When a friend buys you a cup of coffee, it’s likely that next time, you’ll return the gesture. This type of reciprocal generosity has been well-documented in behavioral economic studies.
However, anthropologists and other social scientists have known for decades that in the context of relationships where one person has more power, status, or influence, reciprocal generosity is usually not the norm.
Researchers at MIT have now experimentally demonstrated, for the first time, that small changes to the relationship context can dramatically change people’s actions and expectations of reciprocal generosity.
During interactions between people of different social status, people tend to expect that generosity will flow one way, and it can be either up or down. It may be that a professor always buys coffee for her students, or that a student always offers to help carry groceries for his resident advisor. Once the precedent is established, it is expected to continue.
One interpretation of the findings is that keeping track of whose turn it is to do a favor is the exception in social interactions, not the rule. That is, it is extra work that we do when we want to maintain equal relationships.
“In many intimate relationships, hierarchical relationships, or other kinds of role-based relationships, you don’t put in the work of trying to keep track of turns,” says Rebecca Saxe, the John W. Jarve Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, a member of the McGovern Institute for Brain Research, and associate dean of science at MIT. “Under this interpretation, we just follow precedent because following a precedent is easier. We all know what to expect, and we don’t have to keep track of what happened last time.”
Saxe is the senior author of the study, which appears in the journal Open Mind. MIT graduate student Alicia Chen is the paper’s lead author.
Changing expectations
Most experimental studies of generosity have been done in the context of behavioral economics and game theory. In such experiments, people are usually paired with a stranger and asked to play games that require coordination. Such studies have found that people tend to use turn-taking and reciprocity as their default strategies. These scenarios, however, are stripped from any social context that might exist between people in the real world.
Saxe and Chen wanted to see if they could measure the effects of social context by incorporating relationships into the type of experiments used to evaluate people’s expectations regarding generosity.
“Where generosity becomes hard and complicated is when it starts to occur in the context of existing relationships, because it changes the terms of the relationships,” Saxe says. “What’s expected of you is very different within a relationship than outside of one.”
To study these effects, the researchers designed experiments in which participants read stories about different types of interactions. In some of the scenarios, the subjects of the stories were described as having either symmetric or asymmetric relationships. In others, they were given specific social relationships such as aunt-niece or manager-employee.
Each story described interactions that might be seen in typical daily life, such as buying coffee for a co-worker or preparing a meal for one’s family. Participants were then asked to predict what would happen the next time the interaction occurred.
In all of these scenarios, the researchers found that people expected that generous acts would be reciprocated when they occurred between individuals in symmetric relationships such as friends, cousins, or co-workers of equal rank. However, their expectations changed for asymmetric relationships, where each person has a different social status. In those cases, people expected that any precedent that was set would continue in the future.
One possible explanation for this is that reciprocity is not the norm but an exception that only occurs in the interactions between equals or strangers, the researchers say. Many of our interactions are with people with whom we have asymmetric relationship, and to maintain those relationships, it’s simply easier to follow precedent.
“If there’s no need to keep track of our equal status, then in some ways it’s the default to fall back on following precedents,” Saxe says.
Maintaining relationships
The study showed that in asymmetric relationships, generosity could flow in either direction. Once that direction was established, it was expected to continue. For example, after an older brother bought concert tickets for a much younger brother, the study participants expected that the older brother would also buy the tickets for the next concert.
“We found that when people know the relationship is asymmetric, they don’t expect reciprocity; they expect the same action to keep on going,” Chen says. “If the lower-rank person acts generously, people expect that to continue, and if the higher-rank person acts generously, people expect that to continue.”
Following precedents is not only easier, but keeping up these actions may help solidify and define existing relationships. For example, anthropologists have long known that gift-giving helps to construct and maintain social relationships.
“Following a precedent can be a way of actively maintaining relationships and hierarchies, when the asymmetry of the exchange truly reflects the asymmetry of the relationship,” Saxe says.
The researchers are now working on creating computational models that could be used to analyze different factors that people take into account when they’re considering whether someone might reciprocate a generous act. In addition to the factors examined in this study, others could include how much each person will benefit, what type of relationship they’re in, and culturally specific expectations of how people should act in different situations.
“One really powerful thing about these models is that we can build in existing theories, add things to the models, and then compare how much these extra factors, like considerations related to social relationships, matter in terms of explaining what people are doing,” Chen says. “This allows us to quantitatively compare the different theories to each other.”
The research was funded by the Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative and the Patrick J. McGovern Foundation.
