Abstract
Robert Gifford and Michael Cave examine how SRT and interpersonal evaluation theory (IET) might complement one another in this chapter. The authors ask which resources individuals prefer to trade with which sorts of persons and point out that SRT proposes six classes of resources and IET a set of prototypical person types. They propose that preferences for resource exchanges may vary depending on the particular resource and on the type of person with whom resources are exchanged. Thus, an integration of SRT and IET may improve our understanding of interpersonal exchange processes. Preferences of volunteers were analyzed when the six resources were offered to four IET person types (boss, friend, employee, and enemy). Some resources (especially status and love) were preferred more than others, and both resource and interpersonal source did matter. The results of this study suggest that an understanding of interpersonal resource exchanges calls for a consideration of both the types of resource and the types of person involved.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
IET also proposes that persons also evaluate themselves, as to how they might or might not satisfy the needs of others, in a parallel manner, although this theme will be developed in future papers.
- 2.
To regard the other as an enemy, opponent, or challenger may not appear to “satisfy a need,” although it certainly seems to for some people: many individuals seek opponents in sports or business as a way of challenging themselves or others. Others even seem to seek (and find) enemies (cf. Adams 2005; Dodge 2006; Van Vugt et al. 2007).
- 3.
Interestingly, Wiggins’ (1979) approach to personality as a circumplex drew upon the Foas’ ideas.
- 4.
The eight major person types are, around the circumplex from the top: Boss, Teacher, Friend, Ally, Employee, Student, Enemy, and Challenger. The person types are based on the two major dimensions that underlie other circumplexes, which are usually described as power and love (Leary 1957), dominance and warmth (Wiggins 1979), or agency and communion (Horowitz 2004).
- 5.
These four were chosen to be representative of the eight IET person types because the length of the questionnaire, already 288 items, would have doubled if all 8 person types were examined. The four chosen represent the 4 “cardinal” points of the circumplex; the other 4 are intermediate to these four, and thus need not be examined in a first study.
- 6.
Although it may seem odd to suggest that persons have a need for enemies, many people do have them, and in fact some people do report needing or even valuing enemies (Adams 2005).
- 7.
Participants also answered a parallel set of questions about a negative interaction, that is, when the other person removed or deprived the participant of a resource, but because of the length and complexity of the results, that part of the study will be reported elsewhere.
- 8.
Data for goods were not displayed in Fig. 14.1.
References
Adams, G. (2005). The cultural grounding of personal relationship: Enemyship in North American and West African worlds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 948–968.
Andersen, S. M., & Klatzky, R. L. (1987). Traits and social stereotypes: Levels of categorization in person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 235–246.
Anderson, N. H. (1962). Application of an additive model to impression formation. Science, 138, 817–818.
Anderson, C. A., & Sedikides, C. (1991). Thinking about people: Contributions of a typological alternative to associationistic and dimensional models of person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 203–217.
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258–290.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Boston: Beacon.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Benjamin, L. S. (2005). Interpersonal theory of personality disorders: The structural analysis of social behavior and interpersonal reconstructive therapy. In M. F. Lenzenweger & J. F. Clarkin (Eds.), Major theories of personality disorder (2nd ed., pp. 157–230). New York: Guilford Press.
Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. K. Srull & R. S. Wyer Jr. (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–36). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. (1979). Prototypes in person perception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 3–52.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McRae, R. R. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford Press.
Cottrell, C. A., Neuberg, S. L., & Li, N. P. (2006). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 208–231.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Dodge, K. A. (2006). Translational science in action: Hostile attributional style and the development of aggressive behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 791–814.
Donnenwerth, G. V., & Foa, U. G. (1974). Effect of resource class on retaliation to injustice in interpersonal exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 785–793.
Fiske, S. T. (2003). Five core social motives, plus or minus five. In S. J. Spencer, S. Fein, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Motivated social perception: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 9). New York: Routledge.
Fiske, S. T., Lin, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (1999). The continuum model: Ten years later. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 231–254). New York: Guilford Press.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83.
Fitzsimons, G. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2003). Thinking of you: Nonconscious pursuit of interpersonal goals associated with relationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 148–163.
Foa, U. G. (1971). Interpersonal and economic resources. Science, 71, 345–351.
Foa, U. G., & Bosman, J. A. M. (1979). Differential factors in need for love. In M. Cook & G. Wilson (Eds.), Love and attraction. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
Foa, U. G., & Krieger, E. (1985). Perceived need for resources: Some differences among groups. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 347–351.
Foa, E. B., Turner, J. L., & Foa, U. G. (1972). Response generalization in aggression. Human Relations, 25, 337–350.
Foa, U. G., Converse, J., Törnblom, K., & Foa, E. B. (Eds.). (1993a). Resource theory: Explorations and applications. San Diego: Academic.
Foa, U. G., Törnblom, K. T., Foa, E. B., & Converse, J., Jr. (1993b). Introduction: Resource theory in social psychology. In U. G. Foa, J. Converse, K. Törnblom, & E. B. Foa (Eds.), Resource theory: Explorations and applications (pp. 1–10). San Diego: Academic.
Gifford, R. (1994). A lens-mapping framework for understanding the encoding and decoding of interpersonal dispositions in nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 398–412.
Gifford, R. (2000). Interpersonal evaluation theory. International Journal of Psychology, 35(3–4), 120.
Gifford, R. (2010). Who is the other? A taxonomy of person types. Manuscript in preparation.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. The American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597–606.
Horowitz, L. M. (2004). Communion and agency in interpersonal interactions. In L. M. Horowitz (Ed.), Interpersonal foundations of psychopathology (pp. 53–79). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185–214.
Laing, R. D., Phillipson, H., & Lee, A. R. (1966). Interpersonal perception: A theory and a method of research. New York: Springer.
Leary, T., (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Maslow, A. H., & Mintz, N. C. (1956). Effects of esthetic surrounding: I. Initial effects of three esthetic conditions upon perceiving “energy” and “well-being” in faces. Journal of Psychology, 41, 247–254.
McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215–238.
Murray, H. A., et al. (1938). Explorations in personality. Oxford: New York.
Pittman, T. S., & Zeigler, K. R. (2007). Basic human needs. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: A handbook of basic principles (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Greenberg, J. (2003). Terror management theory: An evolutionary existential account of human behavior. In T. Pyszczynski, S. Solomon, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), In the wake of 9/11: The psychology of terror (pp. 11–35). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178.
Secord, P. F., & Backman, C. W. (1964). Social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Oxford, UK: Wiley.
Törnblom, K., & Nilsson, B. O. (1993). The effect of matching resources to source on their perceived importance and sufficiency. In U. G. Foa, J. Converse, K. Törnblom, & E. B. Foa (Eds.), Resource theory: Explorations and applications (pp. 81–96). San Diego: Academic.
Van Vugt, M., De Cremer, D., & Jannsen, D. P. (2007). Gender differences in cooperation and competition: The male warrior hypothesis. Psychological Science, 18, 19–23.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412.
Wiggins, J. S. (1980). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 265–294). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Winch, R. F. (1958). Mate selection: A study of complementary needs. Oxford, UK: Harper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gifford, R., Cave, M. (2012). The Complementary Natures of Resource Theory and Interpersonal Evaluation Theory. In: Törnblom, K., Kazemi, A. (eds) Handbook of Social Resource Theory. Critical Issues in Social Justice. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4175-5_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4175-5_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-4174-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-4175-5
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)