The Seeds of Weak Power: An Extension of Network Exchange Theory

Markovsky, Barry; Skvoretz, John; Willer, David; Lovaglia, Michael J.; Erger, Jeffrey

doi:10.2307/2095966

Cited by 149 publications

(125 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

122

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This metatheoretical theme has reached its zenith in theory and research on exchange networks, from that of Emerson and his colleagues (Cook and Emerson 1978;Cook et al 1983), to that of Markovsky, Willer, and their colleagues (Markovsky et al 1988(Markovsky et al , 1993 2 Among economic theories or perspectives, social exchange theory is closest to transactions-cost economics (Williamson 1981(Williamson , 1985North 1990). Williamson (1985) and North (1990) assume bounded-rational actors, who are "intendedly rational" but imperfectly so, and who contract with one another to deal with uncertainties.…”

Section: Under Certain Conditions Thereby Producing Stronger or Weakmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Affect Theory of Social Exchange

Lawler

2001

American Journal of Sociology

951

1,016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article develops a theory that explains how and when emotions, produced by social exchange, generate stronger or weaker ties to relations, groups, or networks. It is argued that social exchange produces positive or negative global feelings, which are internally rewarding or punishing. The theory indicates that social units (relations, groups, networks) are perceived as a source of these feelings, contingent on the degree of jointness in the exchange task. The jointness of the task is greatest if (1) actors find it difficult to distinguish their individual effects on or contributions to solving the exchange task (nonseparability) and (2) actors perceive a shared responsibility for success or failure at the exchange task. The theory explicates the effects of different exchange structures on these conditions and, in turn, on cohesion and solidarity. Implications are developed for network-to-group transformations. This article develops a theory that explains how and when emotions, produced by social exchange, generate stronger or weaker ties to relations, groups, or networks. It is argued that social exchange produces positive or negative global feelings, which are internally rewarding or punishing. The theory indicates that social units (relations, groups, networks) are perceived as a source of these feelings, contingent on the degree of jointness in the exchange task. The jointness of the task is greatest if (1) actors find it difficult to distinguish their individual effects on or contributions to solving the exchange task (nonseparability) and (2) actors perceive a shared responsibility for success or failure at the exchange task. The theory explicates the effects of different exchange structures on these conditions and, in turn, on cohesion and solidarity. Implications are developed for network-to-group transformations.This article proposes an affect theory of social exchange. The purpose is to incorporate emotions as an explicit, central feature of social exchange processes. The article accomplishes this by (1) conceptualizing individual actors as emoting as well as cognizing, feeling as well as thinking, (2) treating emotions as internal reinforcements or punishments, and (3) Social exchange is conceptualized as a joint activity of two or more actors in which each actor has something the other values. The implicit or explicit task in exchange is to generate benefit for each individual by exchanging behaviors or goods that actors cannot achieve alone (Thibaut and Kelley 1959;Homans 1961;Emerson 1972b). The affect theory of social exchange expands the domain of exchange theorizing in two main ways. First, exchange outcomes-rewards and punishments-are construed as having emotional effects that vary in form and intensity. When exchanges occur successfully, actors experience an emotional uplift (a "high"), and when exchanges do not occur successfully, they experience emotional "downs" (Lawler and Yoon 1996). Mild everyday feelings, therefore, are intertwined with exchange. Positive emotions include e...

show abstract

Section: Under Certain Conditions Thereby Producing Stronger or Weakmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Affect Theory of Social Exchange

Lawler

2001

American Journal of Sociology

951

1,016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In by far the largest portion of the literature in the field of exchange network research, exchange possibilities are represented as the opportunity to divide a pool of valuable resources or 'profit points' (see, for instance, Bienenstock and Bonacich 1992;Bonacich 1998Bonacich , 1995Bonacich and Bienenstock 1995;Cook and Yamagishi 1992;Cook et al 1983;Cook and Emerson 1978;Heckathorn 1983;Karr 2000;Lovaglia et al 1995;Markovsky et al 1993;Skvoretz and Burkett 1994;Skvoretz and Willer 1993;Thye et al 1997;Willer and Skvoretz 1997). In the present article we must deviate from this practice, however, since we investigate the exchange of possibly shared resources.…”

Section: Sharing Resources and Externalities In The Line3 Exchange Nementioning

confidence: 99%

The Comparison of Four Types of Everyday Interdependencies

Dijkstra

Assen

2008

Rationality and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Actor behavior is compared theoretically and experimentally in four well-known everyday interdependence situations; (i) the market, (ii) the tragedy of the commons or resource dilemma, (iii) the public good problem, and (iv) the household. It is shown that the four situations can be studied within one general framework of exchange networks with externalities. Core theory is generalized to exchange networks with externalities and applied to derive predictions concerning differences in behavior in the four situations. The experiments corroborate the prediction that competition is most fierce in the resource dilemma, fierce in the market, and absent in the public good problem and household.

show abstract

“…Research on how the position and status of a node influence a network is mostly carried out in the context of network exchange theory (Markovsky et al 1993;Walker et al 2000;Willer 1999). This theory states that connections and a position in a network lead to a power condition that is based on how the nodes are connected and which position they take in the network (Walker et al 2000).…”

Section: Social Status Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Customarily, our social interactions and, to some extent, our behavior are influenced by actions of individuals with a high social status. In the field of social psychology, the social status theory attempts to explain this phenomenon (Markovsky et al 1993;Walker et al 2000;Willer 1999). According to it, people tend to form their connections in a social network to maximize their perceived social benefits arising from the social status of their connections.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of social status and network structure on consensus building in collaboration networks

Hasani-Mavriqi

Geigl

Pujari

et al. 2016

Soc. Netw. Anal. Min.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we analyze the influence of social status on opinion dynamics and consensus building in collaboration networks. To that end, we simulate the diffusion of opinions in empirical networks and take into account both the network structure and the individual differences of people reflected through their social status. For our simulations, we adapt a well-known Naming Game model and extend it with the Probabilistic Meeting Rule to account for the social status of individuals participating in a meeting. This mechanism is sufficiently flexible and allows us to model various society forms in collaboration networks, as well as the emergence or disappearance of social classes. In particular, we are interested in the way how these society forms facilitate opinion diffusion. Our experimental findings reveal that (i) opinion dynamics in collaboration networks is indeed affected by the individuals' social status and (ii) this effect is intricate and nonobvious. Our results suggest that in most of the networks the social status favors consensus building. However, relying on it too strongly can also slow down the opinion diffusion, indicating that there is a specific setting for an optimal benefit of social status on the consensus building. On the other hand, in networks where status does not correlate with degree or in networks with a positive degree assortativity consensus is always reached quickly regardless of the status.

show abstract

The Seeds of Weak Power: An Extension of Network Exchange Theory

Cited by 149 publications

References 13 publications

An Affect Theory of Social Exchange

An Affect Theory of Social Exchange

The Comparison of Four Types of Everyday Interdependencies

The influence of social status and network structure on consensus building in collaboration networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About