User:LucyPadron/sandbox

This is a test for making it bold by clicking A

Article Evaluation
I evaluated the Interpersonal relationship article. At fist glance this article was very in depth and covered a generous amount of background knowledge. As I was reading through it a second and third time I noticed the author(s) mostly looked at the interpersonal relationship standpoint through the eyes of psychologist or social psychologist. The word communication was used a few times but it was mostly in the way of; good communication makes a good relationship, there were no communication theories tied into this article. While I understand why the authors took the psychological approach, I am a little disappointed they did not consider adding a communications section since it is so heavily leaning towards the psychology field. The links worked through out the article with the exception of one near the bottom. "Discontinuity View" in the "Also See" section of this article did not link to an established page (The page was blank). In the "Dominance and Power" and the "Culture of Appreciation" sections, there is a need for citations. Overall, I believe the references came from neutral and credible sources, the majority came from peer reviewed journals or pretty notable publications. There was one reference (# 68) that links back to a relationship help blog type platform. I do not think that is a credible sources to reference, especially when the author used it as a reference in the opening sentence of the "Adult Attachment and Attachment Theory" section. I was surprised to find some up-to-date references in this article. Most of the background theories and knowledge is well established and has been in circulation for many years (some original theory publications were released in the 1950's and 60's) Under the "Family Relationship" and "Siblings" section the authors gave a definition for 'frenemy' which I think is a newer word. I would like to see the authors expand upon interpersonal relationships and technology. I think this would be a great addition to this article. While technology can 'make the world a smaller place' I also believe it can make us more isolated and we would have less face to face interactions which might hinder our ability to create strong interpersonal relationships. Under the Talk page there is no too much that seems to need addressing. There are comments spanning from 2016 back until 2003. Some ask come clarification (One user asked for a photo or outline of a family tree that displays relationships) Others removed some links to article (A Star Trek reference and citation were removed) There were some users that asked for sections to be added to the article such as common law, flirting, and an overall definition of the word relationship were all mentioned. The interpersonal relationship article is relevant to this class because interpersonal relationships were one of the first things we discussed in this class. There are also the bases for communication. We are communicating to build relationships, even if they are temporary we are still working towards a relationship. I think this was a great summary of interpersonal relationships and gave good background knowledge. Obviously, in our class we are taking a much deeper dive into relationships in general and leaning towards the communication aspects. As stated before, this article tends to lean to the psychological and sociological perspective on interpersonal relationships while we are focused on how communication drives and effects our relationships.

What I Plan to Contribute to the Social Exchange Theory page:

 * I would like to expand upon the "Self-interest and interdependence" section of this article. I think there is a very good basis established as to how it relates to the Social Exchange Theory but I think it can be expanded upon a bit more.
 * I would like to add some examples for clarity under the "Theoretical Propositions" section. Previous authors have clearly stated the theoretical propositions, but I think it would be an added benefit to have some examples of what each would look like in 'real life'.
 * There is a alert under the "Applications" section needing source verification. I would like to help address that need and add some reliable sources to this sections introduction. (Does that count as an addition for this course???) - Yes, this will be a contribution, but also think about ways you can add what you learn from the sources you add as new content that you write to fill in gaps in understanding. - Dr. Pederson. Ok, thank you. I also plan on adding information to that section as I checked and added credible sources.

References I plan to use:

 * 1) Lawler, Edward J. (2001). "An Affect Theory of Social Exchange". American Journal of Sociology. 107 (2): 321–352
 * 2) * This will help me expand upon the "Self Interest and interdependence" section. It was already used once in that section, but I feel that there is a lot of helpful information that can help expand the Social Exchange Theory page.
 * 3) Güth, W., Levati, M. V., & von Wangenheim, G. (2010). Mutual interdependence versus repeated interaction: An experiment studying voluntary social exchange. Rationality And Society, 22(2), 131-158. doi:10.1177/1043463110366230
 * 4) * This will help me in the "Self interest and interdependence" section.
 * 5) Nye, F. I. (1978). Is Choice and Exchange Theory the Key?. Journal Of Marriage & Family, 40(2), 219-232.
 * 6) * This will help me expand upon the "Theoretical Propositions" sections, Nye is mentioned as developing 12 propositions, I would like to expand upon them more in this section. (They are currently just bullet points, I would like to give further explanation based upon this source)
 * 7) Leybman, M. J., Zuroff, D. C., Fournier, M. A., Kelly, A. C., & Martin, A. (2011). Social exchange styles: Measurement, validation, and application. European Journal Of Personality, 25(3), 198-210. doi:10.1002/per.785
 * 8) * This will help in the applications sections. There is a need for more citations in this sections, I will also try to make sure the current citations are accurate in this section.
 * 9) Sprecher, S., (1998). Social exchange theories and sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 35(1), 32–43.
 * 10) * is will help me "Basic concepts" section of this page. It has already, briefly, mentioned the Cost and Reward aspects of Social Exchange theory, I plan on expanding upon this and adding more detail and any missing information I think is relevant
 * 11) Stephen, T. (1984) A Symbolic Exchange Framework for the Development of Intimate Relationships. Journal of Human Relations. 37(5) 393-408.
 * 12) * This article give a good overview of symbolic interaction as well as a good introduction of social exchange in general.
 * 13) * I plan to use this in the relationship section under applications as well

