- Email: [email protected]
Effect of intentionality on willingness to reciprocate a favor
OUHNAL
OF
Effect
EXPERIMENTAL
SOCIAL
of lntentionality
PSYCHOLOGY
8, 99-111
on Willingness a Favor’
MARTIN
( 1972)
to Reciprocate
S. GREEXBERC
University
of
Pittsburgh
AND DAVID
Marquette
M.
University
FRISCH”
Medical
School
The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to examine the influence of deliberate vs accidental help, and, to a lesser extent, high vs low help, on the magnitude of reciprocity; and (2) to clarify the role of obligation and attribution of motivation as mediators of reciprocity. Ss were assigned to one of four cells in a 2 x 2 factorial design. They were run on two tasks, the first to manipulate the two independent variables, and the second to measure magnitude of reciprocity. Both main effects were highly significant in the predicted direction. Data were obtained supporting the role of both obligation and attribution of motivation as mediating intentionality of help and magnitude of reciprocation.
A number of recent experiments have noted a tendency among individuals to reciprocate for favors received. For example, Pruitt (1968) found the magnitude of reciprocation to be a positive function of the amount received, the percentage of the donor’s resources relinquished, and the donor’s future resources. Other research has shown that reciprocity is enhanced to the extent that reactance is not aroused (Brehm 8r Cole, 1966), that the motives of the donor are not suspect (Lerner & Lichtman, 1968; Schopler & Thompson, 1968), and that the donor’s behavior is seen as voluntary (Goranson & Berkowitz, 1966) and intentional or deliberate (Leventhal, Weiss & Long, 1969). Although Leventhal et al. demonstrated the importance of deliberate versus accidental help ‘This research was supported by a grant from the Graduate School of Washington University, St. Louis, MO. A portion of this paper was presented at the American Psychological AssociatGon Convention in San Francisco in 1968. The authors wish to thank Leonard Sase for his helpful advice. ‘The junior author conducted part of this research in fulfillment of an honors thesis at Washington University. 99 Q 1972 by Academic Press, Inc.
100
GREENBERG
AND
PRISCH
in determining the tendency to reciprocate, there is no empirical evidence pertaining to the mechanism by which the attribution of intentionality affects the likelihood of reciprocation. It was the purpose of this experiment to validate empirically the relationship between intentionality and reciprocity and to explore further the relationship between intentionality and one motivational state presumed to mediate receipt of a favor and reciprocation. The state to be examined can best be labeled indebtedness or obligation. This explanation of reciprocity presupposes the existence of what Gouldner (1960) termed the norm of reciprocity. The norm makes the minimal demand that “( 1) people should help those who have helped them, and (2) people should not injure those who have helped them [p. 1711.” G ou Id ner further stated that the obligation to reciprocate a benefit varies with (a) the recipient’s need-state at the time he received the benefit; (b) the resources of the donor; (c) the motives inputed to the donor; and (d) th e extent to which the donor gave of his own free will. Conspicuously absent from this formulation is any specific reference to intentionality, although it is possible to view intentionality as a corollary of Gouldner’s ( d ) . In a recent extension of Gouldner’s thesis, Greenberg ( 1968) proposed that receiving a favor from another produces a condition of indebtedness which is a state of tension having motivational qualities such that the greater its magnitude, the greater will be the efforts to reduce it. Greenberg also proposed that the more strongly the recipient perceives the donor’s action as intentional or deliberate, the more strongly obligated will he feel to reciprocate. The formulations of both Gouldner and Greenberg assert that the obligation to reciprocate is enhanced by the kind of attribution made about the donor’s motivation for helping. According to attribution theory (Jones & Davis, 1965), before the recipient can assign a motivational disposition to the donor on the basis of his actions, the recipient must first believe that the donor had prior knowledge of the consequences of his action, that is, the effects of his behavior were intentional or deliberately caused. Therefore, the receipt of intentional help should lead the recipient to perceive the donor as being more motivated to help him, which, according to Gouldner ( 1960) and Greenberg ( 1968), ought to increase the recipient’s obligation to reciprocate. Empirical support for the linkage between attribution of motivation and reciprocity for a favor was provided in a study by Schopler and Thompson ( 1968). They found that a recipient of a favor is more likely to reciprocate when he perceives that his own needs were the proximal cause of the donor’s act rather than the donor’s needs. However, they failed to provide any evidence to support their claim
WILLINGNESS
TO
101
RECIPROCATE
that the feeling of obligation mediated the recipient’s perception of the donor’s motives for doing the favor and his willingness to reciprocate. The major purpose of the present study, therefore, was to test empirically the hypothesized causal connection between the intentionality of a prosocial act, the attribution of a motivational disposition to the donor, the recipient’s feeling of obligation to reciprocate, and the magnitude of reciprocity. In addition to studying the influence of intentionality upon both reciprocity behavior and the hypothesized mediating process, a secondary purpose of this study was to examine similarly the role of magnitude of help. It was hypothesized that the variables of intentionality and magnitude of help would each affect the amount of felt obligation and therefore the degree of reciprocity. Specifically, the following hypotheses were tested: (a) Help which is deliberately given will elicit a greater willingness to reciprocate than help which is accidentally given. (b) The greater the magnitude of help received from another, the greater the willingness to reciprocate. (c) The recipient’s feeling of indebtedness to the donor, and thus his willingness to reciprocate, is a positive function of his evaluation of how motivated the donor was to help him, which, in turn, is a positive function of both the intentionality and the magnitude of help received. METHOD Subjects The subjects consisted of 65 male undergraduates enrolled in an introductory psychology course at Washington University. They participated in the experiment as part of their course requirement. Of the 65 subjects, five were omitted from the statistical analysis for the following reasons: two failed to perceive the manipulations, two were previously acquainted, and one was lost because of a procedural error. Omruiew
of Procedure
and
Design
The subjects were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 x 2 factorial design. The two independent variables were intentionality of help (deliberate versus accidental) and amount of help received (high versus low). The four conditions thus produced were deliberate-high help, deliberate-low help, accidental-high help, and accidental-low help. There were 15 subjects in each condition. They were run two at a time with subjects from two different conditions being run simultaneously. The procedure involved two separate tasks; the first was designed to provide for manipulation of the independent variables and the second to provide subjects with an opportunity to reciprocate. Procedure After previously
introducing acquainted,
the
subjects they were
to each ushered
other into
and assuring that they separate rooms (“offices”)
were
not which
102
GREENBERG
AND
FRISCH
were separated by a narrow corridor. Each was seated at a desk and given a brief personality inventory and some additional questions to answer. The added items were of the semantic differential type and provided information pertaining to each subject’s first impressions of the other. Actually, the personality inventory was irrelevant to the purposes of the experiment and was included in order to enhance the credibility of the subsequent manipulations. After completion of the questionnaire, the instructions were read aloud to both subjects simultaneously. They were told that the study was attempting to identify personality characteristics that are associated with success in the business world. They were then asked to play the role of business executives employed by the same firm, the ACME Television Corporation. In order to facilitate the role playing, they were provided with a desk plate on which was printed the title, “Executive,” as well as stationery with the letterhead reading “ACME Television Corporation.” In addition, there was a large sign in the room on which the company’s name was printed. Subjects were then informed that they would be requested to work on two nroblems “which an executive might be asked to deal with in the course of his duties.” As an incentive, each was promised extra participation credit if he was successful on the first task. Pilot testing had previously