Hello! My name is Gabriela. I am a CCT student. I will be working on Social Exchange theory
Hello Gabriela! Wow, you've been editing a lot on Social Exchange theory! It looks really good so far! My main thing is that the Applications section leaves us with a lot of cool tidbits that I'd like to see more fleshed out. Before we get to the Affect part, the Applications part mentions, but doesn't explain, gift-giving, marriage, intimate relationships, work settings -- it would be great to see more of like the online dating study, with well-described specific applications like "Research has shown that social exchange theory helps explain..." etc etc! For instance, when I was researching this for my presentation on it, apparently business relationships are a big area to study now! The paper I found for that will probably lead you to many others that also look at social exchange theory and interorganization relationships: Chao, Cheng-Min. 08/2013. Trust and Commitment in Relationships Among Medical Equipment Suppliers: Transaction Cost and Social Exchange Theories, Social behavior and personality, 41(7), 1057 - 1069-1069. (ISSN: 0301-2212). And the job-satisfaction/turnover rate study would be interesting here too! These applications and ways to use social exchange theory can be so vast. Let me know if you have any questions! Hope this was helpful for you! -pam/--Pjk76 (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Gaby! I think the page is quite well done. Here are a few questions and advises. Is the "affect theory of social exchange" a part of Applications? It it is, why a theory can be viewed as a way of application? In this article, Social exchange and micro social order ( http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=6442dd0e-de7f-4b8a-930e-048e8b903bfb%40sessionmgr14&vid=2&hid=18) , it seems that there are other approaches parallel to the Affect Theory, such as Mediating Processes. And this article also provides a category of methods relevant to Social Exchange Theory, it really gives us a frame of application of the theory. Further, I think it will be better if the applications can be divided into several parts each leaded by subheadings. And in the section of Theoretical propositions, I noticed that all propositions are from one scholar's summary. But some of them looks confusing and similar to each other, is it possible that we can find more concise summary about the theoretical propositions? Tc713 (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Tianyi's review:
Hi, Gaby:
I have to say that it is a heavy responsibility to edit such a popular theory. But I still believe that you can improve it well. I put my ideas of the page of "Social exchange theory" here:
Firstly, I think the main problem with the section of history is that it lacks the chronology. By reading this part, I did not grasp any information about when Peter Blau and Richard Emerson developed the theory. I also want to know whether there is some new development about the theory which is not listed here. What is more, does Homans' s summary of three propositions need to be moved to the section of theoretical propositions?
Secondly, the current page does not offer me any references about why Ivan Nye's summary of theoretical propositions was chosen as representation.
Finally, I think the structure of the section: Comparison levels and modes of exchange, is a little blurry. Maybe creating more subheadings can help readers to navigate certain ideas more easily. And do you think "Comparison levels" and "modes of exchange" can be divided into two independent sections to make things look clearer?--Tc713 (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gabriela,
Please feel free to send me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns regarding Wikipedia. Have a great day! Fuerst.emily (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Group 3 Peer Review
Hello Gabriela!
As I'm going through each section on your theory, Social Exchange, I will offer my suggestions, and then discuss the page as a whole. By no means do I expect you to follow all of my suggestions, but these are just some things that I noticed.
Introduction:
I like that the intro is concise; I think they use the phrase "social exchange theory" too many times (I don't think the beginning of almost every sentence has to start with that); I don't understand why "relationships" has a link; I don't think it's quite necessary for economics, psychology, and sociology to have links, unless those pages specifically discussed the connection between the theory and that particular field
History:
I don't think Peter Blau should have a link if all the other theorists don't; I think it's interesting to see how the other theorists helped to develop the theory in it's early stages, yet I feel like the section keeps jumping back and forth and it's a little hard to follow. Since Homans introduced the theory, I think all of his work should be listed first, then the other contributions by other theorists should follow in a clear way; The 3 propositions aren't introduced clearly - what exactly do they represent?
Basic concepts:
Maybe there should be an opening statement that introduces costs and rewards; The second equation is unnecessary; I think there should be a subheading for the 5 key propositions for rewards/costs, and maybe the 3 propositions mentioned in the history section could be moved and have a section under Basic Concepts as well
Theoretical propositions:
It'd be helpful to explain who Ivan Nye is since this entire section is inspired by him; I'm not sure if this section is really needed, or at least not in its entirety - maybe it can mentioned or tied into the Basic Concepts section somehow
Assumptions:
The last two sentences don't sound neutral and should either be reworded or deleted; I think the discussion of organizational citizenship behavior would go better under Applications of the theory; I think game theory should be furthered explained
Comparison levels and modes of exchange:
Way too long and needs to be broken up
Critiques:
I think, in the last sentence, "group gain, status consistency and competition" should also have links
Applications:
I think, for the most part, the whole first half is subjective, and most of it should deleted; You can expand on applications within intimate relationships and work settings, giving them their own subheadings; I think the first short paragraph about the Affect Theory is all that is needed, and the rest can be deleted
What I Think Overall:
Overall I think this page has a lot of good information, but also a lot of unnecessary information. What will help make it clearer to follow is to add more sections and separate some of the material. I also think that much of it sounds like it came straight from a textbook. Can't wait to see your own input! HeyyyReggie (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)