Applications-Work Settings
A study conducted by A. Saks serves as an example to explain engagement of employees in organizations. This study uses one of the tenets of social exchange theory to explain that obligations are generated through a series of interactions between parties who are in a state of reciprocal interdependence. The research identified that when individuals receive economic and socioemotional resources from their organization, they feel obliged to respond in kind and repay the organization. This is a description of engagement as a two-way relationship between the employer and employee. One way for individuals to repay their organization is through their level of engagement. The more engaged the employee are to their work, the greater amounts of cognitive, emotional, and physical resources they will devote to perform their job duties. When the organization fails to provide economic or emotional resources, the employees are more likely to withdraw and disengage themselves from their roles. (Current text)

Another example of how social exchange theory can be found in the work place is in the evaluation of performance. In Leybman et al (2010) study of the measurement and application in the work place as it relates to Social Exchange Theory, researchers explored how subjective satisfaction and objective evaluation might differ in a work group. The researchers first noted that in work settings there is a need to do well both as an individual and as part of a group in order to achieve personal success as well as contribute to the success of ones company. This study looked to see if there was a difference between how well the group members rated their own performance as an individual and the performance of their group (Subjective) as compared to how outside parties rated the individual and group performance (Objective). Researchers found that when and objective evaluation was conducted, there was a significant relationship when looking at social exchange styles. (Draft of what I plan to add to this section)

Application- Relationships
Throughout the theory, one can also end up losing relationships that were already established because the feeling of no longer being beneficial. One feels as if there is not longer a need for a relationship or communication due to lack of rewards. Once this happens, the process of looking for new partners and resources occurs. This allows a continuation of networking. One may go through this process quite frequently. A study titled, Factors Related to Initiating Interpersonal Contacts on Internet Dating Sites: A View From the social exchange theory applied this theory to new media (online dating). The study discovers the different factors involved when an individual decides to establish an online relationship. Overall the study followed the social exchange theory's idea, "people are attracted to those who grant them rewards".

Another example is Berg's study about development of friendship between roommates. The research found how social exchange processes changed during the year by measuring self disclosure. According to the study, the amount one person rewards another and the comparison levels for alternatives become the most important factors in determining liking and satisfaction. Auld, C. and Alan C. conducted a study to discover what processes occur and what is experienced during social leisure relationships. They use the concept of reciprocity to understand their findings. The study concluded that meeting new people is often given as a major reason for participation in leisure activities, and meeting new people may be conceptualized as an exercise of reciprocity. In this case, reciprocity is perceived as a starting mechanism for new social relationships because people are willing to be helped by others, expecting that the help will eventually be returned. A study conducted by Paul, G., called Exchange and access in field work tries to understand the relationships between the researchers and subjects. This study concludes that Bargaining helps to satisfy the more specific needs of the parties because greater risks are taken to obtain more information. This study also introduces the concept of trust (social sciences) to determine the duration of relationships. (Current Text)

The application of social exchange theory can also be see in intimate relationships through symbolic interdependence. Timothy Stephen (1984) claimed that the application of social exchange theory can help scholars understand where reciprocal actions come from in intimate relationships while keeping the premise of symbolic interactions as an overarching element. Stephen examined the forming, adjusting and maintenance of long standing intimate relationships and the overall interdependence one member feels based on the overall satisfaction and commitment levels within the relationship. The study concluded that partners in long term relationships had a greater sense of interdependence than those in short term relationships and supported previous findings about social exchange theory and the length of relationships. Meaning the longer one is in a relationship, the more interconnected one feels towards their partner resulting in a shared feeling of interdependence.

There is also an area of study for social exchange theory as it applies to sexual partners. Susan Sprecher built off of the establish framework (Huston & Burgess, 1979) in her study of sexual activities between partners and the exchange approach. Sprecher found social exchange theory concepts to be prevalent in the selection of a mating partner and the interaction between the partners during sexual intercourse. One concept in particular that was built upon was the reward and cost model as it relates to sexual satisfaction. In this examination accounts for three areas of cost and reward; the satisfaction during sexual activities, how satisfied the partners are compared to what they expected the satisfaction level to be, and if each partner feels like they achieved and equal satisfaction. These three areas mirror the cost and reward concept of the social exchange theory by comparing aspects of sexual encounters to both their partner and their expectations.