shown this to be an im portant incentive for subjects enrolled in the introductory psychology course. They were then told that the first task was a noncompetitive one and that both could earn the extra credit. On the first task each subject was individually confronted with the problem of predicting the company’s high sales for each month of the forthcoming year. To aid the subject on this task, the sales record for the “previous year” was made available. It consisted of graph cards, one for each month. Subjects were told that the sales record for the previous year could be reconstructed by laying the cards out horizontally in chronological order. They were then given the following additional information: There is one major problem. The records have been poorly kept. In some cases the month has not been put on the card. It will be your job to identify the month that the card represents. You have one additional problem. Both of you have very recently exchanged offices and there has been some mixup in receiving all your cards. That is, neither of you may have all your cards. In some cases, the other person may have them by mistake, and in some cases the card may just be lost. In short, the sales forecast records are in a state of disarray, and it is your job to bring order to the state of chaos and to complete successfully the sales forecast graph. They were further informed that they could communicate with each other in order to check on missing data. This could be accomplished by writing a message on the company stationery, inserting it in an envelope, and then pressing a light switch on their desk in order to have it delivered. The rationalization provided them for this procedure was that the experimenter wanted to have a written record of their communication. They were asked to complete their forecasts within 10 min, making educated guesses in the event they lacked all the required information. Shortly after the task began, each discovered that he was provided with only eight graph cards and that he was lacking four. Subsequently, handwritten messages (ostensibly from the other subject) were delivered to each subject. The message comprised the manipulation of the independent variables. Deliberate-high help condition. Subjects in this condition received the four labeled graph cards that they were missing along with the following note: “I have
WILLINGNESS
TO
RECIPROCATE
103
some duplicates that probably belong to you. I’m sending them over since you can probably use them.” Deliberate-low help con&on. The subjects in this condition received essentially the same note as subjects in the deliberate-high help condition. However, they received only one labeled graph card instead of four. Accidental-high help condition. The subjects in this condition received the same four graph cards as subjects in the deliberate-high help condition with the exception that the months were not labeled. The accompanying note read, “Some of my cards don’t have the month on them; can you help me and identify them for me?” It was intended here that in the process of identifying the months which the graph cards represented, the subjects would discover that these cards were the four cards that they were missing. The task of identifying the month that a card represented was a relatively easy one for the subject, since it merely required a trial and errox procedure of placing each card in one of the four vacant slots and observing whether the graph was continuous with the graph cards immediately adjacent to it. The help thus provided the subject was unintentionally given, since the donor did not evidence any awareness of the beneficial consequences of his action. In order to prevent these subjects from reciprocating the help by supplying the other subject with the information that was requested, a second note was delivered. It read: “Forget it, I found the cards I was missing.” Accidental-low help condition. The subjects in this condition received essentially the same note as subjects in the accidental-high help condition. However, they received only one unlabeled graph card instead of four. After the subjects completed the sales forecast graph, they were asked to fill out a five-item questionnaire which was designed to assess the success of the experimental manipulations. Subsequently, they were informed that both were successful on the first task and, therefore, each would receive the extra credit. Dependent variable. Task 2 provided a measure of each subject’s willingness to reciprocate help received on the first task. The task was introduced in the following manner: The ACME Television Corporation is Each of you has been placed in charge these two products. Your most immediate The personnel needs of your projects “Personnel Requirements Form.” As it identical.
coming out with two new products. of the project connected with one of task is the selection of personnel. are described on the sheet entitled turns out, your personnel needs are
Subjects were further informed that the needed personnel were to be selected from the company’s personnel file which was randomly divided between the two of them. The file consisted of 3 X 5 cards, each containing an applicant’s name, occupation, and proficiency rating. The last named ranged from 1A “poor” to 5A “superior.” Each subject was confronted with the task of filling as many of the ten positions listed on the Personnel Requirements Form as he could with the highest accumulation of proficiency points. They were further informed that the maximum obtainable total for both of them together was 50 points, and, since the personnel were randomly divided between them one of them could possibly have a higher total than the other. They were then told that they would be competing for two dollars, to be divided proportionally between them according to the proportion of the 50 proficiency points which each accumulated. To facilitate matters, each was provided with a table listing all possible proficiency accumiilation
104
GREENBERG
AND
scores and the financial equivalent. They were exchange needed personnel with each other:
FRISCH also encouraged
to communicate
and
If your file should contain more than one applicant for a position, you would naturally prefer the applicant with the higher proficiency rating. Only one applicant can be used to fill a position. You may, however, wish to negotiate an exchange of your extra applicant for a needed one. This . . . should take place via written messages. The files were divided in such a way as to permit each subject to discover that he was more “fortunate” in that 40 of the 50 points were in his portion of the file. After 2 min of the S-min time period had elapsed, each received a standard handwritten request for help, ostensibly from the other subject. It read, “My total proficiency total is only 10 points. I have one office manager (5 points) and one electrician (5 points). I have no other persons on the list. Please send me some help.” A help-score was assigned to each subject on the basis of the number of proficiency points which he sacrificed in order to help the other subject. Upon completion of this task, subjects filled out a final questionnaire designed to assess their perception of the other subject as well as to assess the basis for their behavior toward the other person on the second task. All subjects were subsequently questioned concerning their suspicions, then fully debriefed and paid one dollar. RESULTS
AND
DISCUSSION
The success of the experimental manipulation of intentionality and help was measured by means of several questionnaire items which were administered immediately after the first task was completed. The subjects who received the deliberate-help manipulation rated the help given them as more intentional than subjects who received the accidental-help manipulation (I?( 1,56) = 49.92, p < ,001.) Those who were given the high-help manipulation indicated that they received more help than those subjects who were given the low-help manipulation ( F( 1,56) = 24.0, p < .OOl). Additional support for the success of the manipulation of help was provided by another item which asked “How influential was the help you received on the first task?” Subjects in the high-help condition indicated that the help was more influential than subjects in the low-help condition (F( 1,56) = 35.5 p < .OOl). Evidence pertaining to reciprocity. The dependent variable was the amount of help (proficiency points) that was sent to the other subject. Table 1 contains the mean help-scores for each condition and the analysis of variance results. As predicted, more help was reciprocated in the deliberate-help condition than in the accidental-help condition; and more help was reciprocated in the high-help condition than in the low-help condition. Further evidence regarding the importance of intentionality was obtained by analyzing the help-score data in terms of the number of subjects who reciprocated sufficiently to insure an equal
WILLINGNESS
TO
TABLE MEAN
HELP-SCORES
105
RECIPROCATE
1 ON TASK
2
Intentionalit Condition High help Low Help
Deliberate
Accidental
12.60 7.73
7.46 3.60
Analysis of variance Source Intentionality Help AxB
03)
Within Total
df (A)
1 1 1 56
MS
F
308.3 973 L 1 5.4 30.9
9 963* 8.826*
59
* p < ,005.
