1 Index Topics Page Introduction 1-2 Exchange Theory 3-4 History of Exchange Theory 4-5 Aspects of Exchange Theory 5-6 Theoretical Propositions 6 George Homans proposition 6-9 Peter Blau proposition 10-15 Criticism of Exchange Theory 15-16 References 17
2
socialIntroduction:exchange
People weigh the potential benefits and risks of social relationship. When the risks outweigh the rewards, people will terminate or abandon that relationship. Costs involves things that are seen as negatives to the individual such as having to put money, time and effort into a relationship. The benefits are thing things that the individualgetsouttherelationshipsuchasfun,friendship,companionshipandsocial support. Social exchange theory suggests that we essentially take the benefits and minus the costs in order to determine how much a relationship is worth. Positive relationships are those in which the benefits outweigh the costs while negative relationshipoccurwhenthecostsaregreaterthanthebenefitssocialexchangetheory includes two approaches to social interaction and relationship. The first approach views people and individual in particular as rationally trying to get what they want or need by exchanging valued resources with others. The second approach focuses on exchanges between groups or social systems as a whole and believes that by participating in a social system based on loyalty and sharing, individuals may contribute and derive benefits from their overall participation in the system. Social exchange theory was developed by George Homans, a sociologist. It first appeared in his essay “Social Behavior as Exchange,” in 1958. Homans studied small groups, and he initially believed that any society, community or group was best seen as a social system. To study that social system, it was first necessary to look at an individual’s behavior, instead of the social structures individuals created. George Homans was the founding father of “exchange theory.” Homans focused on the individuals and internal forces to create a theory about social life and human behavior due to believing that Durkheim and Parson focused too much on the
theory proposes that social behavior is the result of an exchange process. The purpose of this exchange is to maximize benefits and minimize costs.
external social forces that impact human behavior. According to Homans, human social behavior is an exchange of activity that is motivated by the desire to gain rewards and avoid costs. This pertains to all aspects of human activity, such as conformity, interpersonal attraction, love, and interdependence. Exchange, in this sense, describes a relationship where people's behavior is maintained by reciprocal reinforcement. Thus, exchange becomes synonymous with interaction. Since exchangetheoryfocusesonindividualhumanbehaviorratherthangroupinteraction, Homans believed that human social behavior could be explained by existing psychological propositions as opposed to new sociological principles.
3
Exchange theory: Social exchange theory is a social psychological and sociological perspective that explains social change and stability as a process of negotiated exchanges between Socialparties.exchange theory proposes that social behavior is the result of an exchange process. The purpose of this exchange is to maximize benefits and minimize costs. According to this theory, people weigh the potential benefits and risks of social relationships. When the risks outweigh the rewards, people will terminate or abandon the relationship.
The basic definition of social exchange theory: open in new is that people make decisions by consciously or unconsciously measuring the costs and rewards of a relationship or action, ultimately seeking to maximize their reward. This theory focuses on face to face relationships and isn’t meant to measure behavior or change at a societal level. According to social exchange theory, a person will weigh the cost ofasocialinteraction(negativeoutcome)againsttherewardofthatsocialinteraction
4 (positive outcome). These costs and rewards can be material, like money, time or a service. They can also be intangible, like effort, social approval, love, pride, shame, respect, opportunity and power. Each person wants to get more from an interaction or relationship than they give. When a relationship costs a person more than it rewards them, they end it. But when a relationship provides enough rewards, they continue it. What is or isn’t enough depends on various factors, including a person’s expectations and comparisons with other possible interactions and relationships.
Another aspect of social exchange theory is that people expect equity in exchange.