Not only can social exchange theory be seen in long term, exclusive, or committed sexual partners, it can also be seem within the friends with benefits relationship dynamic. Hughes, Morrison & Asada (2005) noted the direct connection between the friends with benefits relationship and the exchange of resources and rewards the two individuals in the relationship receive. However, the researchers did point out the phenomenon of the lack of interdependence felt between partners in the friends with benefits relationships and how that differs from the usual structure of the social exchange theory.

(Draft of what I plan to add to this section)

Theoretical Propositions:
Ivan Nye came up with twelve theoretical propositions that aid in understanding the exchange theory.


 * 1) Individuals choose those alternatives from which they expect the most profit.
 * 2) Cost being equal, they choose alternatives from which they anticipate the greatest rewards.
 * 3) Rewards being equal, they choose alternatives from which they anticipate the fewest costs.
 * 4) Immediate outcomes being equal, they choose those alternatives that promise better long- term outcomes.
 * 5) Long-term outcomes being perceived as equal, they choose alternatives providing better immediate outcomes.
 * 6) Costs and other rewards being equal, individuals choose the alternatives that supply or can be expected to supply the most social approval (or those that promise the least social disapproval).
 * 7) Costs and other rewards being equal, individuals choose statuses and relationships that provide the most autonomy.
 * 8) Other rewards and costs equal, individuals choose alternatives characterized by the least ambiguity in terms of expected future events and outcomes.
 * 9) Other costs and rewards equal, they choose alternatives that offer the most security for them.
 * 10) Other rewards and costs equal, they choose to associate with, marry, and form other relationships with those whose values and opinions generally are in agreement with their own and reject or avoid those with whom they chronically disagree.
 * 11) Other rewards and costs equal, they are more likely to associate with, marry, and form other relationships with their equals, than those above or below them. (Equality here is viewed as the sum of abilities, performances, characteristics, and statuses that determine one's desirability in the social marketplace.)
 * 12) In industrial societies, other costs and rewards equal, individuals choose alternatives that promise the greatest financial gains for the least financial expenditures. (Current text)

In his article published in 1978, Nye originally proposed seven propositions that were common in all types of relationship, A few years later he would expand the propositions to a total of twelve. The first five propositions listed are classified as general propositions and are substance free-meaning, the propositions themselves can stand alone within the theory. Proposition number six has been identified by scholars as a notion that there is a general assumption of a need for social approval as a reward and can therefor act as a drive force behind actions. Proposition seven will only work if the individual has the freedom to be excluded from outside factors while in a social exchange relationship. The twelfth and final proposition is directed towards the way our society has a heightened value placed on monetary funds. (Draft of what I plan to add)

Self-Interest and Interdependence
Self-interest and interdependence are central properties of social exchange. These are the basic forms of interaction when two or more actors have something of value to each other, and they have to decide whether to exchange and in what amounts. Homans uses the concepts of individualism to explain exchange processes. To him, the meaning of individual self-interest is a combination of economic and psychological needs. Fulfilling self-interest is often common within the economic realm of the social exchange theory where competition and greed can be common. In social exchange, self-interest is not a negative thing; rather, when self-interest is recognized, it will act as the guiding force of interpersonal relationships for the advancement of both parties' self-interest"—Michael Roloff (1981) Thibaut and Kelley see the mutual interdependence of persons as the central problem for the study of social behavior. They developed a theoretical framework based on the interdependence of actors. They also highlighted social implications of different forms of interdependence such as reciprocal control. According to their interdependence definition, outcomes are based on a combination of parties' efforts and mutual and complementary arrangements. (Current text)

Guth, Levati, and Wangenheim (2010) addressed how reoccurring successful interactions with the same partner can lead to a positive interdependent relationship based on the reciprocal nature of society. The researchers also noted that is there is a lack of interdependence within a relationship, there is less cooperation between the individuals. This notion is the opposite of a positive interdependent relationship which is one of the main contributing factors. However, the scholars did not agree that there is a need for a set structure when in a reciprocal relationship. The scholars found a connection between the length of the reciprocal relationship, or the frequency of interactions, and the feelings of interdependence between partners. Based on the researchers findings one can now relate the intensity or amount of interdependence to the length or frequency of interactions in reciprocal relationships. (Draft of what I plan to add)

Assumptions
Social exchange theory is not one theory but a frame of reference within which many theories can speak to another, whether in argument or mutual support. All these theories are built upon several assumptions about human nature and the nature of relationships. Thibaut and Kelley have based their theory on two conceptualizations: one that focuses on the nature of individuals and one that describes the relationships between two people. Thus, the assumptions they make also fall into these categories. The assumptions that social exchange theory makes about human nature include the following:


 * Humans seek rewards and avoid punishments.
 * Humans are rational beings.
 * The standards that humans use to evaluate costs and rewards vary over time and from person to person.

