9

Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange theory was founded by George Homans. Man as a rational being lies at the foundation of such a theory. The individual as a rational being is seen as rationally calculating loss or gains, pleasures and pains in order to maximize profits. Thereby the exchange theory implies that an individual being is universally motivated by self-interest. Accordingly, as per the provisions of the social environment individual beings maximize their profits in social interaction. By exchanging gains and loss, or rewards and punishment, human beings interact with each other.

INTELLECTUAL ROOTS

It is being held popularly that social exchange theory was largely guided by the early twentieth-century rational choice theory as developed in neo-classical economics. While the influence of rational choice theory, as well as that of utilitarianism and game theory is generally obvious, the basic idea of society as a result of mutual reciprocal behaviour is drawn from cultural anthropology.

Cultural anthropology primarily aimed at establishing that beyond particularism and uniqueness, all human societies are bound by a thread of common goals and aspirations. Cultural anthropologists in their orthodox pursuit studied the balance and order of primitive societies in terms of a ‘give and take’ social behaviour. In other words, reciprocity was theorized as the most essential aspect of social life. The leading anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski's study of the Trobrianders of the Melanesian Islands, or the comparative account of many primitive society studies by Marcel Mauss emphasized the social role of gift exchange. The theory of function of gift exchange as creating bondage on the basis of reciprocity impacted upon George Homan's thinking of a social exchange.

Apart from this elemental influence, psychological behaviourism also played a role in the development of exchange theory in sociology. The principal idea of behaviourism is that, the environment in which a behaviour takes place is impacted upon by the behaviour and affects the subject in turn as a consequence. It is a cyclical understanding of the affect and effect of the environment, be it social or physical, on human behaviour.

As an individual behaves in a society, it affects the society either positively or negatively. A behavioural sociologist would study whether the impact is rewarding or punishing. If it is rewarding for the acting individual, under similar situation the actor would most likely repeat the same behaviour. On the contrary, if the impact is painful and unrewarding such an action will not be resorted to by the individual again. In simple terms, the past consequences of a given behaviour largely shape up our present behaviour (Ritzer 1996).

More specially, psychological behaviourism of B. F. Skinner of Harvard University had a direct influence on the development of social exchange theory. In his attempt to make social theories more empirically grounded and concrete, Skinner emphasized upon the study of behaviour and its consequences. An assessment of the past consequences would tell us about whether such similar behaviours would be repeated in the present. The idea of ‘reinforcement effectiveness’ is important according to Skinner (Martindale 1988). Reinforcement effectiveness is a sort of positive response that an environment imparts an individual behaviour, which encourages reinforcement or strengthening of similar behaviour. The stimulus–response cycle is the basic idea behind such psychological behaviourism. Both imitation and willingness to follow instruction are the basis of such positive repetition of behaviour. Skinner cited the language learning process of a child to elicit the way reinforcement acts as the backbone of social exchange.

Finally, it is the rational choice theory which provided the basic model for the development of social exchange theory in sociology. It is the principle of utilitarian economics which prompted George Homans and others to theorize on human behaviour as one dictated by profit maximizing decisions on a rational basis. Here, human behaviour is taken as an intended act which combines ends and means in the best possible way. One purposefully operates within the constraints of scarcity of resources as well as that imposed by social institutions. Debra Friedman and Michael Hechter have outlined the premises about individual psychology that the market-oriented economists like Adam Smith or David Ricardo had worked with to propose a utilitarian economics. An application of these premises on the study of social behaviour is what social exchange theory relied on. Like what human beings do while engaging themselves with goods and services in a free market, in the society too the same behavioural intent could be observed. In social exchange, people as acting individuals participate with a variety of interests or values (material as well as non-material rewards). All self-interest-driven individuals would maximize pleasure avoiding pain. This utilitarian approach that ensures greatest good for the maximum number of people in turn leads to a balance between all the different individuals thereby fostering a group equilibrium. Social exchange theory heavily adopted such an idea of group equilibrium as the salient feature of human society.