History of Exchange Theory: Social exchange theory was developed by George Homans, a sociologist. It first appeared in his essay “Social Behavior as Exchange,” in 1958. Homans studied small groups, and he initially believed that any society, community or group was best seen as a social system. To study that social system, it was first necessary to look at an individual’s behavior, instead of the social structures individuals created. It was by studying small groups that Homans began to see the rewards and punishments each member of the group got from the group and other members. He developed a framework of elements of social behavior: interaction, sentiments and activities. These elements all had to be considered regarding a groups’ internal and external systems. He used this framework to study several groups a study he published in “The Human Group,” his first book.
People expect to be rewarded equally for incurring the same costs, and when they aren’t, they are displeased.
Later, Homans began to explain further the most basic level of social situations, called elementary social behavior, which is at least two people interacting, with one either rewarding or punishing the actions of the other. This idea reflects Homans
Homans is not the only person to develop social exchange theory. Many sociologists and other professionals have advanced social exchange theory. Peter Michael Blau didn’t focus on behaviorism, and instead, focused his theory on concepts such as preferences, interests, indifference curves and supply and demand. More modern takes on social exchange theory borrow from both men and particularly focus on powerdynamics.Becauseofthisvariety,social exchangetheory is notonesolidified theory. Instead, different theorists use various concepts and assumptions for their particular application.
5
adopting B.F. Skinner’s behavioral psychology theories about human behavior as well as basic principles of economics. Homans suggested several propositions that theorize social behavior as an exchange of material and non material goods, like time, money, effort, approval, prestige, power, etc. Every person provides rewards and endures costs. People expect to receive as much reward as they give to another and will choose actions that are likely to provide the greatest reward.
Aspect of social exchange theory: To truly understand social exchange theory require recognizing the aspect on which it is Costbased.arethe elements relational life that have negative value to a person such as the effortputintoarelationshipandthenegatives ofapartner.Costcan betime, money, effort etc.
Rewards are the elements of a relationship have a positive value. Rewards can be sense of acceptance, support and companionship etc.
If worth is a positive number, it is a positive relationship If worth is a negative number indicates a negatives relationship. The worth of a relationship influences its outcome or whether people will continue with a relationship or terminate it.
George Homans proposition: George Homans was born on August 11, 1910 in Boston, Massachusetts. He was the eldest child of Robert and Abigail (Adams) Homans and lived at 164 Beacon Street in the Back Bay district of Boston, Massachusetts. His education began at Miss Woodward’s, a private elementary school, and he continued on to Browne and
6
Theoretical Proposition: individual choose those alternatives from which they except the most profit. Cost beingequal they choosealternativesfromwhich they anticipatethegreatest rewards. Rewards being equal, they choose alternative from which they anticipate the fewest cost. 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 we can be expected to supply the most social approval. Costs and other rewards being equal individuals choose statuses and relationships that provide the most autonomy.
Worth= Reweds Costs
7
NicholsSchoolinCambridge,Massachusettsat agenine.Hethen attended St.Paul’s School, an Episcopalian boarding school in Concord, New Hampshire. Later, he became a student at Harvard College in 1928. Homans began his career as a professor at Harvard in 1953 and served as President of the American Sociological Association from 1963 to 1964. Homans was the only sociologist without a Ph.D. to ever hold this position. Homans was considered part of the Harvard Group, an assembly of sociologists who began writing under the guidance and influence of Talcott Parsons, following the publicationofParsons’bookTheStructureofSocial Action.At thetimeofHomans’ writing, most of the laboratory research conducted by psychologists studied a group in isolation from its environment. Homans and the sociologists of his time, however, had an interest in the study of small human groups outside independent of the laboratory and pursued this in their studies. Homans died in Cambridge, Massachusetts on May 29, 1989 at age 78.
Social Exchange Theory (Propositions): Influenced by both the laws of individual behavior as founded by psychologist B.F.Skinner, as well as elementary economics, Homans developed a group of fundamental propositions, which he felt explained all humanbehavior.Asfollows,thecomponentsofhisexchangetheoryareTheSuccess Proposition, The Stimulus Proposition, The Value Proposition, The DeprivationSatiation Proposition, The Aggression Approval Proposition, and The Rationality Proposition. Overall, the six propositions that follow can be ultimately understood to mean that actors are rational profit seekers.
