894 Social Exchange Theory
we construct the social world and our understand-
ings of it. We create the social world through our
words, our actions, and our media products.
Interaction is no less a social accomplishment than
is the creation of a film: Both require considerable
creativity and coordination on the part of partici-
pants. For this reason, social construction theory
lends itself particularly well to discussion of the con-
nection between the macro and micro. Most often
this implies using analysis at the microlevel (specific
words, images, actions) to examine a macroprocess
(or structure, or institution). For example, a study
of how people use words describing race, or what
roles individuals of different races have been given
on television, can help to reveal how racism has
been maintained (or how it can be dismantled).
From the start, social construction theory has
implied reflexivity (an awareness of the researcher’s
role in conducting research) and questioning of
taken-for-granted assumptions, especially in the
construction of knowledge. Reflexivity means stop-
ping to ask questions about what is occurring
rather than taking matters for granted, and then
letting the questions (and their answers) influence
future choices. One implication is that researchers
need to discover their own assumptions and biases
in order to account for them. Central to social con-
struction are questions about what scholars know
and what forms of evidence are accepted as valid.
These questions are equally relevant to other theo-
ries, of course, but are explicitly considered less
often. Perhaps since social construction theorists
focus on the created nature of knowledge and
information, they are more likely to ask questions
about their own activities as well as the activities of
those they study.
Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz
See also Constitutive View of Communication;
Coordinated Management of Meaning; Language and
Communication; Semiotics and Semiology; Social
Interaction Theories
Further Readings
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social
construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of
knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social
constructionism. London: Routledge.
Carey, J. (1989). Communication as culture: Essays on
media and society. New York: Routledge.
Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships:
Soundings in social construction. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gergen, M. M., & Gergen, K. J. (Eds.). (2003). Social
construction: A reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (Ed.). (1995). Social approaches to
communication. New York: Guilford Press.
Pearce, W. B. (1989). Communication and the human
condition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.
Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New
York: Free Press.
Shotter, J. (1993). Conversational realities: Constructing
life through language. London: Sage.
Steier, F. (Ed.). (1991). Research and reflexivity. London:
Sage.
Social Exchange Theory
Social exchange theory (SET) is a set of ideas
derived from several theories (e.g., equity theory,
interdependence theory, resource theory) focused
on the manner by which humans acquire resources.
The roots of the aforementioned theories are located
in several disciplines including anthropology, eco-
nomics, psychology, and sociology. Conse­quently,
they differ with regard to their chara­cteriza­tions of
exchange. Because of this diversity, scholars using
SET as their conceptual framework sometimes dif-
fer with regard to the tenets of the theory and its
foundational work.
Regardless, a set of assumptions are attributed
to SET. These assumptions have guided research
on interpersonal (e.g., self-disclosure, relational
development, and maintenance) and organizational
communication (e.g., negotiation, social networks)
and have been incorporated into theories focused
on related processes (e.g., dual-concern model of
negotiation, investment model, selective investment
theory, social penetration theory).
Central Assumptions
Human beings need resources to survive. To facili-
tate meeting their needs, humankind learned to
directly exchange resources or distribute a pool of

895Social Exchange Theory
resources among members of a social system. When
acquiring resources, individuals enact behaviors
that have proved successful in the past and that
they expect will result in benefits in the current
context or in the future. Hence, they are self-
interested. To reduce the likelihood of exploitation,
social systems develop norms or rules that prescribe
how resources should be exchanged or distributed.
Direct exchanges (e.g., doing favors) are guided by
a norm of reciprocity that dictates that receiving a
resource obligates one to return a benefit and until
reciprocity occurs, the receiver of a resource is obli-
gated to be respectful and supportive of the giver.
Distribution of resources within a social system
(e.g., employee salaries) is governed by rules that
identify the basis upon which resources should be
allocated (e.g., relative contribution, need, status,
equality), the procedures used to determine the dis-
tribution (e.g., individuals should have voice in the
decision making), and how the distribution is
announced (e.g., decision makers should fully
explain their actions in a sensitive fashion). These
conventions increase feelings of deservingness, and
when they are violated, individuals perceive that
they have been treated unfairly and try to restore
fairness or seek resources elsewhere. When
exchanges have been successful, stable exchange
relationships and social networks are formed.
Stability alters the importance of exchange norms
(e.g., meeting needs becomes more important than
reciprocity), and norm deviations are tolerated to a
greater degree.
Communication Implications
Just as the capacity for resource exchange developed
as humankind evolved, so the capacity for language
evolved as a means for facilitating exchanges. There
isanaturalconnection,then,betweensocialexchange
and communication. Indeed, SET has implications
for understanding aspects of interaction.
