Social Exchange
Background:
Theoretical Roots:
•Classical Anthropology: Malinowski (Kula exchange),
Levi-Strauss (Classificatory Kinship studies), Durkheim
•Homans, Blau, Emerson, Ekeh
Direct Exchange:
•Emerson, Cook, Yamagishi
-Power Dependence, Vulnerability
•Willer, Markovski, Skvoretz, Lovaglia
- Network Exchange Theory (NET)
•Game Theory
- Bienenstock & Bonacich
•Central questions about power
Generalized Exchange:
•Bearman
•Nobuyuki Takahashi
•Central question is about solidarity & Social cohesion
Social Exchange: Direct
Theoretical Background:
Peter Blau’s Exchange and Power in Social Life and
Homans’ Elementary Forms are central starting points
for much of this work
Blau
•Most of social life rests on interaction
•Interaction is rarely a purely disinterested affair
•People seek something from interaction and give
something in turn
•Blau focused on:
•what distinguished economic from social exchange
•the forces propelling reciprocity
•the importance of ambiguity in social exchange
•Social debt
•How power comes from controlling resources
Social Exchange: Direct
Theoretical Background:
The view of actors is individualistic & rational. With Homans
this rested mainly on a Skinner-esque behaviorism and basic
rational actor models. Blau dropped most of the behaviorism
issues (though different psychological issues were taken up by
Emerson & others) in favor of a simplified economic view.
Blau argues that,
“An apparent ‘altruism’ pervades social life; people are
anxious to benefit one another and to reciprocate for the benefits
they receive. But beneath this seeming selflessness an
underlying ‘egoism’ can be discovered; the tendency to help
others is frequently motivated by the expectation that doing so
will bring social rewards.”
Social Exchange: Direct
Theoretical Background:
From this, Blau develops a theory of exchange and power. We
exchange with others for the things we can’t get ourselves
(favors from colleagues, romantic interest from people we are
attracted to, skills). Those that control these resources have
power, since others are willing to provide something for them.
Social exchange differs from economic exchange in the extent of
ambiguity underlying the exchange (how much is a half hour of
a colleague's time worth? Or an hour of the attention of someone
you are attracted to?), which has multiple implications for the
dynamics of social interaction
Social Exchange: Direct
Theoretical Background:
People have extended (or, in many cases, reacted against) Blau’s
propositions in multiple ways. Most versions of network
exchange theory starts with Blau’s assertion that power follows
from the control of resources.
That unilateral control leads to power in a dyad is one thing, but
how does control over exchange differ when we move beyond the
dyad to larger exchange structures? This is the branch of ideas
that lead to Network Exchange Theory and Power Dependence
Theory
The focus is less on the ambiguity or uniquely social aspect of the
exchange event, but rather on how any exchange relation is
affected by the social structure that restricts exchange partners.
Social Exchange: Direct
Cook, Emerson, Gilmore and Yamagishi
A relatively early paper in a long sequence of work. This piece sets
up one branch the exchange theory. For a great review of the other
dominant branch, see Network Exchange Theory (Willer, 1999)
A very active research community, interested in identifying how the
structure of a network can give particular members of the network
greater control over resources.
In most cases, the work is experimental and formal, moving very
carefully along theoretically defined lines, and testing each step with
experiments.
Social Exchange: Direct
Basic Concepts
“Many of the social networks of interest to social scientists can be analyzed
fruitfully as exchange networks, provided that the specific content of the social
relations in the network involves the transfer of valued items”
Consists of:
1) a set of actors
2) a distribution of valued resources among those actors
3) for each actor a set of exchange opportunities
4) a set of historically used exchange relations (subset of 4)
5) a set of network connections linking exchange relations into a
single network structure
Social Exchange: Direct
Basic Concepts
Definition 1: Two exchange relations between actors A-B and A-C
are connected to form the minimal network B-A-C to the degree
that exchange in one relation is contingent on exchange (or
nonexchange) in the other relation.
•The connection is positive if exchange in one relation is
contingent on exchange in another relation
•The connection is negative if exchange in one relation is
contingent on nonexchange in the other.
Social Exchange: Direct
Basic Concepts
Definition 2: A position in a graph or network is a set of one or
more points whose residual graphs are isomorphic (I.e. automorphic
equivalence)
•Used to simplify the analysis of otherwise more complex
networks
•Position in the network determines exchange behavior
Social Exchange: Direct
(Used in previous experiments)
(Used in the experiment)
Basic Concepts
Social Exchange: Direct
In these networks,
•Each actor has a resource which the other actors want
•each line represents an opportunity for exchange
•Solid lines represent a more profitable exchange opportunity than
dashed lines.
•They expect that the high profit opportunities will be converted into
relations
•The emergent networks are negatively connected: any use of one
opportunity means that another is forgone
•Actors have no knowledge of the structure beyond their own set of
relations
Social Exchange: Direct
Research Question:
Do predictions based on power dependence notions and
those based solely on structural centrality yield the same results
in negatively connected networks?
•Compare Betweenness centrality and Closeness Centrality
•Hypothesis:
In figure 1c, D > E > F in power
D
E
E
F
F
(note that this results from the weak connection between F, otherwise the graph
would be a simple circle)
Social Exchange: Direct
Power Dependence Theory
Def. 3. In any dyadic exchange relation Ax; By (where A and B are
actors and x and y are resources introduced in exchange), the
power of A over B (PAB) is the potential of A to obtain favorable
outcomes at B’s expense.
Def. 4. The dependence (DAB) of A on B in a dyadic exchange
relation is a joint function (1) varying directly with the value of y
to A, and (2) varying inversely with the availability of y to A from
alternate sources.
