Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research

315 Pages·1980·21.25 MB·English

by  Martin S. Greenberg (auth.)

SOCIAL EXCHANGE
Advances in Theory and Research
EXCHANGE
SOCIAL
Advances in Theory and Research
EDITED BY
J.
KENNETH GERGEN
Swarthmore College
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania
AND
S.
MARTIN GREENBERG AND
H.
RICHARD WILLIS
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
PLENUM PRESS • NEW YORK AND LONDON
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 80-18170
ISBN-13:978-1-4613-3089-9 e-ISBN -13:978-1-4613-3087-5
DOl: 10.1007/978-1-4613-3087-5
© 1980 Plenum Press, New York
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1980
A Division of Plenum Publishing Corporation
227 West 17th Street, New York, N.Y. 10011
All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming
recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher
Contributors
HARUMI BEFU, Department of Anthropology, Stanford University,
Stanford, California
EDNA B. FOA, Department of Psychiatry, Temple University Health
Sciences Center, Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
URIEL G. FOA, Department of Psychology, Temple University,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
IRENE HANSON FRIEZE, Department of Psychology, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
HOWARD L. FROMKIN, Department of Psychology, York University,
Downsview, Ontario, Canada
KENNETH]. GERGEN, Department of Psychology, Swarthmore College,
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania
NELSON H. H. GRABURN, Department of Anthropology, University of
California, Berkeley, California
MARTIN S. GREENBERG, Department of Psychology, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
EDWIN P. HOLLANDER, Department of Psychology, State University of
New York, Buffalo, New York
L. ROWELL HUESMANN, Department of Psychology, University of
Illinois at Chicago Circle, Chicago, Illinois
GERALD S. LEVENTHAL, Department of Psychology, Wayne State
University, Detroit, Michigan
GEORGE LEVINGER, Department of Psychology, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts
WALTER R. NORD, Department of Business, Washington University,
St. Louis, Missouri
FREDERIC L. PRYOR, Department of Economics, Swarthmore College,
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania
v
vi CONTRIBUTORS
BARRY SCHWARTZ, Department of Psychology, Swarthmore College,
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania
C. R. SNYDER, Clinical Psychology Program, University of Kansas,
Lawrence, Kansas
RICHARD H. WILLIS, Department of Psychology, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Preface
INTRODUCTION
In developing scientific theory there is perhaps nothing more propi
tious than a compelling metaphor. If the metaphor is rich in imagery,
complexly differentiated, emotionally evocative, and vitally wedded to
the cultural lore, the theory to which it gives rise may enjoy a long and
vigorous life. If the metaphor is sufficiently powerful, the theory may
even be sustained in independence of systematic empirical support.
Role theory is likely to remain prosperous so long as there is a thriving
theater; decision theory experienced a dramatic rejuvenation with the
development of the electronic computer; and, in spite of its archaic
construction, Jungian theory will prevail so long as ancient myths and
symbols continue to haunt us (d. Smith, 1978). From this standpoint,
the development of social exchange theory is hardly surprising. Ex
perience with the marketplace is extensive in society, its images are
both complex and richly evocative, its challenges are often exciting and
its lessons sometimes painful. It is thus both intellectually and emo
tionally invigorating to consider the social arena in all its diversity as
an extended market in which each individual seeks to maximize
profits.
The economic metaphor is hardly new to the social sciences. The
recent intellectual roots of contemporary exchange theory can be traced
to the works of Claude Levi-Strauss, Marcel Mauss, Karl Marx, and B.
F. Skinner. The exchange orientation also embodies a sophisticated
form of Homo economicus, and thus owes much to classic economic
theory. However, the first clear articulations of the exchange orientation
were provided by George Homans (1961), John Thibaut and Harold
Kelley (1959), and Peter Blau (1964). Although the works were inde
pendently conceived, their similar vision of social relations is a com
pelling tribute to the pervasive strength of the economic metaphor.
Each of the volumes essentially views the individual as hedonistically
motivated (d. Abrahamsson, 1970). All action represents a search for
pleasure and/or a reduction of pain. Actions which succeed in gaining
vii
viii
PREFACE
such ends will be maintained, and those which fail will be abandoned.
