It is difficult for me to point out the biggest weakness of interpersonal communication, so, in this section, I will discuss what I believe is the most questionable part of interpersonal communication: social exchange theory ( SET). I will start with a brief summary of the theory, including some examples of its use in some research areas. Then I will move on to the reasons why I consider this to be the most questionable part of interpersonal communication. I will conclude this section with a suggestion for future research.Summary of TheoryStafford (2008) attributed Social Exchange Theory (SET) to famous psychologists, Thibault and Kelley, and sociologists, Homans and Blau. Having its roots in the field of economics, this theory views human interaction as similar to a market in which people exchange valuable items. At the heart of the theory are three key points: reward, cost and resources. Reward is any part of a relationship that has positive value, such as wealth, promising career, emotional support, etc. Cost, on the other hand, is any element of a relationship that is negatively valued, such as time, effort, etc. Resources are anything that has value and can be exchanged, such as money, love, information, etc. The fundamental assumption of this theory is that humans are rational beings who want to avoid costs and seek reward. For example, under this assumption, a young woman who is faced with a situation in which she must choose a man to marry will likely consider a man who has more resources and will demand the least cost from her in the relationship. The concept of personal interest is also included in this assumption. Personal interests, according to Stafford (2008), "drive individuals towards a...... middle of paper ......rd'. Suggestions for future studies To address its testability, we first need more studies as Foa and Foa (1976) did, I suggest that carefully designed studies in various cultural contexts, with a representative number of participants could be constructed provide a means to test the theory. Expecting studies to resolve the issue with individual differences, altruism, and agapic relationship type in the near future may not be reasonable, because these issues would be difficult to address. I would say that perhaps the most reasonable change that further research should make is to shift attention from viewing communication as a means of exchanging resources to considering it as the resource itself.