The Success Proposition: If a past activity was rewarded, a person is more likely to repeat this behavior again. For example, a person is more likely to ask others for advice in the future if he or she received useful advice in the past. Additionally, people will be more likely to give advice if their advice elicited positive responses and approval in the past. Thus, the more often a person is rewarded, the more often that person will perform that same action. The sooner the reward follows an action, the more likely that action is to be repeated. Even though increasing frequent rewards leads to frequent actions, this occurrence cannot continue indefinitely.
8
The StimulusProposition: If astimuluspresentsitself and issimilartoa previously rewarding activity, the individual is likely to repeat this behavior. If a person feels validated in giving or receiving advice, they will repeat and recreate that scenario again. The process of generalization is important in regards to The Stimulus Proposition. For instance, if someone is positively rewarded in one situation, and then finds him or herself in a similar situation, they are most likely to generalize the rewards they received in the former to the latter. In contrast to generalization, the process of discrimination is also important. Moreover, the individual continues to closely discern between situations where they were not properly rewarded in order to act in specific conditions that generated successful results in the past.
The Value Proposition: The more valuable the result of an action, the more likely the individual is to repeat it. Values can be both positive and negative. An increase in positive values, or rewards, are more likely to elicit desired behavior. An increase in negative values, or punishments, is more likely to decrease an individual’s undesired behaviors. Punishments are inefficient becausepeoplemight react to them in undesirable ways. As a result, Homans recommended that it is best to leave
The Rationality Proposition: Before participating in an action, individuals prefer to examine its costs and benefits. Individuals are thus drawn to actions that are both highly attainable and have highly valued benefits. They are discouraged by lesser valued benefits, which are unlikely to be attained. Individuals often predict if they will be successful or not based on past successes of similar situations. This proposition shifts from the behavioral psychology of B.F. Skinner to rational choice theory, thus focusing on an individual’s agency.
The Deprivation Satiation Proposition: In terms of deprivation, any reward that is extended over too long of a time period loses value. In contrast, satiation refers to any reward that is distributed too often in a short time period and thus loses value, as it is too readily available. Homans also defined the concepts of cost and profit as they apply to human interaction. The cost of any behavior is one in which rewards arelostthroughengaginginanalternativeaction.Profitisseen asthegreaternumber of rewards gained over the costs an individual incurs. According to Homans, the greater the profit received by an individual due to his or her action, the more likely the individual will repeat that action. No exchange will continue unless both individuals are making a profit.
9 undesirable behavior unrewarded, because such behavior would eventually disappear when the value of rewards is understood.
The Aggression-Approval Proposition: When an individual does not receive an anticipated reward, or receives an unexpected punishment, he or she is frustrated. Homans describes when an individual is frustrated it is not just an internal state, which is what it is commonly described as, but also an external state. In contrast, when an individual does receive an anticipated reward, or does not receive an expected punishment, he or she is pleased.
Blau focused on the process of exchange, which, in his view, directs much of human behavior and underlies relationships among individuals as well as among groups. In effect, Blau envisioned a four stage sequence leading from interpersonal exchange to social structure to social change:
10
Peter Blau proposition:
Peter Blau was born in Vienna, Austria, on February 7, 1918. He emigrated to the United States in 1939 and became a United States citizen in 1943. In 1942 he received his bachelor’s degree from the relatively little known Elmhurst College in Elmhurst, Illinois. His schooling was interrupted by World War II, and he served in the United States Army and was awarded the Bronze Star. After the war, he returned to school and completed his education, receiving his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1952. Blau first received wide recognition in sociology for his contributions to the study of formal organizations. His empirical studies of organizations as well as his textbooks on formal organizations are still widely cited in that subfield, and he continued to be a regular contributor to it until his death in 2002. Peter Blau’s (1964) goal was “an understanding of social structure on the basis of an analysis of the social processes that govern the relations between individuals and groups. The basic question is how social life becomes organized into increasingly complex structures of associations among men”. Blau’s intention was to go beyond Homans’s concern with elementary forms of social life and into an analysis of complex structures: “The main sociological purpose of studying processes of faceto face interaction is to lay the foundation for an understanding of the social structures that evolve and the emergent social forces that characterize their development”.
