Extension

Affective Theory of Social Exchange

Due to the economic principle of cost-benefit analysis in social exchange, SET views motives, perceptions and outcomes of social behaviour as rational and actors of exchange as emotionless. While the theory claims that social relations are sustained due to rational choices and reinforcement mechanisms, it does not consider the mediating role of emotions that are intertwined in those mechanisms (Lawler, 2001). Emotions are positive and negative states with neurological and cognitive properties. Although Homans (1961), Blau (1964) and Thibaut and Kelley (1959) admitted the role of emotions in certain aspects of behaviour evaluation (e.g. sentiment, intrinsic perception and the comparison level), they did not theorise about these aspects (Blau, 2017; Homans, 1961; Thibaut & Kelley, 2017).

To bridge the gap in the literature, Lawler (2001) developed the Affective Theory of Social Exchange (Lawler, 2001). The theory draws on a review of the literature on emotions and their implications for the contexts, processes and outcomes of exchange (Izard, 1991; Izard, 1991). The review enabled Lawler (2001) to distinguish global and specific emotions from sentiments. Emotions refer to an internal state that can be attached to an ambiguous source (global emotions) or attached to a specific event or object (specific emotions). Sentiments refer to an enduring affective state in relation to the social context or object(s). Global emotions potentially transition to specific emotions and sentiments. The goal of the theory was to understand the conditions in which social exchange leads social actors towards attaching global negative and positive emotions (i.e. feeling good and feeling bad) to social objects and develop enduring negative and positive feelings to them (Lawler, 2001).

Building on the prior research on commitment in social relations (Lawler & Thye, 1999; Lawler, 2001), five theoretical assumptions were developed (Fig 2). The fundamental argument of these assumptions is that positive emotions produced as a result of exchange create solidarity effects, manifested through expanding collaborations, non-obligated exchange of benefits, loyalty and forgiving behaviour (Lawler & Yoon, 1996; Lawler & Thye, 1999; Lawler, 2001). A social exchange was assumed to produce positive and negative global emotions depending on the outcomes of the exchange (assumption 1). These emotions serve as a distinctive type of rewards and punishments (assumption 2). An exchange can motivate actors to carry out or refrain from the exchange, as a way to reproduce positive emotions (e.g. pride in self and gratitude toward the other) and prevent negative ones (e.g. shame in self, anger towards the other) (assumption 3) (Lawler, 2001).

Affective states motivate actors to invest cognitive effort in understanding the sources of emotions (assumption 4) (Lawler, 2001). Global emotions can trigger an attribution process. Attribution is the process of associating emotions with more specific, object-focused emotions (Sorrentino & Higgins, 1986). Objects include task, self, other, relationships and social groups. Tasks are embedded in exchange structures, which can be productive, negotiated, reciprocal and generalised. Task properties, defined as the degree to which actors’ contributions to tasks are separable from the contributions of other people and the degree to which actors share responsibility for the task, refer to the type of exchange structure. Productive exchange pursues the generation of a joint good. Negotiated exchange is carried out under predefined terms and conditions. Reciprocal exchange implies reciprocation without a strict timeframe and conditions. Generalised exchange means that reciprocation is carried out indirectly to a member of the group, other than the one who initially provided resources (Molm, 1994; Howard & Ekeh, 1976). The varying degree of shared responsibility and task separability across the types of exchange structures determine the strength of pleasant and unpleasant feelings. Feelings trigger the emotional attribution of the task success and failure to the self and/or other people involved in the exchange, thus inducing associated object-specific emotions (e.g. pride in oneself, gratitude to others) (Lawler, 2001).

The fifth assumption states that the explanation of the source of global emotions by actors is carried out with reference to social objects, such as people, social relations, events or social networks. That means that emotional attribution results in either affective attachment (association of emotions) or detachment (disassociation of emotions) from objects. Affective attachment occurs in conditions when social objects represent controllable and stable causes of positive emotions. Negative emotions caused by social objects representing stable and uncontrollable causes result in effective detachment (Lawler, 2001). In the context of education, a stable controllable cause can be a personal skill and capability, while a stable uncontrollable cause can be represented by the difficulty of the tasks provided by a teacher (Kelley & Michela, 1980). The theoretical assumptions of the Affective Theory of Social Exchange provide a detailed account of the conditions under which particular types of emotions are manifested and their role in regulating the evaluation process of social exchange outcomes. The theory does not dispute the rational premises of social exchange, but rather complements Social Exchange Theory with the theorisation of the non-rational aspect of behaviou which is inherent to humans. The theory explains the ways through which rational choices are interrelated with affective states, thus providing implications for the development of solidarity and sustained relations.

Applications

Social exchange theory is a very broad framework, fitting many micro and macro-sociological theories. The rather generic conceptualisation of relations within communities enables the theory to explain almost any reasonable finding about the pattern of behaviour (Cropanzano et al., 2017). The focus on the ubiquitous principle of reciprocity persistent in social relations makes the theory the pillar of social behaviourism (DeLamater & Ward, 2013). It has become the unitary framework explaining social power (Molm, Peterson & Takahashi, 1999), networks (Tsai & Cheng, 2012), justice (Ambrose & Schminke, 2003), psychological contracts (Rousseau, 1995) and other social phenomena. The principles of the theory have driven a large body of research attempting to describe and explain different aspects of individuals’ behaviour, manifested in various disciplinary contexts.

