Reciprocity (social psychology)

In social psychology, reciprocity is a social norm of responding to a positive action with another positive action, rewarding kind actions. As a social construct, reciprocity means that in response to friendly actions, people are frequently much nicer and much more cooperative than predicted by the self-interest model; conversely, in response to hostile actions they are frequently much more nasty and even brutal.[1]

Reciprocity makes it possible to build sustainable and continuing relationships with reciprocal exchanges. Francis Fukuyama[2] states that “If the institutions of democracy and capitalism are to work properly, they must coexist within certain premodern cultural habits that ensure their proper functioning” (p. 11). He goes on to say “Law, contract, and economic rationality and prosperity…. must as well be leavened with reciprocity, moral obligation, duty toward community, and trust…. The latter are not anachronisms in a modern society but rather the sine qua non of the latter’s success” (p. 11) According to the sociologist Alvin Gouldner (1960), this norm is nearly universal, and only a few members of society—the very young, the sick, or the old—are exempt from it.[3]

The R-Model was developed as a theory sustainable healthy relationships with reciprocal elements at its core. The theory explains the need for reciprocity is necessary for the relationship to be sustainable and health. without reciprociity the relationship is considered leas sustainable and less healthy. The author of the R-Model explains the need for balance in a relationship, and with balance there can be even growth in the relationship.

The R-Model is a Biopsychosocial model, a class of trans-disciplinary models which look at the interconnection between biology, psychology, and socio-environmental factors. It was first developed to understand the nature of relationship in the environment and discipline of group therapy. The initial model was influenced by works from Eric Berne, John Bowlby and George Kohlrieser.

Reciprocal actions differ from altruistic actions in that reciprocal actions only follow from others' initial actions, while altruism is the unconditional act of social gift-giving without any hope or expectation of future positive responses.[4][5] Some distinguish between ideal altruism (giving with no expectation of future reward) and reciprocal altruism (giving with limited expectation or the potential for expectation of future reward). For more information on this idea, see altruism or altruism (ethics).

History

Reciprocity dates as far back as the time of Hammurabi (c. 1792–1750 BC). Hammurabi's code, a collection of 282 laws and standards, lists crimes and their various punishments as well as guidelines for citizens' conduct. The code demanded the individual act in terms of the public interest. The "eye for an eye" principles in which the laws were written mirror the idea of direct reciprocity. For example, if a person caused the death of another person, the killer would be put to death:

Law #196: "If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If one break a man's bone, they shall break his bone. If one destroy the eye of a freeman or break the bone of a freeman he shall pay one gold mina. If one destroy the eye of a man's slave or break a bone of a man's slave he shall pay one-half his price."[6]

Reciprocity was also a cornerstone of ancient Greece. In Homeric Greece, citizens relied on reciprocity as a form of transaction as there was no formal system of government or trade.[7] In Homer's Iliad, he illustrates several instances of reciprocal transactions in the form of gift giving. For example, in Book VI of the Iliad, Glaucus and Diomedes exchange armor when they discover that their grandfathers were friends.[8] However, there were times when direct reciprocity was not possible, specifically in times of great need when a citizen had nothing to give for repayment. Thus, deferred reciprocity was also prevalent in Greek culture at this time. Deferred reciprocity refers to giving a person gifts or favors with the understanding that they will repay this favor at another time when the initial giver is in great need. This form of reciprocity was used extensively by travelers, particularly in the Odyssey.[7] Odysseus often had to rely on the kindness of human strangers and other mythological creatures to secure resources along his journey.

