Abstract
In their concerted efforts to unpack the microprocesses that transform repeated exchanges into an exchange relation, exchange theorists have paid little attention to how actors perceive changes and dynamics in exchanges over time. We help fill this gap by studying how temporal patterns of exchange affect the development of cohesion. Some exchange relations develop gradually as actors hedge their bets, making incremental commitments to “test the water” and manage the risks of exchange (incremental exchange). Other relations settle quickly into full commitment as actors take “leaps of faith” in each other (constant exchange). Do these patterns result in different levels of bonding? We examined this question across a series of two laboratory studies and a vignette survey that manipulated two dimensions of repeated exchange: resource level (how much actors exchange in each interaction) and frequency (how often actors exchange). In each study, participants played or imagined a series of social exchange tasks with a fixed partner. Results show that exchanging incrementally in resource level promotes cohesion, but exchanging incrementally in frequency undermines it. These findings affirm the importance of exchange frequency for cohesion, but demonstrate an opposite effect of resource level: compared to exchanging constant and full levels, exchanging incremental levels of resources creates more cohesion, even while resulting in lower instrumental benefits.
Much of sociology has become a study of how social interactions become structured and institutionalized to take on a life of their own (e.g., Berger and Luckmann 1966; DiMaggio and Powell 1981). In this vein, contemporary exchange theorists have made significant advances toward unpacking the endogenous microprocesses that transform repeated exchanges into an exchange relationship – a cohesive social object distinct from the actors and acts of exchange that comprise it. Through repeated exchanges, actors develop feelings of trust, affective regard and cohesion as they make causal attributions to make sense of exchange outcomes, tracing emotions and cognitions they experience to the exchange task, the relationship or each other. Such attributions imbue the exchange relation with expressive value to reinforce feelings of solidarity that enable actors to maintain mutually beneficial exchanges or produce collective goods. At the same time, research has also highlighted the context-dependent nature of this process, showing that under certain conditions of relational power balance (Lawler and Yoon 1998), exchange tasks (Molm, Collett and Schaefer 2007), external incentives (Malhotra and Murnighan 2002) or risk and uncertainty (Kollock 1994), repeated exchanges can fail to cohere into bonds of solidarity if attributions to relevant social units of exchange are inhibited or misdirected.
We contribute to this research program by examining how temporal patterns of exchange affect the emergence of cohesive bonds in dyadic exchange relations. To date, studies have focused primarily on aggregate or time-invariant properties of repeated exchanges, such as the type of exchange (Molm, Collett and Schaefer 2007) or overall frequency of interactions (Lawler, Thye and Yoon 2000), and paid far less attention to how actors perceive changes and dynamics in exchange relations. However, how exchange patterns unfold or evolve over time is also a salient feature of repeated exchanges that can condition how actors make causal attributions to make sense of their experiences.
Early episodes of exchanges form a particularly critical stage that establishes relational norms, signals mutual expectations and sets the tone for the quality or type of a relationship that may eventually form. This is true not only for the new employee getting acquainted with his colleagues, but also for a professor and a new doctoral student starting research, or two singles looking for romance. Each case poses a vexing dilemma as both parties must decide how much to trust and signal commitment to the other. In the absence of prior interactions, some trust must nevertheless be offered before it is honored and reciprocated. Faced with these concerns, some relations develop gradually as actors “test the water,” hedging against the risks and uncertainties inherent in social exchange and committing incrementally to each other (henceforth incremental exchange).
Other relations get off to a quick start as actors hit it off or perhaps deliberately take “leaps of faith” in each other, quickly settling into frequent, high-stakes interactions (henceforth constant exchange). While these two approaches describe the most common patterns in emerging relationships (Kurzban, Rigdon and Wilson 2008), no study to our knowledge has examined how these two patterns actually affect relationship building. Do they result in different levels of solidarity? If so, which is more likely to build stronger relations? Answers to such questions have both practical and theoretical implications for understanding how and when repeated exchanges actually become cohesive relations, thus extending recent efforts (Molm, Schaefer and Collett 2007; Schaefer and Kornienko 2009; Kuwabara 2011) to identify exchange-structural conditions under which repeated exchanges fail to produce cohesion.
