Editing Social exchange theory (section)

==Modes of exchange==
According to Kelley and Thibaut, people engage in behavioral sequence, or a series of actions designed to achieve their goal. This is congruent with their assumption that human beings are [[rational]].<ref name="West 2007 193">{{cite book
 | last1=West | first1=Richard
 | last2=Turner | first2=Lynn
 | year=2007
 | title=Introducing Communication Theory
 | page=193
 | publisher=McGraw Hill}}</ref> When people engage in these behavioral sequences, they are dependent to some extent on their relational partner. In order for behavioral sequences to lead to social exchange, two conditions must be achieved: "It must be oriented towards ends that can only be achieved through interaction with other persons, and it must seek to adapt means to further the achievement of these ends".<ref>{{cite book|last=Blau|first=Peter M.|title=Exchange & Power in Social Life|year=1964|publisher=Transaction| isbn = 9780887386282}}</ref> The concept of reciprocity also derives from this pattern. The reciprocity principle refers to the mutual reinforcement by two parties of each other's actions.{{sfn|Ekeh|1974}}{{page needed|date=October 2014}} The process begins when at least one participant makes a "move", and if the other reciprocates, new rounds of exchange initiate. Once the process is in motion, each consequence can create a self-reinforcing cycle. Even though the norm of reciprocity may be a universally accepted principle, the degree to which people and cultures apply this concept varies.<ref name=Zafirovski />

===Power dependence relations===
Several definitions of power have been offered by exchange theorists. For instance, some theorists view power as distinct from exchanges, some view it as a kind of exchange and others believe power is a medium of exchange.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Baldwin|first=David|title=Power and Social Exchange|journal=The American Political Science Review|volume=72|issue=4|pages=1229–1242|jstor=1954536|doi=10.2307/1954536|year=1978|s2cid=147260934 }}</ref> However, the most useful definition of power is that proposed by Emerson,<ref name="Befu1977">{{cite journal |last=Befu |first=H. |year=1977 |title=Social Exchange |journal=Annual Review of Anthropology |volume=6 |pages=255–81 |jstor=2949333 |doi=10.1146/annurev.an.06.100177.001351}}</ref> who developed a theory of power-dependence relations.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Auld |first1=C. |last2=Case |first2=A. |title=Social exchange processes in leisure and non-leisure settings: A review and exploratory investigation |journal=Journal of Leisure Research |year=1997 |volume=29 |issue=2 |page=183 |doi= 10.1080/00222216.1997.11949793|bibcode=1997JLeiR..29..183A |url=http://js.sagamorepub.com/jlr/article/view/810 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> According to this theory, the dependence a person has on another brings up the concept of power.<ref name="West 2007 188" /> Power differentiation affects social structures by causing inequalities between members of different groups, such as an individual having superiority over another.<ref name=Zafirovski>{{cite journal |last=Zafirovski |first=Milan |title=Social Exchange Theory Under Scrutiny: A Positive Critique of its Economic-Behaviorist Formulations |journal=Electronic Journal of Sociology |year=2005 |url=http://www.sociology.org/content/2005/tier2/SETheory.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924103311/http://www.sociology.org/content/2005/tier2/SETheory.pdf |archive-date=2015-09-24 }}</ref> Power within the theory is governed by two variables : the structure of power in exchange networks and strategic use.<ref name="Zafirovski" /> Experimental data show that the position an actor occupies in a social exchange network determines relative dependence and therefore power.<ref>(Stolte and Emerson, 1976)</ref>

According to Thibaut and Kelley, there are two types of power: fate control and behavior control. Fate control is the ability to affect a partner's outcomes.<ref name="West 2007 188"/> Behavior control is the power to cause another's behavior to change by changing one's own behavior.<ref name="West 2007 188"/>

===Matrices===
People develop patterns of exchange to cope with power differentials and to deal with the costs associated with exercising power.<ref name="West 2007 188"/> These patterns describe behavioral rules or norms that indicate how people trade resources in an attempt to maximize rewards and minimize costs. Three different matrices have been described by Thibaut and Kelley to illustrate the patterns people develop. These are given matrix, the effective matrix and the dispositional matrix.<ref>{{cite book
 | last1=West | first1=Richard
 | last2=Turner | first2=Lynn
 | year=2007
 | title=Introducing Communication Theory
 | page=194
 | publisher=McGraw Hill}}</ref>

*The given matrix represents the behavioral choices and outcomes that are determined by a combination of external factors (environment) and internal factors (the specific skills each interactant possesses).<ref name="West 2007 193"/>
*The effective matrix "which represents an expansion of alternative behaviors and/or outcomes which ultimately determines the behavioral choices in social exchange"<ref>{{cite book
 | last=Roloff| first=Michael
 | year=1981
 | title=Interpersonal communication: The social exchange approach
 | page=51
 | publisher=Beverly Hills}}</ref>
*The dispositional matrix represents the way two people believe that rewards ought to be exchanged between them.<ref>{{cite book
 | last1=West | first1=Richard
 | last2=Turner | first2=Lynn
 | year=2007
 | title=Introducing Communication Theory
 | page=195
 | publisher=McGraw Hill}}</ref>

There are three forms within these matrices: [[Norm of reciprocity|Reciprocity]], [[Generalized exchange|Generalized Exchange]], and Productive Exchange. In a direct exchange, reciprocation is confined to the two actors. One social actor provides value to another one and the other reciprocates. There are three different types of reciprocity:<ref name = Cropanzano>{{cite journal |doi=10.1177/0149206305279602|title=Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review|journal=Journal of Management|volume=31|issue=6|pages=874–900|year=2005|last1=Cropanzano|first1=R.|last2=Mitchell|first2=M. S.|s2cid=146669866}}</ref>
#Reciprocity as a transactional pattern of interdependent exchanges
#Reciprocity as a folk belief
#Reciprocity as a moral norm

A [[generalized exchange]] involves indirect reciprocity between three or more individuals.<ref name="Trust and Transitions">{{cite journal |doi=10.1177/0190272509359616|year=2010|title=The Contentious Social Interactionism of Charles Tilly|journal=Social Psychology Quarterly|volume=73|pages=5–10|last1=Collins|first1=R.|s2cid=144535076|url=http://spq.sagepub.com/content/73/1/5.full.pdf}}</ref> For example, one person gives to another and the recipient responds by giving to another person other than the first person. Productive exchange means that both actors have to contribute for either one of them to benefit. Both people incur benefits and costs simultaneously.

Another common form of exchange is negotiated exchange which focuses on the negotiation of rules in order for both parties to reach a beneficial agreement.<ref name=Cropanzano /> Reciprocal exchanges and negotiated exchanges are often analyzed and compared to discover their essential differences. One major difference between the two exchanges is the level of risks associated with the exchange and the uncertainty these risks create (ref). Negotiated exchange can consist of binding and non-binding negotiations. When comparing the levels of risk within these exchanges, reciprocal exchange has the highest level of risk which in result produces the most uncertainty.<ref name="Trust and Transitions"/> An example of a risk that could occur during the reciprocal exchange is the factor that the second party could end up not returning the favor and completing the reciprocal exchange. Binding negotiated exchanges involve the least amount of risks which will result the individuals feeling low levels of uncertainty. Whereas non-binding negotiated exchanges and their level of risks and uncertainty fall in between the amount of risks associated with reciprocal and binding negotiated exchanges.<ref name="Trust and Transitions"/> Since there is not a binding agreement involved, one party involved in the exchange could decide to not cooperate with the agreement.