Social Exchange Theory

Name
Professor
Course
Date
Social Exchange Theory
Regarding the video, I side with Joey who claims that there is no selfless act. I support Joey because I believe that an act is termed as selfless when the person on the receiving end benefits while the performer does not get anything in return. It is very hard to find such a situation in real life, as human beings always want something in return. Even when they do not intend to get anything after performing an act the still gain something without their knowledge. Most people tend to ignore the good feeling they experience after performing a good deed, claiming that they did not receive something in return. However, this is the single thing that ruins a selfless act as it can no longer be termed as unselfish. In this case, although Phoebe disagrees with this claim she is unable to point out a selfless good deed. Phoebe is set to prove that selfless acts exist by letting a bee to sting her (DuBois). She believes that letting a bee sting is an unselfish deed, as the bee would benefit. However, Joey disqualifies this claim by pointing out that the bee may die after stinging her.
Additionally, Phoebe is not still convinced, and she goes ahead and donates $200 to PBS, organisation that she dislikes. This act may be viewed as selfless as she could have used the money to do other things, but she decides to pledge. As such, this donation makes Joey appear on TV something that he had been looking up to (DuBois). However, phoebes act has unpremeditated benefit as she feels good that her deed helped a friend.

The ruins the essence of a selfless good act as she felt good (meaning that she got something out of it). Therefore, in this case, Phoebe surely confirms that unselfish acts do not exist, which makes Joeys claim true.

Works Cited
DuBois A. “Friends: Social Exchange Theory”. Criticalcommons.Org, 1988, http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/duboisad/clips/friends-set.wmv/view. Accessed 28 Sept 2018.