To address these questions, we build upon recent efforts to extend theories of attribution (Eberly et al. 2011; Lawler 2001) by specifying how the relationship frames actors' sensemaking of their experiences in repeated exchanges. Attribution theories describe cognitive processes through which actors construct causal explanations about events around them, typically based on dispositional explanations that point to loci of causality inside the person (e.g., needs or desires) or situational explanations that point to external loci (e.g., terms of a contract). Here, we build on the idea that cohesion develops on the basis of attributions to the relationship (Lawler 2001), distinct from the actors or the situation and “uniquely grounded in the interaction between actors” (Eberly et al. 2011: 4). We present a model of exchange dynamics that specifies how temporal patterns in resource level (how much resource or benefit is exchanged at a time) and exchange frequency (how often benefits are exchanged) affect the development of cohesion by drawing the focus of attributions to or away from the relationship. Our model suggests that the relative merits of “testing the water” versus “taking a leap of faith” depends in part on the nature of the exchange tasks, that is, whether the exchange pattern varies in resource level or exchange frequency.
In his seminal treatise on social exchange, Blau (1964: 92) noted that “processes of social exchange […] generate trust in social relations through their recurrent and gradually expanding character.” Our objective is to provide what is to our knowledge the first direct test of this proposition for cohesion in particular and solidarity in general. Our experiments show that by signaling growing commitment to the relationship, exchanging incrementally in resource level can produce more cohesion than exchanging high and constant levels of benefits (Study 1a). However, exchanging incrementally in frequency produces less cohesion than exchanging at constant frequency by disrupting the flow of sequential exchange (Study 1b). We find the same results when resource level and exchange frequency are varied simultaneously in Study 2. Thus, not all positive interactions contribute to relational cohesion. Exchange patterns that enhance perceptions of trust (i.e., exchanging consistently high levels of benefit) can actually inhibit relational cohesion by drawing the focus of attributions away from the relationship to the exchange partner. Finally, Study 3 uses a vignette to examine the external validity of our findings and relational attributions as a key mechanism underpinning them.
Exchange Theories Of Solidarity
Theoretical Background
Our theoretical framework builds on recent work examining how repeated exchanges create expressive value above and beyond instrumental outcomes of exchange to reinforce solidarity (Lawler 2001; Molm 2010). According to this view, feelings of solidarity – trust, regard and cohesion – are emergent properties of repeated exchanges that actors develop toward one another or the relationship. They are intangible benefits of exchanges that imbue the relationship with affective significance and attach expressive value to the recurring acts of exchange themselves. Following Molm, Collett and Schaefer (2007: 207), we conceptualize cohesion as the “perception of the relationship as a social unit, with actors united in purpose and interests,” trust as “the belief that the exchange partner will not exploit the actor,” and affective regard as “positive feelings for, and evaluations of, the partner.” Solidarity is therefore a multidimensional construct, consisting of both interpersonal (i.e., person-to-person) and relational (i.e., person-to-relation or -group) bonds (Lawler 2001; Molm, Collett and Schaefer 2007). While two people can develop trust, regard or liking for each other without forming a relationship, cohesion contributes directly to the development of enduring relations. In the present research, we focus on cohesion to examine the formation of relational bonds.
Theories of exchange point to causal attribution as a key process that mediates the development of trust regard, and cohesion in exchanges under risk and uncertainty (Lawler 2001; Molm, Takahashi and Peterson 2000; Malhotra and Murnighan 2002; Kramer and Lewicki 2010). Uncertainties about when or whether, how and with whom future interactions might occur are inherent aspects of exchange relations, and reducing such uncertainties by inferring what causes or predicts others' behaviors or exchange outcomes is a fundamental human motivation for making causal attributions in interpersonal relations (Heider 1958). Extending Weiner's (1986) attribution theory of emotions, Lawler (2001) posits that cohesion develops when positive emotions produced by repeated exchange, such as satisfaction, are attributed to the relationship, thus promoting the “we” feeling that creates cohesion. In parallel research, Molm and colleagues (Molm, Collett and Schaefer 2006; Molm, Takahashi and Peterson 2000) describe attributional processes involving cognitive and affective evaluations of the partner or the relationship (rather than diffuse emotions). Actors develop feelings of solidarity and attachment as they attribute to each other positive dispositions or intentions toward mutual benefit and commitment.
A recent debate within this literature has focused on which forms or structural features of exchange are likely to invoke particular attributions to produce cohesion. For instance, Lawler, Thye and Yoon (2008) argue that negotiated exchange entails joint action to share the benefits of exchange, contributing to feelings of “we-ness” more than unilateral, independent acts of giving from one person to another in reciprocal exchange. On the other hand, Molm and colleagues (e.g., Molm, Collett and Schaefer 2007) maintain that dividing resources through bargaining under binding terms of exchange can strain relationships and undermine cohesion by underscoring competitive aspects of exchange.