In the classical Greek polis, large-scale projects such as construction of temples, building of warships and financing of choruses were carried out as gifts from individual donors. In Rome, wealthy elite were linked with their dependents in a cycle of reciprocal gift giving.[9] As these examples suggest, reciprocity enjoyed a cultural prestige among ancient aristocracies for whom it was advantageous.[10]

An adaptive mechanism

Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin attribute the very nature of humans to reciprocity. They claim humans survived because our ancestors learned to share goods and services "in an honored network of obligation".[11] Thus, the idea that humans are indebted to repay gifts and favors is a unique aspect of human culture. Cultural anthropologists support this idea in what they call the "web of indebtedness" where reciprocity is viewed as an adaptive mechanism to enhance survival.[12] Within this approach, reciprocity creates an interdependent environment where labor is divided so that humans may be more efficient. For example, if one member of the group cares for the children while another member hunts for food for the group, each member has provided a service and received one in return. Each member can devote more time and attention to his or her allotted task and the whole group benefits. This meant that individuals could give away resources without actually giving them away. Through the rule of reciprocity, sophisticated systems of aid and trade were possible bringing immense benefits to the societies that utilized them.[1] Given the benefits of reciprocity at the societal level, it is not surprising that the norm has persisted and dictates our present cognition and behavior.

The power of reciprocity

Reciprocity is not only a strong determining factor of human behavior; it is a powerful method for gaining one's compliance with a request. The rule of reciprocity has the power to trigger feelings of indebtedness even when faced with an uninvited favor[13] and irrespective of liking the person who executed the favor.[14] In 1971, Dennis Regan tested the strength of these two aspects of reciprocity in a study where participants believed they were in an art appreciation experiment with a partner, Joe, who was really Regan's assistant. During the experiment, Joe would disappear and bring back a soft drink for the participant. After this phase of the experiment was over, Joe would ask the participant to buy raffle tickets from him. The more the participants liked Joe, the more likely they were to buy raffle tickets from him. However, when Joe had given them a soda and thus indebted them to reciprocate, it made no difference whether the participants liked Joe or not, the rule of reciprocity overpowered liking.[14] Thus, individuals who we might not even like have the power to greatly increase our chances of doing them a favor simply by providing us with a small gift or favor prior to their request. Furthermore, we are obliged to receive these gifts and favors which reduces our ability to choose to whom we wish to be indebted.[1]

In 1976, Phillip Kunz demonstrated the automatic nature of reciprocity in an experiment using Christmas cards. In this experiment, Kunz sent out holiday cards with pictures of his family and a brief note to a group of complete strangers. While he expected some reaction, holiday cards came pouring back to him from people who had never met nor heard of him and who expressed no desire to get to know him any better.[15] The majority of these individuals who responded never inquired into Kunz's identity, they were merely responding to his initial gesture with a reciprocal action.

Politics is another area where the power of reciprocity is evident. While politicians often claim autonomy from the feelings of obligation associated with gifts and favors that influence everyone else, they are also susceptible. In the 2002 election, U.S. Congress Representatives who received the most money from special interest groups were over seven times more likely to vote in favor of the group that had contributed the most money to their campaigns.[1]

Fehr & Gächter (2000) showed that, when acting within reciprocal frameworks, individuals are more likely to deviate from purely self-interested behavior than when acting in other social contexts. Magnanimity is often repaid with disproportionate amounts of kindness and cooperation, and treachery with disproportionate amounts of hostility and vengeance, which can significantly surpass amounts determined or predicted by conventional economic models of rational self-interest. Moreover, reciprocal tendencies are frequently observed in situations wherein transaction costs associated with specific reciprocal actions are high and present or future material rewards are not expected. Whether self-interested or reciprocal action dominates the aggregate outcome is particularly dependent on context; in markets or market-like scenarios characterized by competitiveness and incomplete contracts, reciprocity tends to win out over self-interest.[16]

Positive and negative reciprocity

Positive reciprocity occurs when an action committed by one individual that has a positive effect on someone else is returned with an action that has an approximately equal positive effect.[17][18] For example, if someone takes care of another person's dog, the person who received this favor should then return this action with another favor such as with a small gift. However, the reciprocated action should be approximately equal to the first action in terms of positive value, otherwise this can result in an uncomfortable social situation.[19] If someone takes care of another person's dog and that person returns the favor by buying that individual a car, the reciprocated gift is inappropriate because it does not equal the initial gesture. Individuals expect actions to be reciprocated by actions that are approximately equal in value.[17]