Power Dependence hypothesis:
PAB = DBA
Social Exchange: Direct
Power Dependence Theory
H2: As the exchange process proceeds, E will display more
power use than the occupants of position D and F, as seen
by (a) an increase over time in the amount of benefits
gained and (b) a greater absolute level of exchange benefit
by E in the final exchange phase.
D
E
E
F
F
H3: Power of E over F will be seen before that of E over D
H4; Position E will exert equal levels of power over the occupants of F and
D by the final or stable phase of power use.
Social Exchange: Direct
Experimental Exchange Process
•Communication only through computer, to restrict opportunities
to the form listed in the network
•Subjects negotiate with each other for “profit points” by sending
offers and counter offers (the value differed by exchange partner,
so that F to F would lead to lower profits for each point traded
(for F) than an F to E would, in keeping with the broken / solid
line structure of the network.)
•Subjects could not compare their benefits to other’s benefits
Social Exchange: Direct
Experimental
Results
Results confirm
Power dependence
theory
Social Exchange: Direct
Simulation
Results
25
20
E
E
D
D
Points
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
Time
4
5
6
Social Exchange: Generalized
The questions behind generalized exchange differ from those in
direct exchange:
•Goods can often be transferred long distances, which can’t
occur in the negatively connected exchange networks.
•People do not directly benefit by being a ‘giver’ -- no
immediate reciprocity
•Interest in how exchange unites a large society
•Interest in problems of free riding and compliance
Social Exchange: Generalized
History
The Kula Ring.
One of the most cited examples of a generalized exchange
process is the Kula Ring.
...
...
...
...
Necklaces
Armbands
Social Exchange: Generalized
History
The Kula Ring.
Social Exchange: Generalized
History
The Kula Ring
(simulation study to
replicate the observed!)
Social Exchange: Generalized
Basic types:
Network Generalized Exchange:
Examples include:
Giving blood, reviewing journal articles, carpools
Social Exchange: Generalized
Basic types:
Chain Generalized Exchange
Examples:
Kula Ring
Some forms of Kinship
Social Exchange: Generalized
In all generalized exchange systems, those who give are not
necessarily those who receive, and thus there is great
opportunity for free riding.
Bearman is interested in (a) identifying a generalized exchange
system and (b) explaining how it came to be and how it is
maintained.
Social Exchange: Generalized
Why Exchange?
We exchange because some of the things we have we can’t use.
Economic exchange rests on the conversion of use-value to
exchange-value. Social exchange rests on exchanging use-values
directly. Something that person A has is useful to B, but not to A,
which makes it available for exchange.
In the Groote Eylandt case, the incest taboo makes sisters
unavailable for marriage, and thus items of exchange.
Almost all classificatory kinship systems have a known structure,
based on who is allowed to marry who. The puzzling point on
Groote Eylandt was that the normative rules guiding marriage
were self-contradictory, making it impossible to develop a
coherent marriage system.
Social Exchange: Generalized
Social Exchange: Generalized
The normative alternatives
Normatively, A male should marry his FZD (Father’s Sister’s Daughter)
Social Exchange: Generalized
The normative alternatives
FZD
E
1) Ego in group 1 seeks a wife. Where
does he go?
2)E’s Father is in Group 3.
3) E’s Father’s Sister was married into
group 4.
FZ
F
4) E’s FZ’s daughter goes to Group 1
5) E should marry his FZD, who is in 1.
Social Exchange: Generalized
The normative alternatives
F
M
E
FZ
FZD
The bilateral cousin marriage system in western genealogy terms
Social Exchange: Generalized
The normative alternatives
B
A
Social Exchange: Generalized
The normative
alternatives
E
MMBDD
Who Should E marry?
E’s F is in 5
E’s M is in 7
E’s MM is in 4
E’s MMB is in 4
E’s MMBD is in 6
E’s MMBDD is in 1
F
MMBD
MMF
M
MMB
MM
MF
Social Exchange: Generalized
The normative alternatives
F
F
MM
MMB
M
MMBD
E
MMBDD
(Second Cousins)
Social Exchange: Generalized
The normative alternatives
On Groote Eylandt, names for kin could fit in either system. But
logically, the two cannot occur at the same time. Ethnographers
of Groote Eylandt concluded that the kinship system there was a
jumbled mess.
The only thing that all ethnographers agreed on was that people
could not marry within their own moiety.
But is it? People seemed to know who to marry, what pattern, if
any, did their marriages fall under?
To test this, use data on kinship status among the aborigines and
block model the movement of wives across the system.
Social Exchange: Generalized
The raw data for the analysis are 5 relationship matrices:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
MB, M, MBS, MBD
MMBDS, MMBDD, W, HZ,WB,H
ZS, ZD, FZD, FZS
FMB, FM, DD, DS
MF, MFZ
M = Mother, B = Brother, D = Daughter, S = Son, Z =Sister
Note these are classificatory equivalents on Groote E.
Social Exchange: Generalized
Marriage patterns across named section, grouped by Moiety
Log-Linear model shows that, with respect to named section, mixing is random within
moiety
Social Exchange: Generalized
After block
modeling the kinship
relations, Berman
calculated the flow
of wives across
blocks. The result
was a near-perfect
cycle.
Social Exchange: Generalized
Where does this structure come from?
•It can be maintained, once in place, in many ways (Balance,
self interest), but that is not sufficient to explain where it came
from.
•Bearman argues that chain generalized exchange follows
because of the demographic pressure induced by the the great
age difference in marriage (18 years) and polygamy.