THE EFFECTS OF RECIPROCITY, TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP, AND CULTURE ON RELATIONSHIP PROCESSES

Getrude C Ah Gang, Arthur A. Stukas

Abstract


Equity theory suggests that perceiving equity leads to better relationship outcomes than perceiving inequity. However, cultural and relationship differences in tolerance for inequity have been found, suggesting that those from more individualistic cultures may have less tolerance for inequity with friends than those from more collectivistic cultures, with the latter group discriminating more clearly in their reactions to friends and strangers. In our first study, Kadazandusun (N=282) and Australian (N=255) participants evaluated their actual reciprocity in social support with a close friend. In our second study, 103 South East Asians and 128 Australians were randomly assigned to respond to a scenario presenting equity or inequity (underbenefit or overbenefit) with either a close friend or stranger. Study 1 found that participants from both cultures reported reduced desires for future interaction, positive feelings and closeness when they experienced under-benefit as compared to over-benefit or equity. In Study 2, participants from both cultures also reported reduced desires for future interaction, positive feelings and trust when there was inequity and reported a more negative reaction to a stranger than a close friend. These findings are consistent with equity theory and support its cross-cultural applicability.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Befu, H. (1966). Gift-giving and social reciprocity in Japan, an exploratory statement. France-Asia, 188, 161-177.

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. doi: 10.1177/135910457000100301

Buchan, N. R., Croson, R. T. A., & Dawes, R. M. (2002). Swift neighbors and persistent strangers: A cross‐cultural investigation of trust and reciprocity in social exchange. The American Journal of Sociology, 108(1), 168-206. doi: 10.1086/344546

Buunk, B. P., & Prins, K. S. (1998). Loneliness, exchange orientation, and reciprocity in friendships. Personal Relationships, 5(1), 1-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00156.x

Chen, X., Chen, Y., & Portnoy, R. (2009). To whom do positive norm and negative norm of reciprocity apply? Effects of inequitable offer, relationship, and relational-self orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 24-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.024

Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 791-808. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.191

Eisenberger, R., Cotterell, N., & Marvel, J. (1987). Reciprocation ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 743-750. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.743

Gleason, M. E. J., Iida, M., Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N.(2008). Receiving support as a mixed blessing: Evidence for dual effects of support on psychological outcomes,. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 824-838. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.5824

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178.

Gouldner, A. W. (1973). The importance of something for nothing. In A. W. Gouldner (Ed.), For Sociology: Renewal and critique in Sociology today (pp. 260-299). London: Allen Lane.

Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1999). Friendships and adaptation across the life span. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(3), 76-79. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00018

Impett, E. A., Gable, S. L., & Peplau, L. A. (2005). Giving up and giving in: the costs and benefits of daily sacrifice in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 327-344. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.327

Jou, Y. H., & Fukada. (2002). Stress, health, and reciprocity and sufficiency of social support: the case of university students in Japan. The Journal of social psychology, 142(3), 353-370. doi: 10.1080/00224540209603904

Kolm, S. (2008). Reciprocity: An economic of social relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Linden-Andersen, S., Markiewicz, D., & Doyle, A. (2009). Perceived similarity among adolescent friends: The role of reciprocity, friendship quality, and gender. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(5), 617-637. doi: 10.1177/0272431608324372

Mendelson, M. J., & Kay, A. C. (2003). Positive feelings in friendship: Does imbalance in the relationship matter? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20(1), 101-116. doi: 10.1177/02654075030201005

Molm, L. D., Collett, J. L., & Schaefer, D. R. (2007). Building solidarity through generalized exchange: A theory of reciprocity. The American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 205-242. doi: 10.1086/517900

Peters, S. L., Van den Bos, K., & Karremans, J. C. (2008). On the psychology of the advantaged: How people react to being overpaid. Social Justice Research, 21, 179-191. doi: 10.1007/s11211-008-0063-2.

Renard, M. K., Tracy, K. B., Ostrow, M. H., & Chah, D. (1997). Cultural differences in equity sensitivity: A comparison between US and Korean subjects. International Journal of Management, 14, 476-489.

Rook, K. S. (1987). Reciprocity of social exchange and social satisfaction among older women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 145-154. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.145

Seaford, R. (1998). Introduction. In C. Gill, & R. Seaford (Eds.), Reciprocity in ancient Greece (pp.1-12). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Shen, H., Wan, F., & Wyer, J. R. S. (2011). Cross-cultural differences in the refusal to accept a small gift: the differential influence of reciprocity norms on Asians and North Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 271-281. doi: 10.1037/a0021201

Thompson, E. R. (2007). Developmental and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(227-242).

Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. B., Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1373-1395. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1373

Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978a). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Walters, J., Mellor, K. B., Cox, D. R., Taylor, J. D., & Tierney, L. J. (1977). Cultures in context: A study of three ethnic groups and their welfare needs in Australia. Melbourne: Victorian Council of Social Service.

Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 942-966.

Xue, M., & Silk, J. B. (2012). The role of tracking and tolerance in relationship among friends. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(1), 17-25. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.04.004

Yamagishi, T. (1988). The provision of a sanctioning system in the United States and Japan. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 265-271.

Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 129-166.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


DISCLAIMER

The editors and publisher of Jurnal Psikologi Malaysia have made every possible effort to verify the accuracy of all information contained in this publication. Any opinions, discussions, views and recommendations expressed in the article are solely those of the authors and are not of Jurnal Psikologi Malaysia, its editors or its publisher. Jurnal Psikologi Malaysia, its editors and its publisher will not be liable for any direct, indirect, consequential, special, exemplary, or other damages arising therefrom.