SOCIAL EXCHANGE Advances in Theory and Research SOCIAL EXCHANGE Advances in Theory and Research
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SOCIAL EXCHANGE Advances in Theory and Research SOCIAL EXCHANGE Advances in Theory and Research EDITED BY KENNETH J. GERGEN Swarthmore College Swarthmore, Pennsylvania AND MARTIN S. GREENBERG AND RICHARD H. 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), PREFACE ix 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