GEORGE C. HOMANS (1910–89)

A Biographical Sketch and Intellectual Influences

George Homans is credited as the pioneer in establishing social exchange theory as a major sociological perspective. In his own admission, he became a sociologist as a matter of accident (Homans 1984). He was born in 1910 in Boston, United States. He had an early interest in academics. He was privileged with a household library, from which he benefitted most. Homans joined Harvard and earned his bachelor's degree in 1932 with English literature as major. However, his sustained interest in sociology began in 1933 at the Harvard Business School in the association of Professors Laurence Henderson and Elton Mayo. Both were into behavioural psychology and Mayo guided Homans to the anthropological works of Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown and Raymond Firth. Through an acquaintance with the classical anthropological works Homans was more into an understanding that instead of cultures being unique, human nature is universally similar under similar situations.

As far as common human behaviour and psychology is concerned, Homans was impacted upon by Vilfredo Pareto's psychological treatment of basic human behaviour. In fact, along with Charles Curtis, he co-authored An Introduction to Pareto (1934), which helped him to get a position in the sociology department at Harvard. During World War II, he served the navy, and while on duty at sea he reflected on the vast material of ‘field’ studies of small human groups, both modern and pre-modern. And then and there he could conceive of fitting those detail studies in a conceptual framework which would be common for all human groups. The result was his first major work. The Human Group (1950), which he developed after returning from the war duty to Harvard.

Homans was closely associated with the leading theorist Talcott Parsons in Harvard. He considered Parson's grand theories as just conceptual schemes which failed to offer proposition which could relate the concepts to one another and have reference with a low order of generality. Thus, in The Human Group, Homans stated such propositions and analysed the structures and processes of small human groups. His next major work is The Nature of Social Sciences (1967), where he elaborated why the general propositions need to account for individual human beings as numbers of a species. As he thought that all human behaviours could be explained by basic psychological principles. Essentially, Homans went against the functionalist perspective prevalent in the 1950s and 1960s in the US universities, by emphasizing the psychological drives of human behaviour, which was a result of his acquaintance with field and experimental studies in social psychology.

Homans’ interests on small-group studies were a result of influences from various disciplinary sources. Disciplines like behavioural psychology, functional anthropology, utilitarian economics as well as biochemistry impacted upon his thinking process. While it is true that, his first major work, The Human Group, belonged to the same tradition of the functional school of British anthropology, but subsequently such a framework was dismissed by him. This was due to Homans’ coming in touch with the leading psychological behaviouralist B. F. Skinner.

Skinner as a professor of psychological behaviourism was dismissive of all social theories as being mystical which were for removed from concrete behaviours of active human beings. Instead, he proposed the study of operant behaviour — the framework was that of the notion of a stimulus–response dyad. Applying this to study pigeon behaviour, he suggested that both human and animal behaviours are governed by the fact when a subject was presented with a stimulus, a response would automatically follow, and that, a desired behaviour could then be generated there by reinforcement of such desired behaviour. Without equating animal and human behaviour, Homans adopted Skinner's theory and combined it with utilitarian cost-benefit economic perspective to develop his exchange theory.

We begin at what may seem a long distance from human social behavior — at the behavior of individual animals. And a long distance it is: not for one moment do we imply that the behavior of men and the behavior of animals is the same. But if they are not the same they may yet be similar and similar in just those ways that will most interest us. (Homans 1961: 17)

Also, being influenced by George Simmel, Homans’ theory was to look for fundamental nature of human life. Simmel's idea of reciprocity that marks every human interaction actually shaped small-group research of Homans. He effectively combined the rationality principle of utilitarian economics with behavioural psychology and thereby promoted small-group researches.

Human Behaviour in Homan's Scheme

In simple terms, self-interest is considered by Homans as the governing principle of human behaviour. In terms of the returns from every interaction human beings universally modify and shape their behaviour. A rational calculation of benefits and costs governs human society, which is constituted by interacting individual beings. The foundation of social exchange theory of Homans rests on a set of five general propositions of all human behaviour. Gathering insights from everyday social interaction, he theorized that a sociology could be developed on such basic principles of human behaviour which would be sufficient to explain all social behaviour (Homans 1984).

The five propositions are:

1. The success proposition
2. The stimulus proposition
3. The value proposition
4. The deprivation–satiation proposition, and
5. The aggression–approval proposition.

Success Proposition

Homans from his small-group interactive studies gave the example of the success proposition with reference to an office situation. A person asks for good advice from others only when s/he realizes that in the past on similar situation such advices bore fruit for him/her. Thus, the more the incidence of useful advice in the past, the more is the likelihood of such advices being sought in the future. This works for both the giver and taker of such advices.

