iMeta:通过社交媒体促进学术共享和协作

We have discussed why we form relationships, what attracts us to others, and different types of love. But what determines whether we are satisfied with and stay in a relationship? One theory that provides an explanation is social exchange theory. According to social exchange theory, we act as naïve economists in keeping a tally of the ratio of costs and benefits of forming and maintaining a relationship with others (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003).

As formulated by John Thibaut and Harold Kelley, Social Exchange Theory explains human relationships as economic-like exchanges that maximize rewards and minimize costs. This theory suggests that individuals engage in relationships to gain benefits and reduce burdens, similar to economic transactions. It has been widely applied to various types of relationships, including romantic, professional, and social interactions.Rewards and Costs in RelationshipsRelationship rewards include emotional...

Not all intergroup interactions lead to negative outcomes. Sometimes, being in a group situation can improve performance. Social facilitation occurs when an individual performs better when an audience is watching than when the individual performs the behavior alone. This typically occurs when people are performing a task for which they are skilled.

Since the early 2000s, computer-mediated communication (CMC) has grown rapidly, playing a crucial role in self-development. A key distinction between CMC and real-life interactions is the lack of a physically present partner. This absence makes non-verbal cues such as facial expressions, body language, and paralinguistic signals unavailable in CMC platforms like email, instant messaging, or social media. The lack of these cues can create ambiguity and complicate how feedback is interpreted.The...

Social proof is a form of persuasion based on comparison and conformity. People compare their behavior and actions to what others are doing and will change to conform to do what their peers do.

Group polarization is the strengthening of an original group attitude following the discussion of views within a group (Teger & Pruitt, 1967). That is, if a group initially favors a viewpoint, after discussion the group consensus is likely a stronger endorsement of the viewpoint. Conversely, if the group was initially opposed to a viewpoint, group discussion would likely lead to stronger opposition.