social exchange theory
- Created by: mollskie49
- Created on: 08-06-13 15:55
View mindmap
- social exchange theory
- profit and loss
- Social behaviour is series of exchanges
- Individuals attempt to maximise their rewards
and minimise losses
- Exchange resources w/ expectations of earning a
profit
- Rewards may be sex, companionship, being cared
for
- Costs may be effort, financial investment, time
wasted
-
Reward minus costs = outcomes.
- Commitment to r/s depends on outcomes
-
Reward minus costs = outcomes.
- Costs may be effort, financial investment, time
wasted
- Rewards may be sex, companionship, being cared
for
- Exchange resources w/ expectations of earning a
profit
- Individuals attempt to maximise their rewards
and minimise losses
-
Used to explain why some women
stay in abusive r/s – cost of leaving may be too great.
- Rusbult and Martz – when investments are high e.g. kids or financial security and alternatives are low e.g. nowhere else to live or no money then this could be considered a profit situation and they stay in the r/s
- Social behaviour is series of exchanges
- the maintenance of romantic relationships
- Equity theory
- Inequity and distress
- Extension of Social Exchange theory, central assumption is that people strive to perceive fairness.
- Upset if perceive unfairness – Messick and ****
- Extension of Social Exchange theory, central assumption is that people strive to perceive fairness.
- Ratio of inputs and outputs
- Partners can put in dif amounts and r/s still equitable because what’s considered fair is a subjective opinion for each partner
- Equitable r/s should be one person’s benefits – their costs = other person’s benefit – their costs
- If we perceive inequity then we are motivated to restore it
- Maybe by changing amount put in or amounts we demand from r/s
- May compare r/s to CL level to see if worth continuing investment or to begin new one
- Maybe by changing amount put in or amounts we demand from r/s
- If we perceive inequity then we are motivated to restore it
- Equitable r/s should be one person’s benefits – their costs = other person’s benefit – their costs
- Partners can put in dif amounts and r/s still equitable because what’s considered fair is a subjective opinion for each partner
- Equity and satisfaction
- Stanford and Canary supp – satisfaction highest with spouses who thought their r/s was equitable
- Followed by over-benefited partners
- Lowest by under-benefited partners
- Followed by over-benefited partners
- Stanford and Canary supp – satisfaction highest with spouses who thought their r/s was equitable
- Exchange and communal r/s
- Clarke and Mills – exchange r/s between colleagues may involve keeping track of rewards and costs
- Communal r/s e.g. friends/lovers governed by desire to respond to needs
- Clarke and Mills – exchange r/s between colleagues may involve keeping track of rewards and costs
- The role of r/s inequality in marital disruptions
- Demaris – Marital inequity associated with later marital disruptions.
- Only subjective index is a woman’s sense of being under-benefited with greater UB increasing risk of divorce
- Demaris – Marital inequity associated with later marital disruptions.
- Equity an insufficient theory
- Ragsdale and Brandau-Brown – rejects claim that equity is key determinant of r/s satisfaction
- Argue that this represents incomplete rendering of way in which married people behave w/ respect to each other and equity theory insufficient to explain marital maintenance.
- Ragsdale and Brandau-Brown – rejects claim that equity is key determinant of r/s satisfaction
- Inequity and distress
- Equity theory
- comparison level
- Thibaut and Kelly – We develop CL, standard
against which we judge all our r/s
- CL is a product of experiences, expectations and
general views
- If we judge that potential profit in r/s will
exceed CL the r/s seen as worthwhile and vice versa
- CL for alternatives where person compares rewards from leaving r/s minus costs of leaving r/s. If the rewards gained are significantly higher person will leave current r/s and take up alternative
- If we judge that potential profit in r/s will
exceed CL the r/s seen as worthwhile and vice versa
- CL is a product of experiences, expectations and
general views
- CL
- Simpson et al – pps asked to rate members of opp sex in terms of attractiveness. Those in r/s have lower ratings
- Social Exchange theory doesn’t explain why some people leave r/s w/ no alternatives
- Nor how great the disparity in CL has to be to become unsatisfactory
- Social Exchange theory doesn’t explain why some people leave r/s w/ no alternatives
- Simpson et al – pps asked to rate members of opp sex in terms of attractiveness. Those in r/s have lower ratings
- Thibaut and Kelly – We develop CL, standard
against which we judge all our r/s
- limitations
- Focuses too much on individual’s perspective, ignores social aspect e.g. how partners communicate and interpret shared events.
- Duck and Santz – are people only motivated by self-concerns and does this only apply to individualist cultures (if at all)?
- Focuses too much on individual’s perspective, ignores social aspect e.g. how partners communicate and interpret shared events.
- cultural bias
- Moghaddam et al – such economic theories only apply to Western individuals with high mobility e.g. students who are typically mobile and many short-term r/s
- Where there is little time to develop long-term commitment it makes sense to be concerned with give and take
- With less mobile populations, more likely to value security than personal profit
- Where there is little time to develop long-term commitment it makes sense to be concerned with give and take
- Moghaddam et al – such economic theories only apply to Western individuals with high mobility e.g. students who are typically mobile and many short-term r/s
- profit and loss
- Untitled
Comments
No comments have yet been made