In other words, the success proposition works on the principle of reward, that is, if an activity was rewarded in the past and if the reward was quick then, such activity will be repeated in the future. Human behaviour is principally thought to be guided by a desire to secure project. A project is nothing but rewards minus the incidental costs. Cost is a negative value; every activity while striving for a reward also incurs a cost, and hence we have alternative rewarding activities as well. The best possible activity then is ensured, also on the count that a regular interval of reward followed by a repetition of the same activity might elicit monotony. Such satiation is often overcome by investing in activity which results intermittent rewards. Homans made it obvious that,

… we define psychic profit as reward less cost, and we argue that no exchange continues unless both parties are making a profit. Even the pigeon, when it finds its rewards and costs nicely balanced, may try to get out of the situation or indulge in emotional behaviour rather than continue its exchange with the psychologist. But our argument is more familiar in the field of human buying and selling. (Homans 1961: 61)

Basically, Homans was interested in exemplifying how the basic principles of utilitarian economics are fused with entire social behaviour.

Stimulus Proposition

The same stimulus results in similar response. Homans explained this proposition very lucidly by stating, ‘A fisherman who has cast his line into a dark pool and has caught a fish becomes more apt to fish in dark pools again’ (Homans 1974: 23).

In other words, it works on the principle of experience. Simultaneously it puts forward the process of generalization, i.e., one tends to extend the behaviour to other similar circumstances on the basis of successful experience. Generalization works at different levels. From the example of fishing, one level of generalization would prompt one who is successful in fishing in dark pools to move to any pool with any degree of shadiness. At a higher level of generalization one may move from one kind of fishing or even to another kind of fishing or even to other similar kind of activity.

Similarly, an individual actor's sensitivity and alertness to stimulus or set of stimuli allow him or her to discriminate also. Discrimination means that even if there is success with a particular stimulus, the same behaviour might not be repeated if the conditions under which such an accomplishment occurred appear to be complicated enough.

Value Proposition

To appreciate the outcome of a behaviour Homans introduced the idea of both reward and punishment. Rewards are understood to be associated with actions which are endowed with positive values. On the other hand, punishments are actions with negative values. The value preposition works on the principle of reward and punishment. Quite obviously, any increase in positive acts, acts as an incentive to engage in the same desired behaviour.

Also, rewards vary by degree of value, which allows an individual to indulge in making a rational choice between alternative actions. Along with the first two propositions, Homans used a third proposition concerning reward and punishment to explain how an individual weighs between alternatives to secure favourable outcomes. A person chooses the one for which, as perceived by him/her at the time the best not only in terms of absolute positive value attached to the activity but also with a calculation of the probability of securing favourable rewards. Reward with a high probability, even with a relative low positive reward value might be preferred by an individual (Homans 1961).

Deprivation–satiation Proposition

Directly borrowed from principles of economics Homans proposed this deprivation–satiation as the principle of diminishing returns. As he stated, ‘The more often in the recent past a person has received a particular reward; the less valuable any further unit of that reward becomes for him’ (Homans 1974: 29).

To explain this proposition, Homans used the concepts of cost and profit. Profit in any interactive situation is calculated as that unit of reward which is over and above the cost. Obviously, any behaviour entails a cost, which is the unit of reward lost in selecting a particular line of action foregoing the other alternatives.

Social exchange involves human activities. Thus the human element in it allows for a variation in action–reward situations. Social exchange thereby is not a fixed, standardized interaction. It is rather that differentially placed individuals always change their choices to maximize profits and rewards. If the rewards become too regular and abundant, then as a result of over-satiation the motivation towards such an activity gets lost.

Behavioural psychologist Skinner's study of pigeon's behaviour had a direct bearing on Homan's present proposition. Thus, when a pigeon has an abundance of food, its need to engage in pegging at the target to secure food automatically goes down. This animal behaviour was applied to human society by Homans, but with a qualification. In relation to the time, context and precise nature of the object of satisfaction, the principle of diminishing return is actually operationalized. For some rewards like money or power the reward may never reach a point of satiation. However, for rewards like food and sex, it may reach such a point but is also capable of a recovery of the value after a time gap.

