What is the rule of reciprocation? - Chapter 2

Is there such a thing as a rule of reciprocation?

To introduce the concept of reciprocation, we can look at the example of a professor who performed a very uncommon experiment. He took a sample of complete strangers and sent Christmas cards to them. Certainly, everyone would expect to get some greetings back but the actual magnitude of the response was overwhelming. Without even asking about the identity of the unknown sender, a majority of people sent a card back. Again, this is an example of click, whirr, or automatic behavior and it illustrates the rule of reciprocation which states that what somebody else has given us should be repaid. This rule is so strong that you could even argue to rephrase this sentence to "we are obliged to repay". Furthermore, as sociologist Alvin Gouldner (1960) discovered, the rule of reciprocation is inherent to all human societies. It is seen by cultural anthropologists as an adaptive mechanism that serves to divide labor and the exchange of natural produce and services. The resulting interdependency between the subjects binds those individuals together to form a highly effective group. It therefore lays the ground for complex structures of society and with the reciprocation rule we established the first instance in the history of evolution in which a subject could give away something without actually losing it. The necessity of the rule to ensure the efficiency of our social environment is the reason why it is applied so consistently during our socialization.

When it comes to the longevity of reciprocation there seems to be a difference concerning the kind of favor that was provided in the first place. The feeling of the need to repay small gifts fades rather quickly whereas the obligation to reciprocate extraordinary and notable favors is extremely long-lasting. Take for example the amount of 5.000 dollars paid for by Ethiopia to the state of Mexico in 1985 (to help victims of an earthquake) which was reciprocating a situation in 1935 in which Mexico helped the Ethiopians fight against the Italian invasion.

But reciprocation does not just work indirectionally. Looking at the dramatic situation in New Orleans after the city had been hit by hurricane Katrina in 2007 we can see two interesting things. First of all, while rescue programs were taken to action, the Dutch ambassador in the United States announced that his country had immediately provided helicopters, pumps and other technological equipment. Bear in mind that the federal government's own response was deployed quite slowly. The Dutch lived up to the rule of reciprocation, repaying for the United States' help in a similar incident in the Netherlands in 1954. The second point of interest concerns the mentioned bi-directionality. Let down by their very own government, the rate of homicides in New Orleans rose to an all-time record of 30%. It seems as though the proverb "you reap what you sow" is applicable to this situation.

How does the rule of reciprocation work?

Our education and upbringing teaches us right from the beginning that people who take and take, without giving something back, are generally disliked. Therefore, in order not to be stigmatized by society as moochers, we will try our best to live up to the rule of reciprocity.

Showing how the rule works can best be accomplished by examining professionals and experimenters who know how to exploit it. Starting with a study by Dennis Reagan (1971), he had a subject rate the quality of a painting together with another subject, which was (unbeknownst to the participant), Reagan's assistant. In one of the two conditions, the assistant would provide a small favor to the experimental subject (i.e. leaving the room and returning with two cans of Coke, one for the subject and one for himself); in the other condition there was no favor involved. After the official part of the research (the rating of the paintings) was done, the assistant asked the participant a small favor himself, more precisely to buy some raffle tickets he sold. The finding was that, in the first condition, the experimenter who seemed to the subject as just a fellow participant sold twice as many tickets as in the second condition. Furthermore, liking was another factor that predicted purchases of the tickets. Additional scales revealed that the more the participant liked the assistant, the more tickets he or she would buy. Interestingly, this connection between liking and doing a favor was completely absent in the first condition. When the offered a cola to the participant in the beginning, it did not matter whether he or she liked the assistant or not, there was no significant difference in the amount of tickets purchased. This illustrates how strong the rule for reciprocity is - it can even overrule a factor as strong as sympathy/liking.

This finding offers explanations for some other interesting behaviors. It can shed light on the seemingly irrational act of providing a favor to someone we don't even like. We can look at the example of the Hare Krishna Society, which is a religious sect that experienced a growth spurt in the 1970s. To earn donations, followers would employ a certain strategy that seems very familiar to us today. Before asking for money, they would hand their prospective donors a book of their cult or a flower. This extremely successful strategy was termed the benefactor-before-beggar strategy and provided the sect with an enormous economic jump. However, as time passed by, the strategy became known and people recognized the often inconveniently dressed members of the Hare Krishna from a distance, subsequently adjusting their pathways to avoid them. As a result, the economic position of the cult changed and several temples had to be closed.

