SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY Social exchange theory (SET) is a broad approach used to explain and predict relationship maintenance. Developed by Thibaut and Kelley (1959), SET clarifies when and why individu- als continue and develop some personal relationships while ending others. Additionally, the theory considers how satisfied you will be with the relationships you choose to maintain. As the name of the theory suggests, an exchange approach to social relationships is much like an economic method of comparing rewards and costs. Thibaut and Kelley's (1959) theory therefore looks at personal relationships in terms of costs versus benefits. What rewards do you receive from a given relationship, and what does it cost you to obtain those rewards? Before making specific predictions, however, certain assumptions must be understood. Three assumptions guide SET. First, Thibaut and Kelley (1959) argued that personal rela- tionships are a function of comparing benefits gained versus costs to attain those benefits. Second, and intrinsically tied to the first assumption, people want to make the most of the benefits while lessening the costs. This is known as the minimax principle. Last, Thibaut and Kelley maintained that, by nature, humans are selfish. Thus, as a human being, you tend to look out for yourself first and foremost. Although these assumptions are sometimes difficult for students and the general public to accept, they become easier to recognize when explained more clearly within the frame of SET's three core components: outcome value, comparison level (CL), and comparison level of alternatives (CL).Chapter 4 . Interpersonal Communication 57 Core Components of SET Three core components make up SET. First, and prefaced in the previous paragraphs, to under- stand SET, we must acknowledge that social relationships bring both rewards and costs. The outcome of a relationship, therefore, is the ratio of rewards to costs in a given relationship; this can be represented by a simple mathematical equation: Rewards - Costs = Outcome (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Relational rewards include any benefits you perceive as enjoyable or that help you achieve specific aspirations. For example, rewards between spouses might include com- panionship, affection, and sharing a joint savings account. Rewards between colleagues might be social support or task-related assistance. Relational costs are those drawbacks we perceive as unpleasant or that prevent us from pursuing or achieving an objective. For example, negotiat- ing holiday visits with the in-laws, losing social independence, and having to put grad school on hold because of family obligations all could be potential costs for a married couple. In a profes- sional setting, putting up with a colleague's endless complaining, having to share space with an untidy office mate, or coping with a perpetual text messenger might be viewed as costly. What an individual perceives as a reward or cost in a given relationship will, of course, vary. The general idea is that people make mental notes of the rewards and costs associated with their relationships. One hopes the rewards outweigh the costs, resulting in a positive outcome value. If an individual perceives the relationship to yield more drawbacks than benefits, however, a negative outcome value will result. But the outcome value itself is not enough to predict whether a person will choose to stay in or leave a relationship. Rather, the outcome value becomes a benchmark used to help measure our relational rewards in comparison to our expectations and alternatives. Once the outcome value of a relationship is determined, individuals can begin to determine satisfaction with and stability of that relationship, as well as the likelihood of its continuing. The second core element of SET is the comparison level (CL). The CL represents the rewards a person expects to receive in a particular relationship (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Expectations may be based on models for relationships (e.g., parents, friends), one's own experiences with relationships, television and other media representations of relationships, and the like. The importance of understanding what you expect in a relationship is this: SET maintains that indi- viduals compare their current outcome value with their CL. In other words, if you perceive more rewards than costs in your relationship and this matches or exceeds your expectations for the relationship, SET predicts your satisfaction (Outcome > CL). Conversely, if you perceive more rewards than costs in a current relationship but expected to receive even more rewards than you currently have, a sense of dissatisfaction is predicted (CL > Outcome). Thus, predicting one's satisfaction with a relationship is based on a positive outcome value that also meets or exceeds one's expectations (CL). The third and final component to SET is the comparison level of alternatives (CL). Thibaut and Kelley (1959) recognized that simply determining one's satisfaction, or dissatisfac tion, with a relationship is still not enough to predict whether the relationship will continue or end. Everyone knows a handful of individuals who are dissatisfied with any one of their58 Applying Communication Theory for Professional Life FIGURE 4.1 _ Predictions Made by Social Exchange Theory Outcome > Comparison Level (CL) = Satisfied Outcome Comparison Level of Alternatives (CL.) = Stay Outcome CL), you may perceive that your alterna- tives are even better, in which case SET predicts you will terminate the relationship (represented mathematically by CL> Outcome > CL). It should be obvious, then, that many scenarios are possible, depending on the perceptions of CL -Outcome-CL. Only when individuals have knowledge of all three elements is it pos- sible to make predictions about the state and status of a relationship. An overview of the specific predictions made is shown in Figure 4.1. To review, SET explains and predicts an individual's decision to maintain or deescalate a particular relationship. Specifically, people evaluate the rewards and costs associated with remaining in their relationships while also considering their expectations and other alternatives.