Social Exchange Theory Essays

Social Exchange Theory Essays Social Exchange Theory Paper Social Exchange Theory Paper Similarity is rewarding, according to Rubin (1973), because: agreement is likely to provide the opportunity for partners to engage in joint activity; we assume those with similar views to ourselves will like us, so like them in return; communication is easier if we agree on things that matter to us; if our partner agrees with us, this boosts our self esteem about our own oppinions; we are vain enough to believe that those who share our views are sensitive and praise-worthy. Similarity exists between these two theories in that they both discuss rewards and investment. They both state that relationships require significant investment on the part of both partners for it to work and thus both say that a relationship is likely to fail if one person feels as though they are giving more to the relationship than they are receiving out of it. Thibaut and Kelley, 1978, criticise both theories for failing to account for the complexity of relationships. They say that not all social interactions reflect a mutual desire for equity and fair exchange and that partners motives may clash. This can produce effects such as altruism, competition, capitulation and aggression. This is discussed in their Interdependence Theory, which considers the intersubjective harmony or conflict between two people in their values, motives and attitudes. The main difference between the two theories is that Social Exchange Theory is concerned with the exchange of rewards between the two partners and the perceived difference between what one partner gives to the other and vice versa. Social exchange theory explains what we believe about a relationship with another person as depending on out observation of the poise of, what we put into the relationship as to what we get out of it and the chance of finding something better elsewhere.  It is said that we develop a comparison level, against which we compare the give/take ratio. The level will vary between relationships, with some being more giving and others where we get more from the relationship. Thus, for example, interactions at home may be very different, both in balance and content. Traditionally, the male member of the partnership went out to work, and the female partner stayed at home, looked after the running of the house and the family. They both brought different things to the relationship, which were of equal importance, without one or the other; the relationship wouldnt have functioned as effectively.  A research example in relation to this theory was the study carried out by Rusbult (1983), he found that during the early honeymoon period of a romantic relationship, the balance of exchange was largely ignored. Only later were costs related to satisfaction with the relationship. I think it is too early to know if the ways in which I helped others tied in with Social exchange theory; it would probably have to be considered in a few weeks or months time. For example, the next time I ask my uncle for a favour, he may remember the time I helped him tidy the garage and feel more inclined to grant me the favour, than he would have otherwise. So, if this is the case, then the rewards of helping will have outweighed the costs. My helping tended to focus more on family members than to strangers or friends; however, I dont think this was a conscious decision as I would have just as easily helped anyone else who needed it. Although, when thinking about it in more detail, had I not helped them; I feel that perhaps they would have thought I was too lazy, or selfish to do so. So with them being family, I didnt want them to think of me in a negative way, so perhaps it could be said that there is an emotional obligation to help relatives more than others. Evolutionary theory views many social behaviours are echoes of actions that contributed to the survival of our prehistoric ancestors. (Burnstein and Brannigan, 2001)  Research has shown that people are much more likely to donate organs to family members than to strangers. There appears to be a stronger sense of social obligation to relatives than to others.  Nevertheless, psychologists who take an evolutionary approach to helping suggest that when, for example, one family member donates an organ to save the life of another, the donor is helping to certify the survival of the genes he or she shares with the recipient. There is considerable evidence that kin selection occurs among birds, squirrels and other animals. The more closely the animals are related, the more likely they are to risk their lives for one another.  Studies in a wide variety of cultures show the same patterns of helping among humans. (Buss, 1999) Identical twins have been found to be more willing to help one another than fraternal twins or siblings. (Segal, 1999)  The reciprocity norm is an economic model of behaviour which takes the view of do unto others as you would have them do to you. It links in with Gouldners theory of social exchange. Kunz, a psychologists experimented by sending Christmas cards to complete strangers in order to see how many of them would reply, even if they had no idea who the card was from. Kunz was trying to show that people will respond in kind, when the same behaviour is shown to them. A large majority of them replied, even though they had no idea who the card was from. Evolutionary theory could be said to tie in with the people I helped to some extent, as I tended to focus more on family members than anyone else. On the other hand though, because the ways in which I helped were more everyday situations than life changing ones, my reasons were for helping were not directly related to the ideas of evolutionary theory, it was more a case of, protecting your own. Personal and cultural factors affecting helping behaviour-  I found it easier to help at home, because I was around family- the people who I am closest to, with this being the case I wasnt worried about other people watching me or being too embarrassed in front of friends or other onlookers. My feelings could be said to tie in with the study of the murder case of Kitty Genovese which intrigued two psychologists, John Darley and Bibb Latane. They both suspected that situational variables, not personality traits of the people in that society, led to the lack of help intervention which Genovese received. Emerging from that research was the concept of the bystander effect, the idea that the presence of others inhibits helping behaviour of individuals. Piliavin and his colleagues (1981) hypothesized an arousal-cost-reward model. They argued that a decision on whether to help or not is based on the arousal of the potential helper and on a calculation of the costs and rewards (to self and to victim). If the rewards are perceived as being higher than the costs, a person is more likely to intervene. There is said to be an exchange benefit and this behaviour therefore is not entirely altruistic. I related this study to the example of me offering my seat the elderly women on the bus; there definitely was an exchange value. I felt good about myself, and gave a positive impression as to what type of person I am to onlookers and the woman was able to sit down comfortably. Also, had I not gave up my seat and had something bad happened, for example the woman falling over; I would have felt guilty for a long time after, so the rewards were definitely higher than the cost- which was me having to stand until I got off the bus. Cialdini, Kenrick and Baumann, had a theory of there being a negative state relief model in relation to helping behaviours. They suggested that when we experience a negative emotional state, we welcome something which would distract us from this and increase our feelings of well-being. This model is thought to function in non-emergencies, i.e situations like giving to charity. Observers help others in order to increase their own moods. However, I disagree with this theory. In relation to myself, I have found out that if I feel in a bad mood in the slightest then I dont feel like helping anyone, whoever they may be. Being compassionate to others, for the entire day was much more hard work than I had expected. When it came to the late evening, I was getting quite negative about the whole thing; I was in a slightly bad mood and didnt feel like speaking to anyone, let alone helping them and being compassionate. In relation to this, my behaviour could be said to be the polar opposite to that of the negative state relief model. My behaviour was different to normal as in certain cases I was making a conscious decision to try and help when in normal circumstances I may not have been so quick to offer assistance. Now having analysed the different types of helping behaviour and theories, I think in future I will be more conscious as to who I help and when I do so; as I will be thinking about others thoughts as to why they think I am helping; am I being egoistic or altruistic etc?