Exchange Dynamics
In the present research, we veer away from this focus on exchange forms to consider how temporal dynamics or patterns in resource level and exchange frequency affect the development of cohesion in particular and solidarity in general. Research suggests that cohesion develops primarily from the expressive rather than instrumental value of exchange relations (Molm, Collett and Schaefer 2007; Lawler, Thye and Yoon 2008). The instrumental value of exchange includes tangible benefits of exchange and increases monotonically with both resource level (if two people engage in exchanges of increasing value and cost over time) and frequency (if two people exchange more and more often). Thus, insofar as exchanges occur infrequently or partially in the beginning, incremental exchange provides less instrumental value than full, constant exchange. By contrast, factors that affect expressive value are more complicated and context-dependent. Exchange research over the past two decades has made focused efforts to identify how and when various structures or attributes of exchange relations create expressive value, including the exchange task (Molm, Schaefer and Collett 2007), type of resources (Schaefer 2009; Kollock 1994), degree of uncertainty (Yamagishi et al. 1998), power-dependence (Lawler and Yoon 1998), network size (Molm, Collett and Schaefer 2007) and exchange frequency (Lawler and Yoon 1996).
While most such studies have focused on static or aggregate – rather than dynamic and endogenous – features of repeated exchanges, we examine how cohesive bonds develop through acts of exchange varying in exchange patterns or trajectory over time as such relations evolve – gradually or quickly – from initial interactions to increasing commitment to relational stability. To this end, we develop an attribution model of exchange dynamics extending Harold Kelley's (1967) classic work. The model describes how exchange patterns create or inhibit cohesion by shaping causal attributions and inferences actors make to understand and resolve uncertainties about each other's exchange decisions and actions as well as commitment to the relationship. Notably, this model specifies relational attribution as a theoretically novel form of attribution to neither the person observed nor the situation, but the emergent relationship. Based on this model, we predict when incremental exchange invokes positive attributions to the relationship, promoting cohesion, relative to constant exchange.
An Attributional Model of Exchange Dynamics
A major focus of attribution analysis is theorizing where causal uncertainties come from and how actors resolve them by tracing the cause of observed events or behaviors to relevant objects. To this end, theories of attribution typically identify three objects of attribution: the person being observed, the specific object or context to which the person is reacting, and the broader situation within which the interaction or behavior is occurring (Kelly 1967). In our analysis of dyadic exchange relations, the relevant objects are the disposition of the actors, the relationship and the extra-relational situation. Disposition refers to internal qualities of the person observed, such as personality traits, goals or values that are presumed to underlie a target person's behavior.1 The relationship refers to the intra-relational context of exchange, including the nature of the exchange tasks, rules and norms of conduct, or how the relationship is actually developing. The situation refers to aspects of the external environment in which the relationship is unfolding, including the physical space as well as alternate exchange opportunities.
These objects range from internal to external: internal if the object is the disposition of the exchange partner and progressively more external as it moves beyond the person. Although attribution theory has traditionally focused on individuals as the primary unit of analysis and characterized everything outside of them as external, sociological perspectives recognize social beings as neither over- nor under-socialized, but embedded in concrete social relations (Granovetter 1985). In this view, relationships are emergent objects of social interactions, distinct from the external situation and actors themselves (Granovetter 1985; Lawler 2001; Martin 2009; Eberly et al. 2011). Thus, the exchange relation is more external than the disposition but more internal than the situation insofar as each actor has some influence over endogenous norms, decisions and dynamics of exchanges, but comparatively less control over situational factors outside of the relationship. In extending the logic of attribution to exchange theory, then, our main theoretical contribution is specifying how incremental versus constant patterns in exchange frequency and level invoke attributions to the relationship in particular.
Our key proposition is that, compared with constant exchange patterns, exchanging incrementally in resource level invokes positive attributions to the relation, reinforcing cohesion, but exchanging incrementally in frequency inhibits them, reducing cohesion. This proposition rests on three key claims. First, which component of solidarity develops depends on which objects become salient and relevant for attributions. For instance, trust can develop on the basis of either dispositional attributions (“He seems trustworthy”) or relational attributions (“We have a strong relationship”), but may be inhibited by situational attributions if acts of trustworthiness are attributed to external constraints such as contracts rather than the person's goodwill (Malhotra and Murnighan 2002; Molm, Takahashi and Peterson 2000). Cohesion, on the other hand, develops specifically on the basis of positive attributions to the relationship, because cohesion concerns a sense of unity or “we-ness” based on the perceived strength of relational bonds (Lawler 2001). Thus, although trust and cohesion are typically correlated, they can develop separately. It is possible, for instance, to trust relative strangers without forming relational bonds. In fact, attributions to the person or other objects may actually undermine cohesion by drawing the focus of attributions away from the relationship.
