakdown.
How to improve:
Write that a better alternative may make leaving more likely, not inevitable.
Mistake: Listing scenario details without explaining them
Why this is incorrect:
Calling companionship a reward earns less credit than explaining how it increases the positive outcome of the relationship.
How to improve:
Use the structure:
Detail → psychological concept → effect on the relationship.
Mistake: Evaluating the wrong theory
Why this is incorrect:
A paragraph about equal contributions evaluates equity theory unless it is explicitly used to show what social exchange theory overlooks.
How to improve:
End every evaluative paragraph by linking it directly to the explanatory power of social exchange theory.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Questions
1. Which statement best describes social exchange theory?[1 mark]
A. Partners seek an exactly equal number of rewards.B. Individuals try to receive more from a relationship than it costs them.C. Partners remain together only when they have no alternatives.D. Individuals select partners with similar attitudes.
2. Outline what is meant by a reward and a cost in social exchange theory.[4 marks]
3. A person rates the rewards from a relationship as 18 and the costs as 7.
Calculate the relationship outcome. Show your working.[2 marks]
4. Explain the difference between the comparison level and comparison with alternatives.[4 marks]
5. Priya says:
“Taylor is supportive and makes me laugh, but we argue about money and I have given up a lot of time with my friends. My last relationship was far less supportive, though, so I know how lucky I am. I sometimes think being single would give me more freedom, but I would miss having someone I trust.”
Explain how social exchange theory can be applied to Priya’s comments.[6 marks]
6. A psychologist asked four participants to rate the rewards and costs associated with their current relationships. Higher numbers indicate greater rewards or costs.
Participant | Rewards | Costs | Comparison level |
A | 16 | 5 | 8 |
B | 13 | 8 | 7 |
C | 15 | 6 | 11 |
D | 10 | 7 | 5 |
a) Calculate the relationship outcome for each participant.[2 marks]
b) According to social exchange theory, which participants are most likely to be satisfied? Explain your answer.[3 marks]
7. Explain one way in which equity theory challenges social exchange theory.[3 marks]
8. Discuss social exchange theory as an explanation of romantic relationships.[8 marks]
Answers and Mark Scheme
Question 1
One mark for:
B, individuals try to receive more from a relationship than it costs them.
Question 2
Award up to four marks:
A reward is a positive outcome or benefit received from a relationship.
An appropriate example, such as support, companionship or affection.
A cost is a negative outcome, sacrifice or disadvantage associated with a relationship.
An appropriate example, such as arguments, stress, effort or loss of freedom.
Question 3
Award one mark for correct substitution:
18−718 - 718−7
Award one mark for the correct answer:
Relationship outcome=11\text{Relationship outcome} = 11Relationship outcome=11
Question 4
Award up to four marks:
The comparison level is the standard created by expectations and previous experiences.
It is used to judge whether the current relationship is satisfying.
Comparison with alternatives involves judging the current relationship against other partners, being single or another lifestyle.
It affects dependence and whether leaving may appear desirable.
Question 5
Award one mark for each developed application point, up to six marks.
Possible content:
Taylor’s support is a reward.
Making Priya laugh is a reward.
Arguments about money are a cost.
Reduced time with friends is a cost or loss of freedom.
Priya compares the relationship with her less supportive previous relationship.
This previous experience may produce a comparison level that the current relationship exceeds.
Priya compares the current relationship with being single.
Freedom would be a reward of the alternative.
Loss of trust and companionship would be costs of being single.
If the current relationship remains more rewarding than the alternative, Priya is likely to stay.
Question 6a
Award two marks for all four outcomes correct, or one mark for two or three correct.
Participant | Calculation | Outcome |
A | 16−516 - 516−5 | 111111 |
B | 13−813 - 813−8 | 555 |
C | 15−615 - 615−6 | 999 |
D | 10−710 - 710−7 | 333 |
Question 6b
Award up to three marks:
Participant A is likely to be satisfied because the outcome of 111111 exceeds the comparison level of 888.
Participant C is not predicted to be satisfied because the outcome of 999 is below the comparison level of 111111.
Participants B and D are also predicted to be dissatisfied because their outcomes fall below their comparison levels.
Participant A is therefore the only participant whose relationship exceeds their stated expectations.
Question 7
Award up to three marks:
Social exchange theory focuses on maximising the individual’s personal rewards relative to costs.
Equity theory argues that fairness between partners is important.
A highly profitable but unfair relationship may still produce discomfort, so personal profit alone may not explain satisfaction.
Question 8
A strong response should include:
Knowledge and understanding
The economic basis of social exchange theory.
Rewards and costs.
Relationship outcomes.
The comparison level.
Comparison with alternatives.
The distinction between satisfaction and dependence.
Evaluation
Clear and testable predictions.
Recognition of individual expectations.
Subjectivity of rewards and costs.
Oversimplification of complex emotional relationships.
Neglect of fairness.
Difficulty showing that partners continually make conscious calculations.
The role of investment and commitment.
Comparison with equity theory or Rusbult’s investment model.
Higher-level responses will use specialist terminology accurately, develop each evaluative point and maintain a clear focus on how successfully social exchange theory explains romantic relationships.
Comments