Up to this point, Blau’s position is similar to Homans’s position, but Blau extended his theory to the level of social facts. He noted, for example, that we cannot analyze
On the individual level, Blau and Homans were interested in similar processes. How ever, Blau’s concept ofsocialexchange islimited to actions that are contingent, that depend, on rewarding reactions from others actions that cease when expected reac tions are not forthcoming. People are attracted to each other for a variety of reasons that induce them to establish social associations. Once initial ties are forged, the rewards that they provide to each other serve to maintain and enhance the bonds. The opposite situation is also possible: with insufficient rewards, an association will weaken or break. Rewards that are exchanged can be either intrinsic (for instance, love, affection, respect) or extrinsic (for instance, money, physical labor). The parties cannot always reward each other equally; when there is inequality in the exchange, a difference of power will emerge within an association. When one party needs something from another but has nothing comparable to offer in return, four alternatives are available. First, people can force other people to help them. Second, they can find another source to obtain what they need. Third, they can attempt to get along without what they need from the others. Finally, and most important, they can subordinate themselves to the others, thereby giving the others “generalized credit” in their relationship; the others then can draw on this credit when they want them to do something. (This last alternative is, of course, the essential characteristic of power.)
11
Step 1: Personal exchange transactions between people give rise to Step 2: Differentiation of status and power, which leads to Step 3: Legitimization and organization, which sow the seeds of Step 4: Opposition and change Micro to Macro
Newcomers’ efforts to impressgroup members generally lead to group cohesion,but competition and, ultimately, social differentiation can occur when too many people actively seek to impress each other with their abilities to reward. The paradox here is that although group members with the ability to impress can be attractive associates, their impressive characteristics also can arouse fears of dependence in other group members and cause them to acknowledge their attraction only reluctantly.In theearlystagesofgroupformation,competition forsocial recognition among group members actually acts as a screening test for potential leaders of the group. Those best able to reward are most likely to end up in leadership positions. Those group members with less ability to reward want to continue to receive the rewards offered by the potential leaders, and this usually more than compensates for their fears of becoming dependent on them. Ultimately, those individuals with the greater ability to reward emerge as leaders, and the group is differentiated. The inevitable differentiation of the group into leaders and followers creates a renewed need for integration. Once they have acknowledged the leader’s status, followers have an even greater need for integration. Earlier, followers flaunted their most
12 processes of social interaction apart from the social structure that surrounds them. Social structure emerges from social interaction, but once this occurs, social structures have a separate existence that affects the process of interaction. Social interactionexistsfirstwithinsocialgroups.Peopleareattractedtoagroup whenthey feel that the relationships offer more rewards than those from other groups. Because they are attracted to the group, they want to be accepted. To be accepted, they must offer group members rewards. This involves impressing the group members by showing them that associating with the new people will be rewarding. The relationship with the group members will be solidified when the newcomers have impressed the group when members have received the rewards they expected.
13 impressive qualities. Now, to achieve integration with fellow followers, they display their weaknesses. This is, in effect, a public declaration that they no longer want to be leaders. This self-deprecation leads to sympathy and social acceptance from the other also rans. The leader (or leaders) also engages in some self deprecation at this point to improve overall group integration. By admitting that subordinates are superior insome areas, the leader reduces thepain associated with subordination and demonstrates thatheorshedoesnotseekcontrol overevery areaofgroup life.These types of forces serve to reintegrate the group despite its new, differentiated status.