The assumptions social exchange theory makes about the nature of relationships include the following:


 * Relationships are interdependent.
 * Relational life is a process.

The prisoner's dilemma is a widely used example in game theory that attempts to illustrate why or how two individuals may not cooperate with each other, even if it is in their best interest to do so. It demonstrates that while cooperation would give the best outcome, people might nevertheless act selfishly. All relationships involve exchanges although the balance of this exchange is not always equal. We cannot achieve our goals alone so as humans sometimes we have to become actors. In the world today we see actors as unemotional people but that is not the case once we reach our goals in the end. (Current Text)

Most social exchange models have three basic assumptions in common: behavior in a social sense is based on exchanges, if an individual allows someone to receives a reward the person then feels the need to reciprocate due to social pressure and individuals will try to minimize their cost while gaining the most from the reward. (Draft of what I plan to add, I would insert it as the first sentence in the section)

Critique
Katherine Miller outlines several major objections to or problems with the social exchange theory as developed from early seminal works


 * The theory reduces human interaction to a purely rational process that arises from economic theory.
 * The theory favors openness as it was developed in the 1970s when ideas of freedom and openness were preferred, but there may be times when openness isn’t the best option in a relationship.
 * The theory assumes that the ultimate goal of a relationship is intimacy when this might not always be the case.
 * The theory places relationships in a linear structure, when some relationships might skip steps or go backwards in terms of intimacy.

Russell Cropanzano and Marie S. Mitchell discuss how one of the major issues within the social exchange theory is the lack of information within studies on the various exchange rules. Reciprocity is a major exchange rule discussed but, Cropanzano and Mitchell write that the theory would be better understood if more research programs discussed a variety of exchange rules such as altruism, group gain, status consistency and competition. Meeker points out that within the exchange process, each unit takes into account at least the following elements: reciprocity, rationality, altruism (social responsibility), group gain, status, consistency, and competition (rivalry). (Current Text)

Rosenfeld (2005) has noted significant limitations to Social Exchange Theory and it's application in the selection of mates/partners. Specifically, Rosenfeld looked at the limitations of interracial couples and the application of social exchange theory. His analysis suggest that in modern society, there is less of a gap between interracial partners education level, socioeconomic status, and social class level which in turn, makes the previously understood application of social exchange mute. (Draft of addition to Critique section)

Additional information that would be beneficial to improving the article (I am just not sure where to place it yet):
The article by Susan Sprecher also gives more information on the relationship application in regards to sexual relationships. I would like to add a section on that under the current relationship application. As I was not originally planning to use this, I will be adding to this section in the coming days after I read through it thoroughly and decide if the information provided will enhance the current article. Update: after reading through this article, I do not think it can add any substantial material to the Social Exchange Theory page. This article does give a good overview of the theory, but much of the information is mentioned in previous sections.

Additions/Revisions Based on Peer Review:
Citation added to the introductory quotation by Homans in the application section.

Homans, G. (1958). Social Behavior as Exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597-606. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2772990

Additions to critique section: Rosenfeld (2005) has noted significant limitations to Social Exchange Theory and it's application in the selection of mates/partners. Specifically, Rosenfeld looked at the limitations of interracial couples and the application of social exchange theory. His analysis suggest that in modern society, there is less of a gap between interracial partners education level, socioeconomic status, and social class level which in turn, makes the previously understood application of social exchange mute.

Rosenfeld, M. J. (2005). A Critique of Exchange Theory in Mate Selection. American Journal Of Sociology, 110(5), 1284-1325. doi:10.1086/428441

I will leave out the additional information from the article by Susan Spercher. My peer editor agreed that it was not necessary to add this information since there is no 'new' content and the remaining content of the article will not enhance the understanding of the Social Exchange Theory page.

As noted in my response to my peer editor, I am still on the fence with adding the examples to the twelve theoretical propositions. While I do think it might be beneficial to have examples of each proposition, I can also see how it would take away from the main point of the section, which is to give a basic level of understanding of propositions. I am worried by adding more detail the overall concepts might be lost. At thins point, I do not think I will be adding examples, unless my peer editor or Dr. Pederson urges these additions.

I would also edit current text sections to eliminate the use of "we" as it goes against our training on keeping Wikipedia neutral.

Links I made from the Social Exchange Theory page to another page:

 * "Self-interest"
 * "John Thibaut" and "Harold Kelley" under the Comparison Levels section
 * "Self-disclosure" under the Relationships section of application
 * "Relationship marketing" under the business section of application
 * "Caryl Rusbult" under the business section of application

Links I made from other pages to the Social Exchange theory page:

 * From "Interpersonal Communication" page I linked "social exchange theory" a few times through out
 * From "George Homans" page I linked to the "social exchange theory" page
 * From "John Thibaut" page I linked to the "social exchange theory" page