ABSTRACT
The social exchange relationship is ubiquitous and exists everywhere—for example, between dating couples (Sprether, 2001), between suppliers and distributors (Griffith, Harvey, & Lusch, 2006), and between coaches and athletes (Weiss & Stevens, 1993), not to mention the many types of relationship that exist within the workplace. The social exchange perspective, the conceptual root of which can be traced back to at least the 1920s, has been one of the most influential theoretical paradigms for understanding workplace phenomena (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Social exchange theory has been instrumental in bridging different disciplines such as anthropology (e.g., Sahlins, 1972), social psychology (e.g., Gouldner, 1960; Homans, 1958), and sociology (e.g., Blau, 1964). However, its influence has been felt most strongly in the fields of organizational behavior and industrial and organizational psychology (e.g., Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2004; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Shore & Shore, 1995) where the social exchange framework has been adopted to conceptualize and examine a variety of topics. To name just a few, these include leader– member exchange (LMX) (e.g., Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997), perceived organizational support (POS; e.g., Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999; Masterson et al., 2000; Settoon et al., 1996; Wayne et al., 1997), organizational justice (e.g., Ambrose & Schminke, 2003; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002), psychological contract (PC; e.g., Tekleab, Takeuchi, & Taylor, 2005; Turnley, Bolino, & Lester, 2003; Van Dyne & Ang, 1998), organizational commitment (e.g., Settoon et al., 1996; Van Dyne & Ang, 1998), and organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g., Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Lambert, 2000).
