Information seeking and reciprocity : a transformational analysis

The motivation to reciprocate is analyzed within the framework of interdependence theory, with focus on the process of transformation of situations. A model of transformation is presented for the motivation to reciprocate and hypotheses regarding allocation behavior and information seeking are derived. The hypotheses are tested in two experiments implementing a game where participants allocate payoff to self and other in a sequential way, with one participant able to gather costly information regarding the other’s previous behavior. Individual differences in the motivation to reciprocate are assessed with the Personal Norm of Reciprocity questionnaire. Results show that participants with high motivation to reciprocate seek information regarding other’s past behavior, and react to this information as the norm of reciprocity prescribes. Participants with low motivation to reciprocate prefer information regarding the future of the interaction (Study 1), or no information (Study 2), and behave in a more selfish way. Results are discussed with respect of (1) the transformation of situation process, (2) the role of reciprocity as an interpersonal motive, and (3) the validity of the individual differences measure. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. In situations of interdependence of outcomes, outcomes are often only one of the many components of the situation. Real-life interactions are characterized by a variety of behavioral and interpersonal options that enrich the interpersonal processes over and above the mere allocation of resources among self and others. People often choose when to interact, with whom, and under what conditions, actively shaping the interpersonal situation and their cognitive representation of it. This variety of decisions social actors encounter has been recently taken into account in research about interdependence of outcomes, as research about social dilemmas with the option to exit or enter a relationship (Orbell & Dawes, 1993; Schuessler, 1989; Stanley, Ashlock, & Tesfation, 1994), select the partner (Yamagishi & Hayashi, 1996), or move to different relationships (Gallucci, Van Lange, & Ouwerkerk, in press) testifies. These lines of research show that individuals actively change the feature of the interdependence situation in order to achieve their interpersonal goals. Received 19 February 2002 Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 22 August 2002 *Correspondence to: Marcello Gallucci, Department of Social Psychology, Free University, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: m.gallucci@psy.vu. nl Contract/grant sponsor: European Community. Contract/grant number: HPMF-CT-1999-00389. Following Kelley (1997), there are two main processes whereby actors can achieve their interpersonal goals: (1) by selection of situations; (2) by transformation of situations. The first process can be referred to as locomotion (Van Lange & Visser, 1999), that is, actions taken in order to change the level of interdependence among partners. The second process has been the crucial process assumed by interdependence theory (Kelley & Thibout, 1978), whereby an actor transforms a given situation according to her or his motives, and then acts upon the subjective view the transformation process provides. Whereas much of the research aimed at expanding the interdependence framework has been devoted to the analysis of selection of situations, here we focus on the transformation process. We focus on the personal norm of reciprocity as an important interpersonal motive and we show that the transformation process underlying reciprocal preferences is also responsible for the process whereby individuals seek information regarding the interdependent situation. The rationale of our research is based on the following logic. Following interdependence theory, we assume that an interpersonal motive can be represented by a transformation process describing how actors transform the given situation into a subjective one. Different motives require the acquisition of different information, and thus, when the information is not available, the transformation process should guide actors to seek the necessary information. This simple logic stems from a wider principle. Interpersonal motives guide interpersonal behavior throughout different sequences of behavior in a consistent way, such that individual differences in a motive influence the allocation of resources as much as the other decisions necessary for satisfying the interpersonal goal (Kelley, 1984, 1997). The application of this principle to the analysis of the transformation process serves three important purposes. First, from a theoretical point of view, it outlines the process whereby goals are attained beyond the simple allocation of outcomes, in particular the cognitive and motivational dynamics underlying interpersonal motives. Second, from an assessment point of view, it provides a tool to