First, interaction can be viewed as a means of
exchanging symbolic resources. Individuals have
cognitive filters that are used to translate actions
into resources. Hence, resources are symbolic repre-
sentations of the behaviors that occur during an
interaction. Resources include love, status, informa-
tion, services, goods, and money. When interacting,
individuals can perceive that they have exchanged
resources (e.g., compliments increase one’s status)
or have had resources taken away (e.g., insults
diminish one’s status). Interaction can reflect posi-
tive (mutual compliments) or negative reciprocity
(mutual insults), and resources can appropriately be
exchanged for similar, but not identical resources.
In some cases, individuals differ with regard to
what resources were exchanged as well as whether
positive or negative reciprocity occurred.
Second, interaction is a means of negotiating the
exchange of resources. Sometimes individuals nego-
tiate the terms of exchange prior to entering into it.
By doing so, they reduce uncertainty about the
nature of the future exchange as well as form a con-
tract that might be used to legitimately enforce the
terms of their agreement. Negotiations may involve
explicit (e.g., direct statements) or implicit (e.g.,
hints) forms of bargaining (e.g., exchange of offers
and counteroffers), argumentation (e.g., reason giv-
ing), and coercion (e.g., threats). Negotiators vary
with regard to their concern for their own outcomes
versus their partner’s outcomes. Exchange agree-
ments that meet the needs of both parties are most
likely when the individuals are mutually concerned
about their own and each other’s outcomes.
Third, interaction is a means by which individu-
als create exchange relationships and networks.
Although factors such as proximity can influence
the ability of individuals to form exchange rela-
tionships, individuals still have some choice. When
considering partners, individuals estimate what
others have to offer, and interaction plays a key
role in their estimates. Individuals may signal their
worth by displaying resources either verbally or
nonverbally and by providing samples (e.g., brief,
but positive initial interactions). Early positive
interactions may signal that another is trustworthy
and possesses valuable resources.
Fourth, interaction is a means by which indi-
viduals maintain and repair their exchange rela-
tionshipsandnetworks.Althoughmostrelationships
involve positive interactions, negative events can
occur that challenge their continuation. Hence,
individuals must find ways to keep the relationship
strong and overcome challenges. These actions
may involve discussing the relationship, assessing
individual needs, sacrificing, and accommodating
each other’s negative actions. Such actions reflect
commitment to the relationship that results from
prior investments, relational satisfaction, and the
perception that it is the best alternative.

896 Social Identity Theory
Criticism
Controversies have emerged about SET’s character-
ization of individuals as strategic and self-interested,
whether it is sufficiently precise so as to be falsifi-
able, whether it has logical consistency, and whether
it is universal. Communication critics question how
much SET informs about the vast array of pro-
cesses that occur during an interaction and suggest
that cognitive theories provide greater insight.
Michael Roloff
See also Cognitive Theories; Interpersonal
Communication Theories; Negotiation Theory;
Relational Development; Relational Maintenance
Theories; Self-Disclosure; Social Penetration Theory
Further Readings
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social
exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal
of Management 31, 874–900.
Lawler, E. J. (2001). An affect theory of social exchange.
American Journal of Sociology, 107, 321–352.
Molm, L. D. (2000). Theories of social exchange and
exchange networks. In G. Ritzer & B. Smart (Eds.),
Handbook of social theory (pp. 260–272). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roloff, M. (1981). Interpersonal communication: The
social exchange approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., & Verette, J. (1994).
The investment model: An interdependence analysis of
commitment processes and relationship maintenance
phenomena. In D. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.),
Communication and relational maintenance
(pp. 115–139). New York: Academic Press.
Social Identity Theory
The core idea of social identity theory is that
people are motivated to maintain or achieve a
positive social identity, but that positive social
identity results from the standing of one’s in-
group vis-à-vis other groups. Groups are engaged
in a struggle for power, prestige, and status, and
depending upon the nature of this struggle, groups
live in relative cooperation or competition. Using
this framework, social identity theory was initially
concerned with explaining social cooperation and
conflict and changes between the two, but it has
since burgeoned into a general approach to group
processes and intergroup relations. The generative
power of the theory derives from its interactive
metatheory—the idea that individual psychology
resides in and interacts with social relations
between groups.
Specifically, according to social identity theory,
groups vary in status position, these status positions
are perceived as more or less subjectively legitimate
and stable, group boundaries can be more or less
permeable, and people vary in their commitment to
their in-groups. These five variables place con-
straints upon the motive for a positive social iden-
tity, which ultimately leaves people with three
classes of identity-management strategy—social
mobility, social competition, and social creativity.
