Reciprocity

Reciprocity is the basis of relationships

What is reciprocity? Reciprocity is the social norm for people to respond to the positive or negative actions of others accordingly, often by returning favors or retaliating against harm [1]. With the reciprocity expectations, individuals feel comfortable helping others voluntarily with no immediate payback, feeling that it somehow returns. Meanwhile, the person who was helped feels the social pressure to return the favor.

What makes reciprocity the basis of building relationships? How can one better anticipate the reciprocal behaviour in different situations? These are the questions we would like to answer in this article. Review of scientific studies will help us, as always. But let’s start with the public idea of reciprocity.

Multipurpose word: the “reciprocity” is wider than a concept of interpersonal relations. There is a Frobenius reciprocity theorem in mathematics; there was a reciprocity theory of elementary particles by M. Bohr. Of course, there is a reciprocity in international relations: that’s a predictable model of communication between states.

Idea of reciprocity featured in public discussions

Reciprocity is a basic idea of human interaction and folk wisdom. "You reap what you sow", "What goes around comes around", "Treat others as you would like to be treated”, and the whole karma model: generally, people believe that some action towards another person leads to a comparable feedback from them, or even other individuals.

Opinion: the belief that deeds are universally interconnected is powered by the ability of a human mind to notice coincidences. That way, we think that two events are related when they just randomly happened one after another. Here, we focus on interpersonal reciprocity.

To get you into the reciprocal kind of mood, there are some stories of giving back:

Story 1: a man gave free accommodation to an international student, was helped to return to the homeland.

In 1999, an aged Londoner helped an international student by giving him free accommodation. The student eventually brought the Londoner back to China (2009) to take care of him after graduation. [2]

Story 2: helping a stranger fix their car, encourages the set of similar deeds.

A story from KindSpring.org about a man who helped a stranger with a flat tyre during hard financial times. Later, the stranger pays it forward by helping others in similar situations, embodying reciprocity. [2]

Story 3: helped the friend study for finals, got help moving furniture

A student helped a friend prepare for tough final exams by quizzing and encouraging them. When that student needed help moving heavy furniture, the friend gladly returned the favor. This is the casual example of reciprocal relationships. [2]

Disclaimer: the third story is from the subreddit r/WholesomeMemories, found by the Perplexity AI search engine. The community was banned 2 years ago and now is not accessible. Let’s take this as an AI contribution to saving a memory about reciprocal acts.

Studies of reciprocity (literature review)

The norm of reciprocity (A. Gouldner, 1960)

Alwin Gouldner's article posits that the norm of reciprocity is a universal moral code [3]. It obligates individuals to return benefits received from others. The reciprocity fosters mutual aid and cooperation.
That seems to be a prevalent description of reciprocity that is subsequently referred to by other researchers. Gouldner distinguishes between:

• Positive Reciprocity: Responding to positive actions with equivalent positive actions, promoting mutual benefit.
• Negative Reciprocity: Responding to negative actions with equivalent negative actions, serving as a deterrent against exploitation.

This article is theoretical, not experimental. A. Gouldner develops his arguments by referencing existing literature and examples. He does not present new empirical data but instead provides a framework for understanding the role of reciprocity.

“The Structure of Reciprocity” (L. Molm, 2010)

In her study "The Structure of Reciprocity" [4] Linda Molm suggests the schematic structure of reciprocal exchange.

First, she represents the reciprocal exchange as a "flow" of benefits between people. It can be direct (two people) or indirect (many people interacting in a chain, a series of “directs”). Direct reciprocity can be unilateral — reciprocal exchange, or bilateral — transactional (negotiated) exchange. See these forms below (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The structure of reciprocity in three forms of exchange (L. Molm, 2010)

Second, L. Molm suggests a "causal model for the reciprocity theory". It is a scheme that connects the basic acts of reciprocity with the "integrative bonds" (trust, affective regard, etc.) that form between sides.

Integrative bonds form as a result of interpersonal actions, each having a set of causal mechanisms,

keyboard_arrow_down

in other words, an action has a set of characteristics. For example, a person unilaterally provides a favor (action) -> that is connected with the higher risk of nonreciprocity (characteristic) -> that leads to trust increase in the receiver (integrative bond). You can check the scheme below (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Causal Model for the Reciprocity Theory of Social Exchange (L. Molm, 2010)

The author refers to other studies for particular parameters of her model [5]. Checking every study is outside the scope of this article, but you are welcome to do it if interested. Even better, study yourself and publish in the r/StayConnected!