\fThe Final Summary Paper must be 3-4 full pages. The paper must follow APA format guidelines. Include formal citations within the text and on a Works Cited page. . A description of your theory and its purpose, based on your research from the book and your scholarly articles. . A revised summary of the influences and effects of this theory, now that you know even more about how the theory can be used. . A summary of the two scholarly articles you reviewed, including ways in which the benefits and weaknesses of the theory can be seen in the studies . A proposed research project that would use this theory as its foundation. Even though you will not do this project, what research question(s) might you explore with this theory? This paper should begin with an introduction that states the topic clearly and end with solid conclusion that brings the paper to closure with a clear ending line. Your paper should also include clear and grammatically correct sentences, free of typos or other errors. It should be typewritten.In Social Exchange Theory (SET), influences and effects analysis involves examining the factors that shape individuals' decision-making processes within social relationships and the outcomes of those decisions. Here's how influences and effects analysis works within SET: 1. Influences - Social Norms and Expectations. People are influenced by societal norms and expectations regarding reciprocity, fairness, and trust in social exchanges. These norms guide individuals' behavior and shape their perceptions of what is acceptable or appropriate within relationships. - Personal Values and Beliefs. Individuals' personal values and beliefs play a significant role in shaping their preferences, priorities, and decision-making in social exchanges. For example, someone who values honesty and integrity may prioritize honesty in their interactions with others. - Resource Availability. The availability of resources, such as time, money, and social support, influences individuals' willingness and ability to engage in social exchanges. People may be more inclined to invest in relationships when they have sufficient resources to contribute. - Power Dynamics. Power imbalances within relationships can affect individuals' decision- making and outcomes in social exchanges. Those with greater power may exert influence over the terms of the exchange, while those with less power may feel compelled to comply with the demands of the more powerful party. - Social Identity and Group Membership. Individuals' social identities and group memberships shape their sense of belonging and the extent to which they identify with others. People may prioritize exchanges that benefit their in-group members or align with their social identities. 2. Effects - Relationship Satisfaction. The outcomes of social exchanges can influence individuals' overall satisfaction with their relationships. Positive exchanges that meet individuals' needs and expectations may enhance relationship satisfaction, while negative exchanges may lead to dissatisfaction and strain. - Trust and Commitment. Successful social exchanges build trust and commitment between parties involved in the exchange. Trust develops when individuals believe that others will honor their commitments and reciprocate their actions, leading to greater investment in the relationship. - Emotional Well-being. Social exchanges can impact individuals' emotional well-being, affecting their mood, self-esteem, and stress levels. Positive exchanges may enhance emotional well-being by providing support, validation, and positive reinforcement, while negative exchanges may lead to feelings of rejection, anger, or sadness. - Social Support Engaging in beneficial social exchanges can provide individuals with social support, including instrumental, emotional, and informational support. Supportive exchanges contribute to individuals' resilience, coping abilities, and sense of belonging within their social networks. - Equity and Fairness Perceptions The fairness and equity of social exchanges influence individuals' perceptions of justice and fairness within their relationships. Fair exchanges, where rewards and costs are balanced and distributed fairly, contribute to perceptions of equity and satisfaction. Inequitable exchanges, on the other hand, may lead to feelings of resentment and conflict. e Scholarly Article Description #1 Citation: Wang, B., Qian, J., On, R., Huang, C., Xu, B., & Xia, Y. (2024). Transformational leadership and employees' feedback seeking: The mediating role of trust in a leader. Beijing Normal University. Statement of the research problem or issue: The study investigates the relationship between transformational leadership and employees' feedback-seeking behavior, with a focus on the mediating role of trust in a leader. Significance/importance of the research: The research is important as itprovides insights into how transformational leadership can influence employees' feedback-seeking behavior. This can lead to positive work outcomes such as performance enhancement and goal attainment. Brief summary of the review