The research on individuals’ behaviour takes three directions. First, the theory was used to explore the cost-benefit evaluation that predefines individuals’ decisions to participate in social activities (Kankanhalli, Tan & Wei, 2005; Kanwal et al., 2020). The focus on costs and benefits was conducive to contexts where relations take place (Kankanhalli, Tan & Wei, 2005; Kanwal et al., 2020). For example, in a study exploring the response of the community to infrastructural development, perceived negative impact and perceived benefits of interventions were examined in relation to satisfaction with and support for those interventions. The results of the study showed that the outcome of behaviour can be predicted by a negative correlation with perceived negative impact and a positive correlation with perceived benefits (Kanwal et al., 2020). Another piece of research focused on the role of actual and potential costs against the extrinsic and intrinsic benefits of sharing activities in organisations. The sharing practice was proved to be the result of the compromise between the input of effort to perform the practice, the obligation to reciprocate, organisational rewards (e.g. salary increase, incentives, job security), altruistic benefit (helping others) and perceived confidence about the positive outcome of the practice (Kankanhalli, Tan & Wei, 2005). Also, researchers weighted the costs and benefits of practices to evaluate the expected reciprocity of relations (Kankanhalli, Tan & Wei, 2005; Kanwal et al., 2020). They have also tested the reciprocity norm as a belief in fair exchange (Davlembayeva, Papagiannidis & Alamanos, 2020). A great deal of empirical evidence has provided support for the principle of the theory that the expectation of reciprocity drives individuals’ engagement in relations (Molm, 1997; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). A belief in reciprocal relations is associated with satisfaction, motivating continuous behaviour (Shiau & Luo, 2012). It is the strongest social factor predicting users’ intention to participate in the sharing economy (Davlembayeva, Papagiannidis & Alamanos, 2020) and the antecedent of helping behaviour in organisations (Thomas & Rose, 2010).

The second body of research focused on the outcomes of reciprocal and non-reciprocal exchange. Reciprocal relations result in commitment, satisfaction and other manifestations of a positive behaviour (Griffin & Hepburn, 2005). Researchers concluded that reciprocity has a mediating effect on commitment through trust (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2002), as well as a direct effect on commitment demonstrated through emotional attachment (Griffin & Hepburn, 2005). When it comes to non-reciprocal relations, scholars have argued that perceived negative inequity (the perception that an individual received fewer rewards compared to costs) and positive inequity (the perception that the rewards are greater than the costs) leads to stress (Walster, Berscheid & Walster, 1973; Adams, 1963) and induces emotions like guilt and anger (Sherf & Venkataramani, 2015). The relations producing output that is discrepant from input trigger behaviours that aim to compensate or take revenge for the lack of reciprocation (Biron & De Reuver, 2013; Rosette & Zhou Koval, 2018). Pro-active behavioural measures to restore inequity include physical compensation for inequity (increase rewards to another party), self-deprivation (decrease reward to oneself to equate with the reward of another party) and retaliation against the party of relations causing inequity (Walster, Berscheid & Walster, 1973; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988). Cognitive processes such as self-affirmation, denial of responsibility and the devaluation of the input of the other party of relations refer to the emotion-focused measures of inequity restoration (Walster, Berscheid & Walster, 1973; Davies et al., 2018). Self-affirmation is the persuasion of oneself that relationships are equitable. Devaluation of the input of the other party and denial of responsibility concern the refusal to accept the blame for the inequitable treatment of another party by psychologically distorting his/her inputs and outcomes, decreasing or increasing them as required (Walster, Berscheid & Walster, 1973).

The third stream of research used the SET framework to study social capital factors in the formation of dyadic and collective relations (Davlembayeva, Papagiannidis & Alamanos, 2020; Koopman et al., 2015). Factors such as trust, social norms, altruism or egoistic motives affect the evaluation of the outcome of relations (Reiche, 2012; Davlembayeva, Papagiannidis & Alamanos, 2020; Koopman et al., 2015). For example, there is evidence that trust and ties are the predictors of continuous knowledge sharing (Reiche, 2012). Social capital produced through the ingratiation towards superior group members positively contributes to the quality of exchange relations (Koopman et al., 2015). In the context of the sharing economy, individuals’ participation in sharing platforms is conditioned by the positive effect of egoistic belief, reciprocity norm and social value (Davlembayeva, Papagiannidis & Alamanos, 2020). Although the findings have not been consistent in terms of the significance of specific social capital factors, the overall proposition of Social Exchange Theory about the facilitating and inhibiting role of social capital has largely been confirmed across studies.