We consider the unilateral-bilateral exchange the most handy concept in this structure. Also, the causal model outlines the difference between reciprocity and negotiation: it is the corresponding risk, expressive value, and salience of conflict.

Returning a favor to organization (J. Laurent, N. Chmiel, I. Hansez, 2021)

Another study by Julie Laurent, Nik Chmiel, and Isabelle Hansez [5] is focused on an employees’ participation in safety activities. In particular, why people choose to participate (and report that) in activities that are voluntary. The authors used social exchange theory (SET) and organizational support theory (OST) to link perceived organizational support and safety participation.

As a result, the authors inferred that participating in the safety activities can be attributed to an obligation felt towards the company and perceived management commitment to safety. So, a person’s behaviour is driven by the effects similar to ones from reciprocal interpersonal relationships: obligation and anticipated reward.

"Cookies and Kindness" (A. Isen, P. Levin, 1972)

This study is local but very nice. The authors investigated the effect of positive mood ("feeling good") on helpfulness [6]. In one of two experiments, the people in public libraries received cookies. Confederates distributed cookies that had been assigned to the feeling good condition, while they merely walked by the people in the neutral condition. Then, participants were asked to help in the “student's experiment” Its goal was to measure how much time the participant would dedicate to help in one of two scenarios.

On confederates and participants. In sociology, a confederate is a person who is a part of the experiment team but pretends to be a participant, often to manipulate social situations or influence the real participants. Confederates are used to create a realistic social environment and observe how participants react to specific scenarios. Nothing to do with the American Civil War, we suppose...

That was a 2x2 experiment (see Table 1). The experiment involved 52 people: 26 were offered cookies, and 26 were not. Also, in every group, ~half were asked to take part in a "help" scenario, and another – in a "distract" one.

keyboard_arrow_down

Table 1. Means and variances for total minutes spent by participants
in (cookie, no cookie) x (help, distract) scenarios (Isen A., 1972)

In the “help” scenario, the original subject was invited to act as a helper to people who would be attempting to conceive of novel uses for ordinary items. The confederate's aid, which involved holding and manipulating the items, was described as "something which the subjects usually found very helpful to them."

In the "distract" scenario, the organizers asked subjects to take part in the “distractability experiment". The participant should have distracted the other student by creating loud noises in the library. The experimenter explicitly warned that “the subjects find the distraction to be an unpleasant annoyance."

For all combinations (cookies, no cookies) x (help, distract), the authors recorded the number of people who participated and the time they were willing to do what was asked. You can see statistics in Table 1. Reportedly, the t-test for proportions of subjects responded (P) indicated the significant (p < 0.05) difference in proportions. That means that there is less than 5% probability that such proportions would have emerged due to chance and not cookies.

As an outcome, a greater proportion of people were willing to help among those who received cookies. Hence, introducing the pleasant treatment to the person might greatly affect their reciprocitiveness, even if the events are not connected!

“The Effect of a Favor on Public and Private Compliance” (M. Whatley, J. Webster, R. Smith, A. Rhodes, 2014)

Next, let's consider how the publicity affects the reciprocal behaviour. In the study by Whatley [7], the authors explored participants’ responses to receiving a favor in either private or public circumstances.
The private reciprocity is characterized by an internal belief that doing and returning good deeds are the "right" things to do. That model is usually being introduced by parents, institutes (kindergarten, school), and culture.
The second type is the public process in which people weigh the social rewards and costs associated with following or violating the norm of reciprocity.

The experimenters introduced a small favor to some of the students, and then prompted them to donate to charity. As a result, people who received a favor, donated ~20-30% more on average.

This study tested how people’s willingness to return a favor depends on whether their actions are seen by others.

keyboard_arrow_down

Over 150 university students were randomly assigned to receive a small favor (a package of M&Ms) or not, and then asked to donate to a children’s charity. In some cases, participants believed their donation decision would be known by the person who gave them the favor (public condition); in others, it was anonymous (private condition).

Results showed that receiving a favor significantly increased the likelihood of donating (63.5% vs. 45.8%) and the amount donated. Public visibility also boosted donations: participants in the public condition pledged more money on average ($3.98) than those in private ($1.87). The findings suggest that both internal values (private conscience) and concern for social image (public reputation) drive reciprocal behaviour.

