Effect of resource class on retaliation to injustice in interpersonal exchange
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In exchange for other resources such as money, services, time, status and love, people are willing to provide personal resources, including those in the form of personal information.
“In exchange for other resources such as money, services, time, status and love, people are willing to provide personal resources, including those in the form of personal information (Resource Exchange Theory; Donnenwerth and Foa, 1974;Foa, 1971).”
From The privacy paradox – investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – a systematic literature review (2017) · cites this paper as Donnenwerth and Foa, 1974
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 24 · Cited by 87
- Authors
- Donnenwerth, G. V., & Foa, U. G.
- Affiliations
- Indiana State University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1974-06
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 785-793
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2125741416
- Cited by
- 87
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 8.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Keywords
- resource classes, retaliation, injustice, interpersonal exchange, social class, reciprocity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
