1800s: Martineau · Tocqueville · Marx · Spencer · Le Bon · Ward · Pareto · Tönnies · Veblen · Simmel · Durkheim · Addams · Mead · Weber · Du Bois · Mannheim · Elias Social exchange theory is a sociological and psychological theory that studies the social behavior in the interaction of two parties that implement a cost-benefit analysis to determine risks and benefits.
[6] John Thibaut and Harold Kelley are recognized for focusing their studies within the theory on the psychological concepts, the dyad and small group.
They used the reward-cost matrices from game theory and discovered some clues of individuals' interdependence such as the power of a party over each other, also known as the "correspondence" versus "noncorrespondence" of outcomes.
[8] 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.
[6] 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.
Proposition number six has been identified by scholars as a notion that there is a general assumption of a need for social approval as a reward and can therefore act as a drive force behind actions.
His vision of the underpinnings of social structure and institutional forms is linked to the actions of individuals, for example to their responses to rewarding and punishment circumstances.
He proposes three principles to create a new idea for socioeconomic change, transforming traditional economies, and political economic development.
However, variations exist in how costs and benefits are weighed depending on the actors involved, as well as in the interpretation, adoption, enforcement, neglect, and application of norms and sanctions.
[30] Furthermore, regarding human nature, 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.
According to Thibaut and Kelley, 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.
Even though the norm of reciprocity may be a universally accepted principle, the degree to which people and cultures apply this concept varies.
[38] Experimental data show that the position an actor occupies in a social exchange network determines relative dependence and therefore power.
[29] These patterns describe behavioral rules or norms that indicate how people trade resources in an attempt to maximize rewards and minimize costs.
Binding negotiated exchanges involve the least amount of risks which will result the individuals feeling low levels of uncertainty.
[46] Meeker points out that within the exchange process, each unit takes into account at least the following elements: reciprocity, rationality, altruism (social responsibility), group gain, status, consistency, and competition (rivalry).
The concept of reciprocity under this perspective states that individuals can directly reward his benefactor or another person in the social exchange process.
[54] A study conducted by Paul, G., called Exchange and access in field work tries to understand the relationships between the researchers and subjects.
This study concludes that Bargaining helps to satisfy the more specific needs of the parties because greater risks are taken to obtain more information.
[17] According to a study conducted by Lambe, C. Jay, C. Michael Wittmann, and Robert E. Spekman, firms evaluate economic and social outcomes from each transaction and compare them to what they feel they deserve.
[17] Holmen and Pedersen note that social exchange theory has contributed to the understanding of "connected" business relationships between firms.
This study uses one of the tenets of social exchange theory to explain that obligations are generated through a series of interactions between parties who are in a state of reciprocal interdependence.
The more engaged the employee are to their work, the greater amounts of cognitive, emotional, and physical resources they will devote to perform their job duties.
[60] Another more recent study by M. van Houten which took place in institutions for vocational education shows how, in social exchange relationships between teachers, reciprocity and feelings of ownership, affection and interpersonal safety impact on individual professionals´ decisions on what to share with whom.
The study also points out the possibility of ´negative rewards´: exchange of one's knowledge, materials or otherwise may enable someone else the misuse that what was shared and/or take credit somewhere in the team or organisation.
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.
Similar research also leveraged SET to examine privacy concerns versus desire for interpersonal awareness in driving the use of self-disclosure technologies in the context of instant messaging.
[12] These attributions of emotion, in turn, dictate how strongly individuals feel attached to their partners or groups, which drives collectively oriented behavior and commitment to the relationship.
When individuals have group attributions for positive emotions stemming from success, this eliminates any self-serving biases and enhances both pride in the self and gratitude to the partner.
[12] Following Weiner (1985)[68] affect theory of social exchange extrapolates that the combinations of stability and uncontrollability elicit different emotions.