Our second claim, however, is that actors may not necessarily make attributions to the relationship if other units of exchange are also salient as competing objects of attributions. Patterns in resource level and exchange frequency create attributional tension between different units because they entail different decisions: resource level concerns decisions about how much to give, whereas exchange frequency concerns decisions about whether to give (Molm, Collett and Schaefer 2006). In turn, how much to give implicates the partner and the relationship whereas whether to give implicates the relationship and the situation. This is because how much to give is a decision that occurs inside the relation about how to allocate benefits between the self and the other, while whether to give is a decision that occurs outside the relation about whether to enter the relation or not (and pursue another exchange opportunity).
In turn, our third claim is that how actors resolve attributional tension between different objects and focus on the relationship follows Kelley's (1967, 1972) covariation model of attribution, which suggests that behaviors and actions that occur consistently across time and space invoke relatively more internal attributions than those that occur less consistently. Internal objects are generally assumed to be more stable and inherent causes or bases of behaviors than external objects and, thus, more likely to induce consistent actions across situations (Heider 1958).2 In exchange relations, this assumption implies that dispositions are likely to be perceived as more stable than relations or situations. Likewise, relations are likely to be perceived as more stable than situations, insofar as actors commit to the same partners to reduce the risks and uncertainties of one-shot exchanges (Kollock 1994).
Taken together, the three claims suggest that the degree to which exchange patterns invoke attributions to the relationship depends directly on (1. whether the exchange pattern varies in resource level or frequency and (2. whether the exchange pattern is incremental or constant. Figure 1 illustrates our model. The arrows link patterns in resource level and frequency to different targets of attribution that range from internal to external, depending on whether the exchange pattern is constant or incremental. Below, we develop more specific hypotheses about how incremental vs. constant exchange patterns might affect the development of cohesion.
Attributional Model of Exchange Dynamics: Constant Versus Incremental Exchange Patterns in Resource Level (Figure 1a) and Exchange Frequency (Figure 1b) Determine Which Units of Exchange—Ranging From Internal to External—Are Likely to Become Primary (But Not Exclusive) Targets of Attributions
Incremental Exchange in Resource Level
Figure 1a illustrates our first hypothesis regarding exchange patterns in resource level. As discussed, uncertainties that stem from exchange patterns in resource level create attributional tension between the disposition of the partner and the relation. In turn, the covariation model predicts consistency in resource level to direct the focus of attributions internally to the partner's disposition, while behaviors that change or increase across time will draw the focus more externally to the relation. For example, person A who is consistently generous with gifts or favors from the beginning of a relationship may be generous by disposition, but person B who eventually becomes equally generous, but gradually so, is more likely to be perceived as generous in the context of a growing relationship in which trust and commitment are earned gradually and given reciprocally. We may still make inferences about B's dispositions (e.g., “He must be shy”), but dispositional accounts alone fail to make sense of his increasing generosity. Instead, the basis of our inferences will become more relational as his behavior changes over time to signal increasing commitment to the relationship (e.g., “He is shy, but we have grown closer”). Thus, while person A's generosity might invoke trust and other positive attributions to his or her disposition, it is in the relationship with person B that we are more likely to experience cohesion.
Hypothesis 1: Exchanging incrementally in resource level will produce more relational cohesion than will exchanging constantly at a high resource level.
This prediction stands in apparent contrast to previous research. Pillutla, Malhotra and Murnighan (2003) show that entrusting less than the full amount in trust exchange undermines reciprocity by signaling distrust toward the partner. In their study, participants playing trust games felt exponentially less obligation to reciprocate the less they received from the trustor. Molm, Collett and Schaefer (2006:2335) also argue that sending less than the full amount of resources in gift exchange situations signifies an act of commission directed at the partner and heightens perceptions of conflict that erode solidarity. However, Pillutla, Malhotra and Murnighan (2003) studied only one-shot interactions, and Molm, Collett and Schaefer (2006) did not manipulate exchange patterns over time. Our goal is to qualify these studies by introducing a temporal element in understanding social exchange. We claim that exchanges that are originally partial but incremental in resource level over time will be construed as signaling increasing commitment and cohesion in spite of what may initially be perceived as distrust.
