Social exchange theories

· Outline Social exchange theory is a social psychological and sociological perspective that explains social change and stability as a process of negotiated exchanges between parties. Social exchange theory posits that all human relationships are formed by the use of a subjective cost-benefit analysis and the comparison of alternatives. The theory has roots in economics, psychology and sociology. Social exchange theory features many of the main assumptions found in rational choice theory and structuralism. Contenido 1 Historia 2 Basic concepts 3 Proposiciones teóricas 4 Assumptions 5 Comparison levels and modes of exchange 6 Críticas 7 Aplicaciones 7.1 Affect Theory of Social Exchange 7.1.1 Assumptions 7.1.2 Theoretical Propositions 8 Ver también 9 Referencias 10 Otras lecturas 11 Textos clave 11.1 Libros 11.2 Papeles 12 Material adicional 12.1 Libros 12.2 Papeles 13 External links History Social exchange theory was introduced in the 1960s by George Homans. After Homans founded the theory, many theorists such as Richard Emerson, John Thibaut, Harold Kelley and Peter Blau continued to write about the theory. John Thibaut and Harold Kelly focused their studies within the theory on the psychological concepts, the dyad and small group.[1] Homans's primary concern within this field was focusing on the behavior of individuals when interacting with one another. He believed characteristics such as power, conformity, status, leadership and justice within social behavior was important to explain within the theory.[2] Although there are various modes of exchange, Homans focused his studies on dyadic exchange.[2] Homans summarizes the system in three propositions success, stimulus, deprivation–satiation proposition.[1] 1. Success proposition: When one finds they are rewarded for their actions, they tend to repeat the action. 2. Stimulus proposition: The more often a particular stimulus has resulted in a reward in the past, the more likely it is that a person will respond to it. 3. Deprivation–satiation proposition: The more often in the recent past a person has received a particular reward, the less valuable any further unit of that reward becomes. Peter Blau focused his early writings on social exchange theory more towards the economic and utilitarian perspective. Whereas Homans focused on reinforcement principles which believe individual's base their next social move on past experiences, Blau's utilitarian focus encouraged the theorist to look forward as in what they anticipated the reward would be in regards to their next social interaction.[2] Blau felt that if individuals focused too much on the psychological concepts within the theory, they would refrain from learning the developing aspects of social exchange.[1] Blau emphasized technical economic analysis whereas Homans concentrated more on the psychology of instrumental behavior.[3] Richard Emerson's early work on the theory intertwined with both Homans and Blau's ideas. From Homan's ideas, he believed social exchange theory was based on reinforcement principles. According to Emerson, Exchange is not a theory but a framework of from which other theories can converge and compared to structural functionalism.[1] Emerson's perspective was similar to Blau's since they both focused on the relationship power had with the exchange process.[2] Emerson says that social exchange theory is an approach in sociology that is described for simplicity as an economic analysis of noneconomic social situations.[1] Exchange theory brings a quasi-economic more of analysis into those situations.[1] Basic concepts Costs are the elements of relational life that have negative value to a person, such as the effort put into a relationship and the negatives of a partner.[4] (Costs can be time, money, effort etc.) Rewards are the elements of a relationship that have positive value. (Rewards can be sense of acceptance, support, and companionship etc.) The social-exchange perspective argues that people calculate the overall worth of a particular relationship by subtracting its costs from the rewards it provides.[5] Worth = Rewards Template:– Costs If worth is a positive number, it is positive relationship. On the contrary, negative number indicates a negative relationship. The worth of a relationship influences its outcome, or whether people will continue with a relationship or terminate it. Positive relationships are expected to endure, whereas negative relationships will probably terminate. The social exchange theory explains social exchange and stability as a process of negotiated exchanges between parties. Social exchange theory explores the nature of exchanges between parties. As with everything dealing with the social exchange theory it has it’s outcome satisfaction and dependence of relationships. Both parties in a social exchange take responsibility for one another and depend on each other. According to Laura Stafford (2008), economic exchanges and social exchanges have some differences: Social exchanges involve a connection with another person; social exchanges involve trust, not legal obligations; social exchanges are more flexible; and social exchanges rarely involve explicit bargaining.[6] "The guiding force of interpersonal relationships is the advancement of both parties’ self-interest" — Michael Roloff (1981)[7] Interpersonal exchanges are thought to be analogous to economic exchanges where people are satisfied when they receive a fair return for their expenditures. Fulfilling self-interest is often common within the economic realm of the social exchange theory where competition and greed can be common.[8] Outcome = Rewards Template:– Costs George Homans developed five key propositions that assist in structuring individual's behaviors based on rewards and costs. The first proposition, the Success Proposition states that behavior that creates positive outcomes is likely to be repeated.[9] The second proposition, the Stimulus Proposition believes that behavior if an individual's behavior is rewarded in the past, the individual will continue the previous behavior.[9] The third proposition, the Value proposition believes that if the result of a behavioral action is considered valuable to the individual, it is more likely for that behavior to occur.[9] The fourth proposition, the Deprivation-satiation proposition believes that if an individual has received the same reward several times, the value of that reward will diminish.[9] Lastly the fifth proposition, discusses when emotions occur due to different reward situations.[9] Theoretical propositions Ivan Nye came up with twelve theoretical propositions that aid in understanding the exchange theory.