Aggression–approval Proposition

This proposition of Homans is based on the principle of distributive justice. As in most of his theories, here too Homans is influenced by Skinner's pigeon study. He wrote:

when a pigeon pecks but gets no grain, although the stimulus–conditions resemble those under which it was previously rewarded for pecking, the pigeon displays what looks to a human observer for all the world like anger and frustration: it turns away from the target, flapping its wings and cooing hurriedly. (Homans 1961: 72–73)

In simpler terms, a person gets angry when his/her expectation from a particular activity are not met and are instead rewarded negatively. This leads to aggressive behaviour. Such aggressive performance is then considered as rewarding. If this behaviour could be termed as negative emotions, the contrary is also plausible, that is, it is quite possible that a person's action fetches more reward than what was expected out of it in the first place. Or, that s/he does not receive any punishment when expected. Such approving behaviour then would be highly valued and the person will most likely to engage himself/herself in such approving behaviours.

In all the above propositions, Homans relied heavily an behaviourism. He also fused the rationality principle of economics with psychological behaviourism. The rational choice theory overall governs Homans’ understanding of human social exchanges. Human society as one constituted of actors who act in accord with the rationality proposition are intrinsically maximizing their utilities. Thus, in the last count Homans’ individual is an actor who is essentially a rational profit seeker. Homans suggested a sociology which would attempt to understand elementary social behaviour comprehensively in order to generalize and theorize for large-scale structures. It is only that at the societal level the nature of exchanges are made up of complex processes.

Homans focused on individual exchanges. However, he was clear about the constitution of the human group. The group is understood to be a result of activity, interaction, sentiment and norms. The emphasis on the face-to-face situation, however, remains the starting point of social exchange theory of Homans. In the very opening page of The Human Group, it is emphasized, ‘… a number of persons who communicate with one another often over a span of time, and who are few enough so that each person who is able to communicate with all the others not at secondhand, through other people, but face to face’ (Homans 1961: 1).

PETER BLAU (1918–2002)

A Brief Biographical Sketch

Peter Blau is credited with developing George Homans’ scheme of social exchange from its application to elementary form of social life to an analysis of complex structures. In simple terms, he qualified the theory of social exchange beyond its original micro roots. Peter Blau's contention involves as to how at the higher levels social life is organized into more complex structures out of the association among wo/men. Blau's ideas are useful for a sociological understanding of the intricate relation between organization, power and bureaucracy. His Exchange and Power in Social life (1964) stands out as the major sociological work based on the theory of social exchange.

Peter Blau is a doctorate from Columbia University (1952) and completed his undergraduate sociology from the little known Elmhurst College, Illinois. He was born in Vienna, Austria in 1918 and later migrated to the United States. His school days were interrupted by World War II. He taught at many of the US universities and became a Professor of sociology in Columbia University. Later on, he shifted to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

In the sociology syllabi across the world, Peter Blau mainly figures for his study of the American Occupational Structure (1968) and his theory on occupation and social stratification. However, his major contribution remains in his effort to theoretically integrate small-scale issue with large-scale sociological theories. He has also contributed to the development of the structured theory. In fact, he collaborated with advanced functionalist Robert king Merton to coauthor Continuities in Structural Inquiry (1981). Blau has authored many articles and books mainly on the themes of organization and modern society.

Sociological Theory and Social Exchange

In this book Exchange and Power in Social Life (1964), Peter Blau makes clear his chief goal, ‘… an understanding of social structure on the basic of an analysis of the social processes that govern the relations between individuals and groups’ (Blau 1964: 2). Against any project of developing grand schemes of sociological theory, he was more into an empirical bent. Accordingly, he opted for such a theory which could be tested empirically. Face-to-face micro studies, as suggested by Homans, is not discarded by Blau, but he views this as the means to gain insight to move beyond the behavioural level of social exchange. The nature of sociological theory is proposed by him as, ‘A formal theory from which empiral predictions can be logically deduced plays the dominant role in research that is designed to test the prediction and thereby indirectly the theory’ (Blau 1973: 45).

Apart from George Homans, Peter Blau is indebted to both Simmel and Emile Durkheim. For Simmel, the basic motive that drives individuals to associate with others is to satisfy individual needs. In such associations, individuals do not always enjoy rewards as per expectation but the expectation that marks such interaction makes them all social exchanges. Thus, social exchange is taken as the axial principle of social life. For Blau, the principle holds true for both individual as well as group behaviours. On the other hand, while theorizing on the structure of social associations, Blau takes recourse to Durkheim's understanding of society as more than just a summation of individuals — that as a social fact, society is a result of an association, and association acts an integrative factor to give rise to social behaviour. More in a Durkheimian way, he envisages social exchanges as creating associations and as well giving rise to social position and statuses.