Incremental Exchange in Exchange Frequency
Our second hypothesis is that the positive effect of incremental exchange on cohesion that we predict for resource level may not hold – or may reverse – for exchange frequency. In contrast to the case for resource level, uncertainties that stem from exchange patterns in frequency create attributional tension between the relation and the situation. According to Figure 1b, this leads to an external shift in the locus of causal uncertainty away from the disposition–relation toward the relation–situation. Between the relation and the situation, exchanging at constant, full frequency should invoke internal attributions to the relation as a source of stability, predictability and mutual commitment.
Relational attributions may be less likely when exchanges occur incrementally in frequency, however. Whereas exchanging incrementally in resource level comprises a sequence of partial but increasing investments (at full frequency), exchanging incrementally in frequency comprises a series of interactions and noninteractions. In turn, while exchanging partial amounts of resources amounts to “a glass half full” that signals a certain willingness to take risks and invest in the relationship, noninteractions are less likely to signify such intent: one cannot “test the water” by avoiding it (Fetchenhauer and Dunning 2010). Thus, although exchanging at increasing frequency – exchanging more and more often – might signal growing commitment, it also creates sporadic or intermittent exchanges that may reduce the relative salience of the relationship by disrupting the continuity of sequential exchanges (Molm et al. 2007). The net effect of these patterns – increasing frequency versus intermittent exchanges – is that observers are more likely to look to the situation (e.g., alternative exchange opportunities) to make sense of the intermittent interactions.
Hypothesis 2: Exchanging incrementally in frequency will produce less relational cohesion than will exchanging at constant frequency.
Our second hypothesis also speaks to recent work. Molm, Collett and Schaefer (2007) found that constant and immediate reciprocity produces more solidarity than intermittent reciprocity. However, the question remains whether this is still the case when exchanges are incremental in frequency – that is, less and less intermittent. There is some suggestive evidence that exchanging at increasing frequency promotes cohesion. In earlier work, Molm, Takahashi and Peterson (2000) reported higher levels of interpersonal trust in exchange relations that developed gradually than those in which commitment stabilized early. They speculate that “the slow transformation of the reciprocal exchange relations, from uncertainty and instability to mutual predictability and benefit, produced the particularly high levels of trust” (p. 1424). However, the exchange patterns in their study were endogenous and therefore could reflect the reverse causality of high trust enabling increasingly frequent exchange over time. Further, their study did not examine cohesion, only trust.
Joint Effects of Exchange Frequency and Resource Level
Our first two hypotheses concern whether exchange patterns in resource level or exchange frequency have independent effects on cohesion, holding the other constant. In reality, exchange relations often vary in both resource level and frequency, thus invoking dispositional, relational and situational attributions at once. Our final question thus concerns how different combinations of exchange patterns in resource level and frequency affect cohesion. According to Kelly (1972), when different variables (e.g., resource level and frequency) are observed concurrently, they can converge on a unique effect, or point to divergent causes (e.g., relation or disposition) and diminish the significance of either cause. Figure 2 summarizes how exchange patterns in level and frequency link to different targets of attributions. Inside each cell are targets of attributions as predicted by Hypotheses 1 and 2, indicating whether attributions point to convergent or divergent targets.
Exchange Patterns and Corresponding Targets of Attributions, as Predicted by Hypotheses 1 (Resource Level) and 2 (Exchange Frequency)
As shown, exchange patterns that are constant in both frequency and level point to the disposition (Hypothesis 1) and the relation (Hypothesis 2) as divergent causes, reducing relational attributions. Exchange patterns that are incremental in both resource level and frequency point to the situation and the relation as two probable causes, also reducing relational attributions. Exchange patterns that are incremental in frequency but constant in level point to the situation and disposition, invoking no relational attributions. Only exchange patterns that are incremental in resource level but constant in frequency point to the relation as the convergent cause.
Hypothesis 3: Exchange patterns that are incremental in resource level but constant in frequency will produce greater cohesion than other exchange patterns.
We tested each of our hypotheses in laboratory studies based on Figures 1a, 1b and 2. Study 1 examined main effects of resource level and exchange frequency separately. Study 2 crossed exchange patterns in exchange level with frequency to test for interaction effects. Study 3 employed a vignette survey to examine relational attribution as a key mechanism underpinning our predictions and to lend external validity to our endeavor.
It is worth noting the scope of our model. First, all three of our hypotheses concern relational cohesion rather than solidarity in general or its other subcomponents, trust and affective regard. We focus on cohesion because it is the most relational component of solidarity and has received particular attention by exchange theorists (Molm, Collett and Schaefer 2007; Lawler, Thye and Yoon 2000; Lawler and Yoon 1996; Lawler and Yoon 1998; Schaefer and Kornienko 2009; Schaefer 2009). We measured feelings of trust and affective regard for exploratory purposes.
