A recent debate in sociological exchange theory concerns which form of exchange is likely to promote cohesion in exchange relations. One side maintains that bilateral exchange, often associated with economic transactions, entails joint action to share mutual benefits, contributing more to feelings of cohesion than do independent acts of unilateral giving from one person to another, typical of social exchange. The other side argues that bilateral exchange requires dividing resources under binding terms of exchange, which strains relationships by underscoring competitive aspects of exchange. The present study reconciles these divergent claims by testing a new model of exchange that combines key propositions from past theories to specify when bilateral exchange promotes or undermines cohesion. Results from two laboratory experiments provide support for the model’s core claim that cooperative forms of bilateral exchange can reinforce cohesion more than unilateral exchange does, contrary to the enduring assumption that economic exchange undermines relational bonds.
BaronReuben M.KennyDavid A.1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51:1173–82.
2.
BarreraDavide. 2007. “The Impact of Negotiated Exchange on Trust and Trustworthiness.” Social Networks29:508–526.
3.
BeckerGary S.1976. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BergerPeter L.LuckmannThomas. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
5.
BienenstockElisa JayneBianchiAlison J.2004. “Activating Performance Expectations and Status Differences through Gift Exchange: Experimental Results.” Social Psychology Quarterly67:310–18.
6.
BlauPeter M.1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
7.
ClarkMargaret S.MillsJudson. 1979. “Interpersonal Attraction in Exchange and Communal Relationships.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37:12–24.
8.
ColemanJames S.1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
9.
CookKaren S.2001. Trust in Society. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
10.
CookKaren S.YamagishiToshioCheshireCoyeCooperRobinMatsudaMasafumiMashimaRie. 2005. “Trust Building via Risk Taking: A Cross-Societal Experiment.” Social Psychology Quarterly68:121–42.
11.
CurhanJared R.NealeMargaretRossLeeRosenkranz-EngelmannJesse. 2008. “Relational Accommodation in Negotiation: Effects of Egalitarianism and Gender on Economic Efficiency and Relational Capital.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes107:192–205.
12.
EmersonRichard M.1976. “Social Exchange Theory.” Annual Review of Sociology2:335–62.
13.
FehrErnstKirchsteigerGeorgRiedlArno. 1998. “Gift Exchange and Reciprocity in Competitive Experimental Markets.” European Economic Review42:1–34.
14.
GouldnerAlvin W.1960. “The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement.” American Sociological Review25:161–78.
15.
GranovetterMark. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology91:481–510.
16.
HardinRussell. 2002. Trust & Trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage.
17.
HeymanJamesArielyDan. 2004. “Effort for Payment: A Tale of Two Markets.” Psychological Science15:787–93.
18.
HomansGeorge C.1961. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Form. New York: Harcourt Brace Javanovich.
19.
IngramPaulZouXi. 2008. “Business Friendships.” Research in Organizational Behavior28:167–84.
20.
KollockPeter. 1994. “The Emergence of Exchange Structures: An Experimental Study of Uncertainty, Commitment, and Trust.” American Journal of Sociology100:313–45.
21.
KollockPeterBrazielE. Russell. 2006. “How Not to Build an Online Market: The Sociology of Market Microstructure.” Pp. 283–306 in Advances in Group Processes: Social Psychology of the Workplace, edited by LawlerE. J.New York: Elsevier.
22.
KramerRoderick M.TylerTom R.1996. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
KuwabaraKoLuoJiaoSheldonOliver. 2010. “Multiplex Exchange Relations.” Pp. 239–68 in Advances in Group Processes, edited by ThyeS. R.LawlerE. J.Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
24.
LawlerEdward J.1992. “Affective Attachments to Nested Groups: A Choice-Process Theory.” American Sociological Review57:327–39.
25.
LawlerEdward J.2001. “An Affect Theory of Social Exchange.” American Journal of Sociology107:321–52.
26.
LawlerEdward J.2007. “Affect and Group Attachments: The Role of Shared Responsibility.” Pp. 185–216 in Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Vol. 1, edited by MannixE. A.NealeM. A.AndersonC. P.Boston: Elsevier JAI.
