Exchange theory
The exchange theory ( Exchange theory ) refers to the explanation of behavior in social relations on the basis of rewards and costs in the interaction created by two or more interacting partners. There are different versions of the exchange theory. The best worked out was presented by John W. Thibaut and Harold H. Kelley. The approach of George C. Homans (1961) is particularly noted in sociology and economics (see Fischer & Wiswede, 2009).
interdependence
For the analysis of costs and rewards, the distinction between self-demonstrated behavior and behavior of others is important. For example, loud exuberance is positive for a celebration, but negative for the neighbors. Interdependence means that the costs and rewards of one party depend at least in part on the behavior of the other party and vice versa (interdependence theory). If there is an existing interdependence (e.g. between neighbors), the problem of coordination arises among the people involved with the aim of achieving the highest possible rewards and avoiding costs ( conflict of interest ). In addition to being considerate and asserting one's own interests, there is also the possibility of striving for a compromise (e.g. the neighbors agree that they will mutually tolerate occasional loud celebrations).
Subjective evaluation of costs and rewards
Costs and rewards are included in exchange theory as subjective evaluations . It is not objective difficulties or advantages, but rather their subjective evaluations that determine whether a social relationship is rated as rewarding or not. The exchange theory is based on the assumption that people behave rationally in social relationships and prefer the alternative action that can be expected to have the most favorable consequences ( game theory ). For the purpose of simplification, costs (K) and rewards (B) can be summarized on a common scale of the quality of consequences, in which additional lost rewards (B old ) that would have been available in other relationships and saved costs (K old ) that would have arisen in other relationships can be taken into account:
Goodness of the consequences = B - K - B old + K old
The goodness of consequence is high when rewards and costs saved are high and costs and lost rewards are low. If a person can choose between several alternative courses of action, they are likely to prefer the alternative that has the greatest goodness of consequence.
Implications of Exchange Theory for Remaining in Relationships
Two other concepts of exchange theory are comparison level for alternatives (CL old ) and the comparison level (CL). The level of comparison for alternatives, which can be understood as the difference between lost rewards and saved costs, indicates the standard by which a person orients himself to decide whether to remain in the relationship or to leave the relationship. In contrast, the level of comparison relates to expectations about the level of rewards and costs in a relationship based on previous experiences with comparable relationships and on observed experiences in reference groups . Experiences that have arisen in relatively dissimilar situations in the past are weighted less heavily when assessing the level of comparison than experiences that have arisen in relatively similar situations. If the consequences in the current relationship are above the CL, they are rated positively, but if they are below the CL, this results in an unfavorable rating. The level of comparison for alternatives influences the social dependency and retention in the relationship, the level of comparison influences satisfaction .
The exchange theory thus includes the prognosis that a romantic relationship will be maintained even when dissatisfaction predominates. This should be the case when the expected consequences in alternative relationships are lower than those perceived in the current relationship.
Further development of the exchange theory to the social interdependence theory
The exchange theory was further developed as a social interdependence theory (Kelley et al., 2003). This includes the distinction between the effective matrix and the given matrix. While the latter contains the consequences that correspond to self-interest, the former represents the transformed consequences. The transformation is based on the influence of social motives. This concerns, for example, the maximization of the mutual benefit ( cooperation ) or the maximization of the distance between yourself and the partner in your own favor ( competition ). In contrast, the given matrix corresponds to the individual assessment of the consequences, which ignores the consequences of the partner. The interdependence theory traces the evaluation of the interaction back to social and individual factors.
Fields of application
The exchange theory is represented in social psychology , sociology , economics and anthropology . An application to close relationships, which by the way was already anticipated by Thibaut & Kelley (1959), can be found in the close relationships investment model .
See also
literature
- Horst Wolfgang Boger: The empirical content of the exchange theory by George Caspar Homans (= experience and thinking , volume 67), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1986, ISBN 3-428-05970-0 (dissertation University of Mannheim 1983, 128 pages).
Individual evidence
- ^ Thibaut, JW & Kelley, HH (1959). The social psychology of groups . New York: Wiley.
- ↑ Kelley, hH, Holmes, JG, Kerr, NL, Reis, HT, Rusbult, CE & van Lange, PAM (2003). An atlas of interpersonal situations . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- ↑ Homans, GC (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt.
- ^ Fischer, L. & Wiswede, G. (2009). Basics of social psychology . Munich: Oldenbourg.
- ↑ Rusbult, CE & Arriaga, XB (1997). Interdependence theory. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 221-250, 2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
- ↑ Simpson, RL (1976). Theories of social exchange. In JW Thibaut, JT Spence & RC Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 79–97). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
- ^ Bierhoff, HW & Jonas, E. (2011). Social interaction. In D. Frey & HW Bierhoff, Social Psychology - Interaction and Group (pp. 139–159). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
- ↑ Rusbult, CE (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101-117.