Figure 3. Proportion of participants choosing to donate as a valueof publicity and favor (M. Whatley, 2014)

This experiment is similar to the previous study on cookies and helping, in a sense. The authors tested the hypothesis that “a received favor induces responsiveness towards the third party” as well. But here the private and public processes are set up, which adds a new dimension to our understanding of reciprocal behavior.

“Effects of Time on the Norm of Reciprocity” (J. Burger et al., 1997)

This study's title promises it to be of great practical interest. Really, how long does it make sense to expect reciprocity? J. Burger et al. conducted two experiments to get an impression [8].

In the first experiment, organizers provided a free soft drink to a participant, then asked him to deliver an envelope. The delay between these events varied: a few minutes or one week. The authors found out that in the case of a few minutes between the favor and request, people agreed roughly 15% more often.

In the second part, authors studied subjective promises to return the favor. They compared how people say "they would" be ready to help in response a week, 2 months, and 1 year after the original favor. For the option "Likely to help", there was a statistically significant decline in the scores given by participants. In other words, people themselves expect they are less likely to return a favor as time goes by.

Two experiments: with a real favor and an abstract situation (on paper) were conducted.

keyboard_arrow_down

For a real favor experiment, students were invited to take a test with a “confederate” participant.

keyboard_arrow_down

In the general case, every participant was originally invited to take a personality test, unrelated to the study. With each participant there was a "confederate", an organizer who pretended to be another participant. At some moment of the study, the "fake" participant would go out of the room and return with two cans of a sweet drink. He then offered the one to the participant as a treat ("I just passed by the vending machine and decided to take a can for you as well"). After completing the test, the confederate then asked the participant to deliver an envelope to a university's office.

Authors recruited 97 undergraduates. The participants were split into three groups:
drink offered + request a few minutes after treatment (immediate condition);
drink offered + request one week later (delayed condition);
no treatment + request right after (control condition).

As a result, participants in the immediate condition agreed to the request more often than participants in the delayed condition: 30/32 (a few minutes) vs 25/33 (a week later) vs 21/32 (no treatment). The difference between those numbers is plausible by a statistical test: Chi-squared(l, N=64) = 7.82, p < .006.

In the second experiment, the authors used a questionnaire to measure how participants estimated the chance to return the favoгr.

keyboard_arrow_down

63 undergraduates were introduced to three hypothetical scenarios, each features a person helping them and asking for a favor some time later (times vary).

Scenario A – a person helps the participant to load several heavy pieces of furniture into a car. Later, he asks for a ride to a job.
Scenario B – a student lends the participant a few dollars to join friends, paid back the next day. Later, she asks to borrow $20 to buy a book for a class.
Scenario C – a classmate goes for the class notes to share them with the participant, who was ill. Later, he asks to go to the library and copy eight journal articles.

In each scenario, the reciprocal favor could be asked either after 1) a week, 2) 2 months, 3) 1 year after receiving a favor. The participant had gotten only one time period per situation, assigned randomly.

To express their attitude towards the request, participants replied to three statements with a 9-point scale. Statements are:
the likelihood that the person would help with the request,
the strength of an obligation feeling they would have,
the extent to which someone should agree to such a request.

The results are presented in the (Table 2).

Table 2. Mean response scores for dependent variables (J. Burger, 1997)

The most interesting are the first rows for every scenario. "Likely to help" score declines across three time periods. The statistical F-test (analysis of variance, F column in the table) indicates that the differences between the scores are large enough (larger than variances). That means such scores are highly unlikely to occur by coincidence.

So, if you would like to benefit from a reciprocal feeling induced by your help, keep in mind there is an expiration period!

“You have my word” (Q. Ma, L. Meng, Q. Shen, 2015).

Even a simple promise can trigger reciprocity. In a trust-game experiment, Ma et al. found that “investors” entrusted more money to a partner who promised to return it – even though the promise was non-binding [9].

Specifically, having the trustee promise “effectively increased the investment frequency” and overall “promoted cooperative behavior” of investors. If the partner broke that promise, participants’ brain signal recordings (FRN) registered it as a social norm violation.

Critical note: the authors invited the undergraduate students as the participants, not real investors. It’s fair to consider that the professionals would make other decisions, up to investment refusal if there is not enough information.