division of the money on the second task (i.e., 15 points). Fourteen of 30 subjects in the deliberate-help condition had a help-score as high as I5 compared to only 3 of 30 subjects in the accidental-help condition (x2 = 8.21, p < -01). A similar comparison of subjects receiving high help and those receiving low help yielded no significant difference on this measure. It is interesting to note that no subject sent the other more than 15 points; equality of outcomes was the maximum any subject was willing to offer in terms of help. In summary, the data offer support for the first two hypotheses. Evidence on the mediating process. As indicated in Table 2, subjects in the deliberate-help condition in comparison with subjects in accidentalhelp condition rated the other student as being more concerned about their success on the first task (p < .OOl) and more motivated to help them (p < .OOl). The data in Table 2 further show that the comparison between subjects receiving high help and those receiving low help similarly yielded differences in the predicted direction on these two items. It is of interest to note that the ordering of the four conditions in terms of the evaluation of the other student’s motivation to help parallels the ordering of conditions with regard to mean. help-scores. Further evidence in support of the role of the attribution process in mediating reciprocity is derived from a correlation analysis of the data. Ratings of the strength of other’s motivation to help were significantly correlated with subject’s assessment of other’s intentionality (T = .49, p < .Ol) and perception of the amount of help other provided (T =
106
GREENBERG
AND
TABLE i%;.4~~
AND
F VALUES
FOR
ITEMS
Deliberate help
Items 1. Concern ‘2. Motivation to help 3. Liking for other change 4. Prefer same partner in another experiment
FRISCH
2
PEKT~INING
TO EVALUATION
-4ccidental help
Variance
OF OTHERS
analysis
F value@
High help
Low help
High help
Low help
Intentionality
Help
5.67 5.47 6.33
4.47 4.47 1.93
3.33 3.60 3.60
2.33 3.33 -2.67
26.9**** 16.6**** 9. . p*** 1
6.53** 4.46* 19,73****
6.07
4.93
4.47
3.60
14.91****
6.93**
<1
e Note. Larger means indicate b df for all F values = l/56. *p < .05. ** p < .025. *** p < .005. **** p < .OOl.
higher
ratings
on the item
Interaction
listed.
.42, p < .Ol). When ratings of intentionality and help other provided were taken together and correlated with ratings of other’s motivation to help, the multiple correlation was .58 (p < .Ol). In addition, the rating of other’s motivation to help was significantly related to the help-score (r = .43, p < .Ol). In order to assess the hypothesized relationship between the degree of intentionality and help received, and the degree of felt obligation to reciprocate a favor, a separate group of 40 undergraduates attending the University of Pittsburgh were asked to act as judges and to imagine themselves in the role of subjects in the present experiment. They were randomly assigned to the four experimental conditions and then given the same information that the subjects in the original experiment received. Subsequently, they were asked to answer the following two questions: (a) “If the other person asks you for help on the second task, how obligated do you feel you are to help him?” (Alternatives ranged from “Obligated” [lo] to “Not obligated” [l] ), (b) “How indebted do you feel you are to the other person ?” (Alternatives ranged from “Indebted” [lo] to “Not indebted” [l].) The mean responses and the analysis of variance results are presented in Table 3. Consistent with the indebtedness interpretation is the finding that subjects receiving the deliberatehelp manipulation indicated a more intense feeling of indebtedness (p < .OOl ) and a stronger feeling of obligation to reciprocate ( p < .05)
WILLINCXESS
TO
TABLE
Items 1. Indebtedness 2. Obligation u df for all F values * p < .05. **p < ,001.
High help 7.7 8.6
3
Accidental help
Deliberate help Low help 7.0 x 3
High help 6.0 7.6
107
RECIPROCATE
Variance Low help 3 6 6.6
analysis
F valuesu
Intelltionality
Help
Interaction
13.57**
5.01*
1.51
<
4.17*
= lia6.
than subjects receiving the accidental-help manipulation. Subjects in the high-help condition, as opposed to those in the low-help condition, felt more indebted (p < .05) but did not feel significantly more obligated to reciprocate,3 although the difference was in the predicted direction. The latter finding is inconsistent with the prediction that the obligation to reciprocate is in part a function of the magnitude of help received. The ordering of the four condition means with regard to perceived obligation and indebtedness was identical to the ordering of conditions with regard to the mean evaluation of other’s motivation to help as well as the mean help-score. In summary, subjects receiving the deliberate-help manipulation as opposed to those receiving the accidental-help manipulation (a) believed the other subject was more motivated to help them, (b) felt more obligated and indebted to the other, and (c) evidenced a greater magnitude of reciprocation. The results for high versus low help were essentially the same, with the notable exception that no significant difference was obtained regarding felt obligation to reciprocate. Taken together, the results of the present investigation provide support for the joint role of the attribution process and indebtedness as explanations of why a deliberately performed prosocial act is more likely to evoke reciprocation than one which is accidentally performed. Help that is deliberately rendered facilitates the attribution of a positive motivational disposition to the donor and thereby increases the recipient’s sense of indebtedness or obligation to reciprocate. ‘Although the authors define indebtedness as a feeling of obligation to reciprocate, differences in subjects’ responses to these two items indicate that subjects interpret indebtedness to mean something other than felt obligation. A clue to subjects’ definition of the term indebtedness is provided by Tesser, Gatewood, and Driver (1968) who found that subjects tend to equate indebtedness with gratitude.