Second, our model pertains to attributions based on exchange patterns only. In many situations, people offer alternative accounts for their exchange decisions. For example, people often make excuses for their tardiness by making situational attributions (“Sorry, the train was late.”) to discount dispositional (“Why is he so unreliable?”) or relational (“Does he disrespect me?”) inferences. Such explanations may weaken or override the effects of actual exchange patterns, or they may be dismissed as cheap talk. Understanding how exchange patterns affect solidarity is important insofar as people often make inferences about each other from each other's actions in the absence of, or regardless of, other causal explanations.
Study 1: Main Effects of Resource Level Versus Exchange Frequency
One hundred students (39% male, 18-35 years old), recruited from mailing lists for a 45-minute study, participated in return for cash. Each session comprised four to eight mixed-sex participants. Upon entering the laboratory, they were seated separately in a cubicle with a computer terminal. After signing a consent form and reading detailed instructions to ensure complete understanding of the experimental task, participants were randomly assigned to either the constant or incremental exchange condition.
Exchange Tasks
Participants performed a series of “reciprocal exchange” tasks (Molm, Takahashi and Peterson 2000) with an anonymous partner, taking turns playing the role of the sender and receiver for 30 rounds. In each round, one player (the sender) received an endowment of E points (ranging randomly from 6 to 12 points) and decided how much (Study 1a) or whether to (Study 1b) give to the other (the receiver). In the next round, the roles were reversed. Points sent to the receiver, S ≤ E, were multiplied by 1.5, while remaining points not sent to the receiver, E - S, were automatically spent on a lottery, which earned 1.5(E – S) with 50 percent probability and E – S (no additional profit) otherwise.3 Thus, keeping points earned an expected profit of 1.25(E-S), while sending points to the partner earned no immediate profit.4 We focused on reciprocal exchange because its sequential nature – whether or how much I reciprocate depends in part on what you gave me – suggests that temporal exchange patterns may be more consequential than in negotiated exchange comprising discrete, transactional exchanges (Molm, Takahashi and Peterson 2000).
Experimental Manipulations
In Study 1, we examined resource level and exchange frequency separately to test for their main effects posited in Figure 1. To this end, the partner in each dyad was programmed (unbeknownst to the participant) to exchange either incrementally or constantly. We operationalized constant exchange as full exchange at 100 percent level or frequency to create the strongest test of our hypotheses, namely, to test whether incremental exchange can produce more cohesion than the exchange pattern that produces maximum instrumental value.
In Study 1a (resource level), the simulated partner in constant-level exchange was programmed to entrust the maximum possible points in all rounds. In incremental-level exchange, the simulated partner entrusted one third of the endowment initially, gradually increasing the resources given to the full amount of the endowment by round 15.5 The simulated partner was always assigned to be the sender in round one to “set the tone.”
Study 1b (frequency) was procedurally identical except as follows. First, the exchange task allowed only binary, send-or-keep-all decisions to hold resource level constant. In the constant exchange condition, the partner sent the full endowment to the participant in every round. In the incremental exchange condition, the partner sent points at a 33 percent chance during the first 30 rounds and at a 100 percent chance in every round thereafter. Second, to rule out the possibility that exchanging incrementally in frequency undermines cohesion simply because of the reduced number of exchanges (rather than the rate of exchange), we added a third condition (incremental-long). This condition provided additional rounds of nonintermittent exchange at the end, such that the total number of actual offers from the partner was the same in aggregate as in the constant exchange condition. Specifically, there were 50 exchange rounds in the constant and incremental conditions and 62 in the incremental-long condition. Using these conditions, we can see if incremental patterns in frequency produce less cohesion because of intermittent interactions or because of reduced exchange opportunities in the aggregate.
Measures and Analyses
After the exchange rounds, participants were asked to complete a post-study questionnaire consisting of 7-point Likert-scales on feelings of solidarity, based on Lawler and Yoon (1996, 1998), Molm, Takahashi and Peterson (2000), and Molm, Collett and Schaefer (2007). Items for cohesion, the main dependent variable, concerned feelings toward the exchange relation. Participants indicated how close/distant, cohesive/incohesive and team-/self-oriented their exchange relationship felt. Items on trust and affective regard concerned participants' evaluation of their exchange partner. For trust, participants reported how much they trusted/distrusted their partner and how trustworthy/untrustworthy, reliable/unreliable and predictable/unpredictable they found their partner. For affective regard, participants indicated how cooperative/uncooperative they found their partner and how positive/negative and pleased/displeased they felt towards their partner. All inter-scale reliability coefficients reached .85 in all studies. In factor analysis, cohesion emerged as a distinct factor from trust and affective regard.