“Effect of a favor which reduces freedom” (J. Brehm, H. Cole, 1966)

The next paper touches on a topic of unwelcome favors. Such favors, from one side, bring an objective value to the recipient. But they might create contextual risks or expected obligations too large to accept deliberately.

The authors raised a question of how the willingness to return a favor changes if the favor somehow reduces the freedom of a recipient [10]. They created a situation where receiving a favor from a person made it harder for a participant to comply with the procedure of a “facade experiment”. Such a favor, as presumed by Brehm & Cole, causes a "psychological reactance" which reduces the likelihood of reciprocal behaviour.

In fact, 14 out of 15 participants used an opportunity to return the favor when the compliance pressure was low. On the other side, only 2 out of 15 participants helped when the original favor created such a pressure.

That was a 2x2 experiment (see Table 3). The experiment involved 52 people: 26 were offered cookies, and 26 were not. Also, in every group, ~half were asked to take part in a "help" scenario, and another – in a "distract" one.

keyboard_arrow_down

Male undergraduate psychology students were invited individually to take part in “projective testing” (the facade activity). Each person believed they were one of two participants. A confederate acted as the second "participant".
— Before entering the lab, the organizers made both participants wait outside to make an acquaintance with the confederate look natural. After some time, the confederate left and returned with a soft drink, which was offered to the real subject (favor condition). In the no-favor condition, nothing was given.
— When the confederate was away, the organizer went out of the lab and explained the importance of that “testing”.

In the high importance condition, she said that the “test” had been handled for a professor as a part of grant research, so following the instructions was of extreme importance. In the low importance scenario, the “test” was presented as a casual class project, so the fidelity of answers was not so critical.

For the active part, both individuals entered a room and answered three personal questions aloud. Participants were instructed to make first-impression ratings of the second person based only on those answers. Regarding the favor from a confederate previously, that, presumably, created a pressure on the participant’s integrity.

After the rating, the confederate was asked to stack papers. The experimenters observed (through the hole in the documents, believe it or not!) whether the participant helped him — this served as a behavioural measure of reciprocation.

See the full 2x2x2 configuration for the number of participants helped (Table 3). As mentioned in the summary above, there is a remarkable difference between the high and low importance cases with favor.

Table 3. Number of subjects who helped to stack papers (J. Brehm, 1966)

There are some setbacks of experimental methods in those studies that should be taken into account.

• Students are usually taken as subjects.
• Methods used to construct a life-like experimental setting might be unethical.
• Experimental situations are quite specific to extrapolate them with confidence.

According to reviewed studies, reciprocity chances moderately increase when: the person receives an unsolicited favor, the person is asked for a reciprocal action shortly after receiving a favor, and when the person believes the values declared are internalized by a man or organization. From the other side if a favor puts the compliance pressure on a person, they less likely to return it.

"Coca-Cola trilogy". Doing this review, we noticed that 3 of 3 small favor experiments used a soft drink. Indeed, what one can use as a small natural-looking treat on campus to slightly affect the subject's behaviour? Moreover, vending machines in the 60s-70s contained a particular brand of a soft drink. So, the corporation contributed to interpersonal relationships studies in an unexpected manner!

Managing reciprocity

To approach reciprocity from a practical side, it is good to discuss the probable situations that can emerge in real relationships. There are two basic sides: a) a person gives a favor and has some reciprocity expectations, b) a person receives a favor and deals with reciprocity expectations.

We came up with several scenarios and suggest behaviours:

Giver perspective

1. “I want to do a favor but don’t want the person to feel obliged.” How to do a favor casually?

If the giver's intention is seen as genuinely altruistic, it should significantly reduce the receiver's sense of obligation [11]. Additionally, favors that are simple and clear are less likely to trigger complex mental accounting, which can reduce the feeling of "debt" [12]. There are a few express pieces of advice:

• Frame it as "No big deal" or "Joy of giving”.
• Emphasize mutual benefit.
• Avoid immediate reciprocity cues.

   OR

• Put the manageable price right away (make it transactional).

Emphasize that your help comes with no strings attached. For example, something like “I just want to help, no need to pay me back”, “That’s completely fine with me”, or “That is worth it”. By framing the favor as a friendly gesture (not a loan), you reduce the pressure on the recipient.

2. “I don’t mind having something in return”. How to let the receiver know that politely?