test the validity of instruments used to measure individual motives. As far as a measure is a valid indicator of a motive, in fact, it should be able to predict the process whereby transformation is carried out alongside the transformation outcome itself. Third, from an analytic point of view, it sheds light on the possible reasons why a situation enhances or reduces the enactment of a specific motive: By establishing the process whereby a goal is attained, we can characterize the situational features that makes a specific transformation easier, more difficult, or even impossible to carry out. Although the previous considerations can be applied to any interpersonal motive, in this contribution we focus on reciprocity. We conceptualize the notion of reciprocity as a truly social motive, active independently of long term prospects of gains (Gallucci & Perugini, 2000), and rooted in the individual’s personal values (Perugini, Gallucci, Presaghi, & Ercolani, 2002). This characterization is the topic of the next section. RECIPROCITYAS AN INTERPERSONAL MOTIVE All the social orientations discussed by interdependence theory (reciprocity, cooperation, individualism, competitiveness, altruism, etc.) may be interpreted in two different ways (Kelley, 1997): (a) as behavioral rules that people consistently follow in interdependent situations; (b) as intrinsic motives that provide satisfaction by themselves, that is, by the mere adherence to the rule. Thus, a person’s Unpublished work cited in this article: Perugini, M. , & Gallucci, M. (2002). Differences between equality, fairness and reciprocity: The role of valence. University of Essex. Perugini, M. , & Gallucci, M. , Presaghi, F. , & Ercolani, A. P. (2002). The personal norm of reciprocity. University of Essex. Marcello Gallucci and Marco Perugini Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. (in press) cooperation can be an instrumental rule to achieve long-term gains (interpretation (a)) or it can represent the person’s ultimate interpersonal goal (interpretation (b)). A person can be satisfied by behaving altruistically (interpretation (b)) or may act in an altruistic way to gather social approval or better outcomes in the future (interpretation (a)). This dual interpretation of social orientations is particularly salient for reciprocity. Reciprocity can be thought of as an effective behavioral rule to achieve long term mutual cooperation and thus higher outcomes in the long run (Axelrod, 1984), or can be conceptualized as an interpersonal motive that, by itself, represents the goal of the interaction. Differently to other social orientations, however, reciprocity has been mainly referred to as a behavioral rule, followed by ‘rational’ actors striving to maximize their own outcomes (Axelrod, 1984; Kreps, Milgrom, Roberts, &Wilson, 1982). Here we stress the characteristics of reciprocity as a truly interpersonal motive. For this aim, we can distinguish three main characteristics that define reciprocity as an interpersonal motive: Its ability to be a goal by itself, reliable individual differences, and a specific transformation process. Reciprocity as a Goal The norm of reciprocity, when internalized (Schwartz, 1977), is able to guide behavior in the absence of additional goals. Whereas a generic norm can be viewed as a rule sanctioned by a group and followed by its member (Gintis, in press; Grusec & Kuczynski, 1997; Elster, 1989), an internalized norm is accepted not as a constraint, but as a goal (Parsons, 1967; Schwartz, 1977). Thus, even if a specific behavior dictated by the norm can be beneficial in the long term (as reciprocity can be indeed), when the norm is internalized the rewards are no longer necessary for abiding by the norm. Thus, the key feature of an internalized norm is not whether it can provide advantageous outcomes, but that it is able to guide behavior also when it does not provide advantageous outcomes. As regard reciprocity as an internalized norm, the fact that it may serve self-interest in the long run is not relevant. The key issue is that people abide by the norm of reciprocity also in situations when reciprocity does not serve self-interest. Research on reciprocal behavior shows that people indeed reciprocate even when reciprocity is in conflict with self-interest, as in one-shot prisoner’s dilemma, and games with few repetitions (Bolton & Zwick, 1995; Bethwaite & Tompkinson, 1996; De Cremer & Van Lange, 2001). In a similar vein, we have recently shown that reciprocity can be observed in an experimental situation where material incentives, social approval, desire for cooperation and other alternative motives were carefully ruled out by design (Gallucci & Perugini, 2000). Reciprocity as an Individual Difference As for other interpersonal motives, reciprocity shows pronounced individual differences, empirically measurable and consistent over times and situations (Perugini et al., 2002). Among different measures of reciprocity (e.g. Eisenberger, Cotterell, & Mar