of literature: The literature review discusses previous studies on transformational leadership, feedback-seeking behavior, and the role of trust in leadership. It also highlights the need for more research on what supervisors can do to encourage subordinates to seek feedback. Research Questions (RQ) or Hypotheses (H), if applicable: The study proposes two hypothesis: (1) Transformational leadership will be positively associated with followers' feedback seeking from supervisors, and (2) Trust in leader willmediate the relationship between transformational leadership and followers' feedback seeking from supervisors. Description of the population studied (sample type): The study collected data from 205 full-time employees and their supervisions from a high technologycommunications company in northern China. Materials used to gather data (instruments): The researchers used survey packets to collect data, which included scales for measuring transformational leadership, trust in leader, and feedback seeking from supervisors. Procedures used to gather data: The researchers distributed survey at a company-wide meeting, and participants were asked to return the completed surveys at a subsequent meeting. Results and Implications of the study (found in Discussion section): The results supported both hypothesis, indicating that the transformational leadership is positively associated with feedback seeking, and this relationship is mediatedby the trust in the leader. The findings suggest that companies can promote feedback seeking by training management personal to develop their transformational leadership behavior and build trust with employees. Limitations of the study and call for future research: The study's limitations include its cross-sectional design, which does not allow for conclusions about causality. Future research should use experimental or longitudinal designs and examine the research model in other industries and countries.Article Citation: Zhao, Q., Wang, J., Wu, J,, & Liu, Y. (2017). Understanding backers' funding intention in crowdfunding: A social exchange theory perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 34, 370-384. Explanation: Article Citation: Zhao, Q., Wang, J., Wu, J,, & Liu, Y. (2017). Understanding backers' funding intention in crowdfunding: A social exchange theory perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 34, 370-384. 1. Statement of the research problem or issue: The study investigates the factors influencing backers' funding intention in crowdfunding, focusing on the importance of trust and commitment in this context. It addresses the declining success rates of crowdfunding projects and the need to understand what affects backers' willingness to fund projects. 2. Significance/importance of the research: With the rapid growth of crowdfunding and its importance as a funding mechanism, understanding backers' funding intentions becomes crucial for both project proponents and crowdfunding platforms. The study aims to provide insights into how trust and commitment impact backers' behavior, which can ultimately enhance the success of crowdfunding endeavors. 3. Brief summary of the review of literature: The study builds upon existing literature on crowdfunding, trust, and commitment, drawing from various scholarly works that explore factors influencing crowdfunding success rates, the characteristics of successful crowdfunding projects, and the role of trust in online transactions. 4. Research Questions (RQ) or Hypotheses (H), if applicable: The study is guided by social exchange theory (SET) and aims to investigate the antecedents and outcomes of trust and commitment in the context of crowdfunding. Hypotheses related to the relationship between trust, commitment, and backers' funding intention are likely formulated. 5. Description of the population studied (sample type): The study likely examines backers participating in crowdfunding campaigns, possibly focusing on a specific platform or region. It may involve both qualitative and quantitative analysis of data collected from crowdfunding participants. 6. Materials used to gather data (instruments): Data collection instruments may include surveys, interviews, or analysis of crowdfunding platform data. These instruments would likely be designed to assess backers' perceptions of trust, commitment, and their funding intentions. in crowdfunding. 7. Procedures used to gather data: The study likely follows a structured approach to data collection, which may involve administering surveys or conducting interviews with crowdfunding backers. Researchers may also analyze existing data from crowdfunding platforms to supplement their findings. 8. Results and Implications of the study (found in Discussion section): The study's results would provide insights into the factors influencing backers' funding intentions in crowdfunding, particularly the role of trust and commitment. Implications may include recommendations for crowdfunding managers to establish mechanisms to decrease perceived risks and increase backers' confidence in crowdfunding. 9. Limitations of the study and call for future research: Limitations of the study may include issues related to generalizability, sample representativeness, and data collection methods. The study may call for future research to address cross-cultural differences, explore different types of crowdfunding platforms, and use more diverse sampling methods to obtain a comprehensive understanding of backers' behavior in crowdfunding. 10. Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the contributions of editors and reviewers to the paper and mention the sponsorship received for the research. o N