108
GREENBERG
AND
FIUSCH
The results support Schopler and Thompson’s attribution analysis of reciprocity in that the evaluation of other’s motivation to help was positively correlated with reciprocity behavior. The recipient’s attribution about the donor’s concern for his welfare is affected not only by the appropriateness of the donor’s help, as demonstrated by Schopler and Thompson, but, in addition, as the present study shows, by whether the recipient perceives the help as intentional or unintentional. That is, a deliberately performed prosocial act tells the recipient more about the donor’s motivational dispositions than one that is accidentally performed. However, conclusions about the relationship between intentionality and attribution of motives must be qualified by the fact that the way in which accidental help was manipulated probably contributed to the impression that the donor was more motivated by his own needs than by the needs of the recipient. It will be recalled that the accidental help which the donor provided occurred in a context in which the donor was requesting help for himself. The present study also yielded information suggesting that attraction to the donor may play a part in the causal chain linking intentionality of help and reciprocity. Attraction to the donor was measured by having subjects evaluate the donor on five semantic differential type adjective pairs. They included good-bad, fair-unfair, bright-dull, helpful-unhelpful kind-unkind. As items 3 and 4 in Table 2 indicate, a greater increase in liking for the other4 was found among those who received deliberate as opposed to accidental help (p < .005) and among those who received high as opposed to low help (p < .OOl). Similarly, those who received deliberate as opposed to accidental help expressed a stronger preference to participate with the student in another experiment (p < .OOl), as did those who received high as opposed to low help (p < .025). Moreover, increased attraction to the other was found to correlate with perception of other’s motivation to help (T = .47, p < .Ol) and the helpscore (r = .39, p < .Ol). In contrast to the latter finding, Schopler and Thompson (1968) did not obtain a positive relationship between liking for the donor and reciprocity. The inconsistency may be due in part to the fact that Schopler and Thompson had their subjects make their evaluation of the other prior to making the decision to reciprocate, whereas in the present investigation the final evaluation of the donor was contained in the postquestionnaire which was administered after the subject had made his decision to reciprocate. Conclusions regarding the role of attraction in the present study, therefore, must be drawn ‘The change in liking score was obtained by the other from the posttest rating. There were conditions on the pretest evaluation scores.
subtracting the pretest no significant differences
rating of among
WlLLINGNESS
TO
RECIPROCATE
109
with caution, since the possibility exists that the decision to reciprocate influenced the subject’s liking for the other and not vice versa. The orientation of this study is consistent with that of a number of other studies of reciprocity behavior in that it assumes that reciprocity is motivated by a feeling of obligation. With few exceptions, all of the recent research on reciprocity behavior has been based on a normative model (e.g., Goranson & Berkowitz, 1966; Pruitt, 1968; Schopler & Thompson, 1968; Leventhal et al., 1969; Brehm & Cole, 1966). While the obligation to reciprocate a favor might be sufficient to motivate repayment, it is by no means a necessary precondition for reciprocity behavior. One alternative source of reciprocity motivation is that of attraction to the donor. Data from the present study showed that increased liking for the donor was significantly correlated with perception of the donor’s motivation to help as well as the magnitude of reciprocity. Despite the reservation voiced earlier about the meaning of the attraction data in this study, one can hypothesize the following causal sequence: The attribution of positive motivation to the donor increased the recipient’s liking for the donor which then had a direct effect upon his willingness to reciprocate. While the supporters of the obligation hypothesis might argue that increased attraction to the donor enhances one’s feeling of obligation to reciprocate, it may also be argued that increased attraction independently motivates persons to reciprocate. This can occur for a number of reasons. For example, recipients of help may show greater willingness to repay attractive others simply because interacting with attractive others is more rewarding than interacting with less attractive others. In addition, increased attraction to the donor is likely to generate more concern about the donor’s welfare, thereby increasing the likelihood of reciprocation. Finally, reciprocity may represent the clearest and most direct way for the recipient to communicate to the donor his positive feelings toward him. None of these examples requires the mediating presence of obligation as an explanation for reciprocity. The design of the present study did not yield adequate data to distinguish among the several hypothesized roles that attraction might play in mediating receipt of help and reciprocity, An alternative interpretation of the data is that the confederate’s generosity on the first task served to heighten the salience of the norm of social responsibility (Berkowitz & Daniels, 1963). According to this interpretation, subjects were not repaying the confederate for the help he gave them but were merely complying with the norm of social responsibility which states that people should help those who are dependent upon them. This interpretation was supported in part by the research of Goranson and Berkowitz ( 1966). However, the data from
I10
GREENBERG
AND
FRISCH
their questionnaire measuring the salience of the social responsibility and the reciprocity norms led them to conclude “that the responsibility norm is somewhat weaker than the norm prescribing reciprocity [p. 2311.” A recent paper by Darley and Latane (1970) presented additional evidence which challenges the efficacy of explaining helping behavior in terms of a norm of social responsibility. The present study, while not designated to test for the social responsibility interpretation, offers some data which cast doubt on the appropriateness of this alternative interpretation. It would seem that the social responsibility norm does not adequately account for the finding that more help was given to the confederate in the high help situation than in the low help situation. Since subjects in both situations had an equal opportunity to observe a helping model, the norm ought to be equally salient for the two conditions. That is, the comparison is not between one model that helped and one that did not, but rather, it is between two helping models. Nowhere does Berkowitz state that a helping model that gives a large magnitude of help will heighten the salience of the social responsibility norm more than a model giving a smaller magnitude of help. However, since the design of the present study lacked the necessary controls to provide an adequate test of the social responsibility interpretation, it cannot be definitively ruled out. As the results of this study suggest, reciprocity behavior is multidetermined, and it is therefore not unreasonabIe to assume that the norm of social responsibility may be one of these determinants. However, the foregoing discussion leads one to question its importance as a medi.ator of reciprocity in the present study. Obviously more research is needed on the various models which are assumed to account for reciprocity behavior. REFERENCES BERKOWITZ, L., & DANIELS, L. Responsibility and dependence. Jourruzl of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 429-436. BREHM, J. W., & COLE, A. N. Effect of a favor which reduces freedom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 420426. DARLEY, J. M., & LATANB, B. Norms and normative behavior: Field studies of social interdependence. In J. Macaulay and L. Berkowitz (Eds. ), Altruism and helping behior. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Pp. 83-101. GORANSON, R. E., & BERKOWITZ, L. Reciprocity and responsibility reactions to prior help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 227-232. GOULDNER, A. W. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Reuiew, 1960, 25, 161-178. GREENBERG, M. S. A preliminary statement on a theory of indebtedness. In M. S. Greenberg (Chm.), Justice in social exchange. Symposium presented at the Western PsychoIogical Association, San Diego, March, 1968.
WILLINGNESS
TO
111
RECIPROCATE
F. l’he psychology of interpersod relations. New York: Wiley, 1958. E. E., & DAVIS, K. E. From acts to dispositions. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social lrsychology. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965. Pp. 219-266. LERNER, M. J., & LIcHThsAN, R. R. Effects of perceived norms on attitudes and altruistic behavior toward a dependent other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 9, 226-232. LEVENTHAL, G., WEISS, T., & LOXG, G. Equity, reciprocity, and reallocating rewards in the dyad. Journal of Person&y and Social Psychology, 1969, 13, 300-305. PRUITT, D. G. Reciprocity and credit building in a laboratory dyad. Journal of Personulity and Social Psychology, 1968, 8, 14,3-147. SCHOPLER, J., & THOhfPsoN, V. D. Role of attribution processes in mediating amount of reciprocity for a favor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968,
HEIDER, JONES,
10, 243-250. A., GATEWOOD, of Personality and
TESSER,
(Received
May
28,
R., & DRIVER, Social Psychology,
1970)
M.
