Reciprocal favor exchange and compliance

Experimental clues in favor of a generalized norm of reciprocity

“…In accordance with our hypothesis, the results reveal that an individual being offered a piece of cake is first of all, not only more likely to help the person who had previously given him the gift, but also more likely to help someone who had not been involved compared to a control situation where nothing was offered beforehand. These results replicate those of Regan (1971), Whatley and Al (1999), Boster and Al (2001), Burger and Al (2006) or Burger and Al (2009) concerning the observed reciprocity effect between two individuals and support the proposal of Berkowitz and Daniels (1964) reiterated by Goranson and Berkowitz (1966), Greenglass (1969), Staub (1972) and Dieckman (2004) concerning the existence of a generalized reciprocity mechanism.…”

The norm of reciprocity as an internalized social norm: Returning favors even when no one finds out

“…This reciprocity effect has been replicated in several subsequent investigations (Burger, Ehrlichman, Raymond, Ishikawa, & Sandoval, 2006;Burger, Horita, Kinoshita, Roberts, & Vera, 1997;Whatley, Webster, Smith, & Rhodes, 1999). Moreover, real-world examples of the reciprocity effect abound (Cialdini, 2001;Levine, 2003).…”

“…It is unlikely that any mood change resulting from a free bottle of water would have lasted that long. Second, previous investigators have ruled out a mood interpretation of the reciprocity effect by including a condition in which the favor was delivered by someone other than the requester (Burger et al, 2006;Regan, 1971). These studies find no increase in compliance in this condition relative to a control condition.…”

Promising reciprocity: When proposing a favor for a request increases compliance even if the favor is not accepted

“…Our results suggest that showing somebody who respects the reciprocity norm is something important in social relationships. In the previous studies on this topic (Burger et al, 2006;Jacob et al, 2015;Regan, 1971;Whatley,Webster, Smith, & Rhodes 1999), a gift was given to the participant before requesting something in return, suggesting that people paid what they received even if the gift was unintended and/or presented no interest for the participant. In Study 5, we reported that the solicitor was perceived in the same way in both conditions, suggesting that proposing something in exchange does not change how we perceive the individual.…”