As far as the context is concerned, a large amount of evidence exists about the employment of Social Exchange Theory to investigate the behaviour of people in the organisational context (Long, Li & Ning, 2015; Slack, Corlett & Morris, 2015). The theory explained the volition of employees towards engagement with corporate social responsibility activities (Slack, Corlett & Morris, 2015) and the motivation to engage in extra-role performance as a payback for the positive environment created in the organisation (Long, Li & Ning, 2015). The Social Exchange Framework is an influential tool in explaining relationship models functioning on the basis of information systems (Shiau & Luo, 2012; Baxter & Braithwaite, 2008). In the information systems management discipline, the theory was used to explore the effect of different constructs related to costs and rewards on the exchange practices in online communities (Geiger, Horbel & Germelmann, 2018; Kankanhalli, Tan & Wei, 2005) and technology utilisation and acceptance (Gefen & Keil, 1998). For example, it was helpful in identifying the risks and benefits of using online-based knowledge management systems, which has contributed to the utilisation of the system for sharing knowledge among system members (Kankanhalli, Tan & Wei, 2005). The theory, combined with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, has been used as an overarching theoretical model to explain the determinants of knowledge sharing on websites. The empirical testing of the model showed that perceived benefits trigger general and specific knowledge sharing behaviour, while the associated costs (e.g. cognitive and execution costs) inhibit that behavioural intention (Yan et al., 2016). The application of the theory to studying the rationale for engagement in online social networking websites suggests that the opportunity to strengthen social ties and control privacy are considered against the privacy risks entailed by using social media tools (Wang & Liu, 2019). In the area of medicine, the theory has guided studies exploring the utilisation of mobile health-based interventions designed to propose medication adherence among patients. The findings of those studies showed that negative and positive reinforcement (i.e. cost and rewards) encourage or discourage the use of the system (Chatterjee, 2019). Also, research on entrepreneurship confirmed that the cost-reward evaluation is the mechanism underpinning entrepreneurs’ decision making. Specifically, investment decisions are determined by the beliefs that project costs should not exceed the promised benefits (Zhao et al., 2017).

Limitations

The principles that ensure the wide application of Social Exchange Theory have come to face criticism (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2002). It has been argued that the core ideas of the theory are not adequately articulated and integrated, which creates problems when using them as an overarching framework in research. The major limitation concerns the non-exhaustive and overlapping list of constructs, which limit the explanatory capability of the theory and undermine its predictive power. The tendency to use an incomplete set of constructs leads towards a partial explanation of individuals’ behaviour. The vagueness of the theoretical principles results in a number of interpretations of their conceptual boundaries, which, in turn, creates a divergence in the interpretation of research findings (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). While the lack of precisely defined constructs makes the theory widely used across disciplines, it challenges the inference from conclusions and makes it difficult to replicate the findings (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).

The second issue concerns a lack of accuracy and consistency in terminology. The original works by Blau (Blau, 2017) referred to social and economic exchanges as transactions and not relationships, like the mainstream literature (Organ, 1988). Despite attempts to clarify the difference between relationship and exchange, there is still a need to define whether an exchange is a type of relationship, a transaction that leads to a relationship or vice versa (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). For instance, a prior relationship between parties can have an effect on the exchange, and the exchange can contribute to the development of continued relationships. This debate has not been resolved to date, as scholars use the terms (transaction, relations) interchangeably (Mora Cortez & Johnston, 2020; Davlembayeva, Papagiannidis & Alamanos, 2020; Davlembayeva, Papagiannidis & Alamanos, 2021).

The third issue concerns the lack of consistency and definition of the rules of exchange across studies. Although the major principle of the theory is the rule of reciprocity, scholars adopt a number of other principles (e.g. negotiated rule, rationality, altruism, group gain, status consistency and competition) to explain behaviour (Gouldner, 1960; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Different rules of exchange create a heterogeneity of perspectives on individuals’ behaviour and put forward inconsistent findings (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Therefore, there is a need to have a clear and single definition for each rule of exchange to reduce the ambiguity associated with the theory's principles.

The fourth limitation concerns the operationalisation and the taxonomy of concepts. Although a vast number of empirical studies have measured the underpinnings and the outcomes of interpersonal relations (Davlembayeva, Papagiannidis & Alamanos, 2020; Long, Li & Ning, 2015; Koopman et al., 2015), the literature still represents a behaviour or social actors in too simplistic a way. Specifically, researchers differentiated the concept of positive and negative actions without a critical understanding of how the valence of action is defined (Cropanzano et al., 2017). As a result, the need to utilise broad standards for evaluating the deviance of behaviour that can be useful in determining the valence of social exchange constructs was questioned (Bennett et al., 2005). Another issue is the simplicity of presenting the structure of reciprocity. Reciprocity constructs fall into opposite categories – negative and positive. The logic behind this categorisation is that the absence of a positive event (e.g. supportive behaviour) equates to a negative event (e.g. abusive behaviour). However, this representation is unidimensional. It does not take into account the activity dimension, which can be used to differentiate actively exhibited positive/negative behaviour from withheld positive/negative behaviour (Cropanzano et al., 2017). Despite the conceptual difference between the types of behaviour, such a categorisation has not yet been empirically tested.