Some determinants 1968, 9, 233-236.
of gratitude.
Journal
OF
Effect
EXPERIMENTAL
SOCIAL
of lntentionality
PSYCHOLOGY
8, 99-111
on Willingness a Favor’
MARTIN
( 1972)
to Reciprocate
S. GREEXBERC
University
of
Pittsburgh
AND DAVID
Marquette
M.
University
FRISCH”
Medical
School
The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to examine the influence of deliberate vs accidental help, and, to a lesser extent, high vs low help, on the magnitude of reciprocity; and (2) to clarify the role of obligation and attribution of motivation as mediators of reciprocity. Ss were assigned to one of four cells in a 2 x 2 factorial design. They were run on two tasks, the first to manipulate the two independent variables, and the second to measure magnitude of reciprocity. Both main effects were highly significant in the predicted direction. Data were obtained supporting the role of both obligation and attribution of motivation as mediating intentionality of help and magnitude of reciprocation.
A number of recent experiments have noted a tendency among individuals to reciprocate for favors received. For example, Pruitt (1968) found the magnitude of reciprocation to be a positive function of the amount received, the percentage of the donor’s resources relinquished, and the donor’s future resources. Other research has shown that reciprocity is enhanced to the extent that reactance is not aroused (Brehm 8r Cole, 1966), that the motives of the donor are not suspect (Lerner & Lichtman, 1968; Schopler & Thompson, 1968), and that the donor’s behavior is seen as voluntary (Goranson & Berkowitz, 1966) and intentional or deliberate (Leventhal, Weiss & Long, 1969). Although Leventhal et al. demonstrated the importance of deliberate versus accidental help ‘This research was supported by a grant from the Graduate School of Washington University, St. Louis, MO. A portion of this paper was presented at the American Psychological AssociatGon Convention in San Francisco in 1968. The authors wish to thank Leonard Sase for his helpful advice. ‘The junior author conducted part of this research in fulfillment of an honors thesis at Washington University. 99 Q 1972 by Academic Press, Inc.
100
GREENBERG
AND
PRISCH
in determining the tendency to reciprocate, there is no empirical evidence pertaining to the mechanism by which the attribution of intentionality affects the likelihood of reciprocation. It was the purpose of this experiment to validate empirically the relationship between intentionality and reciprocity and to explore further the relationship between intentionality and one motivational state presumed to mediate receipt of a favor and reciprocation. The state to be examined can best be labeled indebtedness or obligation. This explanation of reciprocity presupposes the existence of what Gouldner (1960) termed the norm of reciprocity. The norm makes the minimal demand that “( 1) people should help those who have helped them, and (2) people should not injure those who have helped them [p. 1711.” G ou Id ner further stated that the obligation to reciprocate a benefit varies with (a) the recipient’s need-state at the time he received the benefit; (b) the resources of the donor; (c) the motives inputed to the donor; and (d) th e extent to which the donor gave of his own free will. Conspicuously absent from this formulation is any specific reference to intentionality, although it is possible to view intentionality as a corollary of Gouldner’s ( d ) . In a recent extension of Gouldner’s thesis, Greenberg ( 1968) proposed that receiving a favor from another produces a condition of indebtedness which is a state of tension having motivational qualities such that the greater its magnitude, the greater will be the efforts to reduce it. Greenberg also proposed that the more strongly the recipient perceives the donor’s action as intentional or deliberate, the more strongly obligated will he feel to reciprocate. The formulations of both Gouldner and Greenberg assert that the obligation to reciprocate is enhanced by the kind of attribution made about the donor’s motivation for helping. According to attribution theory (Jones & Davis, 1965), before the recipient can assign a motivational disposition to the donor on the basis of his actions, the recipient must first believe that the donor had prior knowledge of the consequences of his action, that is, the effects of his behavior were intentional or deliberately caused. Therefore, the receipt of intentional help should lead the recipient to perceive the donor as being more motivated to help him, which, according to Gouldner ( 1960) and Greenberg ( 1968), ought to increase the recipient’s obligation to reciprocate. Empirical support for the linkage between attribution of motivation and reciprocity for a favor was provided in a study by Schopler and Thompson ( 1968). They found that a recipient of a favor is more likely to reciprocate when he perceives that his own needs were the proximal cause of the donor’s act rather than the donor’s needs. However, they failed to provide any evidence to support their claim
WILLINGNESS
TO
101
RECIPROCATE
that the feeling of obligation mediated the recipient’s perception of the donor’s motives for doing the favor and his willingness to reciprocate. The major purpose of the present study, therefore, was to test empirically the hypothesized causal connection between the intentionality of a prosocial act, the attribution of a motivational disposition to the donor, the recipient’s feeling of obligation to reciprocate, and the magnitude of reciprocity. In addition to studying the influence of intentionality upon both reciprocity behavior and the hypothesized mediating process, a secondary purpose of this study was to examine similarly the role of magnitude of help. It was hypothesized that the variables of intentionality and magnitude of help would each affect the amount of felt obligation and therefore the degree of reciprocity. Specifically, the following hypotheses were tested: (a) Help which is deliberately given will elicit a greater willingness to reciprocate than help which is accidentally given. (b) The greater the magnitude of help received from another, the greater the willingness to reciprocate. (c) The recipient’s feeling of indebtedness to the donor, and thus his willingness to reciprocate, is a positive function of his evaluation of how motivated the donor was to help him, which, in turn, is a positive function of both the intentionality and the magnitude of help received. METHOD Subjects The subjects consisted of 65 male undergraduates enrolled in an introductory psychology course at Washington University. They participated in the experiment as part of their course requirement. Of the 65 subjects, five were omitted from the statistical analysis for the following reasons: two failed to perceive the manipulations, two were previously acquainted, and one was lost because of a procedural error. Omruiew
of Procedure
and
Design
The subjects were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 x 2 factorial design. The two independent variables were intentionality of help (deliberate versus accidental) and amount of help received (high versus low). The four conditions thus produced were deliberate-high help, deliberate-low help, accidental-high help, and accidental-low help. There were 15 subjects in each condition. They were run two at a time with subjects from two different conditions being run simultaneously. The procedure involved two separate tasks; the first was designed to provide for manipulation of the independent variables and the second to provide subjects with an opportunity to reciprocate. Procedure After previously
introducing acquainted,
the
subjects they were
to each ushered
other into
and assuring that they separate rooms (“offices”)
were
not which
102
GREENBERG
AND
FRISCH
were separated by a narrow corridor. Each was seated at a desk and given a brief personality inventory and some additional questions to answer. The added items were of the semantic differential type and provided information pertaining to each subject’s first impressions of the other. Actually, the personality inventory was irrelevant to the purposes of the experiment and was included in order to enhance the credibility of the subsequent manipulations. After completion of the questionnaire, the instructions were read aloud to both subjects simultaneously. They were told that the study was attempting to identify personality characteristics that are associated with success in the business world. They were then asked to play the role of business executives employed by the same firm, the ACME Television Corporation. In order to facilitate the role playing, they were provided with a desk plate on which was printed the title, “Executive,” as well as stationery with the letterhead reading “ACME Television Corporation.” In addition, there was a large sign in the room on which the company’s name was printed. Subjects were then informed that they would be requested to work on two nroblems “which an executive might be asked to deal with in the course of his duties.” As an incentive, each was promised extra participation credit if he was successful on the first task. Pilot testing had previously shown this to be