One example of positive reciprocity is that waitresses who smile broadly receive more tips than waitresses who present a minimal smile.[20] Also, free samples are not merely opportunities to taste a product but rather invitations to engage in the rule of reciprocity. Many people find it difficult to accept the free sample and walk away. Instead, they buy some of the product even when they did not find it that enjoyable.[1]

Negative reciprocity occurs when an action that has a negative effect on someone is returned with an action that has an approximately equal negative effect.[18][21] For example, if an individual commits a violent act against a person, it is expected that person would return with a similar act of violence. If, however, the reaction to the initial negative action is not approximately equal in negative value, this violates the norm of reciprocity and what is prescribed as allowable.[19] Retaliatory aspects i.e. the aspects of trying to get back and cause harm, are known as negative reciprocity. This definition of negative reciprocity is distinct from the way negative reciprocity is defined in other domains. In cultural anthropology, negative reciprocity refers to an attempt to get something for nothing.[22] It is often referred to as "bartering" or "haggling" (see reciprocity (cultural anthropology) for more information).

Negative Reciprocity in the Workplace

According to reciprocity, harmful behavior also tends to be reciprocated with harmful behavior.[23] A meta-analysis analyzed negative workplace behaviors, which range from bullying and harassment to counterproductive work behavior, by separating them into different categories according to severity (describing the amount of harm: minor, moderate, severe), activity (describing the harm that comes from the withdrawal of positive behaviors: passive, balanced, active), and target (whether the behavior was reciprocated or displaced to another person).[23] The analysis found that negative behaviors tend to be reciprocated with the same kind of behavior and the strongest relationship was found in reciprocity using a matched level of severity and activity; however, negative workplace behaviors that escalate in severity or activity also showed a strong and positive relationship.[23] Moreover, when the frequency of negative workplace behaviors increases this is reciprocated by the other person also increasing the frequency of their negative behaviors.[23] The weakest effect was found to be de-escalation in activity or severity, which means that most people tended to respond with the same or a greater amount of reciprocity in negative workplace behaviors.[23] In the category of severity, de-escalation only took place when Party A was engaging in severe behaviors like violence or harassment, in Party B engages in moderately severe behavior, which could be a result of not wanting to cross the line of ethical norms and legal repercussions as a consequence of the behaviors.[23] Many of the articles analyzed did not include the target of the negative behaviors; this is why their information on this category was limited.[23] However, they found that for two cases of de-escalation, the reciprocated negative behavior was directed at the instigator instead of being displaced.[23] There was also one case of escalation in which the reciprocated behavior was targeting the instigator.[23] A news article summarizing research studies suggests that negative reciprocity might exist in order to restore or build a cooperative relationship.[24] They stated that it is a strategy that has balance as a goal, especially because it involves a relatively proportional response to harm.

[24]

Reciprocity and Trust

Trust in reciprocity takes into consideration three different factors: the individual’s risk preferences (whether or not the person has a tendency to accept risks in trust decisions), their social preferences (whether the individual shows prosocial tendencies or betrayal aversion), and lastly, their beliefs about the other’s trustworthiness (includes social priors like implicit racial attitudes and the reputation of the other individual based on previous experiences.[25] A coordinated meta-analysis of 30 fMRI studies has concluded that trust in reciprocity might cause an aversive feeling at the beginning of a series of interactions with a stranger because of the uncertainty of the decision outcome, which means that individuals are not sure if the other person will reciprocate their actions.[25] However, as interpersonal trust grows people are more confident and willing to cooperate with their partners.[25] Interpersonal trust builds up through a learning mechanism that takes information from previous interactions in which the other individual cooperated or did not cooperate.[25] This learning mechanism helps the individual label the other person as trustworthy or untrustworthy.[25] This meta-analysis also found that reciprocity, trust, and feedback learning show activity in different areas of the brain, which suggests that all of them are part of different cognitive processes.[25] This theme of reciprocity and trust is also discussed in science magazines like in the Greater Good Magazine where the writers mention that people are more likely to be cooperative with others who act cooperatively towards them or have a reputation of being cooperative.[26]

