Surprisingly, though, the takers were still quite generous, averaging three contributions each.
Despite valuing power and achievement far more than helping others, the takers gave three times
more than they got. The Reciprocity Ring created a context that encouraged takers to act like givers,
and the key lies in making giving public. Takers know that in a public setting, they’ll gain reputational
benefits for being generous in sharing their knowledge, resources, and connections. If they don’t
contribute, they look stingy and selfish, and they won’t get much help with their own requests. “Being
altruistic is often seen as ‘good,’ and being greedy or selfish is not,” writes Duke behavioral
economist Dan Ariely with two colleagues, so giving is “a way to signal to others that one is good.”
Research shows that givers usually contribute regardless of whether it’s public or private, but
takers are more likely to contribute when it’s public. In one study, when others could see their results,
takers contributed a large number of ideas during brainstorming. But when their results were hidden,
takers added less value. Other studies reveal that takers go green to be seen: they prefer luxurious
products over green products when their decisions are private, but shift to green products when their
decisions are public, hoping to earn status for protecting the environment. I saw a similar trend among
Wharton students: each week in class, I opened the floor for a few students to present requests and
invited the whole class to contribute. One November morning, five students made requests, and I was
stunned to see a student who had described himself as a taker offer to help four of them. Once his
reputation among his peers depended on giving, he contributed. By making contributions visible, the
Reciprocity Ring sets up an opportunity for people of any reciprocity style to be otherish: they can do
good and look good at the same time.
michael s
(Michael S)
#1