But religious parties are not the only parts of society that employ the rule of reciprocation to generate desired responses. Survey researchers for example have learned that adding a 5 dollar gift check with their papers was twice as effective as offering 50 dollar for filling out and sending back the survey. The time of the favor is the crucial point. For the same reason, waiters add a mint or some other candy to the bill in order to increase the tip. Again, the favor is done before getting paid: offering a candy in exchange for a higher tip would not only be rude, it would also not apply the strategy of reciprocation.

When it comes to politics, we can clearly see that the rule for reciprocation is an inherent part of most political actions. Politicians for example often engage in what is termed logrolling. Exchanging favors for favors can sometimes lead to surprising results. This is illustrated by the case of former US president Lyndon B. Johnson. Although he had a lot of opponents in Congress, they often voted in his favor. Experts trace this back to the time when he was member of Congress and Senator himself, where he provided several favors that paid back after his inauguration. Furthermore, companies often try to bribe officials with small to big favors in an attempt to get preferential treatment. Although politicians claim they are not susceptible to such offers, research proves them wrong. Even distinguished scientists are not free from the flaws the rule of reciprocity contains. Take an analysis of a special medical treatment with calcium-channel blockers to prevent heart diseases. It has been shown that 100% of the scientists who published positive to supporting results for the treatment had previously been provided with support, such as free trips or funding for their research. However, only 37% of those professionals who conveyed criticism about the blockers had been given this support.

What is the tradition of the free sample?

The strategy of several merchandising companies to provide their prospective customers with a free sample of their product has been long established. And it still works: people are falling prey to the rule of reciprocity by buying things they don't even like because they had been given a prior sample as a gift.

Some corporations, like Amway, try an even fiercer version. They provide door-to-door sales for a variety of products. Nothing out of the ordinary, but their approach involves one of their own inventions: the BUG, which is a collection of Amway products samples that is left with the customer for up to three days. The salesperson assures that there is no obligation for a purchase and that he or she will return after a maximum of 72 hours to pick up eventual orders. Certainly, most people will feel the need to buy the samples they have tried, resulting in excellent market records for the Amway Corporation.

Although it is often exploited in an economic sense, the rule of reciprocity is not exclusively restricted to this area. Take for example the story of a German WWI soldier that – when anxiously offered a piece of bread by one of his captives – abandoned his mission to imprison his enemy.

An even more interesting example comes from a sad story of mass compliance. It shows that sometimes refusing a gift can be equally lifesaving as accepting it, as it was the case with the German soldier. In 1978, the leader of the Jonestown (Guyana) sect, Reverend Jim Jones, asked his followers to commit suicide by drinking poison. Although almost everyone died, one woman named Diane Louie was able to escape. She attributes her ability to overcome this mass compliance to the fact that she previously refused to accept several “gifts” from Jones, such as special food or treatment. This is another, rather sad way the rule of reciprocity can exert its power.

How does the rule of reciprocation invite a feeling of indebtedness?

By providing us with a favor we didn't want or for which we didn't ask can leave us with a feeling of indebtedness. This seems only logical given the original purpose of the rule as previously mentioned. If it serves to establish interdependent relationships between subjects resulting in the fact that initiation of such a relationship is possible without having to fear a loss, then most certainly a first favor has to be met with an obligation, no matter whether this was asked for or not. The pressure to conform to this rule is strongly embedded in our culture. However, bear in mind that the rule does not apply to instances of purchasing an unwanted product!

How can the rule of reciprocation lead to unequal exchanges?

The facts that were mentioned previously concerning uninvited debts can often lead to exchanges of resources that are completely unequal. One of the reasons for this is that we generally dislike the feeling of indebtedness. Again, the basis for this lies within thousands of years of socialization. Refusing to repay a favor would put an end to one sequence of reciprocation which makes the initiator less likely to provide a favor in the future. Considering a broader perspective, this is harmful to society. Therefore we fear being disliked by our social group and sometimes comply with an unequal request in order to avoid being stigmatized.