an im portant incentive for subjects enrolled in the introductory psychology course. They were then told that the first task was a noncompetitive one and that both could earn the extra credit. On the first task each subject was individually confronted with the problem of predicting the company’s high sales for each month of the forthcoming year. To aid the subject on this task, the sales record for the “previous year” was made available. It consisted of graph cards, one for each month. Subjects were told that the sales record for the previous year could be reconstructed by laying the cards out horizontally in chronological order. They were then given the following additional information: There is one major problem. The records have been poorly kept. In some cases the month has not been put on the card. It will be your job to identify the month that the card represents. You have one additional problem. Both of you have very recently exchanged offices and there has been some mixup in receiving all your cards. That is, neither of you may have all your cards. In some cases, the other person may have them by mistake, and in some cases the card may just be lost. In short, the sales forecast records are in a state of disarray, and it is your job to bring order to the state of chaos and to complete successfully the sales forecast graph. They were further informed that they could communicate with each other in order to check on missing data. This could be accomplished by writing a message on the company stationery, inserting it in an envelope, and then pressing a light switch on their desk in order to have it delivered. The rationalization provided them for this procedure was that the experimenter wanted to have a written record of their communication. They were asked to complete their forecasts within 10 min, making educated guesses in the event they lacked all the required information. Shortly after the task began, each discovered that he was provided with only eight graph cards and that he was lacking four. Subsequently, handwritten messages (ostensibly from the other subject) were delivered to each subject. The message comprised the manipulation of the independent variables. Deliberate-high help condition. Subjects in this condition received the four labeled graph cards that they were missing along with the following note: “I have
WILLINGNESS
TO
RECIPROCATE
103
some duplicates that probably belong to you. I’m sending them over since you can probably use them.” Deliberate-low help con&on. The subjects in this condition received essentially the same note as subjects in the deliberate-high help condition. However, they received only one labeled graph card instead of four. Accidental-high help condition. The subjects in this condition received the same four graph cards as subjects in the deliberate-high help condition with the exception that the months were not labeled. The accompanying note read, “Some of my cards don’t have the month on them; can you help me and identify them for me?” It was intended here that in the process of identifying the months which the graph cards represented, the subjects would discover that these cards were the four cards that they were missing. The task of identifying the month that a card represented was a relatively easy one for the subject, since it merely required a trial and errox procedure of placing each card in one of the four vacant slots and observing whether the graph was continuous with the graph cards immediately adjacent to it. The help thus provided the subject was unintentionally given, since the donor did not evidence any awareness of the beneficial consequences of his action. In order to prevent these subjects from reciprocating the help by supplying the other subject with the information that was requested, a second note was delivered. It read: “Forget it, I found the cards I was missing.” Accidental-low help condition. The subjects in this condition received essentially the same note as subjects in the accidental-high help condition. However, they received only one unlabeled graph card instead of four. After the subjects completed the sales forecast graph, they were asked to fill out a five-item questionnaire which was designed to assess the success of the experimental manipulations. Subsequently, they were informed that both were successful on the first task and, therefore, each would receive the extra credit. Dependent variable. Task 2 provided a measure of each subject’s willingness to reciprocate help received on the first task. The task was introduced in the following manner: The ACME Television Corporation is Each of you has been placed in charge these two products. Your most immediate The personnel needs of your projects “Personnel Requirements Form.” As it identical.
coming out with two new products. of the project connected with one of task is the selection of personnel. are described on the sheet entitled turns out, your personnel needs are
Subjects were further informed that the needed personnel were to be selected from the company’s personnel file which was randomly divided between the two of them. The file consisted of 3 X 5 cards, each containing an applicant’s name, occupation, and proficiency rating. The last named ranged from 1A “poor” to 5A “superior.” Each subject was confronted with the task of filling as many of the ten positions listed on the Personnel Requirements Form as he could with the highest accumulation of proficiency points. They were further informed that the maximum obtainable total for both of them together was 50 points, and, since the personnel were randomly divided between them one of them could possibly have a higher total than the other. They were then told that they would be competing for two dollars, to be divided proportionally between them according to the proportion of the 50 proficiency points which each accumulated. To facilitate matters, each was provided with a table listing all possible proficiency accumiilation
104
GREENBERG
AND
scores and the financial equivalent. They were exchange needed personnel with each other:
FRISCH also encouraged
to communicate
and
If your file should contain more than one applicant for a position, you would naturally prefer the applicant with the higher proficiency rating. Only one applicant can be used to fill a position. You may, however, wish to negotiate an exchange of your extra applicant for a needed one. This . . . should take place via written messages. The files were divided in such a way as to permit each subject to discover that he was more “fortunate” in that 40 of the 50 points were in his portion of the file. After 2 min of the S-min time period had elapsed, each received a standard handwritten request for help, ostensibly from the other subject. It read, “My total proficiency total is only 10 points. I have one office manager (5 points) and one electrician (5 points). I have no other persons on the list. Please send me some help.” A help-score was assigned to each subject on the basis of the number of proficiency points which he sacrificed in order to help the other subject. Upon completion of this task, subjects filled out a final questionnaire designed to assess their perception of the other subject as well as to assess the basis for their behavior toward the other person on the second task. All subjects were subsequently questioned concerning their suspicions, then fully debriefed and paid one dollar. RESULTS
AND
DISCUSSION
The success of the experimental manipulation of intentionality and help was measured by means of several questionnaire items which were administered immediately after the first task was completed. The subjects who received the deliberate-help manipulation rated the help given them as more intentional than subjects who received the accidental-help manipulation (I?( 1,56) = 49.92, p < ,001.) Those who were given the high-help manipulation indicated that they received more help than those subjects who were given the low-help manipulation ( F( 1,56) = 24.0, p < .OOl). Additional support for the success of the manipulation of help was provided by another item which asked “How influential was the help you received on the first task?” Subjects in the high-help condition indicated that the help was more influential than subjects in the low-help condition (F( 1,56) = 35.5 p < .OOl). Evidence pertaining to reciprocity. The dependent variable was the amount of help (proficiency points) that was sent to the other subject. Table 1 contains the mean help-scores for each condition and the analysis of variance results. As predicted, more help was reciprocated in the deliberate-help condition than in the accidental-help condition; and more help was reciprocated in the high-help condition than in the low-help condition. Further evidence regarding the importance of intentionality was obtained by analyzing the help-score data in terms of the number of subjects who reciprocated sufficiently to insure an equal
WILLINGNESS
TO
TABLE MEAN
HELP-SCORES
105
RECIPROCATE
1 ON TASK
2
Intentionalit Condition High help Low Help
Deliberate
Accidental
12.60 7.73
7.46 3.60
Analysis of variance Source Intentionality Help AxB
03)
Within Total
df (A)
1 1 1 56
MS
F
308.3 973 L 1 5.4 30.9
9 963* 8.826*
59
* p < ,005.
