1

Reciprocation of Favors in College Students as a Sample Organization

Jenna Varcak

Mentor: Dr. Stephanie D. Preston

Organizational Studies Department

University of Michigan

March 13, 2020

 2

Abstract

Individuals frequently provide and repay favors for others, known as reciprocity. Previous

research has investigated how different forms of reciprocity can impact the incentive provided to

the individual completing the favor and how culture can impact reciprocal choices. Forty-five

college students were presented with an array of situations representing favors they may have

both their friends and acquaintances complete. Participants then indicated how they would repay

these favors. Based on this research, individuals will select reciprocity, which avoids a monetary

value and which has a delayed response rather than immediate repayment. Additionally,

individuals will treat friends and acquaintances from their organizations similarly only with

major differences occurring primarily for large favors. In this case, individuals will spend more

on acquaintances and will rely on only verbal thank yous for friends.

Keywords​: Reciprocity, organizational culture, behavioral economics, favors

 3

Reciprocation of Favors in College Students as a Sample Organization

Imagine you are running late for work, your car will not start, and there is no available

public transportation. You frantically text your coworker to see if they can give you a ride, and

they agree. Now, suppose you are out to lunch with a friend and realize that you left your wallet

at home. Realizing that you have no form of payment, your friend pays for your meal. You might

be wondering how to repay your friend and coworker for their time, effort, and monetary favors.

You might consider an array of factors, including your relationship with the individual, what the

favor was, and what you would prefer if the situation were reversed. Reciprocity is the act of

repaying the favors of others.

Reciprocity is “a universal characteristic of human civilization” (Gouldner, 1960, pg.

171) and can be used to reduce the sense of indebtedness that can result from receiving a favor or

positive action (Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). Reciprocity can also be described as a

“behavioral response to a perceived kindness or unkindness” (Falk & Fischbacher, 2006, pg.

295). Reciprocity is important to society as it can lead to higher cooperation (Gintis, 2000).

While reciprocity may be viewed as irrational within economics according to the self-interest

model, Fehr and Gächter (2000) defend that in reciprocity, “people are frequently much nicer

and much more cooperative than predicted by the self-interest model.” (pg. 159).

Relationships are impacted by the choices individuals make when asking for and

reciprocating favors. To add to the body of knowledge on reciprocity, we performed an

ecological study of someone’s decision to reciprocate after receiving help from another, using

undergraduate classmates as an example organization.

 4

As defined by Clark and Mills, interactions within relationships are often defined by two

sets of norms or standards. Communal relationships offer and respond to requests based on the

needs of others. Exchange relationships do so in response to the reward or reciprocity offered for

completion of the favor (Clark & Mills, 1979). Thus, individuals in exchange relationships who

are providing favors will keep track of favors and reciprocity provided viewing them as a market

transaction (Clark, Mills, & Powell, 1986). Whether an individual uses communal or exchange

norms within a given interaction will depend on the closeness of the relationship and the cost of

favor. The ability of a favor to be reciprocated according to communal norms follows a direct

correlation between closer relationships and higher cost favors (Clark & Mills, 1993). Thus, an

individual is more likely to expect a direct repayment, or exchange norm response, when the

favor is for either a distant relationship or is of high cost to the individual. However, individuals

who are in a close relationship may still respond in communal norms for a high cost favor

meaning that the favor is agreed to without the knowledge of a direct repayment.

To remain within communal relationships, individuals must recognize and respond to the

needs of others (Clark & Jordan, 2002). Acting within communal relationships allows

individuals to remove the indebtedness which can come with asking for favors as the communal

relationship operates according to needs rather than repayment. Conversely, exchange

relationships will be more aware of the reciprocity used to respond to favors allowing for the

continued exchange of favors. Another view of reciprocity can be seen in a prosocial view of

people performing acts of kindness for others. Again, it appears as though relationship type has

an influence on how individuals will respond to the call for these favors (Clark, Boothby,

Clark-Polner, & Reis, 2015).

 5

Adding an economic lense to the study of communal and exchange relationships,

Heyman and Ariely (2004) found that introducing a monetary amount into the presented reward

for a favor causes the interaction to be evaluated according to the monetary market. In this case,

participants view the monetary value as a measurement of payment and an indication of their

effort. Individuals compare the monetary value of reciprocity to the payment of other jobs in

terms of time and effort. In this case, individuals presented with monetary-based or monetarily-

stated rewards contributed less effort to the presented task than those who were given no reward.