[8] Individuals choose those alternatives from which they expect the most profit. Cost being equal, they choose alternatives from which they anticipate the greatest rewards. Rewards being equal, they choose alternatives from which they anticipate the fewest costs. Immediate outcomes being equal, they choose those alternatives that promise better long- term outcomes. Long-term outcomes being perceived as equal, they choose alternatives providing better immediate outcomes. Costs and other rewards being equal, individuals choose the alternatives that supply or can be expected to supply the most social approval (or those that promise the least social disapproval). Costs and other rewards being equal, individuals choose statuses and relationships that provide the most autonomy. Other rewards and costs equal, individuals choose alternatives characterized by the least ambiguity in terms of expected future events and outcomes. Other costs and rewards equal, they choose alternatives that offer the most security for them. Other rewards and costs equal, they choose to associate with, marry, and form other relationships with those whose values and opinions generally are in agreement with their own and reject or avoid those with whom they chronically disagree. Other rewards and costs equal, they are more likely to associate with, marry, and form other relationships with their equals, than those above or below them. (Equality here is viewed as the sum of abilities, performances, characteristics, and statuses that determine one's desirability in the social marketplace.) In industrial societies, other costs and rewards equal, individuals choose alternatives that promise the greatest financial gains for the least financial expenditures. Assumptions The assumptions that SET makes about human nature include the following:[10] Humans seek rewards and avoid punishments. Humans are rational beings. The standards that humans use to evaluate costs and rewards vary over time and from person to person. The assumptions SET makes about the nature of relationships include the following:[10] Relationships are interdependent. Relational life is a process. The prisoner's dilemma is a widely used example in game theory that attempts to illustrate why or how two individuals may not cooperate with each other, even if it is in their best interest to do so. It demonstrates that while cooperation would give the best outcome, people might nevertheless act selfishly.[11] Social exchange theory is a theoretical explanation for organizational citizenship behavior. This study examines a model of clear leadership and relational building between head and teachers as antecedents, and organizational citizenship behavior as a consequence of teacher–school exchange.[12] All relationships involve exchanges although the balance of this exchange is not always equal. We cannot achieve our goals alone so as humans we have to sometimes become actors. In the world today we see actors as unemotional people but that is not the case once we reach our goals in the end. Comparison levels and modes of exchange Social exchange includes "both a notion of a relationship, and some notion of a shared obligation in which both parties perceive responsibilities to each other"[13] Evaluation rests on two types of comparisons: Comparison Level and Comparison Level for Alternative. The Comparison Level (CL) is a standard representing what people feel they should receive in the way of rewards and costs from a particular relationship. (Thiabaut and Kelly) An individual's comparison level can be considered the standard by which an outcome seems to satisfy the individual.[14] Comparison levels can be based on previous experiences. The Comparison Level for Alternative (CLalt) refers to “the lowest level of relational rewards a person is willing to accept given available rewards from alternative relationships or being alone”[15] En otras palabras., when using this evaluation tool an individual will consider other alternative payoffs or rewards outside of the current relationship or exchange.[14] According to Kelly and Thibaut, people engage in Behavioral Sequence, or a series of actions designed to achieve their goal.[16] When people engage in these behavioral sequences they are dependent to some extent on their relational partner. In order for behavioral sequences to lead to social exchange, two conditions must be achieved: "It must be oriented towards ends that can only be achieved through interaction with other persons, and it must seek to adapt means to further the achievement of these ends".[17] Power is an essential theme within social exchange theory. Power can be exemplified within the theory during an unreciprocated exchanges. Power differentiation effects social structures by causing inequalities between members of different groups, such as an individual having superiority over another.[18] Power within the theory is governed by two variables : the structure of power in exchange networks and strategic use.[18] Two examples of power are fate control and behavior control. Fate control is the ability to affect a partner’s outcomes.[10] Behavior control is the power to cause another’s behavior to change by changing one’s own behavior.[10] Power is viewed differently within the theory, some theorists view power as distinct from exchanges, some view it as a kind of exchange and others believe power is a medium of exchange.[19] People develop patterns of exchange to cope with power differentials and to deal with the costs associated with exercising power.[10] These patterns describe behavioral rules or norms that indicate how people trade resources in an attempt to maximize rewards and minimize costs. Three different matrices have been described by Thibaut and Kelly to illustrate the patterns people develop. These are given matrix, the effective matrix and the dispositional matrix.[20] The given matrix represents the behavioral choices and outcomes that are determined by a combination of external factors (environment) and internal factors(the specific skills each interactant possesses).[16] The effective matrix “which represents an expansion of alternative behaviors and/or outcomes which ultimately determines the behavioral choices in social exchange”[21] The dispositional matrix represents the way two people believe that rewards ought to be exchanged between them.[22] There are three forms within these matrices: Reciprocity, Generalized Exchange, and Productive Exchange. In a direct exchange, reciprocation is confined to the two actors. One social actor provides value to another one and the other reciprocates. There are three different types of reciprocity:[23] Reciprocity as a transactional pattern of interdependent exchanges Reciprocity as a folk belief Reciprocity as a moral norm A generalized exchange involves indirect reciprocity between three or more individuals.[24] Por ejemplo,one person gives to another and the recipient responds by giving to another person other than the first person. Productive exchange means that both actors have to contribute for either one of them to benefit. Both people incur benefits and costs simultaneously. Another common form of exchange is negotiated exchange which focuses on the negotiation of rules in order for both parties to reach a beneficial agreement.[23] Reciprocal exchanges and negotiated exchanges are often analyzed and compared to discover their essential differences. One major difference between the two exchanges is the level of risks associated with the exchange and the uncertainty these risks create (ref). Negotiated exchange can consist of binding and non-binding negotiations. When comparing the levels of risk within these exchanges, reciprocal exchange has the highest level of risk which in result produces the most uncertainty.[24] An example of a risk that could occur during the reciprocal exchange is the factor that the second party could end up not returning the favor and completing the reciprocal exchange.Binding negotiated exchanges involve the least amount of risks which will result the individuals feeling low levels of uncertainty . Whereas non-binding negotiated exchanges and their level of risks and uncertainty fall in between the amount of risks associated with reciprocal and binding negotiated exchanges