It is hard for me to point out the greatest weakness of interpersonal communication, so, in this section, I will discuss about what I think as the most questionable part of interpersonal communication: Social Exchange Theory (SET). I will start with a brief summary of the theory, including some examples of its usage in some areas of research. Then, I will move to the reasons why I consider this as the most questionable part of interpersonal communication. I will end this section with a suggestion for future research.
Summary of the theory
Stafford (2008) attributed Social Exchange Theory (SET) to famous psychologists, Thibault and Kelley, and sociologists, Homans and Blau. Having its root in the field of economics, this theory views human interaction as akin to a marketplace in which people exchange valued items. Laying at the core of the theory are three key points: reward, cost, and resources. Reward is any part of a relationship that has a positive value, such as wealth, promising career, emotional support, etc. Cost, on the other hand, is any element of a relationship that is valued negatively, such as time, efforts, etc. Resources are anything that have value and can be exchanged, such as money, love, information, etc.
The fundamental assumption of this theory is that humans are rational beings that want to avoid cost and seek for reward. For example, according to this assumption, a young woman who is faced with a situation in which she has to choose one man that she can marry with will likely consider a man who has the most resources and will require her the least cost in the relationship. Also included in this assumption is the concept of self-interest. Self-interests, according to Stafford (2008), “drive individuals to a...
... middle of paper ...
...rd’.
Suggestions for future studies
To deal with its testability, first we need more studies like Foa and Foa (1976) did. I suggest that carefully designed studies in various cultural settings, with a representative number of participants, would be necessary to strengthen their work. With this done, a widely acceptable distinction of costs and rewards could be constructed and therefore provide a means to test the theory.
Expecting studies to solve the problem with individual differences, altruism and agapic type of relationship in the near future may not be reasonable, because these issues would be difficult to deal with. Following Stafford (2008), I would say that perhaps the most reasonable change that further research should do is to shift the focus from viewing communication as a means of resources exchange to considering it as the resource itself.
The social exchange theory is prevalent within the three main characters in the novel Road Ends by Mary Lawon. The exchange theory is the idea that an individual makes a choice by weighing out the costs and benefits of a situation (Families in Canada, 2007. Pg. 42). Megan, Edward, and Tom all find themselves in very troubling situations, where they must examine what they have to offer and make a decision according to the costs and benefits. Megan often finds herself putting the benefits of others above what is best for her. Edward, her father, tries to shelter others from himself, but he only ends up hurting them more, instead of contributing all of his affection to them. Tom holds a more selfish view on the world, which impacts his ability to properly examine all the factors that affect his situation.
The theory I originally chose to critique was the Social Exchange and Rational Choice framework from our class book. I chose this theory because when we talked about it in class it made a lot of sense to me. Its propositions and foundations are very applicable to many situations, and I felt like I had a good grasp of its concepts and structure. However, in doing research for this paper, I discovered that contrary to what our book led me to believe, Social Exchange is a theory entirely separate from Rational Choice theory. So, in keeping with this discovery and despite my better judgment, I will do my best to relay and critique the information I find on either one or both theories and then compare only Social Exchange theory to the Symbolic Interaction framework. Although I will try to get the same information for both theories, there are not many resources which describe Social Exchange theory, and there are far more for Rational Choice theory, so the critique and discussion may be a little lopsided.
The rational choice perspective is the view that human behavior reflects the belief that rational choices have more possible benefits, which is why people make choices based off self-interest and reaching their goals. This perspective is shown through social exchange theory, symbolic interaction theory, and social network theory. I was drawn to this perspective because I see it in my everyday encounters and I have seen how the related theories have influenced my view of society. I also found how my faith and values are congruent with this perspective, and how they conflict.
Social norms create the expectations and boundaries for social interactions. When a social situation or interaction occurs in which a person’s expectation is violated, the individual may respond in a multitude of ways. This paper examines my personal experience when I intentionally violate a social norm, and provides an analysis of the violated expectancy through four concepts deriving form expectancy violation theory. In this paper I discuss the experience in which I violated someone’s expectation. I apply the concepts of violation valence, communicator reward valence, violation expectedness, and violation importance from expectation violation theory to the violation. And finally, I will reflect on the personal experience and my reaction to
This form of reward is in the form of VIP access, giving the employees power, promotions, or offering trips or getaways. These types of rewards give the employers something to look forward to, it also gives them a new exciting opportunity. Privileges and rewarding events fall into the esteem need of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. This form of reward also falls into the Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, relating to motivators. The reward acts as a motivator where it gives people reinforcement for a job well done and interesting work or responsibility.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1994). The dark side of interpersonal communication. Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
This theory has been subject to many articles and studies in the communication and social departments. Indeed, studying this theory can help us understanding human relations in interpersonal communication. Each of us has been one day confronted to uncertainty, whereas in initial encounters, or moving to a new a new place, or beginning a new work.
Zhou, X. & Wu, Y. (2011). Sharing losses and sharing gains: Increased demand for fairness under adversity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 582-588
Interpersonal communication, defined as the process by which people exchange information, feelings, and meaning through verbal and non-verbal messages, is an integral part of our everyday life (SkillsYouNeed, 2015). Through a combination of what we say, our choice of words and tone, and what we don’t, our body language, individuals exchange information, express opinions and emotions, and form and nurture relationships. Whether at home, in the workplace, or with strangers we are always communicating, so the ability to do so effectively is an asset. According to a survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, employers ranked the ability to communicate with persons inside and outside the organization as very important to extremely
An important part of this theory is that factors considered costs and rewards are completely subjective. In other words, something that may be a cost to one person could be considered a reward to another. Some examples of potential costs of a relationship are time consumption, depending on the partner, exclusivity of the relationship, being tied down, and stress and worry about the potential fallout of the relationship. A few examples of potential rewards of a relationship are companionship, acceptance, support, intimacy, and having a confidant. Another key point of this theory is that although people do feel it’s necessary to reciprocate these rewards, the distribution doesn’t need to be symmetrical. There can be different rewards reciprocated for different
The need for interpersonal communication across all human endeavors is growing especially in the context of
To fully understand the Social Exchange theory is to understand its concept. The Social Exchange theory, as stated by Unger and Johns...
Floyd, Kory. Interpersonal Communication: The Whole Story. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. 140. Print.
Social Exchange theory was created by George Homans in 1958. Since its publication as “Social Behavior as Exchange”, several other theorists like Peter Blau, Richard Emerson, John Thibaut, and Harold Kelley have contributed to the theory. Before diving into the biggest concepts of this theory, two main properties need to be discussed. This theory is all about social exchanges, which are essentially reactions and decisions in relationships. The two properties are self-interest and interdependence. They are the two fundamental interactions between two individuals who each have something of value to the other. When an individual is looking out for their own self-interest, they are looking out for their own economic and psychological needs which can result in things like greed and competition. However, self-interest is not seen as a negative thing; in fact, it can result in both parties achieving their own interests. Interdependence, on the other hand, is harder to study but it is the combination of the two using both their efforts to gain something. Interdependence has higher social implications. Homans, as the founder of the theory, had it say that the theory consists of a social exchange with rewards and costs between at least two people. Rewards are defined as objects that have a positive value and are sought out by individuals. Costs are defined as objects that have a negative value and are avoided by individuals. Rewards in regards to relationships are things like support, friendship, and acceptance, while costs are things like energy spent, time, and money. Essentially this theory states that every individual is trying to maximize their wins or their worth and end up with something that is more positive than negative. Worth equ...
One basic context of communication is interpersonal communication. Interpersonal communication can be defined as “the ongoing, ever- ch...