Norms and Values
For Blau, the mechanisms that mediate among the complex social structures are the norms and values (the value consensus) that exist within society: Commonly agreed upon values and norms serve as media of social life and as mediating links for social transactions. They make indirect social exchange possible, and they govern the processes of social integration and differentiation in complex social structures as well as the development of social organization and reorganization in them. Other mechanisms mediate among social structures, but Blau focused on value consensus. Looking first at social norms, Blau argued that they substitute indirect exchange for direct exchange. One member conforms to the group norm and receives approval for that conformity and implicit approval for the fact that conformity con tributes to the group’s maintenance and stability. In other words, the group or col-electivity engages in an exchange relationship with the individual. This is in contrast to Homans’s simpler notion, which focused on interpersonal exchange. Blau offered a number of examples of collectivity individual exchanges replacing individual individual exchanges.
Although Blau argued that he was simply extending exchange theory to the societal level, in so doing he twisted exchange theory beyond recognition. He was even forced to admit that processes at the societal level are fundamentally different from those at the individual level. In his effort to extend exchange theory, Blau man aged only to transform it into another macro level theory. Blau seemed to recognize that exchange theory is concerned primarily with face to face relations. As a result, it needs to be complemented by other theoretical orientations that focus mainly on
For example, particularistic values are the media of integration and solidarity. These values serve to unite the members of a group around such things as patriotism or the good of the school or the company. These are seen as similar at the collective level to sentiments of personal attraction that unite individuals on a face to face basis. However, they extend integrative bonds beyond mere personal attraction.
Particularistic values also differentiate the in group from the out group, thereby enhancing their unifying function. Blau’s analysis carries us far from Homans’s version of exchange theory. The individual and individual behavior, paramount for Homans, have almost disappeared in Blau’s conception. Taking the place of the individual are a wide variety of social facts. For example, Blau discussed groups, organizations, collectivities, societies, norms,and values. Blau’s analysis is concernedwithwhatholdslarge scalesocialunitstogetherandwhattearsthemapart, clearly traditional concerns of the social factist.
14
The concept of the norm in Blau’s formulation moves Blau to the level of exchange between individual and collectivity, but the concept of values moves him to the largest-scalesocietallevelandtotheanalysisoftherelationshipamongcollectivities.
Criticism of Exchange Theory
:
and Marie S. Mitchell discuss how one of the major issues within the social exchange theory is the lack of information within studies on the various exchange rules.Reciprocity is a major exchange rule discussed but, Cropanzano and Mitchell write that the theory would be better understood if more researchprograms discussedavariety ofexchangerules suchas altruism,group gain, status consistency and competition.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 Rosenfeldcompetition.(2005)
has noted significant limitations to Social Exchange Theory and its application in the selection of mates/partners. Specifically, Rosenfeld looked at the limitations of interracial couples and the application of social exchange theory.
Katherine Miller outlines several major objections to or problems with the social exchange theory as developed from early seminal works.The theory reduces human interaction to a purely rational process that arises from economic theory.The theory favors openness as it was developed in the 1970s when ideas of freedom and openness were preferred, but there may be times when openness isn't the best option in a relationship.The theory assumes that the ultimate goal of a relationship is intimacy when this might not always be the case.The theory places relationships in alinearstructure,whensomerelationshipsmightskipstepsorgobackwardsinterms of Russellintimacy.Cropanzano
15 macro structures. Blau (1987, 1994) came to recognize this explicitly, and his later work focuses on macro level, structural phenomena.
His analysissuggeststhatinmodernsociety,thereislessofagapbetweeninterracial partners education level, socioeconomic status, and social class level which in turn, makes the previously understood application of social exchange moot.
16
17 References: ★ Blau,Peter M. Exchange and power in sociallife. N. Y: Wiley1964.print ★ Homans, George C. 1984.Coming to my Senses: The Autobiography of a Sociologist. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction publisher. ★ Ritzer,George, Sociological Theory 8th edition, page:416.