http://www.scribd.

com/doc/19636482/Cost-Analysis-of-BritaniaBread SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY

INTRODUCTION
In contemporary sociology, notably sociological social psychology (Stolte, Fine, and Cook 2001), one of the most prominent and ambitious (Alexander, 1990; Cook, 2000) theoretical conceptions is probably exchange theory. In retrospect, social exchange theory has been introduced to sociology by psychologically (Emerson 1962; Homans 1961) and economically (Blau, 1964) minded sociologists, as well as in psychology by social psychologists (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959) and partly in cultural anthropology by economic anthropologists (e.g. Goodfellow, 1939).

Social exchange theory is a social psychological and sociological perspective that explains social change and stability as a process of negotiated exchanges between parties. Social exchange theory posits that all human relationships are formed by the use of a subjective cost- benefit analysis and the comparison of alternatives. For example, when a person perceives the costs of a relationship as outweighing the perceived benefits, then the theory predicts that the person will choose to leave the relationship.

For social exchange theorists, when the costs and benefits are equal in a relationship, then that relationship is defined as equitable. The notion of equity is a core part of social exchange theory.

DEFINITION
Social exchange theory is a social psychological and sociological perspective that explains social change and stability as a process of negotiated exchanges between parties. Social exchange theory posits that all human relationships are formed by the use of a subjective cost- benefit analysis and the comparison of alternatives. The theory has roots in economics, psychology and sociology.

Discussion
The above considerations suggest that most of current social exchange theory represents a version of the rational choice approach (as protested by Blau, 1994) and/or behaviorism (as lamented by Coleman, 1988). This is indicated by the prevalence of economic and behavioral models, often mixed together (as in Homans, Emerson and their followers), of social exchange and human interaction. As admitted by some its exponents, modern exchange theory blends its "roots in behaviorism" with "concepts and principles borrowed from microeconomics" (Cook, 2000: 687), including wealth, utility, profit, cost, market, etc. If so, then the theory is parasitic on the place of economic determinism, utilitarianism, behaviorism and hedonism in modern social science, standing or (more likely) falling with them.

The preceding has also outlined an alternative multilevel conception of social exchange along the lines of sociological social psychology in the sense of an analysis of codetermination between macro-processes, especially institutions, and individual behaviors, including exchanges. As regards market exchange, such a conception proposes that sociological influences admittedly "deeply affect the psychology underlying economic behavior [so] any serious reevaluation of the psychological underpinning of economics requires that careful attention be paid to sociological analyses. The sociological shortcomings [of economics] are much more fundamental and difficult to address [than the psychological]"

Main principles of social exchange theory

The theory has roots in economics, psychology and sociology. It proposes that social behavior is the result of an exchange process. The purpose of this exchange is to maximize benefits and minimize costs. According to this theory, people weigh the potential benefits and risks of social relationships. When the risks outweigh the rewards, people will terminate or abandon that relationship.

Metatheoretical Assumptions:
This is a humanistic theory because it has intuitive credibility, it makes sense and is relative to actual communication practice. It has a systematic approach and is timely. There are multiple truths. It also has heuristic value because it is easily applicable to situations.

Modern Social Exchange Theory

Like most rational choice theorists, social exchange theory's advocates sometimes make proposals for resurrecting the "species of homo economicus" Ironically, such an actor concept seems closer to homo sociologicus that exchange and other rational choice theorists reject than to homo economicus in the strict sense, as an assumed embodiment of perfect rationality and driven by the ingrained propensity to exchange for maximum gain. Admittedly, following Pareto and Weber, homo sociologicus is "an advance over homo oeconomicus.

The remainder of the paper presents outlines of an alternative social exchange. It also discusses the possible relevance of such social exchange theory for group processes and intergroup relations. A key argument is that groups just as individuals represent exchange agents as well as that economic exchanges, particularly market transactions, are only one of the multiple forms and facets of within-group processes and between-group relations.

Toward AN Alternative Theory OF Social Exchange

This section of the paper outlines a different and more satisfactory multilevel social exchange theory predicated on the perspective of a sociological social psychology (Cook, 2000; Markovsky, Smith and Berger, 1984; Stolte et al., 2001), or psycho-sociology. This perspective stresses the macro-social or structural underpinnings of micro-level or individual behaviors, including exchange relations (Blau, 1994), and the overall co-determination between structure and agency.

Explanation of Theory:
The Communication Theory of Social Exchange is a theory based on the exchange of rewards and costs to quantify the values of outcomes from different situations for an individual. People strive to minimize costs and maximize rewards and then base the likeliness of developing a relationship with someone on the perceived possible outcomes. When these outcomes are perceived to be greater, we disclose more and develop a closer relationship with that person.

Metatheoretical Assumptions:
This is a humanistic theory because it has intuitive credibility, it makes sense and is relative to actual communication practice. It has a systematic approach and is timely. There are multiple truths. It also has heuristic value because it is easily applicable to situations.

Critique:
This is a scientific theory. It has explanatory power in that it predicts individuals minimize costs and maximize rewards within their relationships. This theory has predictive power in that it predicts that when outcomes are perceived to be greater individuals self disclose more. It also simple and capable of being proved false. The theoretical propositions with the theory are consistent with each other. This theory generates new hypotheses therefore expanding the range of potential knowledge and also organizes existing knowledge.

Ideas and Implications:

The viability of social exchange rests on the assumption that human beings recognize each other's life situations, notice each other's needs, and in some ways are likely to engage in reciprocity - a condition in which a response is correlated to the worth of the original message. In other words, humans act with other humans in full recognition that their acts will be noticed and in some way reciprocated (i.e., that they will receive a return on their communicative investment).

Basic Concepts
The basic concepts addressed in social exchange theory are: Cost, Benefit, Outcome. Comparison Level, Satisfaction, and Dependence. Benefits include things such as material or financial gains, social status, and emotional comforts. Costs generally consist of sacrifices of time, money, or lost opportunities. Outcome is defined to be the difference between the benefits and the costs:

OUTCOME = BENEFITS COSTS

Note that because individuals have different expectations of relationships, an individual's satisfaction with a relationship depends on more than just the outcome. For any two people with the same outcome, their level of satisfaction may differ based on their expectations. One person may not expect very large outcomes, and therefore would be more easily satisfied in relationships than someone who expects more.

SATISFACTION = OUTCOME - COMPARISON LEVEL

Satisfaction is not enough to determine whether a person stays within a relationship or leaves for an alternative. That is to say, there are people who stay in unhappy relationships as well as those who leave happy relationships. What determines whether an individual stays in a relationship or leaves is the set of alternate relationships available. If there are many alternatives available to an individual, than that individual is less dependent on the relationship. This notion of dependence is formalized as the difference between the outcome and the "comparison level of alternatives":

Conclusion
The preceding discussion suggests that exchange and related concepts borrowed from orthodox economicsviz., non-economic (marriage, political, religious, intellectual) markets, social capital, psychic income, profit, cost-benefit, investments-are metaphors or analogies at best. Yet, in its rational choice (and behavioral) rendition, "social exchange" becomes an empty concept or pseudo-mathematic trick emptied of any substantive content.

Such an economistic-behaviorist conceptualization of social action and society suggests that omni-potent (in terms of scope) market concepts, such as exchange or rational (including public) choice, do not represent always theories of the market, A theory of markets performs description and explanation of the character and operation of market variables, processes and structures like prices, demand, supply, exchange, competition, monopoly, etc. in their economic and societal framework rather than construing non-market

categories as "markets", human interaction as "exchange" of rewards or economic competition, as does social exchange (and other rational choice) theory.