Another common-sense result concerns the finding that we are unlikely to ask for a favor in the first place if we are not able to repay it. When it comes to the context for reciprocity, it can be found in most relationships. Yet, in very pure and long-term social bonds (such as family and close friendships) it is not necessary and often even unwanted. What counts in those instances is the willingness to provide and exchange what close others need rather than an addition of paid and repaid favors. However, excessive cases of unequal distributions of favors and labor can lead to dissatisfaction even in very close relationships.

What role do concessions play when it comes to reciprocity?

The strategy of providing someone with something in order to elicit a desired return can sometimes be very obvious and easily detectable. But there is another way to put the reciprocity rule to use, at least for those who want to exploit it. This differential approach makes use of concessions and it is both subtle and often more effective compared to the first approach. Surely everyone will recognize this tactic when provided with an example, like an experience that involved a Boy Scout who tried to sell tickets to an event for 5 dollar. When the scout was told there was no interest to buy, he replied with a concession: if he did not want to buy tickets to the event, what about chocolate bars for only 1 dollar per piece? It is probable that many people would fall for this strategy, since an addition to the reciprocity rule states that we need to make concessions to others who made a concession to us.

The reason for the effectiveness of this addition is the same as for the rule itself: socialization. Although according to the rule we are obliged to comply with a person that provided us with a favor by providing a favor ourselves, we are sometimes confronted with unacceptable demands. This is when the need for concessions takes its part. It is in societies best interest to have its individuals work together to achieve common goals. The agreements that are negotiated by mutual concessions are governed by the reciprocation rule in two ways: first of all, the already mentioned need to respond to a concession with another concession. Second and less obvious, individuals that start a concession can feel free about them since they know that the rule requires their counterparts to respond with a concession of their own. Everyone can therefore feel safe when compromising at first.

What is the technique of rejection-then-retreat?

One compliance technique that uses the previously mentioned obligation for concession is rejection-then-retreat, also known as the door-in-the-face strategy. It simply means that by starting out with a larger request that the victim is most likely to reject, the likelihood is increased that a subsequent smaller request will be obeyed. Of course, the smaller request is the one the perpetrator was interested to begin with. The retreat to a less severe favor is seen as a concession on the part of the requester. Since we learned from the rule of reciprocation that such an action needs to be met with another concession, this is exactly the obligation of the individual in demand. His or her concession is then most likely compliance to the smaller favor.

Researchers have been interested in the relatively magnitude of the two requests. It was assumed that the second (i.e. the one that the compliance-seeking subject was interested in all along) did not need to be objectively small. The important aspect was its relative size compared to the initial request. As long as it was bigger than this and was therefore seen as a concession, compliance was assumed to be very likely. To test this hypothesis, researchers asked students on a US campus to accompany a group of young criminals on a trip to the zoo. Most of them (83%) rejected. A second sample was asked the same question but only after being exposed to an even bigger request (spending two hours per week as counselor for young criminals for at least two years). Interestingly, students in this condition were three times more likely to comply with the “smaller” favor of the zoo trip, since it was seen as a concession that needed to be met equally. Bear in mind however, that this principle only works up to a certain point after which initial demands are seen as too exorbitant and unreasonable.

One of the examples that is used throughout the whole book concerns door-to-door salespeople. As will be shown in chapter 5, people are more likely to buy something if they know that the product is recommended or used by another familiar person. This being a useful tool to increase sales, sales professionals are eager to collect names of relatives or friends of their prospective customers. They often use the concession principle of the rule of reciprocity to achieve their goal: if a customer refuses to buy one of the offered products they retreat to a smaller favor, in harsh terms: if you are not interested in our cosmetics, then at least provide us with the names of some of your friends or relatives. Of course this is put in more polite terminology, but people who would otherwise hide their fellows’ identities crack under the pressure of the rule.

How do concessions and perpceptual contrast work in practice?