Self-serving Reciprocity

Reciprocity has been previously documented as automatic because it requires less cognitive control than other self-serving behaviors.[27] The researchers of a series of experiments around this topic wanted to investigate whether this automatic reciprocity existed as a motivation to be fair and reciprocal or whether it is a result of wanting to look like a fair person.[27] To test this they used a two-player activity called the trust game or the investment game.[27] Participants were given a determined amount of chips/money, the sender is supposed to decide the amount of money/chips (all, some, none) they want to transfer to the trustee or whether they want to keep the money/chips for themselves.[27] The experimenter triples, in this case, doubles, the amount transferred from the sender and gives it to the trustee, then the trustee decides whether or not to transfer (all, some, none) back.[27] This series of experiments added a condition where the trustees are informed that their chips are worth twice as much as the sender’s chips, which gives them the option to appear fair and another option to be genuinely fair.[27] They also divided the groups manipulating the participant’s cognitive control.[27] Researchers replicated the finding showing that people tend to turn to reciprocal behavior when there is a lack of cognitive control due to ego depletion.[27] They also showed that when participants had limited cognitive control, they used the extra information to positively reciprocate to a lesser extent than people without the cognitive control manipulation; however, even with reduced cognitive control, they chose to benefit from the exchange if the outward perception of their behavior would look fair and reciprocal, showing that their main goal was to appear fair, it was not to behave in a fair manner.[27] A news article summarized a research study that supports these findings in which researchers found that people tend to take more time to make a generous choice than to make a selfish one.[28]

Reciprocity in Non-Human Primates

The topic of reciprocity in non-human primates has been a field with a lot of research contradictions and opposite findings; however, in a recent meta-analysis, the researchers concluded that primates have the cognitive and social prerequisites needed to use reciprocity.[29] They evaluated previous findings and found that there are more positive than negative findings.[29] They added that reciprocity could have been misrepresented in some research studies because it also includes helps between relatives and trading.[29] Researchers also identified that many of the negative findings come from articles where researchers did not measure the primate’s understanding of the task or studies where the primates did not show an understanding of the activity.[29] The authors also state that previous researchers saw the studies that did not show reciprocity as a failure to prove reciprocity instead of looking at the situations where reciprocity was involved versus the situations where it was not used.[29] Different species also take different time periods to reciprocate an action, it might be short or long-term.[29] Some specific behaviors also seem less likely to be reciprocated.[29] For example, it is less likely for a non-human primate to reciprocate food donations.[29] Overall, the researchers concluded that non-human primate reciprocity is more common than it seems to be and that negative findings should not be thrown out but used for a better comprehension of their use of reciprocity.[29] News sources also support these findings suggesting that other primates use reciprocity in food sharing and other domains; and some of them, like chimpanzees, are more likely to do so if the other chimpanzee had also helped them in the past, which also supports the connection between trust and reciprocity in non-human primates.[30]

Reciprocal concessions

There are more subtle ways of initiating the reciprocity rule than merely doing something nice for someone so you may expect something in return. One form of this more subtle form of reciprocity is the idea of reciprocal concessions in which the requester lowers his/her initial request, making the respondent more likely to agree to a second request. Under the rule of reciprocity, we are obligated to concede to someone who has made a concession to us.[1] That is, if an individual starts off by requesting something large and you refuse, you feel obligated to consent to their smaller request even though you might not be interested in either of the things they are offering. Robert Cialdini illustrates an example of this phenomenon by telling a story of a boy who asks him to buy five-dollar circus tickets and, when Cialdini refuses, asks him to buy some one dollar chocolate bars. Cialdini feels obligated to return the favor and consents to buying some of the chocolate bars.[1]