“Indeed, just thinking about money makes us behave as most economists believe we behave -

and less like the social animals we are in our daily lives.” (Ariely, 2010, pg. 83). In contrast,

when reciprocity is not pushed into market considerations, it can remain in what Heyman and

Ariely (2004) refer to as social norms whereby the service is viewed as a favor and as part of the

relationship much like communal norms presented by Clark and Mills.

Within groups, especially ones with defined membership, social favors and reciprocity

are essential, especially as organizations move from vertical structures to more team-based work

(Sanders & Schyns, 2006). Additionally, Hu (2011) notes that social exchange requires trust

between individuals. Organizational reciprocity focuses on “a significant cause of an employee’s

helping behavior is how much organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) the employee has

received from coworkers” (Deckop, et al., 2003, pg. 1).

A significant responsibility of leaders within organizations is to encourage their workers

in individualized and appropriate ways to increase productivity and establish a supportive

culture. How individuals reciprocate favors within organizations can contribute to this workplace

culture. As stated by Buunk and Doosje (1993), “Indeed, it seems evident that in relationships at
 6

work concerns of reciprocity are of paramount importance.” (pg. 802). Smith (2002) explains

that people will only contribute to social capital if given the opportunity to do so. Thus, it is

important that employees feel comfortable asking their coworkers for favors and not experience

a high sense of indebtedness. This can be achieved through a history of good reciprocity or

communal norms that allow favors to occur without the need for immediate indebtedness and

reciprocity.

In a well-functioning organization, individuals will consistently provide and receive

favors in addition to their regular work both in and out of their organizations. By comparing the

common reciprocal acts individuals use for friends and acquaintances they know through

organizational membership, we can see to what extent individuals bring societal norms into the

workplace. If there is a significant shift in behavior, this may indicate that organization leaders

need to take additional effort to create a community.

While research in lab settings has clearly stated that non-monetary reciprocity will

produce the highest level of motivation by allowing communal relationships to persist and

prosocial behavior to lead their motivation, I am interested to know if individuals providing the

reciprocity are aware of this effect. This is particularly interesting due to the rise of online money

transfer methods like Venmo, which allow people to repay favors quickly with money.

Additionally, this phenomenon has yet to be studied in an ecological context, such as with

college students reciprocating for favors received (e.g., homework help or a ride). My research

will indicate if those providing reciprocities act similarly to what Heymen and Ariely found to be

most incentivizing for those asked to complete the favor. I will then examine what effect
 7

organizational membership, or relationship type, has on reciprocity and how this relates to the

effects of communal and exchange relationships as defined by Clark and Mills.

Evaluating these effects in an ecological context is important, as shown by List (2006).

Comparing the results of similar lab and ecological studies, List found that people behaved

differently, pointing to a challenge in studying individual behaviors in lab settings alone.

In my research, individuals can choose reciprocal acts that are categorized as either

monetary, a future or equal favor, or a gift. They may also respond to favors without a reciprocal

act, but instead, give only a verbal thank you. I hypothesize that individuals will have an inherent

knowledge of the norms that govern their actions and will act according to them. In particular,

that individuals will avoid responding in a monetary way unless money is explicit or inherently

stated in a favor, which would place the favor into market considerations. Additionally,

individuals will hold communal relationships with their friends and exchange relationships with

their acquaintances leading to more explicit and well-defined reciprocal acts for acquaintances

which cost the individual more to deliver.

Methods

Sample

Participants were recruited through an undergraduate subject pool in exchange for

introductory psychology course credit. Factoring out all incomplete responses resulted in a

sample size of (n = 45). Participants varied in age (mean = 18.78, SD = 0.795), gender (male =

19 and female = 26), and socio-economic status1 (mean = 4.56, SD = 1.778).

1
SES was determined by having participants indicate where they fell on a ladder with the most well off nad 0 being
the least.
 8

Measures

An initial pilot study asked ​130 undergraduates​ to describe a favor they asked both a

friend and acquaintance and how they reciprocated that favor. Results were analyzed by two

independent reviewers and were then combined (Table 1).