As a manipulation check, we included a question about how cautious or incautious participants found their partner (“How cautious was your partner, in your opinion?”). If the exchange patterns are sufficiently salient, participants in incremental exchange conditions should perceive their partners to be more cautious; they did for each study. We also examined the actual patterns of exchange to ensure that participants behaved differently in incremental vs. constant exchange conditions; they did.
To obtain a behavioral measure of cooperation, we announced the final two rounds on the computer screen to induce end-game effects. In the penultimate round, the partner received an endowment of 10 points and sent all 10 points. In the very last round, the participants also received an endowment of 10 points as the sender. Because there is no instrumental reason to send points in the last round, this amount is presumed to reflect the level of cohesion, i.e., their commitment to and identification with the relationship, rather than trust (Lawler, Thye and Yoon 2000).
To test our hypotheses, we performed mean comparisons using Mann-Whitney tests and ordinary least squares regression controlling for participants' age, gender and race. Effects of these controls were nonsignificant or inconsistent in all studies and are thus not reported. We also controlled for total earnings. Because the earning potential differed between the incremental and constant conditions, we measured relative earning (difference between the participant's earning and the average earning within each condition). The results we report control for relative earnings, but are robust to excluding it.
Results and Discussion
Table 1 reports the unadjusted means and standard deviations of our dependent and control variables by experimental conditions. Participants in Study 1a perceived their partners as more cautious in the incremental than the constant condition (z = 3.37, p < .01), validating the manipulation.
Means and Standard Deviations, Study 1: Main Effects of Resource Level and Exchange Frequency
| Study | Exchange Pattern | Cautious | Cohesion | Trust | Regard | Sent in Last Rounda |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1a: Resource Level | Constant | 3.41 (1.70) | 3.84 (.72) | 5.02 (.86) | 5.27 (.86) | 1.18 (.22) |
| Incremental | 5.47** (1.23) | 4.61* (.85) | 5.35 (.89) | 5.32 (1.26) | 3.29+ (.40) | |
| 1b: Exchange Frequency | Constant | 4.61 (1.85) | 5.20 (1.22) | 6.00 (0.84) | 5.81 (1.00) | .33 (.49) |
| Incremental | 5.61+ (1.19) | 4.24* (1.10) | 5.02* (1.18) | 4.98+ (1.33) | .11 (.32) | |
| Incremental long | 5.60* (.75) | 4.40* (1.02) | 5.30+ (1.02) | 5.12* (.96) | .16 (.38) |
| Study | Exchange Pattern | Cautious | Cohesion | Trust | Regard | Sent in Last Rounda |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1a: Resource Level | Constant | 3.41 (1.70) | 3.84 (.72) | 5.02 (.86) | 5.27 (.86) | 1.18 (.22) |
| Incremental | 5.47** (1.23) | 4.61* (.85) | 5.35 (.89) | 5.32 (1.26) | 3.29+ (.40) | |
| 1b: Exchange Frequency | Constant | 4.61 (1.85) | 5.20 (1.22) | 6.00 (0.84) | 5.81 (1.00) | .33 (.49) |
| Incremental | 5.61+ (1.19) | 4.24* (1.10) | 5.02* (1.18) | 4.98+ (1.33) | .11 (.32) | |
| Incremental long | 5.60* (.75) | 4.40* (1.02) | 5.30+ (1.02) | 5.12* (.96) | .16 (.38) |
Notes: Asterisks denote differences from the constant condition in Mann-Whitney two-tailed tests, +p <.1 *p < .05 **p < .01.
a Out of 10 points, 1a; % of Participants, 1b.