The rule of reciprocity operates in reciprocal concessions in two ways. First, an individual is pressured to reciprocate one concession for another by nature of the rule itself. Second, because the individual who initially concedes can expect to have the other person concede in return, this person is free to make the concession in the first place. If there were no social pressure to return the concession, an individual runs the risk of giving up something and getting nothing in return. Mutual concession is a procedure that can promote compromise in a group so that individuals can refocus their efforts toward achieving a common goal. Reciprocal concessions promote compromise in a group so that the initial and incompatible desires of individuals can be set aside for the benefit of social cooperation.[1]

The door in the face technique

The door in the face technique, otherwise known as the rejection-then-retreat technique, involves making an outrageous request that someone will almost certainly turn down, and then make the smaller request that was the favor of interest all along. If done skillfully, the second request is seen as a concession so compliance with the second request is obtained.[31][32][33] However, one must proceed with caution when using this technique. If the first request is so big that it is seen as unreasonable, the door in the face technique proves useless as the concession made after is not perceived as genuine.[34] The door in the face technique is not to be confused with the foot in the door technique where individuals getting a person to agree with a large request by first getting them to agree to a moderate request.[35]

See also

References
  1. Fehr, Ernst; Gächter, Simon (2000). "Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 14 (3): 159–182. doi:10.1257/jep.14.3.159.
  2. Fukuyama, F. (1996). Trust: the Social Virtues and Creation of Prosperity. London: Free Press.
  3. Smith, Eliot R.; Mackie, Diane M.; Claypool, Heather M. (November 2014). Social psychology (4th ed.). New York. ISBN 9781848728936. OCLC 878812937.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  4. Batson, C. D., Duncan, B., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). "Is empathetic emotion a source of altruistic motivation?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 40 (2): 290–302. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.290. S2CID 29867836.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., & Fultz, J. (1987). "Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52 (4): 749–758. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.4.749. PMID 3572736.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. "The Code of Hammurabi: Hammurabi's Code of Laws: Paragraphs 100-199". www.sacred-texts.com. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
  7. "The Greek Ideals". merkspages.com. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
  8. Homer (1990). The Iliad. (B. Knox, Ed. R. Fagles, Trans.). New York, NY: Penguin Classics.
  9. Saller, Richard P. (2002-05-09). Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521893923.
  10. Coffee, Neil (2013-01-01). "Reciprocity". The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah06274. ISBN 9781444338386.
  11. "leakey and lewin 1978 - Google Scholar". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
  12. Ridley, M. (1997). The origins of virtue. UK: Penguin UK.
  13. Paese, Paul W.; Gilin, Debra A. (2000-01-01). "When an Adversary is Caught Telling the Truth: Reciprocal Cooperation Versus Self-Interest in Distributive Bargaining". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 26 (1): 79–90. doi:10.1177/0146167200261008. ISSN 0146-1672. S2CID 146148164.
  14. Regan, Dennis T. (1971-11-01). "Effects of a favor and liking on compliance". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 7 (6): 627–639. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(71)90025-4. S2CID 18429974.
  15. Kunz, Phillip R; Woolcott, Michael (1976-09-01). "Season's greetings: From my status to yours". Social Science Research. 5 (3): 269–278. doi:10.1016/0049-089X(76)90003-X.
  16. Fehr, Ernst; Gächter, Simon (2000-01-01). "Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity". The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 14 (3): 159–181. doi:10.1257/jep.14.3.159. JSTOR 2646924.