The main survey presented each participant with five situations twice, once involving a

“friend” and the other involving an “acquaintance from an organization” in a randomized order.

The situations varied in time and monetary commitment (Appendix A).

After being presented with each situation, each participant responded if their reciprocity

would consist of nothing, a verbal response, or an additional response. If the participant selected

either a verbal thank you and an additional response or no verbal thank you but an additional

response, they were then shown a list of options from which to choose. These choices were

generated based on responses from the pilot study (Appendix B).

Finally, for each situation, the participant was asked to determine the anticipated

monetary value of their selection. The monetary values provided quantitative data to compare the

monetary commitments involved in different forms of reciprocity.

Participants then completed the​ ​Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Katkin,

1964)​.​ The social desirability scale presents participants with a series of statements to which they

respond true or false. Each prompt is related to an act that is considered socially desirable

(Appendix C).

Finally, participants completed demographic information, including gender, race, age,

socio-economic status, and their primary source of income.

 9

Analytical Strategy

Given that every participant either selected “Verbal thank you” or “Verbal thank you and

something additional,” “Verbal thank you” was treated as a possible response and turned into

“Verbal thank you only” for analysis.

​ he following variables were created.

Glossary. T

Verbal Thank You​.​ Responses were dummy coded as being verbal thank you or not.

Equal Reciprocity. ​Includes the selection of equal favor. Responses were dummy coded

as being equal reciprocity or not.

Future Favor​. Includes the selection of promise of future favor. Responses were dummy

coded as either being a future favor or not.

Monetary​. Includes the selection of cash and money transfer app (i.e., Venmo).

Responses were dummy coded as either being monetary or not.

Service.​ Includes the selection of cooking or baking for them, handwritten thank you

note, and purchased material gift. Responses were dummy coded as either being service or not.

Consumable Purchase. ​Includes the selection of buy lunch or dinner, bag of candy,

coffee other than Starbucks, and Starbucks. Responses were dummy coded as either being

consumable purchase or not.

Dollar Amount​.​ The amount entered in response to “how much will this cost you.” For

ease of analysis, any response including “nothing” or “zero” was changed to $0.

Based on their Social Desirability responses, each participant received a Social

Desirability Score, which was established by how many socially desirable answers they

provided.
 10

Results

General Results

The frequencies of each response by situation and relationship are presented in Table 2.

To begin my analysis, responses were coded as either Equal Reciprocity, Future Favor,

Monetary, Service, Consumable Purchase, or Verbal Thank You Only (Table 3).

Money Spent

Acquaintances will spend more on reciprocity than friends. ​To measure the extent of

spending​, ​I ran a paired t-test of the difference between average spending on friends and

acquaintances in each situation (Table 4). Participants spent significantly more on acquaintances

​ 0.026). On average, participants spent $1.04 more

than friends in the Airport Ride situation (​p <

on acquaintances than friends for their reciprocal acts. The amount spent on reciprocity was also

mediated by the participant’s social desirability score, child socioeconomic status, and their

current source of income (Table 5).

Verbal Thank Yous

​ he total number of verbal

Friends will give more verbal thank yous than acquaintances. T

thank you responses for both friends and acquaintances for each situation is listed in Table 6.

Then, I conducted a Pearson’s chi-squared test to measure the difference in frequency between

friends and acquaintances (Table 7). While the difference is not significant for any situation, or

overall, the most substantial differences are found in both the Airport Ride and Moving Furniture

situations. In both cases, verbal thank you only was selected more often for friends than

acquaintances. This is also true for an overall comparison of 106 to 96 (Table 6).
 11

Monetary Response

If monetary value is inherently stated or otherwise prompted that individuals will respond

monetarily. ​I computed conditional probabilities based on the total number of responses that

were and were not monetary when money was and was not stated, taking the Lunch situation as

the money stated condition (Table 8). The probability that a participant responded in a

non-monetary way when money was not stated is 92.20%.

Discussion

Throughout this research, I have been interested in measuring the extent to which college

students follow previous behavioral economic findings and how the relationship context affects

the reciprocity. My study presented participants with an array of situations, and their selection of

reciprocal acts was analyzed.