Following Homans, Blau builds up the process of social association starting with at least two persons engaged in an exchange of social activity. Such social activity intrinsically involves both rewards and costs, either manifested or latent. The social anthropological insights are also invoked by Blau to see such exchanges as creating not only bonds between participants but also the nature of such exchanges establish differential statuses for the participants.

As long as the exchange process benefits the participants the process continues. A sort of cost–benefit assessment between the exchange partners as well as the social context of the exchange process gives rise to a complex at the societal level.

As commented upon by George Ritzer, Blau's scheme of social exchange starts with interpersonal exchange and ends with social change (Ritzer 1996). The scheme involves a four-stage sequence:

1. Interpersonal exchanges
2. Status and power differentiation
3. Legitimization and organization, and
4. Opposition and change.

Each of these stages leads to the next stage. Social associations are a result of interaction between people who due to variety of reasons come together. After the initial ties are secured, on the basis of variability of rewards that accrue to the exchanging persons, the subsequent stages unfold. Rewards, as long as they satisfy expectations between the interactive persons and so long as they enhance the bonds, lead to a stable organization. On the other hand, due to insufficient rewards oppositional forces emerge which provide incentives for change. Quite obviously, mostly interactive parties cannot share rewards out of social exchange in equal terms; such inequality leads to power differences within a society.

Blau comprehensively adopts Homans’ elementary forms of behaviour to explain higher level social structures. He is clear with his understanding that the exchange processes at the individual level can be fully appreciated by contextualizing them within the social structure that surrounds them. As noted before, the Durkhemian influence is prominent in Blau's theorization. While it is true that the social structure arises out of the social interactions/exchanges, but once they are constituted, they attain a life of their own. In turn they then affect the process of interaction.

Group Formation and Cohesion

Social groups provide the very basic site of social interaction. As social exchange is always directed towards other people, a social group is a pre-condition for such an interaction to take place at the first instance. Moreover, people are always drawn to those groups which offer them better exchanges. Thus, in order to get accepted as new members, people indulge in impressing the existing group members. Of course, such exercise come at a cost but an expectation of reciprocity balances the exchanges towards a stable stage of equilibrium. In simpler terms, the group formation takes place as those which promise greater rewards are the most sought out ones. Individuals flock to those and engage in such exchanges which allow them to get absorbed as successful group members.

In Exchange and Power in Social Life (1964), Blau discusses the integrative bonds that develop within a group. The integrative bonds that contribute to the cohesive character of a group are in the form of:

1. Impressing others
2. Social approval
3. Attractiveness, and
4. Love.

Initially one indulges in various strategies of impressing others in order to get accepted in a group. Strategies are adopted with respect to specific social situation, which may range from taking risks to exhibiting ease.

Another integrative bond is social approval. When an individual undertakes social exchange, s/he expects that his/her activity would receive approval from the other participating individuals. Thus, the approving agreement of others helps one to gain confidence in one's decision, opinions and actions. It serves as a crucial element of any social grouping process.

Attractiveness is simply the appeal of association shared by participants in social exchange. It follows from social approval that it generates attractiveness amongst the individuals. As under normal conditions, people tend to interact and associate with others who agree with their actions and decisions. Quite obviously, any conflict of opinions if continues for a long term would lead on the contrary to a lack of attraction and result in rejection. Fleeting impression or bluffing through first impression as a mechanism for generating attractiveness in the final count are self-defeating in creating cohesion in any group.

Finally, Blau talked about love as that selfless devotion by one to those they love. Such intrinsic attraction, however, cannot be fully selfless. It rests on an expectation of maintaining the other's love. Love relationship is a unique kind of social exchange where the rewards are not so specific as in other social exchanges. Interestingly, in such relationships there is an asymmetry whereby the one who is ‘less in love’ gains more power and manipulate the exchange in his/her favour drawing more rewards. Thus, love is such a delicate integrative bond whose unrestricted rewards diminish its worth and value.

