An Experimental Analysis of Some Structural Determinants of Equitable and Inequitable Exchange Relations

Structure, Action, and Outcomes: The Dynamics of Power in Social Exchange

“…While previous studies conducted under both sets of exchange conditions have supported the basic predictions of Emerson's theory of power/dependence relations [e.g., Cook and Emerson (1978) for bargaining exchanges, and Burgess and Nielsen (1974) and Molm (1981) for choice exchanges], one should not assume that the hypotheses tested in this paper generalize to other conditions without empirical test. Thus, my four assumptions constitute the scope conditions for the theoretical predictions.…”

“…The central prediction of power/dependence theory, that imbalance in structural power produces asymmetry in exchange outcomes, is supported in numerous studies (e.g., Burgess and Nielsen 1974;Cook and Emerson 1978;Cook et al 1983;Molm 1981). In parallel fashion, Emerson (1972) predicts the average frequency of exchange in a relation will increase with the average power/dependencies of the actors, and Michaels and Wiggins (1976) find that it does.…”

The Matching Law and Bias in a Social Exchange Involving Choice between Alternatives

“…Given this emphasis on behavioral choice, it is remarkable that those theorists of the behavioral persuasion have almost ignored that part of behavioral psychology that pertains to preference and choice. While researchers in behavioral sociology (e.g., Burgess and Nielsen, 1974;Marwell and Schmitt, 1975;Mithaug, 1969;Molm, 1979) have recognized the importance of concurrent operant research as a paradigm for social exchange, there has been less attention given to the principles of concurrent operants and their theoretical importance in building a viable theory of social exchange.…”

Cooptation and Coalition Mobilization1

“…The target's influence might be attributed to the fact that the promotion offer gave him, but not the nontarget, an alternative outcome source. Research shows that outcome alternatives are a source of power and influence (e.g., Bacharach & Lawler, 1976;Burgess & Nielson, 1974).…”