Figure 1

Response frequencies
 12

Figure 2

Summary of responses in categories

As seen in Figure1 and Figure 2, individuals responded similarly for both friends and

acquaintances, but varied their response based on the type of favor completed. The Verbal Thank

You response is present in each situation, and relationship type, and is the most common

response for the Class Notes and Tutoring situations. Other responses for these situations

included Future Favor and Purchased Material Gift, reflected in Service. However, for

acquaintances in the Tutoring situation, the Future Favor responses were replaced by Equal

Favor responses. This indicates a possible shift from communal exchange relationships as

individuals chose a more direct and recognizable reciprocity for the favor presented rather than

the notion of future repayment reflecting the norms of a communal relationship.

 13

The Lunch situation, which is the monetary-based situation, explicitly stating the $10 cost

of lunch, sees a large number of monetary responses. While some individuals tended toward Buy

Lunch or Dinner or Equal Favor responses, these may also have been seen as monetary responses

as they reflect a repayment of the cost of lunch through the purchase of a future lunch (or

dinner). In this case, regardless of relationship, individuals monetarily responded to a monetary

favor. Friends and acquaintances also spent nearly equal amounts on their reciprocity for this

situation, indicating that exchanges may operate on a minimum cost basis. In other words, once

individuals decide to use exchange norms for this interaction, they will not be enticed to spend

more than what is deemed appropriate, as in the case of the repayment of the $10 lunch.

Comparing responses to the different situations, individuals responded monetarily to the

Lunch situation and largely did not respond monetarily to the other situations. This indicates that

individuals are aware, consciously or unconsciously, of the most effective reciprocal acts and act

in accordance with what individuals respond to best. With the ease of access to money transfer

apps like Venmo, it is interesting that college students will go out of their way to purchase goods

over transferring money,

The one exception to the non-monetary response for non-monetary situations is the

Airport Ride situation, which has the most varied response spanning each category. This may

indicate the inherent nature of the Airport Ride favor. While some individuals may look at the

money spent on gas for the ride, others may note the time and effort the other person was

required to contribute. Following the logic of the Lunch situation, those who looked to the price

of gas alone may be those who responded monetarily. The only notable difference occurs in the
 14

frequency of Verbal Thank You in which case individuals responded with Verbal Thank You

more for friends than for acquaintances.

The Moving Furniture situation also saw an array of response types. Most common

remains Verbal Thank You, again with a higher frequency for friends than acquaintances.

Conversely, individuals responded with Future Favor more for acquaintances than friends. This

may further represent the difference between communal and exchange relationships and how

college students differently view the relationship with their friends and acquaintances from

organizations.

In terms of money spent, participants did spend more money on acquaintances. As seen

in Figure 3, The most substantial difference is for the Airport Ride situation. This is interesting

as the inherent cost of gas for equal situations presented for both friends and acquaintances

resulted in a higher repayment for acquaintances. This also makes sense as the Airport Ride

situation lets the participant decide the value of the given ride. The Airport Ride situation also

saw more friends give Verbal Thank You Only responses than acquaintances, also lowering the

average spent on reciprocity.

 15

Figure 3

Average cost of reciprocity for each situation

To further compare responses based on relationship type, I compared the frequencies of

Verbal Thank You responses. While the Verbal Thank You Only response was more common

for friends in each situation, except the Lunch situation in which it was only selected once for

each relationship, the difference was not large enough to be considered significant. The

difference is largest for the Airport Ride and Moving Furniture situations, which best explore

this idea as they are large favors in which a Verbal Thank You Only was not the majority. Also,

participants tended toward large reciprocal acts such as buying lunch or dinner.

Overall, reciprocity is more considerable for acquaintances. Acquaintances may expect to

have to work harder to maintain the relationship and, thus, tend toward larger and more involved

reciprocity. When it comes to organizations and organizational culture, the difference in

 16

reciprocity between friends and acquaintances, while notable, is perhaps not large enough to

suggest that this needs to be a major consideration for organizational leaders.

The value of having communal relationships in organizations is the potential for an easier

flow of favors among coworkers. As shown in Figure 4, the pilot study was able to capture the

frequencies at which individuals asked friends and acquaintances for different levels of favors.