division of the money on the second task (i.e., 15 points). Fourteen of 30 subjects in the deliberate-help condition had a help-score as high as I5 compared to only 3 of 30 subjects in the accidental-help condition (x2 = 8.21, p < -01). A similar comparison of subjects receiving high help and those receiving low help yielded no significant difference on this measure. It is interesting to note that no subject sent the other more than 15 points; equality of outcomes was the maximum any subject was willing to offer in terms of help. In summary, the data offer support for the first two hypotheses. Evidence on the mediating process. As indicated in Table 2, subjects in the deliberate-help condition in comparison with subjects in accidentalhelp condition rated the other student as being more concerned about their success on the first task (p < .OOl) and more motivated to help them (p < .OOl). The data in Table 2 further show that the comparison between subjects receiving high help and those receiving low help similarly yielded differences in the predicted direction on these two items. It is of interest to note that the ordering of the four conditions in terms of the evaluation of the other student’s motivation to help parallels the ordering of conditions with regard to mean. help-scores. Further evidence in support of the role of the attribution process in mediating reciprocity is derived from a correlation analysis of the data. Ratings of the strength of other’s motivation to help were significantly correlated with subject’s assessment of other’s intentionality (T = .49, p < .Ol) and perception of the amount of help other provided (T =
106
GREENBERG
AND
TABLE i%;.4~~
AND
F VALUES
FOR
ITEMS
Deliberate help
Items 1. Concern ‘2. Motivation to help 3. Liking for other change 4. Prefer same partner in another experiment
FRISCH
2
PEKT~INING
TO EVALUATION
-4ccidental help
Variance
OF OTHERS
analysis
F value@
High help
Low help
High help
Low help
Intentionality
Help
5.67 5.47 6.33
4.47 4.47 1.93
3.33 3.60 3.60
2.33 3.33 -2.67
26.9**** 16.6**** 9. . p*** 1
6.53** 4.46* 19,73****
6.07
4.93
4.47
3.60
14.91****
6.93**
<1
e Note. Larger means indicate b df for all F values = l/56. *p < .05. ** p < .025. *** p < .005. **** p < .OOl.
higher
ratings
on the item
Interaction
listed.
.42, p < .Ol). When ratings of intentionality and help other provided were taken together and correlated with ratings of other’s motivation to help, the multiple correlation was .58 (p < .Ol). In addition, the rating of other’s motivation to help was significantly related to the help-score (r = .43, p < .Ol). In order to assess the hypothesized relationship between the degree of intentionality and help received, and the degree of felt obligation to reciprocate a favor, a separate group of 40 undergraduates attending the University of Pittsburgh were asked to act as judges and to imagine themselves in the role of subjects in the present experiment. They were randomly assigned to the four experimental conditions and then given the same information that the subjects in the original experiment received. Subsequently, they were asked to answer the following two questions: (a) “If the other person asks you for help on the second task, how obligated do you feel you are to help him?” (Alternatives ranged from “Obligated” [lo] to “Not obligated” [l] ), (b) “How indebted do you feel you are to the other person ?” (Alternatives ranged from “Indebted” [lo] to “Not indebted” [l].) The mean responses and the analysis of variance results are presented in Table 3. Consistent with the indebtedness interpretation is the finding that subjects receiving the deliberatehelp manipulation indicated a more intense feeling of indebtedness (p < .OOl ) and a stronger feeling of obligation to reciprocate ( p < .05)
WILLINCXESS
TO
TABLE
Items 1. Indebtedness 2. Obligation u df for all F values * p < .05. **p < ,001.
High help 7.7 8.6
3
Accidental help
Deliberate help Low help 7.0 x 3
High help 6.0 7.6
107
RECIPROCATE
Variance Low help 3 6 6.6
analysis
F valuesu
Intelltionality
Help
Interaction
13.57**
5.01*
1.51
<
4.17*
= lia6.
than subjects receiving the accidental-help manipulation. Subjects in the high-help condition, as opposed to those in the low-help condition, felt more indebted (p < .05) but did not feel significantly more obligated to reciprocate,3 although the difference was in the predicted direction. The latter finding is inconsistent with the prediction that the obligation to reciprocate is in part a function of the magnitude of help received. The ordering of the four condition means with regard to perceived obligation and indebtedness was identical to the ordering of conditions with regard to the mean evaluation of other’s motivation to help as well as the mean help-score. In summary, subjects receiving the deliberate-help manipulation as opposed to those receiving the accidental-help manipulation (a) believed the other subject was more motivated to help them, (b) felt more obligated and indebted to the other, and (c) evidenced a greater magnitude of reciprocation. The results for high versus low help were essentially the same, with the notable exception that no significant difference was obtained regarding felt obligation to reciprocate. Taken together, the results of the present investigation provide support for the joint role of the attribution process and indebtedness as explanations of why a deliberately performed prosocial act is more likely to evoke reciprocation than one which is accidentally performed. Help that is deliberately rendered facilitates the attribution of a positive motivational disposition to the donor and thereby increases the recipient’s sense of indebtedness or obligation to reciprocate. ‘Although the authors define indebtedness as a feeling of obligation to reciprocate, differences in subjects’ responses to these two items indicate that subjects interpret indebtedness to mean something other than felt obligation. A clue to subjects’ definition of the term indebtedness is provided by Tesser, Gatewood, and Driver (1968) who found that subjects tend to equate indebtedness with gratitude.
