Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 932

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Distribution of Power in Exchange Networks: Theory and Experimental Results

Open access
Cook, Karen S., Emerson, Richard M., Gillmore, Mary R., Yamagishi, Toshio·1983·American Journal of Sociology

Abstract

This paper presents a theoretical analysis of the structural determinants of power in exchange networks, along with research findings from laboratory experiments and a computer simulation of bargaining in network structures. Two theoretical traditions are dealth with: (1) point centrality in graph-theoretic representations of structure, as an approach to power distributions; and (2) power dependence principles applied to exchange networks. Measures of centrality available in the literature have the advantage of being easily applied to large and complex networks. In contrast, power dependence concepts were conceived for use in microsociology and are found to be cumbersome in the analysis of complex networks. But despite the relative difficulty of applying power-dependence theory to network structures, that approach generates hypotheses about power distributions which are confirmed at nearly every point in a laboratory experiment with five-person networks and at every point in a computer simulation of networks too large for laboratory study. In contrast, centrality measures applied to the type of networks studied fail to predict power distributions. Although centrality measures might predict power in some networks, their generality is limited. Toward resolution of the issues raised, this study offers two theoretical points: (1) a distinction between two different principles of "connection" in social networks suggests that current measures of centrality might predict power in one type of network but not in the other; and (2) it offers a first step toward a fusion of power-dependence theory and structural centrality in a way which might be general across networks of both types.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/227866

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 932

Metadata

Authors
Cook, K. S., Emerson, R. M., Gillmore, M. R., & Yamagishi, T.
Venue
American Journal of Sociology
Published
1983-09
Volume
89
Issue
2
Pages
275-305
ISSN
  • 0002-9602 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5390
OpenAlex
W1979862606
Cited by
932
References
2
FWCI
30.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Distribution of Power in Exchange Networks: Theory and Experimental Results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/227866
The paper
Cook, K. S., Emerson, R. M., Gillmore, M. R., & Yamagishi, T. (1983). The Distribution of Power in Exchange Networks: Theory and Experimental Results. American Journal of Sociology. https://doi.org/10.1086/227866

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.