In order to obtain rewards and reduce punishment in the social sphere,
the individual must perform various behaviors. If others find these
behaviors rewarding, they will furnish behavioral outcomes in return
which may be of value to the individual. Thus, social life is constituted
by a series of transactions in which rewards and costs (in the form of
behavior) are being provided to others in exchange for behaviors that
may be "consumed" by self.
A variety of compelling extensions immediately emerges from this
view.
For one, the framework suggests that individuals may develop
preferred types of exchanges, essentially those which provide them
maximal payoffs. These preferred arrangements may then become
reflected in the norms of the relationship, or indeed, of the society as
a whole. Norm sanctions may often be established to reduce deviations
from preferred exchange patterns, and such sanctions may often be
elaborated in the legal codes of the society, and even buttressed by
armed force. In this light, the one major task of socialization is to instill
an appreciation of commonly preferred exchange patterns. Large-scale
institutions, such as business and government, may also be viewed in
terms of normative exchange arrangements governing more specific
arenas of action. Leadership and power are further implicated. Where
group leaders are needed, the individual who provides maximal profit
to the group may obtain senior status. Differences in social power may
be cast in terms of the ability of the individual to obtain costly
behaviors from others at little expense to self. Social attraction may
also be understood in terms of exchange: attraction is directly related
to the profit which another provides.
Since its inception, the exchange framework has captured the
interest of investigators throughout the social sciences. Within social
psychology, the framework has been applied to such diverse phenom
ena as cooperation, competition, and conflict (d. Deutsch, 1975), social
conformity (Nord, 1969a), the development of leadership and status in
informal groups (Harsanyi, 1966; Hollander, 1964), helping behavior
(Greenberg, Block, & Silverman, 1971), norm formation (Thibaut &
Faucheux, 1965), the search for uniqueness (Fromkin, 1972a), reactions
to assistance (Gergen & Gergen, 1971), social attraction (Huessmann
& Levinger, 1976), coalition formation (Thibaut & Gruder, 1969), the
perception of pay (Weick, 1966), the distribution of pay in groups
(Leventhal & Whiteside, 1973), the achievement of equity in intimate
relations (Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978), and self-presentation
(Reis & Gruzen, 1975), to name but a few. Sociologists have found the
framework fruitful in examining organizational behavior (Evan, 1966),
ix
PREFACE
interorganizational relations (Levine & White, 1960), the attractiveness
of work roles (Yuchtman, 1972), the fairness of earnings (Alves &
Rossie, 1978), administrative decision making (Gamson, 1966), anomie
and deviance (Hamblin & Crosbie, 1977), collective decision making
(Coleman, 1964a), social obligation (Muir & Weinstein, 1962), group
cooperation (Schmitt & Marwell, 1977), and the distribution of power
in society (Coleman, 1973; Emerson, 1972). Anthropologists have fur
ther utilized the exchange formulation in understanding such diverse
behavior as gift giving (Befu, 1966; Lebra, 1973), reciprocity (Hollen
steiner, 1964), ceremonial activities (Hogbin 1971), social structure in
primitive cultures (Schwimmer, 1970), and primitive trade (Sahlins,
1972). Social psychologists with a cross-cultural perspective have also
been much stimulated by the exchange perspective (d. Gergen, Morse,
& Gergen, 1979). Within political science, Waldman (1970), and Curry
and Wade (1968) have relied upon the exchange framework to integrate
understanding of wide-ranging political activities. Rapoport and
Chammah (1965) have used a form of exchange theory to account for
conflict, negotiation, and decision making in both the interpersonal
and the international arenas. Within the field of law, Nimmer (1977)
has adopted the exchange approach to account for decision making in
the criminal justice system, and Lempert (1972) has applied the theory
to relate contract law to norm formation.
THE PRESENT VOLUME
The purposes of the present compendium are several in number.
Recent years have seen a number of invaluable syntheses of early
contributions to the exchange orientation. Homans has undertaken a
revision of his classic, 1961 work, and in his recent volume (1974) has
done much to clarify, defend, and extend his initial formulation.