Such social integration by implication rests on shared values amongst the group members. Consensus on normative standards at the operational level not only leads to a strengthening of the group cohesion but also invokes informal sanctions on individual actions which are on the contrary.

Complex Organization and Bureaucracy

Although Blau adapted the elementary forms of social exchange to explain complex social structures, he was aware of the distinct nature of complex large collectivities. In his Bureaucracy in Modern Society (1956), he establishes how one needs to qualify the use of elementary face-to-face individual exchanges to account for such large impersonal social structures:

The complex social structures that characterize large collectives differ fundamentally from the simpler structures of small groups. A structure of social relations develops in a small group in the course of social interaction among its members. Since there is no direct social interaction among most members of a large community or entire society, some other mechanism must mediate the structure of social relations among them. (Blau 1964: 253)

Blau's contribution to the sociology of bureaucracy is immense. He explains bureaucracy as one organization which accomplishes large-scale administrative organization tasks. Such a complex administrative organization also works on the principle of social exchange but rests also on the principle of increasing rationalization of society. However, the lack of a personal face-to-face situation so necessary for social exchange to take place is accounted for by Blau. In dealing with such large complex, he reiterates the role of value consensus that marks a society.

As large organizations like bureaucracy are marked by indirect exchanges, alternative mechanisms come into play to substitute for direct exchanges. The norms and values mediate among social structures and facilitate social exchange. Instead of interpersonal exchange, such organizations are marked by collectivity-individual exchanges. He examines organizations by focusing on the role of organizational sub-structures and confirms that the same basic principle holds true for such organizational functioning too. They exist and perform on the basis of cost and rewards.

Commonly agreed upon values and norms serve as media of social life and as mediating links for social transaction. They make indirect social exchange possible, and they govern the processes of social integration and differentiation in complex social structures as well as the development of social organization and reorganization in them. (Blau 1964: 255)

Blau, therefore, is attentive to the problem of developing theoretical orientation beyond the face-to-face exchange theory of Homans to account for the macro structures. Blau develops such theoretical formulation as a complement to the original social exchange theory of Homans. The primary small-scale exchange theory of Homans is taken by him as a premise to build theories of organization which are large-scale. He attempts to integrate the small-scale and large-scale sociological issues theoretically.

SUMMARY

George Homans founded the unique perspective of social exchange in sociological theory. Human beings indulge in social exchanges in terms of rewards and punishments. The image of the human being here is that of a rational being who is competent to make rational choice. Primarily an individual being is driven by self-interest. Homans heavily relied on behavioural psychologism to develop a micro-oriented exchange theory.

Peter Blau takes the micro-oriented conceptualization of social exchange to a higher plane to account for macro social structures. To build sociological theory in order to study large-scale organization, he focuses on the role of norms and values. According to Blau, when one moves beyond the face-to-face human interaction, one realizes that social exchanges occur between individuals who need not be all too consistent and be driven by a singular goal. Moreover, the rational choice theory of economics need not be absolutely implanted on social behaviour, because a total and complete knowledge about alternative course of action/choices is quite an improbability for human beings.

Blau's theory has been instrumental in sociology for developing important theories of organization and bureaucracy. Understanding of group behaviour has been enhanced by social exchange theories and the perspective has been furthered by many other contemporary theorists.

Key Words

• Group Formation
• Psychological Behaviourism
• Rational Choice Theory
• Social Exchange
• Utilitarianism

Glossary

Rational Choice Theory: Attempts to explain social phenomenon in terms of how self-interested individuals make choices under the influence of their preferences. It treats social exchange as similar to economic exchange where all parties try to maximize their advantage or gain, and to minimize their disadvantage or loss.

Social Behaviourism: An approach in social sciences which seeks to provide an objective, quantified approach to explaining and predicting social behaviour. It is associated with the rise of the behavioural sciences, modelled after the natural sciences.

Social Exchange Theory: Based on the assumptions of rational choice theory it explains social change and stability as a process of negotiated exchanges between parties.

Utilitarianism: States that humans act rationally to maximize their benefits through relations with others. In relation to social exchange theory, people try to maximize the profit and rewards they receive in an interaction by making choices that will benefit them.

Discussion Points

• The intellectual premise of Social Exchange Theory.
• Human behaviour as utility-driven in Homan's Model.
• Understanding group through Social Exchange Theory.