Participates cited more low time/effort for acquaintances as the frequency of monetary and

medium and high time/effort situations decreased. This indicated that currently college students

are more comfortable asking their friends for the larger favors and the monetary favors which

may operate on an exchange basis within a communal relationship. While this is an interesting

occurrence, the order of frequencies for each type of situation remains consistent indicating that

perhaps the difference in reciprocity depends more on the type of favor rather than on the

relationship.

In this sample, individuals are shown to approach favors and reciprocity the same for

both friends and acquaintances indicating to organizations that little work is needed to support

communal relationships among coworkers. However, should the case arise where an excess of

indebtedness occurs in an organization and acquaintances are treated differently from friends, the

organization may benefit from actions taken to increase the social nature of their organization.

By investing in the social aspect of their work culture, organizational leaders can help

individuals develop the desire to have communal relationships with others. These relationships

will then support an environment in which individuals can ask for and receive favors without a

sense of indebtedness as the favor is done on the basis of need expressed by the individual rather

than the statement of reciprocity.

 17

Figure 4

Pilot study favor responses

Limitations and Weaknesses

The most significant limitation of this study is the scale and sample size. Based on the

research completed here, future research may consider a more extensive array of situations to

better analyze the influences of the situation on reciprocity and how that interacts with social and

exchange norms. A larger sample size would have allowed a complete analysis and more

conclusive results. While college students experience organizations and, in most cases, have

experienced workplace environments, for this study, these organizations served as a proxy for

more formal organizations and workplace environments. It would be interesting to see if similar

results would be produced for a different age range that interacts with relationships differently

and potentially carries an altered set of cultural norms than what was measured for this study.

Other considerations for this data may include the fact that the majority of participants

were female. It may also be interesting to further explore the selection of name brands like
 18

Starbucks to other coffee options. While in this study coffee was rarely selected, situations could

be designed to better match the monetary investment of purchasing a coffee drink to evaluate

where individuals will buy their coffee and if this is due to the fact that it is being purchased as a

reciprocal act. For instance, individuals may receive an increased feeling of satisfaction from the

name brand product and overvalue the reciprocal act or the mention of a name brand may better

entice individuals to agree to favors. These may be considerations to better understand the

interaction of communal and exchange relationships.

Conclusion

This study found that college students provide reciprocity for the favors provided by

friends and acquaintances following what previous research has deemed the most motivating for

those completing favors. While organizations should continue to promote social work

environments, this research shows that, at least for college students, individuals will bring their

cultural norms to the workplace and operate with their acquaintances as they would their friends.

In the goal of promoting effective teamwork, asking for and fulfilling favors is vital and

as explored, is easier attained long-term in communal relationships. Attaining a communal

relationship, as explained by Clark and Mills, requires that individuals focus on the needs of

others. This research shows that college students are inclined to treat organization acquaintances

similar to friends allowing for this increased flow of favors and communal relationships.
 19

References

Ariely, D. (2010).​ Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions.​ New York:

Harper Perennial.

Buunk, B. P., Doosje, B. J., Jans, L. G. J. M., & Hopstaken, L. E. M. (1993). Perceived

reciprocity, social support, and stress at work: The role of exchange and communal

orientation. ​Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,​ 65(4), 801–811.

Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal

relationships. ​Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,​ 37(1), 12-24.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.12

Clark, M. S., Mills, J., & Powell, M. C. (1986). Keeping track of needs in communal and

exchange relationships. ​Journal of Personality and Social Psychology​, 51(2), 333–338.

Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships:

What it is and is not. ​Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,​ 19(6), 684–691.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196003

Clark, M. S., & Jordan, S. D. (2002). Adherence to communal norms: What it means, when it

occurs, and some thoughts on how it develops. ​New Directions for Child and Adolescent

Development,​ 2002(95), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.34

Clark, M. S., Boothby, E. J., Clark-Polner, E. & Reis, H. T. (2015). Understanding prosocial

behavior requires understanding relational context. In Schroeder, D. A., & Graziano, W.