Hint lightly that you don’t mind something when another person is feeling grateful. One might jokingly remark “Now you owe me one!” or “Next time it’s my turn”, or say something like “I’m happy to help – maybe one day I’ll call in a favor.” The goal is to plant the idea in a friendly way without making it a demand. Let the other person return the favor on their own terms.

You can try to emphasize the value by saying something like “That was really hard, I am glad I could help”

Avoid counting exact debts or using formal language (e.g., “I expect you to repay me with…”) as that can make the recipient feel obligated or uncomfortable.

3. The person insists on providing a favor (a gift, for example). What to do in that situation to avoid the debt?

Sometimes the giver really doesn’t want to step back. In that situation, assess their motives (step 1) and try compromising responses.

• Accept with a value disclaimer. It may be helpful to explicitly specify that you don’t look for that favor. ”I am thankful but really don’t need that”, “If you insist, I take it”, etc.
• You might suggest a smaller compromise (e.g., accept part of the favor) if that feels appropriate. The key is to stay polite but firm.
• Set boundaries for future interactions. If the communication has put you in a zugzwang (cannot refuse, cannot accept either), you would like to anticipate such occasions beforehand.

4. “When should I return a favor? What’s enough?”

For a professional or social norms setting, return small favors within a few days to a week. For minor favors, returning the favor aligns with the expectation of immediacy and prevents the obligation from decaying [9]. This demonstrates attentiveness and respect for the time and plans of others. Larger favors are better to be made transactional or supported by a contract.

For an interpersonal setting, play a broader game when it comes to showing gratefulness. The art of reciprocity is that it doesn’t have to be mirroring, returning the same thing, or transactional. Rather, stay attentive to another person’s needs and assess if you are able to do something really valuable for them. That might be more appreciated than a quick formal “compensation” of the favor with an equal one.

These ideas are inspired by the insights from papers and the Knei authors’ common sense. Not every suggestion contains scientific evidence (yet) but it is useful to start with some solutions and grow from that.

Summary

The reciprocity principle has to be considered in building relationships with people. Even a small favor might lead to a positive response. As in the “Soft Drink Trilogy” of studies we reviewed earlier, the mere treat was enough to significantly affect the goodwill behaviour. In conclusion, there are reciprocity insights we consider the most actionable:

• Reciprocal exchange can be direct (two people) or indirect (many people interacting in a “chain”). Direct reciprocity can be unilateral — reciprocal exchange, or bilateral — transactional (negotiated) exchange.
• The belief of a person in that you adhere to the particular values increases his will to return the favor.
• People are less likely to return the favor as time passes.
• Favor causes reciprocal favor even towards the third party. That has been independently observed in scenarios with a soft drink treatment and the subsequent request to help with an experiment.
• There are favors that induce the pressure, for example, inability to comply with an important agreement. People don’t like being put in such a situation and probably won’t return the favor.

Thanks for reading!

References

• https://www.thebehavioralscientist.com/glossary/reciprocity
• Story 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/MadeMeSmile/comments/1j6rad9;
  Story 2: https://www.kindspring.org/story/view.php?sid=9036;
  Story 3: see the disclaimer in text
• Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American sociological review, 161-178.
• Molm, L. D. (2010). The structure of reciprocity. Social psychology quarterly, 73(2), 119-131.
• Laurent, J., Chmiel, N., & Hansez, I. (2021). Returning the favor? Feeling obliged and reported participation in discretionary safety activities. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 674110.
• Isen, A. M., & Levin, P. F. (1972). Effect of feeling good on helping: cookies and kindness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 21(3), 384.
• Whatley, M. A., Webster, J. M., Smith, R. H., & Rhodes, A. (1999). The effect of a favor on public and private compliance: How internalized is the norm of reciprocity?. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(3), 251-259.
• Burger, J. M., Horita, M., Kinoshita, L., Roberts, K., & Vera, C. (1997). Effects on time on the norm of reciprocity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19(1), 91-100.
• Ma, Q., Meng, L., & Shen, Q. (2015). You have my word: reciprocity expectation modulates feedback-related negativity in the trust game. PloS one, 10(2), e0119129.
• Brehm, J. W., & Cole, A. H. (1966). Effect of a favor which reduces freedom. Journal of personality and social psychology, 3(4), 420.
• Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. Journal of economic perspectives, 14(3), 159-182.
• Schweinfurth, M. K., & Call, J. (2019). Reciprocity: Different behavioural strategies, cognitive mechanisms and psychological processes. Learning & behavior, 47(4), 284-301.