394 Social Influence and Group Dynamics
high point of the recipients’ day is confirmed by Cialdini’s
observation that the flower more often than not winds up in a
nearby waste container shortly after the flower-for-money
transaction has been completed.
Reciprocity can have the subsidiary effect of increasing
the recipient’s liking for the gift- or favor-giver, but the norm
can be exploited successfully without implicit application of
the affinity principle (e.g., Regan, 1971). Affect does enter
the picture, however, when people failto uphold the norm.
Nonreciprocation runs the risk of damaging an exchange
relationship (Cotterell, Eisenberger, & Speicher, 1992;
Meleshko & Alden, 1993) and may promote reputational
damage for the offender (e.g., moocher, ingrate) that can
haunt him or her in future transactions. Somewhat more sur-
prising is evidence that negative feelings can be engendered
when the reciprocity norm is violated in the reverse direction.
One might think that someone who provides a gift but does
not allow the recipient to repay would be viewed as generous,
unselfish, or altruistic (although perhaps somewhat mis-
guided or naive). But under some circumstances, such a per-
son is disliked for his or her violation of exchange etiquette
(Gergen, Ellsworth, Maslach, & Seipel, 1975). This tendency
appears to be universal, having been demonstrated in U.S.,
Swedish, and Japanese samples.
Cooperation is an interesting manifestation of the reci-
procity norm. Just as the act of providing a gift or a favor
prompts repayment, cooperative behavior tends to elicit co-
operation in return (Braver, 1975; Cialdini, Green, & Rusch,
1992; Rosenbaum, 1980) and can promote compliance with
subsequent requests as well (Bettencourt, Brewer, Croak, &
Miller, 1992). This notion is not lost on the car salesperson
who declares that he or she and the customer are on “the same
side” during price negotiations, and then appears to take up
the customer’s fight against their common enemy, the sales
manager. Even if this newly formed alliance comes up short
and the demonized sales manager purportedly holds fast on
the car’s price, the customer may feel sufficiently obligated to
repay the salesperson’s cooperative overture with a purchase.
A related form of reciprocity is the tactical use of conces-
sions to extract compliance from those who might otherwise
be resistant to influence. The strategy is to make a request
that is certain to meet with a resounding no,if not a rhetorical
are you kidding?The request might call for a large invest-
ment of time and energy, or perhaps for a substantial amount
of money. After this request is turned down, the influence
agent follows up with a more reasonable request. In effect,
the influence agent is making a concession and, in line with
the reciprocity norm, the target now feels obligated to make a
concession of his or her own. A study by Cialdini et al. (1975)
illustrates the effectiveness of what has come to be known as
thedoor-in-the-facetechnique. Posing as representatives of a
youth counseling program, Cialdini et al. approached college
students to see if they would agree to chaperon a group of
juvenile delinquents for several hours at the local zoo. Not
surprisingly, most of them (83%) refused. The results were
quite different, though, if Cialdini et al. had first asked the
students to do something even more unreasonable—spending
2 hours per week as counselors to juvenile delinquents for a
minimum of 2 years. After students refused this request—all
of them did—the smaller zoo-trip request was agreed to by
50% of the students, a tripling of the compliance rate. The
empirical evidence for the door-in-the face technique is im-
pressive (cf. Cialdini & Trost, 1998) and largely supports the
reciprocity of concessions interpretation.
The power of reciprocal concessions is also apparent in
thethat’s not alltechnique, which is a familiar trick of the
trade among salespeople (Cialdini, 2001). The tactic involves
making an offer or providing a come-on to a customer, then
following up with an even better offer before the target has
had time to respond to the initial offer. This technique is used
fairly routinely to push big-ticket commercial items. A sales-
person, for example, quotes a price for a large-screen TV, and
while the interested but skeptical couple is thinking it over,
he or she adds, “but that’s not all—if you buy today, I’m au-
thorized to throw in a free VCR.” Research confirms that the
effectiveness of the that’s not all technique is indeed attribut-
able in part to the creation of a felt need in the target to reci-
procate the agent’s apparent concession (e.g., Burger, 1986),
although the contrast between the initial and follow-up con-
cession plays a role as well. In the real world, the knowledge
that people tend to reciprocate concessions provides a cor-
nerstone of negotiation and dispute resolution. The bargain-
ing necessary to reach a compromise solution in such
instances invariably hinges on one party’s making a conces-
sion with the assumption that the other party will follow suit
with a concession of his or her own. This phenomenon can be
seen at work in a wide variety of contexts, including busi-
ness, politics, international diplomacy, and marriage.Reciprocity in Personal RelationshipsThe norm of reciprocity is not limited to transactions between
people who otherwise would have little to do with one an-
other (e.g., salespeople and consumers), but rather provides a
foundation for virtually every kind of social relationship. The
reciprocity norm even plays a role in personal relationships,
serving to calibrate the fairness in people’s ongoing interac-
tions with friends and lovers. The trust and warmth neces-
sary to maintain a personal relationship would be impossible
to maintain if either partner felt that his or her overtures of