  17. "Trade: Chapter 125-7: Positive Reciprocity". internationalecon.com. Retrieved 2015-11-16.
  18. Caliendo, Marco; Fossen, Frank; Kritikos, Alexander (2012-04-01). "Trust, positive reciprocity, and negative reciprocity: Do these traits impact entrepreneurial dynamics?" (PDF). Journal of Economic Psychology. Personality and Entrepreneurship. 33 (2): 394–409. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2011.01.005. hdl:10419/150893.
  19. Chen, Ya-Ru; Chen, Xiao-Ping; Portnoy, Rebecca (2009-01-01). "To whom do positive norm and negative norm of reciprocity apply? Effects of inequitable offer, relationship, and relational-self orientation". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 45 (1): 24–34. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.024.
  20. Tidd, Kathi L.; Lockard, Joan S. (2013-11-14). "Monetary significance of the affiliative smile: A case for reciprocal altruism". Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. 11 (6): 344–346. doi:10.3758/BF03336849. ISSN 0090-5054.
  21. "Trade: Chapter 125-8: Negative Reciprocity". internationalecon.com. Retrieved 2015-11-16.
  22. Sahlins, Marshall (1972). Stone Age Economics. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. p. 195.
  23. Greco, Lindsey M.; Whitson, Jennifer A.; O'Boyle, Ernest H.; Wang, Cynthia S.; Kim, Joongseo (2019-09-01). "An eye for an eye? A meta-analysis of negative reciprocity in organizations". Journal of Applied Psychology. 104 (9): 1117–1143. doi:10.1037/apl0000396. ISSN 1939-1854. PMID 30762379. S2CID 73420919.
  24. Lopez, Anthony C. (2015-03-24). ""Why Evolution Made Forgiveness Difficult"". Greater Good Magazine. Retrieved 2023-04-17.
  25. Bellucci, Gabriele; Chernyak, Sergey V.; Goodyear, Kimberly; Eickhoff, Simon B.; Krueger, Frank (2017-03-01). "Neural signatures of trust in reciprocity: A coordinate-based meta-analysis: Neural Signatures of Trust in Reciprocity". Human Brain Mapping. 38 (3): 1233–1248. doi:10.1002/hbm.23451. PMC 5441232. PMID 27859899.
  26. Suttie, Jill (2017-10-05). "What Makes People Cooperate with Strangers?". Greater Good Magazine. Retrieved 2023-04-17.
  27. Katzir, Maayan; Cohen, Shachar; Halali, Eliran (2021-11-01). "Is it all about appearance? Limited cognitive control and information advantage reveal self-serving reciprocity". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 97: 104192. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104192. ISSN 0022-1031. S2CID 237654239.
  28. Collins, Nathan (2015-06-20). ""What Drives Selfless Acts?"". Greater Good Magazine. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
  29. Schweinfurth, Manon K.; Call, Josep (2019-09-01). "Revisiting the possibility of reciprocal help in non-human primates". Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 104: 73–86. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.06.026. hdl:10023/20113. ISSN 0149-7634. PMID 31260701. S2CID 195770897.
  30. Suchak, Malini (2017-02-01). ""The Evolution of Gratitude"". Greater Good Magazine. Retrieved 2023-04-17.
  31. "Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique". APA PsycNET. Retrieved 2015-11-18.
  32. Pascual, Alexandre; Guéguen, Nicolas (2005-02-01). "Foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face: a comparative meta-analytic study". Psychological Reports. 96 (1): 122–128. doi:10.2466/pr0.96.1.122-128. ISSN 0033-2941. PMID 15825914. S2CID 19701668.
  33. Tusing, Kyle James; Dillard, James Price (2000-03-01). "The Psychological Reality of the Door-in-the-Face It's Helping, not Bargaining". Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 19 (1): 5–25. doi:10.1177/0261927X00019001001. ISSN 0261-927X. S2CID 144775958.
  34. Schwarzwald, Joseph; Raz, Moshe; Zvibel, Moshe (1979-12-01). "The Applicability of the Door-in-the Face Technique when Established Behavioral Customs Exist". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 9 (6): 576–586. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1979.tb00817.x. ISSN 1559-1816.
  35. Burger, J.M. (1999). "The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: A multiple-process analysis and review". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 3 (4): 303–325. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0304_2. PMID 15661679. S2CID 1391814.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.