108
GREENBERG
AND
FIUSCH
The results support Schopler and Thompson’s attribution analysis of reciprocity in that the evaluation of other’s motivation to help was positively correlated with reciprocity behavior. The recipient’s attribution about the donor’s concern for his welfare is affected not only by the appropriateness of the donor’s help, as demonstrated by Schopler and Thompson, but, in addition, as the present study shows, by whether the recipient perceives the help as intentional or unintentional. That is, a deliberately performed prosocial act tells the recipient more about the donor’s motivational dispositions than one that is accidentally performed. However, conclusions about the relationship between intentionality and attribution of motives must be qualified by the fact that the way in which accidental help was manipulated probably contributed to the impression that the donor was more motivated by his own needs than by the needs of the recipient. It will be recalled that the accidental help which the donor provided occurred in a context in which the donor was requesting help for himself. The present study also yielded information suggesting that attraction to the donor may play a part in the causal chain linking intentionality of help and reciprocity. Attraction to the donor was measured by having subjects evaluate the donor on five semantic differential type adjective pairs. They included good-bad, fair-unfair, bright-dull, helpful-unhelpful kind-unkind. As items 3 and 4 in Table 2 indicate, a greater increase in liking for the other4 was found among those who received deliberate as opposed to accidental help (p < .005) and among those who received high as opposed to low help (p < .OOl). Similarly, those who received deliberate as opposed to accidental help expressed a stronger preference to participate with the student in another experiment (p < .OOl), as did those who received high as opposed to low help (p < .025). Moreover, increased attraction to the other was found to correlate with perception of other’s motivation to help (T = .47, p < .Ol) and the helpscore (r = .39, p < .Ol). In contrast to the latter finding, Schopler and Thompson (1968) did not obtain a positive relationship between liking for the donor and reciprocity. The inconsistency may be due in part to the fact that Schopler and Thompson had their subjects make their evaluation of the other prior to making the decision to reciprocate, whereas in the present investigation the final evaluation of the donor was contained in the postquestionnaire which was administered after the subject had made his decision to reciprocate. Conclusions regarding the role of attraction in the present study, therefore, must be drawn ‘The change in liking score was obtained by the other from the posttest rating. There were conditions on the pretest evaluation scores.
subtracting the pretest no significant differences
rating of among
WlLLINGNESS
TO
RECIPROCATE
109
with caution, since the possibility exists that the decision to reciprocate influenced the subject’s liking for the other and not vice versa. The orientation of this study is consistent with that of a number of other studies of reciprocity behavior in that it assumes that reciprocity is motivated by a feeling of obligation. With few exceptions, all of the recent research on reciprocity behavior has been based on a normative model (e.g., Goranson & Berkowitz, 1966; Pruitt, 1968; Schopler & Thompson, 1968; Leventhal et al., 1969; Brehm & Cole, 1966). While the obligation to reciprocate a favor might be sufficient to motivate repayment, it is by no means a necessary precondition for reciprocity behavior. One alternative source of reciprocity motivation is that of attraction to the donor. Data from the present study showed that increased liking for the donor was significantly correlated with perception of the donor’s motivation to help as well as the magnitude of reciprocity. Despite the reservation voiced earlier about the meaning of the attraction data in this study, one can hypothesize the following causal sequence: The attribution of positive motivation to the donor increased the recipient’s liking for the donor which then had a direct effect upon his willingness to reciprocate. While the supporters of the obligation hypothesis might argue that increased attraction to the donor enhances one’s feeling of obligation to reciprocate, it may also be argued that increased attraction independently motivates persons to reciprocate. This can occur for a number of reasons. For example, recipients of help may show greater willingness to repay attractive others simply because interacting with attractive others is more rewarding than interacting with less attractive others. In addition, increased attraction to the donor is likely to generate more concern about the donor’s welfare, thereby increasing the likelihood of reciprocation. Finally, reciprocity may represent the clearest and most direct way for the recipient to communicate to the donor his positive feelings toward him. None of these examples requires the mediating presence of obligation as an explanation for reciprocity. The design of the present study did not yield adequate data to distinguish among the several hypothesized roles that attraction might play in mediating receipt of help and reciprocity, An alternative interpretation of the data is that the confederate’s generosity on the first task served to heighten the salience of the norm of social responsibility (Berkowitz & Daniels, 1963). According to this interpretation, subjects were not repaying the confederate for the help he gave them but were merely complying with the norm of social responsibility which states that people should help those who are dependent upon them. This interpretation was supported in part by the research of Goranson and Berkowitz ( 1966). However, the data from
I10
GREENBERG
AND
FRISCH
their questionnaire measuring the salience of the social responsibility and the reciprocity norms led them to conclude “that the responsibility norm is somewhat weaker than the norm prescribing reciprocity [p. 2311.” A recent paper by Darley and Latane (1970) presented additional evidence which challenges the efficacy of explaining helping behavior in terms of a norm of social responsibility. The present study, while not designated to test for the social responsibility interpretation, offers some data which cast doubt on the appropriateness of this alternative interpretation. It would seem that the social responsibility norm does not adequately account for the finding that more help was given to the confederate in the high help situation than in the low help situation. Since subjects in both situations had an equal opportunity to observe a helping model, the norm ought to be equally salient for the two conditions. That is, the comparison is not between one model that helped and one that did not, but rather, it is between two helping models. Nowhere does Berkowitz state that a helping model that gives a large magnitude of help will heighten the salience of the social responsibility norm more than a model giving a smaller magnitude of help. However, since the design of the present study lacked the necessary controls to provide an adequate test of the social responsibility interpretation, it cannot be definitively ruled out. As the results of this study suggest, reciprocity behavior is multidetermined, and it is therefore not unreasonabIe to assume that the norm of social responsibility may be one of these determinants. However, the foregoing discussion leads one to question its importance as a medi.ator of reciprocity in the present study. Obviously more research is needed on the various models which are assumed to account for reciprocity behavior. REFERENCES BERKOWITZ, L., & DANIELS, L. Responsibility and dependence. Jourruzl of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 429-436. BREHM, J. W., & COLE, A. N. Effect of a favor which reduces freedom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 420426. DARLEY, J. M., & LATANB, B. Norms and normative behavior: Field studies of social interdependence. In J. Macaulay and L. Berkowitz (Eds. ), Altruism and helping behior. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Pp. 83-101. GORANSON, R. E., & BERKOWITZ, L. Reciprocity and responsibility reactions to prior help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 227-232. GOULDNER, A. W. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Reuiew, 1960, 25, 161-178. GREENBERG, M. S. A preliminary statement on a theory of indebtedness. In M. S. Greenberg (Chm.), Justice in social exchange. Symposium presented at the Western PsychoIogical Association, San Diego, March, 1968.
WILLINGNESS
TO
111
RECIPROCATE
F. l’he psychology of interpersod relations. New York: Wiley, 1958. E. E., & DAVIS, K. E. From acts to dispositions. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social lrsychology. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965. Pp. 219-266. LERNER, M. J., & LIcHThsAN, R. R. Effects of perceived norms on attitudes and altruistic behavior toward a dependent other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 9, 226-232. LEVENTHAL, G., WEISS, T., & LOXG, G. Equity, reciprocity, and reallocating rewards in the dyad. Journal of Person&y and Social Psychology, 1969, 13, 300-305. PRUITT, D. G. Reciprocity and credit building in a laboratory dyad. Journal of Personulity and Social Psychology, 1968, 8, 14,3-147. SCHOPLER, J., & THOhfPsoN, V. D. Role of attribution processes in mediating amount of reciprocity for a favor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968,
HEIDER, JONES,
10, 243-250. A., GATEWOOD, of Personality and
TESSER,
(Received
May
28,
R., & DRIVER, Social Psychology,
1970)
M.
Some determinants 1968, 9, 233-236.
of gratitude.
Journal