Introduction
Social Exchange theory is a vital part of social psychology in the perception that involves social changes as part of a process of communication between dissimilar people. This theory is mostly applicable in the business world to provide explanations and analyses of commercial businesses. Though we have gotten the basic meaning and application of social exchange theory, it is also important to have a deeper understanding of the history behind the theory. Its roots are based in the fields of sociology, economics, and psychology. Historically, when sociology was still a young field, psychologists were fixated on the values of utilitarianism, reinforcement, and functionalism. Claude Levi-Straus, a French anthropologist, merged the vital ethnographic beliefs associated with the exchanging of gifts as well as kinship into the same theory of social exchange (Cook, Cheshire, Rice & Nakagawa, 2013). However, it should be understood that the theory of social exchange is not an amalgamated theory, rather it works as a combination of various other theories that sum up to the overall structure. The overall view of the theory is that it provides meaning to the basic assumptions made by humans.
Background of Social Exchange Theory
The origins of the theory of social exchange can be dated back to the late 1950s where sociologists George Homans published the article “Social Behavior as Exchange” (Homans, 2017) The planned structure of the publication was built on a grouping of behaviourism and economics at the basic level. The years that followed Homan’s publication resulted in the expansion of his core concepts. From this brief history, it can be assumed that social exchange theory is an ideology that is based on the relationship between two individuals created through the means of cost benefits exploration (Homans, 2017). In simpler terms, it is the metric structure present which determines the level of effort invested in a personalised relationship among two individuals. By measuring the additions and subtractions made, it produces a comparison system that can identify if one of the parties is investing more in the relationship as compared to the other (Homans, 2017). Its unique nature comes about from the perspective that the theory does not essentially measure emotional investment. On the contrary, it offers a systematic process that relies on mathematical and logical determinants to create balance within a given relationship or friendship.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Core Assumptions
For the theory to be applicable as it is designed, some core assumptions with regards to human nature and the dynamics of relationships have to be understood. The first assumptions are that humans avoid punishment and seek reward. This assumption can be regarded as the most valued assumption as the cost or reward are the main drivers of the human decision-making process (Cook, Cheshire, Rice & Nakagawa, 2013). Cost/punishment are the consequences of a specific decision that can result in the wastage or loss of investment in the form of time, finances or energy. Reward, on the other hand, refers to the positive aspects of the social exchange. From this brief explanation, people apply the generally accepted calculation that cost subtracted from reward bring about the value of the exchange. For example, in the workplace, if an employee asks an associate for help to move from their current location to another, but they slightly know each other, the natural action of the associate will be to assess their relational history. They will focus on the current state of the relationship and its potential. If the associate does not foresee the value of the person regarding relationships both socially and professionally, then they will decline. However, in the vice versa conditions, the associate may accept to offer assistance.
Another assumption is that people begin interaction with the main expectation of maximum gains at the least amount of cost. In other words, people are driven by self-interests under the common phrase “What is in it for me?” This assumption is commonly used in both business and personal relationships (Cook, Cheshire, Rice & Nakagawa, 2013). When the latter is viewed from a biological perspective, the majority of the male species, apply this assumption as they are driven with the need to continue their specific genetic pool. The third assumption is that individuals tend to compute the expected rewards or costs even before taking part (Cook, Cheshire, Rice & Nakagawa, 2013). This over the assumption of what a certain individual is expected to contribute to some of the main reasons that lead to arguments and disagreements. The final assumption is people know that various people have different characters and with this, they know the reward will vary depending on the person (Cook, Cheshire, Rice & Nakagawa, 2013). The final assumption is vital as people have different characters that determine their nature. Moreover, this assumption is vital as it complies with part of the core elements of the theory of Social Exchange, psychology. By appreciating the different values that individuals possess, it creates a form of curiosity that drives people to either interact or avoid each other.
How it All Works
In the previous statements, we established the core assumptions that are fundamental to the foundation of the social exchange theory. The overall assumption is that not one size can fit all requirements. From the comparison level, the expectations made by a person allows the theory to be observed from the perception of a sliding scale where the adjustments are made at an individual base (burgees & Huston, 2013). In other words, if the personal relationship of an individual is set on a specific level, they will be obligated to use the same level as a benchmark for all future relationships. If this analogy is placed in an example, a person may enter a new relationship in succession from one that is regarded as costly, the expectations of the new relationship will lower compared to those with close friends. Another more realistic example is that if an ex-girlfriend in a previous relationship was pampered with presents and affection, in the next relationship, she might expect the same from the new boyfriend. The same analogy can be applied to social problems such as police brutality. If a specific region is known for their aggressive nature while conducting a crime, the new set standard from the police would be to use excessive force even after the criminal gangs have been eradicated. As a problem, the latter has commonly been experienced.
Police brutality or excessive use of force has been part of various community problems as the police created a new expectation from the public when it came to solving social issues such as racial profiling. Past evaluations of riots and demonstrations have identified to the police that such protesting people always resolve to violence hence the need to apply excessive force to negate the issue. However, they fail to take into consideration the last core assumption that people have varying characteristics. Meaning that not all protestors are violent, regardless, the failure of the police to take into consideration this analogy has resulted in the divergence of the relationship between the police and the minority groups. Another example of the social exchange theory from a community perspective is the association of the majority race with racism. Experience has led to the assumption that all white individuals are racist, though the trend is changing, with the minority groups lowering their expectations. The common solution that can be offered to both example is the application of caution in the sense of expecting different people to have varying comprehensions of the same scenario (Blau, 2017). Though this can be used to solve the majority of social issues being experienced in the community, the theory of social exchange has its limitations.
Limitations to the Theory of Social Exchange
Though social exchange has offered vital information that can be useful in understanding the base for relationships in the economic, social and psychological perspective, it has failed to consider another aspect. This is the reasoning behind the sudden abandonment of a relationship without having an alternative (burgees & Huston, 2013). The theory fails to explain together with how disparity is applied in the comparison of relationships. Secondly, the theory has been faulted for focusing on the individual aspect ignoring other factors that are vital in the formation and sustenance of relationships (burgees & Huston, 2013). In other words, the theory has been deemed ass being selfish for focusing on one perspective ignoring the others that form about relationships. This brings about the question of whether people are only driven to maintain relationships. However, if such principles apply in idiosyncratic societies, then it would offer factual meaning. Nevertheless, the current society we live in is not individualistic, and therefore the majority of the points stated can be deemed inapplicable.
References
Blau, P. (2017). Exchange and power in social life . Routledge.
Burgess, R. L., & Huston, T. L. (Eds.). (2013). Social exchange in developing relationships . Elsevier
Cook, K. S., Cheshire, C., Rice, E. R., & Nakagawa, S. (2013). Social exchange theory. In Handbook of social psychology (pp. 61-88). Springer, Dordrecht.
Floyd, K. (2017). Interpersonal communication (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Homans, G. C. (2017). The human group . Routledge.