Likewise, Thibaut and Kelley have further elaborated the suppositions
contained in their initial work, integrating many relevant contributions
ensuing since the publication of their 1959 volume. Although both
abstract and formalized, the new work (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978) is
important in its novel consideration of psychological processes of
perception, motivation, and self-regulation. Other scholars have ren
dered detailed analyses of the exchange orientation, its potential and
its shortcomings. Richard Emerson's essays (1972a,b) have done much
to clarify inconsistencies in the initial writings and to flesh out the
social-structural implications of the early works. Maris (197D) has
usefully examined Homans's theoretical suppositions on the basis of
their logical adequacy. In a highly thoughtful and carefully detailed
x PREFACE
volume, Chadwick-Jones (1976) has examined the structure of the
initial formulations, and much of the research which they have
spawned. Ekeh's (1974) examination of exchange theory is equally
significant in its critical concern with the sociological and anthropol
ogical implications of exchange theory. Hamblin and Kunkel's (1977)
edited essays in honor of Homans add further insight and substance
to the developing orientation.
Yet, simultaneous with this impressive effort at critical syntheses
and elaboration, other scholars have been absorbed with new depar
tures. Novel lines of research have developed, interdisciplinary inquiry
has fermented, innovative forms of application have emerged, and
fresh lines of critical thinking have coalesced. Either because of its
recency and/or its positioning outside mainstream social psychology
and sociology, much of this work has not been integrated into the
various syntheses of the past decade. However, it is important to give
voice to this work, for not only does it demonstrate the continued
vitality of the general paradigm, but it represents the initial impetus
of the theory's third decade. The contributions represent the new
voices in the arena, and as such demand critical attention.
A second major aim is more catalytic. As we have seen, the
exchange orientation has flourished throughout the social sciences.
However, within these disciplines investigators have often labored in
ignorance or disregard of relevant departures in other disciplines.
When such work has been discovered, the results have often been
intellectually exciting and empirically productive. The use of economic
exchange in anthropological field work (d. Chapter 10), the reliance on
cognitive developmental thinking to understand social-structural pat
terns (d. Chapter 4), and the employment of basic operant conditioning
derivatives to understand organizational relations (d. Chapter 6) are
exemplary of the fruits of such cross-fertilization. By bringing together
major lines of thinking both within the various disciplines and within
the interstices, it is our hope to facilitate further boundary-breaking
endeavors.
Finally, our hope is that the volume will represent a useful step
toward a unified conceptual view. Although there may be no funda
mental unity among social events, it is both intellectually challenging
and humanly satisfying to discover formal similarities among highly
diverse phenomena. From this standpoint, it has been our attempt to
assemble a group of investigations that employ a similar set of concep
tual constructs, but grapple with the most diverse aspects of behavior.
Through such varied exposure, a unification may be discerned, not
only across behavioral contexts, but across levels of social analysis
from the psychological to the sociocultural. It is not that we believe
PREFACE Xl
this to be the only significant lens through which coherency is dis
cerned, nor necessarily the most promising for all purposes. However,
if the theoretical lens is to be useful at all, one must be trained in its
employment. By focusing on highly disparate phenomena, the inten
sity of the training is much enhanced.
The contributions to the present volume are placed into three
major sections. In the initial section we have included a series of
innovative extensions of the original exchange formulation. These
papers deal with highly general issues relevant to exchange in all walks
of life. Issues of indebtedness, equity, uniqueness, and the structure
of resources all receive attention. In the second section the focus
sharpens considerably. The papers in this section all take a more
detailed look at more specific domains. The papers deal with such
diverse topics as group leadership, behavior organizations, and sex
roles. The final part of the volume is concerned with the critical
analysis of the exchange perspective. Significant new questions are
raised concerning the reciprocity norm, the motivational basis for
exchange, the empirical basis of the exchange approach, and the
transhistorical durability of the orientation. In the same way that it is
hoped the contributions in the preceding sections will open up new
lines of thinking and research, it is hoped that the latter chapters will
contribute to continued and much needed debate.
J.
KENNETH GERGEN
MARTIN S. GREENBERG
RICHARD H. WILLIS