Remember the perceptual contrast principle from chapter 1 which states that two different things presented one after another will seem more different than they objectively are. As you might already know, this principle also affects reciprocal concessions. The retreat that is made in a concession will appear even bigger than it actually is. If somebody asks you for a donation of 100 dollar and upon your refusal retreats to 50 dollar, both the rule for reciprocal concession and the perceptual contrast principle exert their power. Combined, those two forces can lead to drastic consequences. The case of the Watergate affair illustrates this nicely. To summarize the events from the 1970s (in this section, light is shed exclusively on aspects that are of importance to the topic of social influence, for a thorough review of the events please use the internet or other reliable sources): a man named Gordon Liddy led actions of the CREEP (Committee to Re-elect the president [Nixon]). He was well known for his unreliability and his idea was to break into the Democratic Party’s headquarters and installing hidden tapes within the complex (Watergate complex = Democratic headquarters). The plan was not only very risky (ten men were involved and needed to be discrete) and costly (250.000 dollar), in light of good chances for Nixon’s re-election it also seemed unnecessary. However, the majority of the CREEP board (which consisted of John Mitchell, Jeb Magruder, and Frederick LaRue) eventually approved the plan. Unfortunately for the Republicans, the plan was uncovered when five men were caught in action. The question that concerns social psychology is: why did highly intelligent men in leading positions of the Republican Party assent to such a flawed plan? The answer probably lies within the rule for reciprocity, concessions, and perceptual contrast. Some interesting facts about the events are, that the final 250.000 dollar plan was only a concession to two other proposals that initially asked for 1 million dollar and then 500.000 dollar. Further proof for the influence of the powerful principles comes from the fact that there was only one person that opposed the plan: Frederick LaRue. Interestingly, LaRue was only present during Gordon Liddy’s final proposal (the plan for 250.000 dollar) and was never exposed to the previous two concessions.

What are some additional advantages of rejection-then-retreat?

If you closely examine the door-in-the-face technique you will see that it almost always establishes a win/win situation for the requester. If the victim obeys to the initial large request: perfect! But what if it does not? It does not matter. The rule that governs our social behavior is so strong that a retreat to a smaller request is almost always met with compliance. One could think that victims might subsequently react more negative to such demands, therefore leading to the extinction of the principle. However, research indicates the opposite.

A study conducted shows that when students are asked to donate a pint of blood after they have been asked to donate blood every six weeks for a period of three years results in greater compliance than merely asking them to donate a pint of blood in the first place. This is what we already expect, knowing about the power of concessions. However, the researchers were interested in finding out whether those students had the feeling of being manipulated and therefore would reject further attempts to gain compliance. In order to investigate this question they asked all the participating students to leave their phone numbers so that they could be reached for further donations. Interestingly, those students that gave blood as a result of the door-in-the-face technique (i.e. first asked to donate every six weeks over three years) were even more likely to agree than the other participants (84% vs. <50% respectively).

What are some positive side effects of the rejection-then-retreat?

Looking back at what we now know it seems that the rejection-then-retreat technique is horribly misleading our daily actions. This is not true and disregards some positive side effects that come along with our compliance. First of all, when we comply with acts of concessions we feel more responsible for the arrangement we have just established. This results from the fact that, for all intents and purposes, the victim has “dictated” the final proposal. Second, we also feel more satisfied with our work. We have just negotiated our final arrangement by drawing a concession from our “opponent” (not knowing that sometimes this opponent is a professional). As a result it does not seem remarkable how the researchers could elicit students to donate even more blood when they probably felt very responsible and satisfied with their actions.

How can exploitation of the rule be prevented?

What is most important in avoiding falling prey for the rule of reciprocation is the identification of the true enemy. It is not the requester but the rule itself. Due to our socialization process we are often unsure whether an offer that is presented is meant to be honest ore exploiting. In a first step we need to see those offers as what they truly are: if it is a favor we should be aware of the obligation to repay it someday. But if it turns out to be an attempt to trick us into something we do not want, we should repay it accordingly: although reciprocity requires us to respond to favors with favors, it does not say that tricks should be responded to with favors.