Social mobility is a strategy used by individuals to
produce positive social identity by either leaving
one’s group to move up the status hierarchy, in the
case of subordinate group members, or endorsing
limited assimilation of lower status group members,
in the case of those in dominant groups. The critical
prerequisite for social mobility is a belief in the per-
meability of group boundaries, and it is typically
accompanied by a lack of commitment to one’s in-
group and the belief that the status order is stable
and legitimate. Linguistically, social mobility is
exemplified by subordinate group members aban-
doning their language in favor of dominant group
languages and by dominant group members endors-
ing tokenistic assimilation and single-language poli-
cies such as English-only instruction for children.
Social competition (sometimes referred to as
social change) is a collective strategy that is aimed
at reversing the social order in the case of subordi-
nate group members or undermining social change
in the case of those in dominant groups. People
who endorse social competition are typically highly
committed to their group, see little possibility of
moving to another group, and see the status order
as unstable and/or illegitimate. Instability is the
critical variable that encourages attempts at social
change. Examples include subordinate groups
engaging in linguistic revival movements (e.g.,
Welsh, Catalan, Hawaiian) and dominant groups
that implement mass arrests, lynchings, and beat-
ings of those in subordinate groups or in the most
extreme case, genocide.

897Social Information Processing Theory
Social creativity is a collective strategy whereby
subordinate group members aim to preserve posi-
tive identity in the face of a highly stable status
order, and dominant group members distance
themselves from lower status groups. The precon-
ditions for social creativity are identical to those of
social competition except for the belief that the
social order is stable. Those in subordinate groups
may endorse solidarity-based stereotypes (“We are
the salt of the earth”), while eschewing status-based
stereotypes (“We are poor”); they might reject the
basis for stigmatization (“Black is beautiful!”) or
find an even lower status group to compare them-
selves with. Those in dominant groups are most
likely to pursue social creativity when they have
status, but not power. European aristocrats have
continually shifted their accents and phrases over
time in an effort to maintain a suitable distance
from subordinate group members who could other-
wise mimic good breeding by cultivating their
accent. This process may account for the relative
stability of American English (which is replete with
archaic English terms, such as fall, sick, trash, and
molasses) compared to English in England (autumn,
ill, rubbish, and treacle, respectively).
In the field of communication, the most
direct relatives of social identity theory include
ethnolinguistic identity theory, communication
accommodation theory, and their explanations for
multi­­lin­gualism, language attitudes, and commu-
nicative shifts. In essence, communication accom-
modation theory assumes that people manage
social distance using communication and that this
is motivated by a desire to show similarity and lik-
ing or to establish positive social identity. The ways
in which these motives are realized are described
by ethnolinguistic identity theory, which retains
the identity-management strategies described in
social identity theory.
More recently, social identity theory has been
extended theoretically to account for representa-
tions of minority and majority groups in the media
and patterns of media usage. It has been found that
people use media that gratify social identities and
that representations of minorities in the media typi-
cally are biased in a stereotypical direction. It has
been proposed that media-usage patterns reflect
social identity management strategies and that shifts
between these strategies are likely to be governed by
information in the media that leads people to alter
their perceptions about the relative legitimacy and
stability of status relations between groups. The
interactivemetatheoryhasbeenrefinedandextended
in the form of self-categorization theory, which has
been used to explain, among other things, social
influence, stereotyping, and leadership endorse-
ment. In communication, self-categorization theory
has been used to explain third-person perceptions,
group-status formation within small interactive
groups, and the uses of language by leaders to estab-
lish influence and power.
Scott Reid
See also Accommodation Theory; Communication
Theory of Identity; Identity Theories
Further Readings
Reid, S. A., Giles, H., & Abrams, J. R. (2004). A social
identity model of media usage and effects. Zeitschrift
für Medienpsychologie [Journal of Media Psychology],
16, 17–25.
Reid, S. A., & Ng, S. H. (2003). Identity, power, and
strategic social categorizations: Theorizing the
language of leadership. In D. van Knippenberg &
M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity
processes in groups and organizations (pp. 210–223).
London: Sage.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups:
Studies in the social psychology of intergroup
relations. London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory
of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel
(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations
(pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Social Information
Processing Theory
The social information processing theory (SIP)
explains how communicators who meet through
text-based computer-mediated communication
(CMC) develop interpersonal impressions and
relationships. Introduced in 1992 by Joseph
Walther, SIP provides an explanation for how
aspects of the communication process interact
with technological features of media to foster the
development of affinity and attraction in online