The Social Exchange Theory in Interpersonal Relationships Essay Sample

and symbols of blessing. The intent of this exchange is to maximise benefits of one individual and minimise costs of one individual.

Peoples that give to others seek to acquire from them. and people that get from others are under force per unit area to give to them. Harmonizing to this theory. people weigh the possible benefits and hazards of the relationship. When the hazards outweigh the wagess. the individual will end or abandon that relationship.

There have been a batch of statements about this theory because it places the relationships in a line drive construction. This would intend that relationships are ever traveling frontward and they can non regress. The theory is besides seated in an individualist mentality and this may restrict its application in relationships. As Knapp and Vangelisti ( 2005 ) explain we psychologically reinterpret one’s place so it no longer seems under benefited. The theory besides reduces human interaction to a strictly rational economic procedure.

A figure of bookmans have dissected the theory. construct and procedure of societal exchange. The bookman that devoted more clip to the societal exchange theory was Peter Blau in his book Exchange and Power in Social Life ( 1964 ) . Blau conceives of societal exchange as a “social procedure of cardinal significance” in societal life. This procedure is derived from simpler procedures.

Social exchange involves the voluntary actions of persons. which are motivated by the returns they are expected to convey and in fact do typically convey from others. People enter into new societal dealingss and expand their interaction with them because they find making so honoring. This would presume that a individual would non come in a relationship

or unless they can profit from the relationship.

The theory besides states that the relationship is based on reciprocation the person will seek to maximise their additions and minimise their losingss. and the twosome participates in the relationship out of common benefit. This would intend that a individual is in a relationship for strictly economic benefits. If the costs are out weighing benefits the individual will end the relationship. Rusbult ( 1983 ) found that during the early ‘honeymoon’ period of a romantic relationship.

The balance of exchange was mostly ignored. Merely subsequently were costs related to satisfaction with the relationship. Blau ( 1964 ) gives illustrations of societal exchange as neighbours interchanging favours

• children’s’ playthings
• co-workers assistance
• familiarity courtesies
• politicians’ grants
• discussants’ thoughts
• and housewives formulas.

These types of exchanges are instead strong in existent life and tend to make digesting links.

Many of these societal exchanges are readily recognized and described by those taking portion in them through address. For case. the mention to such words as “indebted” . “owe” . among others. points to the exchanges that take topographic point in existent life.

The societal exchange theory controls our behaviour every bit good as the support for our actions because before we act in most fortunes. we will weigh the wagess and costs of the behaviours. The behaviour that we use is the 1 believed to bring forth the highest wages and the lowest cost. What we may comprehend to be acceptable or unacceptable in the relationship is our comparing degree that we weigh the wagess and costs against. The comparison degree of options is when we weigh the wagess and costs relative to the perceived options.

Peoples besides have a comparing degree for the alternate relationships.

With a high comparing degree. we may believe the universe is full of lovely people merely waiting to run into us. When this degree is low. we may remain in a high-cost relationship merely because we believe we could non happen any better elsewhere.

Molm ( 1991 ) shows that in recent research on single judgements losingss have a greater consequence on people so additions.Social exchange harmonizing to Blau ( 1964 ) can be observed everyplace once we are sensitized about it. It is non merely present in market ( economic ) dealingss. but in friendly relationships and in love. This shows that societal exchange is permeant in societal life. Yet Blau has pointed out that non all societal behaviour is societal exchange and non all exchange in societal life is societal exchange. His construct of exchange basically includes that class of societal exchange in which all actions are contingent on honoring reactions. There are strengths and failings employed in some constructs of exchange. One of strengths indicated. is that ideally exchange theory is supposed to run under the rule of distributive justness. “The regulation of distributive justness is based on the thought that wagess should be relative to their costs and net incomes proportional excessively their investments” ( Canda et al. . 1998. p. 338 ) .

Unfortunately. this does non ever occur due to prejudices in the societal system. which may besides function as a failing. “Investments can be ascribed. which means the investings can be bestowed upon persons or groups on the footing of some features such as race or gender. This construct has been

used in exchange theory to explicate why males on the norm. are paid more that females for the same type of work. or why Whites typically receive higher rewards than inkinesss and Hispanics do. ” ( Canda et al. . 1998.p. 338 ) Exchange theory can be insensitive to jobs that have to make with diverseness. Another failing is that it may be the idea that it is a person’s ain mistake if they do non take advantage of the wagess that society gives them based on their parts.The thought behind that likely came from “survival of the fittest.

”Exchange theory may hold the inclination to disregard variables that impacts a person’s value in society. For illustration. hapless people can be seen as worthless and the wealthy may be acknowledged as powerful. An acknowledged strength of exchange theory is that it be used as a solution-focus to of authorization. The theory can be utilized to calculate out grounds for an uneven dealing between people and their environments. A paradigm can be used to nail what chief resources are needed in order to develop an even exchange or to set it into economical footings. the end may be to maximise benefits and minimise costs. Whoever uses this thought should maintain in head that factors including economical position. ethnicity and gender may play function in the cause of a non-reciprocal dealing.

While I believing about the exchange theory in respects to relationships I am able to use the construct to a relationship that I was involved in about a twelvemonth ago. My thought of a well-balanced relationship involves a certain degree reciprocality. I want my investings in a relationship

to be more rewarding as opposed to penalizing. Now on the other terminal. my spouse was non really mutual. particularly when it came to gift-giving on particular occasions and paying for repasts. films and concerts.The gift-giving issue for illustration for Christmas. my spouse received a gift from me that cost me over a 100 dollars and think what was given to me in return was nil. That is decidedly an illustration of uneven exchange in relationships. The pay-offs in that relationship did step against the costs.

This resulted to my serious choler with that relationship which had the ultimate impact on the determination to stop the relationship. Had I felt that there was an even dealing between that both of us the relationship would likely still exist. I had to manner my future brushs with my current brushs.

1. MentionsBlau. P.( 1964 ) . Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley & A ; Sons.Knapp. M.L. . Vangelisti. A.L. ( 2005 ) .
2. Interpersonal Communication andHumanRelationships. ( 5th ed. ) Boston: Pearson.Molm. L. D. ( 1991 ) .
3. Affect and Social Exchange: Satisfaction in Power-DependenceRelations.American Sociological Review. ( Vol. 56. No. 4 ) .Robbins. S. P. Chatterjee. P. . & A ; Canda. E.R. ( 1998 ) .
4. Contemporary human behaviour theory: A critical position for societal work. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Rusbult.C. ( 1983 ) .
5. A longitudinal trial of the investing theoretical account: The development ( and impairment ) of satisfaction and committedness in heterosexual engagements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. ( Vol.25 ) .