Social Exchange Chapter

Emily Kuecker SpCm 605 Social Exchange Theory December 6, 2011 People are continuously weighing the rewards
and costs of social interactions and relationships. Anyone involved in the relationship is affected by any minor decision. Assessing relational interactions regarding self-interests is the theme of this chapters interpersonal communication theory of social exchange. Throughout this chapter, the reader will explore social exchange theorys origin, assumptions, Comparison Levels, and Comparison Levels for Alternatives. After the reader develops an understanding of the theory, then he or she will apply their knowledge to a television interview featuring Alexis Stewarts book, Whateverland. Social exchange theory emerged in the early 1960s when scholars attempted to predict and explain a persons behavior when there was a projected reward or cost (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959; Homans, 1961; Blau, 1964; Chibucos; 2004; Stafford, 2008). Rewards are classified as bringing pleasure and satisfaction, whereas costs are perceived as a loss or punishment (Wang, 2004). The scholars focused on how an individual would fend for his or herself when involved in a relationship. As the scholars continued to investigate, they noticed that economic exchange and social exchange theory both contained reward and cost situations. Therefore, social exchange theory was nicknamed an economic metaphor (Chibucos, 2004). Social exchange theory uses a relational cost-benefit analysis and Comparison Levels to determine the overall worth of a particular relationship by subtracting the costs from the rewards (Stafford, 2008). People are continually trying to protect their selfinterests, which has classified humans as selfish by nature. Their self-interests drive
them to act in accordance with what they believe will bring the most rewards or benefits (Lawler & Thye, 2007). Therefore, people are constantly trying to maximize their benefits while minimizing any negative cost (Wang, 2004). After an individual has analyzed the costs and rewards, then he or she will determine their satisfaction in the relationship. Since every person has a different level of satisfaction, each situation needs to be examined separately. Using the Comparison Levels, an individual will decide if his or her expectations of the relationship meet the actual relationships characteristic. If an individual feels the rewards are greater than the costs, than the person will feel satisfied with the relationship. On the contrary, if an individual feels there are more costs associated with the relationship, the individual may feel dissatisfied (Stafford, 2008). After an individual decides on their level of satisfaction, he or she will use the Comparison Level for Alternatives to determine if current their relationship is the most beneficial for them. According to Roloff (1981), Comparison Level for Alternatives is when an individual decides what the lowest level of relational rewards they will be willing to accept when given available rewards from alternative relationships or being alone (p. 48). If a current relationship provides more positive aspects than negative aspects, than an individual may decide to continue their current relationship. However, if another situation appears to be more promising, than the individual may terminate their current relationship and pursue a different one (Stafford, 2008). Now that solid groundwork for social exchange theory has been laid, the reader can now apply the theory to the Stewart family. Martha Stewart is a well-known American businesswoman, who has cultivated her image to create flawless home dcor
and delicious kitchen treats. It has taken her years to form this reputation; however, Marthas daughter, Alexis, has recently been using her famous mother to advance her own career. Alexis has co-hosted, Whatever, Martha!, a television talk show that pokes fun of Marthas anal behavior of creating the perfect item (Stableford, 2011). Yet, Alexis did not stop the teasing with the television talk show. In October 2011, Alexis released a non-self help book, Whateverland. The book gives an uncensored glimpse into the Stewart familys private life. During the TODAY Show, the interviewer highlighted quotes from the book that painted a very different picture of the typical perfect Martha. Alexis claimed the media had taken the quotes out of context. For every misinterpreted quote, Alexis had a rebuttal to clear the bad image the family was beginning to form from Whateverland (Bell, 2011). Marthas reaction could have been either negative or positive towards the situation, as well as been detrimental or beneficial for her career. Surprisingly, Martha endorsed Alexiss book. At first glance Marthas behavior may have seemed fake, but when the scenario was analyzed with social exchange theory everything added up for a grand reward. When Martha weighed the rewards and costs of her relationship with Alexis, she realized the rewards were greater than any costs. According to Stafford (2008), sometimes individuals use their personal self-interests to make others act in accordance with perceptions and projects of the rewards and costs associated with an exchange (p. 378). Therefore, Martha demonstrated to the public that she could maintain her perfect image by supporting Alexis. This benefited Marthas image because it did not contradict the reputation the public had previously known. Yet, the public does not know if Martha
was completely satisfied with the book or relationship. The public can assume that Martha is satisfied because she is remaining in the mother-daughter relationship and not pursuing a different form of relationship with Alexis The reader can now understand how social interactions are strengthened and deteriorate after learning about social exchange theory and applying it to a motherdaughter relationship. The Stewarts scenario could have had many different endings because of various external factors. Nevertheless, Martha and Alexis both realized there were more positive aspects in this relationship. Now they are benefiting from working out the flaws and have developed a career relationship.
References Bell, J. (Producer). (2011, October 24). Martha Stewarts daughter embraces imperfection. NBC TODAY Show [Television broadcast]. New York, NY: NBC Studios. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Chibucos. (2004). Social exchange theory. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/4993_Chibucos_Chapter_5.pdf Homans, G. (1961). Social behavior. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Lawler, E. J., & Thye, S. R. (2007). Social exchange of emotions. In J. E. Stets, & J. H. Turner (Eds.). Handbook of the sociology of emotions (pp. 294-303). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media. Roloff, M. E. (1981). Interpersonal communication: Theoretical exchange approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Stableford, D. (2011, October 24). Martha Stewart never pointed a glue gun at my head, daughter says. The Cutline. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/martha-stewart-responds-daughter-bookclaims-she-had-160622109.html Stafford, L. (2008). Social exchange theories: Calculating the rewards and costs of personal relationships. In L. A. Baxter, & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.). Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 295-307). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Productions, Inc. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Wang, E. (2004, November 6). Social exchange theory applied to romantic relationships. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/wangfire/pub9.00/essay3.pdf

Social Exchange Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Exchange Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Exchange Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emily Kuecker SpCm 605 Social Exchange Theory December 6, 2011 People are continuously weighing the rewards

You might also like