Rewards and Costs of Social Relationships

Humans are inherently selfish. We want the best deal we can get. And that goes for buying goods in the marketplace as well as in our friendships. Whether we are willing to admit it or not, rewards and costs play a significant role in the stability of our social relationships. Or more specifically, the balance of rewards and costs have a substantial impact on the continued existence of our relationships.
If a reward is anything positive incurred, and a cost is anything negative, then the outcome of our relationships is equivalent to the rewards of a relationship minus its costs. Most would assume that a good relationship would be one where the rewards exceed the costs, but this is not necessarily true. Steve Duck claims that over-benefiting from a relationship can be just as destructive as under-benefiting (Friends for Life, pp. 110). Those who are receiving more out of a relationship than they are putting into it may begin to feel guilty or awkward. Duck says, “When a relationship is not fair for both partners, it hits the rocks extremely hard …” (pp. 107). Clearly, a balance is key to the success of a relationship.
But a balance of rewards and costs does not mean each partner receives equal rewards and pays equal costs. Equity, in the social sense, is much more related to the Marxism concept of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” In other words, as Adams says (1965) equity “exists when each person’s benefits from being in a group – his outputs relative to his inputs – are equal to every other person’s outputs relative to their inputs” (Sabini, p. 404). It is important to understand that equity is not equality. For example, when my friends and I got out for dinner, the equal thing to do would be to split the bill among the number dining, but the equitable thing to do would be for each person to pay the amount that his/her meal cost. It makes perfect sense that that I would not be willing to pay the equivalent of a steak dinner if I only ate a plate of breadsticks, but it is not something so easily considered in social relationships. Often we expect our friend or partner to do their equal share of the work, when really we are the ones benefiting the most. When I first moved in to our flat, I became discouraged because one girl never bothered to do the dishes, then I realized that she never used dishes, she always eats out or munches on crackers right out of the package. Therefore, it would not have been fair for me to expect her wash as many dishes as the rest of us.
This concept of fairness, or “returning good for good” is universal. All cultures see this form of social exchange as necessary (Brown, p. 54). Although the theory is common, the goods themselves may differ. Whereas in America we pay $20.00 for a shirt, in some countries one might exchange a few chickens for a top. In the Western world, costs and rewards may be more influential than in other countries. For instance, if someone feels that they are not receiving adequate rewards for the amount of costs of a relationship, one option is to simply get out. In other cultures, commitment carries more weight than equity. That is why some cultures do not have divorce. So although the exchange theory is felt throughout the world, it is not always carried out in the same way.
Prior to my arrival in England, I worked for six weeks as a waitress, mostly because I needed the money, but also because I felt that every girl should waitress at some point in her life. Before this occupation, I had always been somewhat annoyed with the whole tipping process. Why couldn’t the employer just pay servers a substantial amount and save us all from having to calculate the appropriate percent, or from the inconvenience of forgetting to include the tip in our mental assessment of an eating-out budget? Now, after having put my time in as a dining-servant (because that’s pretty much what we are), my ideas have altered. With the knowledge of an immediate reward of tips in the back of every waitress’ mind, they are, in most cases, more likely to serve with a smile and are more willing to accommodate the customer in any way possible. This experience taught me the true value of a customer.
Waitressing is a unique occupation in that, rather than your boss or employer assessing your work ethic and adjusting your wages accordingly, the customers evaluate your service, and the amount of money you make at the end of each night is directly dependent on how much you put in to your job. A waitress-customer relationship is clearly a good example of one based on costs and rewards. But restaurants and shops are not the only place where this plays a major role. In analyzing costs and rewards, friendships or romantic relationships may not be the first to come to mind, but they are very likely the most impacted by this type of social exchange.
Costs and rewards have their place even in the very beginning stages of friendship. Brehm states, “We are attracted to those whose presence is rewarding” (p. 68). But they also influence our decision to remain in a relationship or to go in search of another. Because humans are inherently selfish and always searching for the best possible deal, it is typically not unusual for someone to leave a good relationship for another one simply because it is better. That is not to say that one was discontent with the former relationship, but only that the alternative posed a much greater incentive. As Brehm also said, “People don’t divorce when they get unhappy; they divorce when their prospects … seem brighter elsewhere” (p. 161). With this in mind, Buunk (1987) suggests that in addition to high satisfaction and a low perceived quality of alternatives, the size of investment in the relationship is also an important factor to consider in commitment (Hewstone, p. 396).
One would assume that a person involved in a relationship where the costs far outweighed the goals, in an unhappy relationship, would soon leave. The closer one becomes to another, the more shared ideas and activities that exist between them, the more there is invested in the relationship. Investments are what tie individuals together, such as “investing time and energy, by making sacrifices, by developing mutual friends, by developing shared memories, and by engaging in activities, hobbies and possessions that are integrated in the relationship” (Hewstone, p. 396). The higher the level of investments in a relationship, the greater the commitment. Although this is usually regarded as a positive aspect of relationships, investments can have their drawbacks. One area of controversy in the study of relationships is how much investment should be allowed to influence commitment. Just as investments may be the means of keeping the nuclear family intact, they also play a large role in keeping unhealthy relationships together. For instance, women in abusive relationships are more likely to return to their partner, despite the abuse, simply because they have so much invested in the relationship.
It is easily understood that costs and rewards have a significant place in society. Humans want the greatest reward at the least cost in areas ranging from shopping and everyday business exchanges to intimate relationships. But the fact that there needs to be a balance, and an equitable balance at that, is often overlooked. In order for a relationship to be successful, each partner needs to be receiving an adequate reward in proportion to what they are putting into the relationship. Finally, it is not enough to consider only the amount of satisfaction and number of alternatives in assessing the quality of commitment, but one must also consider the value of investments when considering whether to continue with or terminate a relationship.

Brehm, Sharon. Intimate Relationships. Third edition. 2002.
Brown, Roger. Social Psychology: The Second Edition. 1986.
Hewstone, Mile. Introduction To Social Psychology. Third edition. 2001.
Duck, Steve. Friends for Life. The Harvester Press Limited: Sussex. 1983.
Sabini, John. Social Psychology. 1992.