[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-35938":3,"doc-seo-35938":29},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"doc_content":15,"file_id":16,"file_url":17,"file_type":18,"file_size":19,"view_count":4,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":20,"is_downloadable":20,"audit_status":20,"page_count":21,"language":22,"language_code":23,"site_id":24,"html_lang":23,"table_of_contents":25,"faqs":26,"seo_title":13,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":27,"read_time":28},35938,549758146520,"Patrick","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/80002397d8c0411e94?_k=1775819394049821470",8,"Research & Report","Justice in Social Exchange: Homans' Rule of Distributive Justice","The paper analyzes George C. Homans’ theory of social exchange and its integration of distributive justice. It critiques Homans for defining justice through proportional relations between rewards, costs, and investments while leaving the independent standard of justice unclear. The discussion examines how exchange expectations are shaped by scarcity and prior investments, and argues that Homans’ psychological reductionism limits insights into social structure, dynamics, and change. Empirical support is discussed from worker studies comparing satisfaction across occupations.","","cbCaijciSd0qVRQI","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaijciSd0qVRQI","pdf",838233,1,14,"English","en",105,"# Homans' Rule of Distributive Justice\n## Distributive justice as proportional exchange\n## Unclear standards of justice\n## Investments, expectations, and satisfaction\n## Empirical illustration and implications","[{\"question\":\"What is Homans’ rule of distributive justice in social exchange?\",\"answer\":\"Homans’ rule states that rewards should be proportional to costs and net rewards (profits) should be proportional to investments, with higher rewards corresponding to greater costs and greater investments corresponding to greater profits.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the paper argue that Homans’ definition leaves a key problem unresolved?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that Homans does not clarify the independent external standard of justice used to compare rewards and costs, even though a rule of justice implies such a standard beyond the transactions themselves.\"},{\"question\":\"How do investments and comparisons influence individuals’ satisfaction?\",\"answer\":\"The paper explains that people base satisfaction not only on the absolute reward received but also on whether expectations formed through comparisons are confirmed, and that differences in rewards should correspond to differences in investments.\"}]",1782766869,35,null]