G. (Eds.), ​The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior​ (pp. 329-345). Oxford University

Press.
 20

Deckop, J. R., Cirka, C. C., & Andersson, L. M. (2003). Doing unto others: The reciprocity of

helping behavior in organizations. ​Journal of Business Ethics​, 47(2), 101-113.

https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026060419167

Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. ​The

Journal of Economic Perspectives,​ 14(3), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.3.159

Falk, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. ​Games and Economic Behavior​,

54(2), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2005.03.001

Gintis, H. (2000). Strong reciprocity and human sociality. ​Journal of Theoretical Biology,​

206(2), 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.2000.2111

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. ​American

Sociological Review,​ 25(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623

Heyman, J., & Ariely, D. (2004). Effort for payment: A tale of two markets. ​Psychological

Science,​ 15(11), 787-793. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00757.x

Hu, X., Tetrick, L., & Shore, L. M.. (2011). Understanding reciprocity in organizations: A

US-China comparison. ​Journal of Managerial Psychology,​ 26(7), 528–548.

https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941111164463

Katkin, E. S. (1964). The Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale: Independent of

psychopathology? ​Psychological Reports​, 15(3), 703–706.

https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1964.15.3.703
 21

List, J. A. (2006). The behavioralist meets the market: Measuring social preferences and

reputation effects in actual transactions. ​Journal of Political Economy,​ 114(1), 1–37.

https://doi.org/10.1086/498587

Sanders, K., & Schyns, B. (2006). Trust, conflict and cooperative behaviour: Considering

reciprocity within organisations. ​Personnel review,​ 35(5), 508–518.

https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480610682262

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived

organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. ​Journal of

Applied Psychology​, 81(3), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.219

Smith, Jr., M. L., (2002). ​Reciprocity and social exchange relationships in organizations:

Examining why and how individuals contribute to organizational social capital.

[Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh​]​. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

 22

Tables

Table 1

Pilot study totals

Friend Acquaintance Difference

(Friend - Acquaintance)

Favor
Low Time/Effort 20 30 -10
Medium Time/Effort 35 33 2
High Time/Effort 17 11 6
Low Monetary 10 6 4
Medium Monetary 13 8 5
High Monetary 2 1 1

Reciprocity
Verbal Thank You 19 33 -14
Equal Reciprocity 37 37 0
Future Favor 8 9 -1
Monetary 18 8 10
Service 16 12 4
Consumable Purchase 27 18 9
 23

Table 2

Response frequencies

Situation 1 Situation 2 Situation 3 Situation 4 Situation 5

Response F A F A F A F A F A
Verbal thank you only 40 37 35 35 2 3 16 9 19 12
Handwritten thank you note - - - - - - - - 1 -
Cash - - - - 2 3 2 2 - 2
Money transfer app (i.e.
Venmo) - - - - 38 33 10 11 - 1
Equal favor - - - 6 1 3 5 9 4 3
Verbal promise of future favor 4 5 5 - - - 7 5 4 11
Purchased material gift 1 3 2 - - - 1 1 1 -
Cooking or baking for them - - - - - 1 - 1 1 2
Buy Lunch or Dinner - - - 2 2 2 3 5 13 11
Bag of candy - - 1 - - - 1 - - -
Coffee, other than Starbucks - - - 1 - - - - - -
Starbucks - - - - - - - 2 1 1
Other - - 2 - - - - - 1 2
Note: F is friend and A is acquaintance. Handmade material gift and Insomnia Cookies saw no response

and were therefore excluded from this table.

 24

Table 3

Summary of responses in categories

Situation Relationship Verbal Equal Future Monetary Service Consumable

Thank You Reciprocity Favor Purchase

Total Friend 112 10 20 52 7 21

Acquaintance 96 21 21 52 8 24

Class Friend 40 0 4 0 1 0
Notes
Acquaintance 37 0 5 0 3 0

Tutoring Friend 35 0 5 0 2 1

Acquaintance 35 6 0 0 0 3

Lunch Friend 2 1 0 40 0 2

Acquaintance 3 3 0 36 1 2

Airport Friend 16 5 7 12 1 4
Ride
Acquaintance 9 9 5 13 2 7

Moving Friend 19 4 4 0 3 14
Furniture
Acquaintance 12 3 11 3 2 12
 25

Table 4

Paired t-test comparing spending for friends (F) and acquaintances (A)

Situation Relationship N Mean Sig.