27.
LawlerEdward J.ThyeShane R.1999. “Bringing Emotions into Social Exchange Theory.” Annual Review of Sociology25:217–44.
28.
LawlerEdward J.ThyeShane R.YoonJeongkoo. 2000. “Emotion and Group Cohesion in Productive Exchange.” American Journal of Sociology106:616–57.
29.
LawlerEdward J.ThyeShane R.YoonJeongkoo. 2008. “Social Exchange and Micro Social Order.” American Sociological Review73:519–42.
30.
LawlerEdward J.YoonJeongkoo. 1993. “Power and the Emergence of Commitment Behavior in Negotiated Exchange.” American Sociological Review58:465–81.
31.
LawlerEdward J.YoonJeongkoo. 1996. “Commitment in Exchange Relations: Test of a Theory of Relational Cohesion.” American Sociological Review61:89–108.
32.
LawlerEdward J.YoonJeongkoo. 1998. “Network Structure and Emotion in Exchange Relations.” American Sociological Review63:871–94.
33.
Lévi-StraussClaude. 1969. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston: Beacon.
34.
MolmLinda D.1994. “Dependence and Risk: Transforming the Structure of Social Exchange.” Social Psychology Quarterly57:163–89.
35.
MolmLinda. 2010. “The Structure of Reciprocity.” Social Psychology Quarterly73:119–31.
36.
MolmLinda D.CollettJessica L.SchaeferDavid R.2006. “Conflict and Fairness in Social Exchange.” Social Forces84:2331–52.
37.
MolmLinda D.CollettJessica L.SchaeferDavid R.2007. “Building Solidarity through Generalized Exchange: A Theory of Reciprocity.” American Journal of Sociology113:205–242.
38.
MolmLinda D.PetersonGretchenTakahashiNobuyuki. 1999. “Power in Negotiated and Reciprocal Exchange.” American Sociological Review64:876–90.
39.
MolmLinda D.SchaeferDavid R.CollettJessica L.2007. “The Value of Reciprocity.” Social Psychology Quarterly70:199–217.
40.
MolmLinda D.SchaeferDavid R.CollettJessica L.2009. “Fragile and Resilient Trust: Risk and Uncertainty in Negotiated and Reciprocal Exchange.” Sociological Theory27:1–32.
41.
MolmLinda D.TakahashiNobuyukiPetersonGretchen. 2000. “Risk and Trust in Social Exchange: An Experimental Test of a Classical Proposition.” American Journal of Sociology105:1396–1427.
42.
MolmLinda D.TakahashiNobuyukiPetersonGretchen. 2003. “In the Eyes of the Beholder: Procedural Justice in Social Exchange.” American Sociological Review68:128–52.
43.
PruittDean G.1981. Negotiation Behavior. New York: Academic Press.
44.
SahlinsMarshall David. 1972. Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
45.
SchaeferDavid R.2009. “Resource Variation and the Development of Cohesion in Exchange Networks.” American Sociological Review74:551–72.
46.
TeraiShigeruMoritaY.YamagishiToshio. 2003. “Trust and Assurance in Ongoing Relations: An Experimental Study Using the Prisoner’s Dilemma with Variable Dependence.” Research in Social Psychology18:172–79.
47.
ThibautJohnKelleyHarold. 1959. The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley.
48.
UzziBrian. 1999. “Embeddedness in the Making of Financial Capital: How Social Relations and Networks Benefit Firms Seeking Financing.” American Sociological Review64:481–505.
49.
WieselquistJenniferRusbultCaryl E.FosterCraig A.AgnewChristopher R.1999. “Commitment, Pro-Relationship Behavior, and Trust in Close Relationships.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology77:942–66.
50.
YamagishiToshioCookKaren S.WatabeMotoki. 1998. “Uncertainty, Trust and Commitment Formation in the United States and Japan.” American Journal of Sociology108:165–94.
51.
ZelizerViviana A.2005. The Purchase of Intimacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
