This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Uehara, E. S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Reciprocity Reconsidered: Gouldner's `Moral Norm of Reciprocity' and Social Support

University of Washington, eddi{at}u.washington.edu

In a classic statement three decades ago, Gouldner (1960) made an important analytic distinction between reciprocity as a pattern of social exchange and reciprocity as a general moral belief. Gouldner argued that the moral norm of reciprocity constitutes an important `causal force' in social life. The reciprocity norm dictates that Ego should not end up gaining at the expense of Alter's beneficial acts towards him or her. In contrast to equity theory, which suggests that people will react equally negatively to under- and overbenefiting, the reciprocity norm suggests that people will, above all, attempt to avoid overbenefiting from their socially supportive interactions. While many studies of social support have incorporated the concepts of reciprocity and exchange, virtually none has examined the validity of Gouldner's distinction nor its potential implications for the dynamics of social support. This paper explores the evidence for Gouldner's claims from studies on support and reciprocity. Evidence is found suggesting that people feel obligated to return benefits they receive from others, appear to be more psychologically and emotionally averse to overbenefiting than underbenefiting from social support interactions, and tend to avoid placing themselves in the position of `overbenefitors'. Alternative explanations for avoidance of overbenefiting are considered, and implications for the study of social support are explored.

Key Words: reciprocity • social exchange • social support

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 12, No. 4, 483-502 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0265407595124001


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. B. Hamilton and M. Sandelowski Living the Golden Rule: Reciprocal Exchanges among African Americans with Cancer Qual Health Res, May 1, 2003; 13(5): 656 - 674. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. F. Ybema, R. G. Kuijer, B. P. Buunk, G. M. DeJong, and R. Sanderman Depression and Perceptions of Inequity among Couples Facing Cancer Pers Soc Psychol Bull, January 1, 2001; 27(1): 3 - 13. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. K. Ikkink and T. van Tilburg Do Older Adults' Network Members Continue to Provide Instrumental Support in Unbalanced Relationships? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, February 1, 1998; 15(1): 59 - 75. [Abstract]

				A. Russell and E. Searcy The Contribution of Affective Reactions and Relationship Qualities to Adolescents' Reported Responses to Parents Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, August 1, 1997; 14(4): 539 - 548. [Abstract]

				L. J. Medvene and C. R. Teal Leaders' Ambivalence about Reciprocity Obligations in Self-Help Groups Small Group Research, May 1, 1997; 28(2): 302 - 322. [Abstract]