[citation needed] A norm of reciprocity motivates, creates, sustains, and regulates the cooperative behavior required for self-sustaining social organizations.
The power and ubiquity of the norm of reciprocity can be used against the unwary, however, and is the basis for the success of many malicious confidence games, advertising and marketing campaigns, and varieties of propaganda in which a small gift of some kind is proffered with the expectation of producing in the recipient an eagerness to reciprocate (by purchasing a product, making a donation, or becoming more receptive to a line of argument).
"A negative norm of reciprocity represents the means by which individuals act against unfavourable treatments, and functions to keep balance in social systems".
People with a propensity towards anger may more strongly endorse the negative reciprocity norm as a justification for consummating their hostility by punishing the instigator of mistreatment.
However "both positive and negative norms or reciprocity serve as starting mechanisms as well as stabilizing functions in that they help initiate and maintain equitable interpersonal exchanges in human evolution".
When used as a diagnostic tool, the R-Model offers a profound awareness of how withholding reciprocity as a form of punishment within a relationship can be inherently destructive.
In the intricate web of human relationships, reciprocity plays a fundamental role in nurturing trust and maintaining equilibrium.
When one party chooses to withhold reciprocity in response to perceived slights or transgressions, it sets off a chain reaction of negativity, eroding the very foundations (Vital-Base) of the relationship.
This withholding not only perpetuates a cycle of resentment (Victim) and retaliation (Viciousness) but also obstructs Vitality being channeled into the co-constructive communication necessary for resolving conflicts and fostering growth.
By highlighting the destructive nature of this behavior, the R-Model underscores the importance of Communication, Compassion, and constructive responses as alternatives to the detrimental path of negative reciprocity.
It encourages individuals to recognise that withholding reciprocity often exacts a heavy toll on the well-being of a relationship, ultimately hindering its potential for mutual growth and connection.
[9][10][page needed] In addition, all major ethical and religious traditions include reciprocity as a rule of moral behaviour—from Jesus (“As you would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” to Confucius (“What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.”).
[11] The moral character of the norm may encourage the sense that following it is an imperative rather than a choice, and failing to reciprocate should create feelings of self-reproach and guilt.
[2] Such idea of equivalence takes two forms; However, Mark A. Whatley and colleagues found that people will give more favors, like a higher donation, if it is a public condition[clarification needed].
The comparative indeterminacy then serves as a type of all-purpose moral cement; it keeps us mindful of our behaviours and induces cooperative action.
Nonetheless, the general norm of reciprocity offers another source of motivation and moral sanction for conforming with specific status obligations.
[18] PPCV is a construct that regards employees’ feelings of disappointment (ranging from minor frustration to betrayal) arising from their belief that their organization has broken its work-related promises.
It is the organization’s contribution to a negative reciprocity dynamic, as employees tend to perform more poorly to pay back PPCV.
[22] Psychologists Ken J. Rotenberg and Luanne Mann also explored the development of the reciprocity norm of self-disclosure and its functions in children’s attraction to peers.
[23] According to Youniss's theory of social development, children's friendship during the early part of middle childhood (5–8 years) is based upon reciprocity of behaviour that suggests a "tit-for-tat" rule of exchange and interaction.
"In the exercise, participants read a vignette in which they were asked to imagine that they were the focal person in a reward allocation scenario at work.