Inhibiting effects of reciprocation wariness on interpersonal relationships.

Cotterell, Norman; Eisenberger, Robert; Speicher, Hilda

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.4.658

Cited by 114 publications

(125 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Tukey's q-test revealed that UNCO-OPERATIVE discussion lowered SIT in comparison with COOPERATIVE or NEUTRAL discussion. These results agree with those obtained by Lindskold, Betz, and Walters (1986), Lindskold, Han, and Betz (1986), Tedeschi et al (1980), andCotterell et al (1992). Number of cooperators in the first trial.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

Effects of Trust and Communication on Cooperative Choice in a Two-person Prisoner's Dilemma Game

Mori

1996

THE JAPANESE JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study explored the effects of two types of interpersonal trust: general trust and specific trust, on cooperative choices in two-person Prisoner's Dilemma Game, and ex- (2) Communication type strongly affected specific trust towards the partner with whom communication had taken place. (3) Uncooperative communication contributed to the cooperation rates indirectly through specific trust towards the communicated partner, whereas cooperative communication explained the cooperation rates directly. It was found that communication opportunity itself did not affect cooperation directly, but it determined which type of trust came into operation. The possibility of specific trust becoming generalized toward general trust was discussed.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 83%

Effects of Trust and Communication on Cooperative Choice in a Two-person Prisoner's Dilemma Game

Mori

1996

THE JAPANESE JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In our investigation, we focused on the initial and spontaneous reactions and behaviors people display in a dyadic setting as a consequence of their achievement goals and the performance feedback that they receive. It may be assumed that the behaviors displayed by the participants directly reflected considerations that were evoked by their goal focus (Cotterell, Eisenberger, & Speicher, 1992). Further field research needs to be conducted to investigate whether the present findings have external validity.…”

Section: Limitations and Strengthsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Joint Impact of Achievement Goals and Performance Feedback on Information Giving

Poortvliet

Janssen

Yperen

et al. 2009

Basic and Applied Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examined how performance feedback moderates the effects of individuals' achievement goals on information exchange when carrying out a novel and complex task. Experiment 1 demonstrated that mastery goal individuals who received positive performance feedback gave less modified information about their task performance to their exchange partner relative to both mastery goal individuals who received negative feedback and performance goal individuals (who received either negative or positive feedback). In Experiment 2, we found that relative to performance goals, mastery goals led to a stronger reciprocity orientation and a weaker exploitation orientation. Also, mastery goal individuals provided information of higher quality than performance goal individuals, thereby explaining the observed findings in Experiment 1.Information exchange may be helpful to acquire task-related problem solutions, particularly when people are engaged in carrying out new and complex tasks. However, the ability to give meaningful task-related information to others at a certain point during task execution depends on the performance level one has actually reached at that point. To make an assessment of their current task proficiency, individuals often use feedback information about the effects of their task activities they obtain from the task process itself or from constituents in the task environment. For example, when a coworker asks you how to use a specific software package that you yourself just successfully have learned to use, it is probably easy for you to provide this coworker with useful information. However, if you are still unable to operate the program yourself, it is obviously much harder for you to give your colleague meaningful information and you may therefore decide to invest extra effort in enhancing your skills before starting to provide your colleague with advice to use the program.Although task-related information exchange may take place without any ulterior motive, in this article we argue that people often use information giving to facilitate the attainment of their achievement goals. Achievement goals reflect the aim for an individual's achievement pursuits in a particular situation (Elliot, 2005). Take, for example, a young and high-performing lawyer who wants to exchange information with coworkers to further enhance her job-related performance. With her high task performance in mind, she may decide to share relevant information with a particular associate. This information giving goes hand in hand with the possibility of receiving desired information back, either immediately or at a later time, and thus might eventually contribute to further improving her individual jobrelated skills and enhancing her job performance.However, when the same lawyer has received feedback indicating that she is performing rather poorly, she may find herself in a difficult position of not being able to give her partner valuable task information, unless she first makes an investment in her task performance. Also problematic ...

show abstract

“…Beliefs in the efficacy and widespread use of reciprocity-based behaviours and expectations of others' reciprocal behaviour certainly play an important role in predicting reciprocating behaviours (see e.g. Cotterell, Eisenberger, & Speicher, 1992). However, these beliefs should be conceptually distinguished from the actual performance of a reciprocal behaviour.…”

Section: Individual Differences In Reciprocitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The personal norm of reciprocity

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reciprocity is here considered as an internalized social norm, and a questionnaire to measure individual differences in the internalized norm of reciprocity is presented. The questionnaire, Personal Norm of Reciprocity (PNR), measures three aspects of reciprocity: positive reciprocity, negative reciprocity, and beliefs in reciprocity. The PNR has been developed and tested in two cultures, British and Italian, for a total of 951 participants. A cross-cultural study provides evidence of good psychometric properties and generalizability of the PNR. Data provide evidence for criterion validity and show that positive and negative reciprocators behave in different ways as a function of the valence (positive or negative) of the other's past behaviour, the type of feasible reaction (reward versus punishment), and the fairness of their reaction.

show abstract

Inhibiting effects of reciprocation wariness on interpersonal relationships.

Cited by 114 publications

References 69 publications

Effects of Trust and Communication on Cooperative Choice in a Two-person Prisoner's Dilemma Game

Effects of Trust and Communication on Cooperative Choice in a Two-person Prisoner's Dilemma Game

The Joint Impact of Achievement Goals and Performance Feedback on Information Giving

The personal norm of reciprocity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About