Abstract
The derivation of meaning in social relationships is also the target in this chapter by Kjell Törnblom and Eva Fredholm. Clark and Mills (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24, 1979) proposed that observers are likely to infer an exchange relationship between two persons when they give each other comparable (similar) benefits, while the presentation of noncomparable ones would indicate a communal relationship (e.g., friendship). From the perspective of Foa’s resource categorization, results from a study by Clark (Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 375–381, 1981) seem to be misinterpreted as consistent with those predictions, due to the use of comparable resources in conditions of noncomparability. In this chapter, Törnblom and Fredholm examine the influence of comparability/noncomparability and nature of the resources involved in friendship attribution. Their findings suggest that comparability of resources is a less important cue than the nature of those resources. In addition, resource comparability does not seem to allow a distinction between communal and exchange relationships in terms of the perceived existence of friendship.
This chapter is reprinted with kind permission (No. 005348) from American Sociological Association: Törnblom, K. & Fredholm, E. M. (1984). Attribution of friendship: The nature and comparability of resources given and received. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 50–61.
This research was facilitated by a grant (no. F 327/81) from the Swedish Council for Research in the Humanities and Social Sciences to the senior author. The valuable comments by Uriel Foa, Donald Granberg, Dan Jonsson, and three anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged.
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.
“Love” is an expression of affectionate regard, warmth, or comfort. “Status” indicates an evaluative judgment that conveys prestige, regard, or esteem. “Information” includes advice, opinions, instructions, or enlightenment but excludes those behaviors that could be classed as love or status. “Money” is any coin, currency, or token that has some standard unit of exchange value. “Goods” are tangible products, objects, or materials. “Services” involve activities that affect the body or belongings of a person and that often constitute labor for another (Foa and Foa 1976, p. 101).
- 2.
“The notion of particularism…indicates the extent to which the value of a given resource is influenced by the particular persons involved in exchanging it and by their relationship.” “…concreteness…suggests the form or type of expression characteristic of the various resources.” “Love, the most particularistic resource is at one extreme of this coordinate (particularism-universalism). Money, the least particularistic resource, is situated at the other extreme.” “Services and status are less particularistic than love, but more particularistic than goods and information, which are more universalistic” (Foa and Foa 1976, p. 102).
- 3.
Our design did not permit a test for the interaction effects between comparability/noncomparability and resource type, as conditions of noncomparability involved two different resources. Thus, we have two designs, one with six categories (resource classes) and one with two (comparability/noncomparability), rather than one 6 × 2 design.
References
Carson, R. C. (1979). Personality and exchange in developing relationships. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 247–269). New York: Academic.
Clark, M. (1981). Noncomparability of benefits given and received: A cue to the existence of friendship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 375–381.
Clark, M. (1983). Reactions to aid in communal and exchange relationships. In J. Fisher, A. Nadler, B. DePaulo (Eds.), New directions in research on helping: Vol.1. Recipient reactions to aid. New York: Academic.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24.
Cooley, C. H. (1909). Social organization. New York: Scribner’s.
Davis, K. (1948). Human society. New York: Macmillan.
Durkheim, E. (1893/1968). The division of labor in society (trans: George, S.). New York: Free Press.
Foa, U. G. (1971). Interpersonal and economic resources. Science, 71, 345–351.
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield: Charles C Thomas.
Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (1976). Resource theory of social exchange. In J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spence, & R. C. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 99–131). Morristown: General Learning Press.
Hinde, R. A. (1981). The bases of a science of interpersonal relationships. In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships (Studying personal relationships, Vol. 1, pp. 1–22). New York: Academic.
Kayser, E., Feeley, M., Lamm, H. (1982). Laienpsychologie sozialer Beziehungen: Vorstellungen über gerechtes und tat-sächliches Verhalten. Universität Mannheim: Bericht aus dem Sonder-forschungsbereich 24.
Lerner, M. J. (1975). The justice motive in social behavior. The Journal of Social Issues, 31, 1–19.
Maclver, R. M. (1936). Community: A sociological study. New York: Macmillan.
Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982). Exchange and communal relationships. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 121–144). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Parsons, T., & Shils, E. A. (1951). Toward a general theory of action. New York: Harper and Row.
Schwinger, T. and Nährer, W. (1982). Prinzipien der gerechten Vergabe von interpersonalen Ressourcen in verschiedenen Sozialbeziehungen. Universität Mannheim: Berichte aus dem Sonderforschungsbereich 24.
Sorokin, P. A. (1947). Society, culture, and personality. New York: Harper.
Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways. Boston: Ginn.
Tonnies, F. (1887/1957). Community and society (trans: Loomis, C. P.). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Törnblom, K., & Foa, U. G. (1983). Choice of a distribution principle: Crosscultural evidence on the effects of resources. Acta Sociologica, 26, 161–173.
Törnblom, K., Fredholm, E.M. & Jonsson, D.R. (1987). New and old friendships: Attributed effects of type and similarity of transacted resources. Human Relations, 40, 337–360.
Turner, J. L., Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (1971). Interpersonal reinforcers: Classification, interrelationship, and some differential properties. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 19, 168–180.
van Kreveld, D., & van Beemen, E. K. (1978). Distributing goods and benefits: A framework and review of research. Gedrag: Tijdschrift Voor Psychologie, 6, 361–401.
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
Törnblom, K., Fredholm, E.M. (2012). Attribution of Friendship: The Influence of the Nature and Comparability of Resources Given and Received. 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_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4175-5_7
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)