Relational Cohesion

Relational cohesion is a testable theory that explains how a network of social exchange produces more cohesion and commitment in some relations than in others. Cohesion and commitment develop in particular relations because exchanging valued outcomes with others produces emotions—that is, individuals feel good or feel bad as a result. If the exchange is successful, they feel good (e.g., pleased, satisfied, enthused, excited); if it is unsuccessful, they feel bad (e.g., sad, depressed, dissatisfied). The theory of relational cohesion specifies the conditions under which individuals associate these emotions with their relationship or group affiliation. Positive emotions from exchange thereby strengthen relations, whereas negative emotions weaken relations. The theory was formulated and tested by Edward J. Lawler and his colleagues, Jeongkoo Yoon and Shane Thye. It has important implications for when and why people stay in relations that produce fewer rewards than available elsewhere, why they invest more time and effort in some relations than others, and why norms and trust are stronger in some relations.

Relational cohesion has a structural basis. Following Richard Emerson, the structure involves a network with three or more actors; power dependence is a key dimension of this structure. The original idea for relational cohesion theory can be traced to Emerson's structural definition of cohesion as the degree of mutual dependence between a pair of actors in a network. Relational cohesion theory expands this structural definition by adding relative dependence (degree of equality or inequality). Structural cohesion is greater if individuals are mutually dependent and equally dependent on each other.

Relational cohesion is defined as the degree that actors perceive their relation as a distinct object apart from self and other. This definition of relational cohesion implies that actors consciously or unconsciously perceive their relationship to one another as real. The social constructionist theory of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann terms this the objectification of a social unit. Similarly, the social identity theory of Henri Tajfel would portray this as psychological group formation. If the relation is real to actors, it operates as a third force in the social situation, and individuals orient their behavior in part to their relation, not just to each other or to the task they are doing. This means they will conform to the norms of that relation, trust each other more, and develop a commitment to their relationship. Commitment is defined as behavior that reflects an individual's attachment to a social unit (relation, group, organization); it is the outcome or result predicted by the theory of relational cohesion.

In relational cohesion theory, individual emotions or feelings mediate the effects of structure (network, power dependence) on relational cohesion and commitment behavior. Four key points of the theory are as follows: First, social structures tend to produce varying rates or frequencies of exchange among a set of actors. Actors choose relations that they expect to provide them the greatest benefit, and the network structure determines the incentives for particular relations to form. Choosing exchange partners in a network is fundamentally a rational choice process. Repeated exchange by the same individuals forms an exchange relation. Second, success at exchange has positive emotional effects. When people exchange items of value with another, it gives them an emotional buzz. If they fail at efforts to exchange, then they experience an emotional down. Third, positive emotions or feelings make the relation itself more salient and an object of attachment for actors. Repeated exchange produces repeated positive feelings that, in turn, underlie the sense of a cohesive, unifying relation. The emotions enhance cohesion in the exchange relation formed. Fourth, the theory of relational cohesion, as elaborated by a subsequent affect theory of exchange, predicts that emotions generate relational cohesion to the degree that individuals have a sense of shared responsibility for the success at exchange—for example, if actors believe it is hard to differentiate their individual contributions to the joint effort. Under such conditions, individual feelings from exchange are more closely associated with relational or group affiliations, and feelings about these affiliations are affected, accordingly. The mechanisms [Page 634]linking network properties to commitment, therefore, involve an exchange to emotion to cohesion process. This is the heart of the theory of relational cohesion.

...