Average Across Situation Comparison (F-A) 45 -1.04 0.065

F 45 4.647

A 45 5.69

Class Notes Comparison (F-A) 0.00 1.00

F 45 0.11

A 45 0.11

Tutoring Comparison (F-A) 0.048 0.878

F 42 0.60

A 42 0.55

Lunch Comparison (F-A) 0.195 0.759

F 41 8.61

A 41 8.41

Airport Ride Comparison (F-A) -3.773 0.026*

F 44 7.05

A 44 10.82

Moving Furniture Comparison (F-A) -2.095 0.246

F 42 6.95

A 42 9.05
***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05
 26

Table 5

Linear regression of demographics on dollar amount

Variable Coefficient P>|t|

Social Desirability Score 0.209 0.060

GenderMale 6.052 0.049*

Age -2.619 0.002**

ChildSES 0.537 0.091

CurrentSES 0.782 0.096

IncomeSource -3.098 <0.001***

***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05

Table 6

Summary of verbal thank you responses

Relationship

Situation Friend Acquaintance

Total 106 96

Class Notes 40 37

Tutoring 35 35

Lunch 2 3

Airport Ride 16 9

Moving Furniture 19 12
 27

Table 7

Chi-squared test for verbal thank you only between friends and acquaintances

Situation Sig.

Total 0.130

Class Notes 0.368

Tutoring 1.000

Lunch 0.645

Airport Ride 0.099

Moving Furniture 0.120

***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05

Table 8

Monetary totals

​Money Stated

False True

Total (P) Total (P)

Monetary False 76 (84.44%) 28 (7.80%)

True 14 (15.56%) 331 (92.20%)

Note: P= probability monetary conditional on money stated
 28

Appendix A

Reciprocal Favor Situations

Situation 1: Class Notes

Friend A friend sends you notes you missed from class.

How do you repay them?

Acquaintance An acquaintance from one of your organizations

sends you notes you missed from class. How do you
repay them?

Situation 2: Tutoring

Friend Your friend helps you understand a difficult topic

from one of your courses. How do you repay them?

Acquaintance An acquaintance from one of your organizations

helps you understand a difficult topic from one of
your courses. How do you repay them?

Situation 3: Lunch

Friend You’re at lunch and you forgot your wallet. Your

friend pays the $10 for you. How do you repay
them?

Acquaintance You’re at lunch and you forgot your wallet. An

acquaintance from one of your organizations pays
the $10 for you. How do you repay them?

Situation 4: Airport Ride

Friend Your friend drives you to the airport. How do you

repay them?

Acquaintance An acquaintance from one of your organizations

drives you to the airport. How do you repay them?

Situation 5: Moving Furniture

Friend Your friend helps you move furniture. How do you

repay them?

Acquaintance An acquaintance from one of your organizations

helps you move furniture. How do you repay them?
 29

Appendix B

Reciprocation Choices

1st Round

Nothing

Verbal thank you

Verbal thank you and something additional (you will specify next)

No verbal thank you, but something else (you will specify next)

2nd Round

Handwritten thank you note

Cash

Money transfer app (i.e. Venmo)

Equal favor

Verbal promise of future favor

Purchased material gift

Handmade material gift

Cooking or baking for them

Buy lunch or dinner

Bag of candy

Insomnia Cookies

Coffee, other than Starbucks

Starbucks

Other
 30

Appendix C

Social Desirability Scale

Prompt Socially Desirable Response

Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all T

the candidates.

I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in T

trouble.

It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not F

encouraged.

I have never intensely disliked anyone. T

On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succeed in F

life.

I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way. F

I am always careful about my manner of dress. T

My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a T

restaurant.

If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was F

not seen I would probably do it.

On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because F

I thought too little of my ability.

I like to gossip at times. F

There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people F
in authority even though I knew they were right.

No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener. T

I can remember "playing sick" to get out of something. F

There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. F

I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. T

 31

I always try to practice what I preach. T

I don't find it particularly difficult to get along with loud T

mouthed, obnoxious people.

I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. F

When I don't know something I don't at all mind admitting it. T

I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. T

At times I have really insisted on having things my own way. F

There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things. F

I would never think of letting someone else be punished for T

my wrongdoings.

I never resent being asked to return a favor. T

I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very T

different from my own.

I never make a long trip without checking the safety of my car. T

There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good F
fortune of others.

I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off. T

I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. F

I have never felt that I was punished without cause. T

I sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only F

got what they deserved.

I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's T

feelings.