Means and Standard Deviations, Study 1: Main Effects of Resource Level and Exchange Frequency
| Study | Exchange Pattern | Cautious | Cohesion | Trust | Regard | Sent in Last Rounda |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1a: Resource Level | Constant | 3.41 (1.70) | 3.84 (.72) | 5.02 (.86) | 5.27 (.86) | 1.18 (.22) |
| Incremental | 5.47** (1.23) | 4.61* (.85) | 5.35 (.89) | 5.32 (1.26) | 3.29+ (.40) | |
| 1b: Exchange Frequency | Constant | 4.61 (1.85) | 5.20 (1.22) | 6.00 (0.84) | 5.81 (1.00) | .33 (.49) |
| Incremental | 5.61+ (1.19) | 4.24* (1.10) | 5.02* (1.18) | 4.98+ (1.33) | .11 (.32) | |
| Incremental long | 5.60* (.75) | 4.40* (1.02) | 5.30+ (1.02) | 5.12* (.96) | .16 (.38) |
| Study | Exchange Pattern | Cautious | Cohesion | Trust | Regard | Sent in Last Rounda |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1a: Resource Level | Constant | 3.41 (1.70) | 3.84 (.72) | 5.02 (.86) | 5.27 (.86) | 1.18 (.22) |
| Incremental | 5.47** (1.23) | 4.61* (.85) | 5.35 (.89) | 5.32 (1.26) | 3.29+ (.40) | |
| 1b: Exchange Frequency | Constant | 4.61 (1.85) | 5.20 (1.22) | 6.00 (0.84) | 5.81 (1.00) | .33 (.49) |
| Incremental | 5.61+ (1.19) | 4.24* (1.10) | 5.02* (1.18) | 4.98+ (1.33) | .11 (.32) | |
| Incremental long | 5.60* (.75) | 4.40* (1.02) | 5.30+ (1.02) | 5.12* (.96) | .16 (.38) |
Notes: Asterisks denote differences from the constant condition in Mann-Whitney two-tailed tests, +p <.1 *p < .05 **p < .01.
a Out of 10 points, 1a; % of Participants, 1b.
The results provide clear support for Hypothesis 1. As Table 1 shows, cohesion was greater in the incremental exchange condition (z = 2.47, p =.01). Regression also found a positive significant effect of incremental exchange (β = .84, p < .01) on cohesion. Finally, as a token of cohesion (Lawler, Thye and Yoon 2000), those in the incremental exchange condition gave more points to the partner in the last round: 3.3 points on average compared to 1.2 in the constant exchange condition (z = 1.67, p =.09).
Results of the present study provide clear support for Hypothesis 2 as well: constant exchange in frequency produced greater cohesion than either incremental exchange (z = 2.51, p = .012) or incremental-long conditions (z = 2.13, p = .033). Regression shows that the effect of the incremental conditions are both significant and negative (β = -89, p = .033 for the incremental condition; β = -.81, p = .04 for the incremental-long condition) relative to the constant-exchange condition as the baseline. No statistically significant difference was found between the two incremental exchange conditions. In the end-game, each incremental condition obtained a negative effect (β = -.22, p =.01 for the incremental condition; β = -.21, p =.09 for the incremental-long condition) in regression, although neither was significantly different in bivariate tests.
A concern remains as to whether our comparisons to constant and maximum exchange as our baseline generalize to other functional forms of constant exchange. Particularly in Study 1b, a reasonable question is whether incremental exchange in frequency produced less cohesion than constant-frequency because of the incremental pattern or intermittency. Our theory suggests, however, that intermittency and incremental patterns have opposite effects: increasing frequency is likely to reinforce cohesion, while intermittent exchange is likely to undermine cohesion. Thus, we know which effect is lowering cohesion in incremental exchange. Furthermore, the two conditions (constant vs. incremental exchange) suffice to demonstrate our primary theoretical prediction: that incremental exchange in frequency does not have the same net effect on cohesion as does incremental exchange in resource size.
Although exploratory, our results for trust and regard, as shown in Table 1, support our claim that these interpersonal dimensions of solidarity can develop on the basis of both dispositional and relational attributions. On the one hand, Study 1a found no significant difference in levels of trust (z = 1.10, p = .29) or regard (z = .94, p = .35), suggesting that exchange patterns that shift the locus of attribution from the disposition (e.g., in constant exchange) to the relation (e.g., in incremental exchange) do not affect feelings of trust and affective regard in the same way or to the same extent that they affect cohesion. Conversely, Study 1b suggests that by drawing attributions to the situation rather than to dispositional or relational factors, incremental exchange in frequency inhibits the development of solidarity altogether, such that trust and regard now follow the same pattern as cohesion (higher in the constant condition than in the incremental conditions). In regression, both of the incremental conditions obtained negative effects on trust (β = -86, p = .019 in the incremental condition; β = -.62, p =.074 in the incremental-long condition) and regard (β = -.80, p. = .04 in the incremental condition; β = -.76, p =.036 in the incremental-long condition).
Study 2: Joint Effects of Exchange Frequency and Resource Level
In Study 1, we manipulated resource level (Study 1a) or frequency (Study 1b) while holding the other fixed. However, many exchange relations vary in both resource level and frequency, thus invoking dispositional, relational and situational attributions simultaneously. Study 2 was designed to vary both resource level and frequency.
Design and Procedures
Ninety-five participants (49 male, 18-34 years old) were randomly assigned to a condition in a 2 × 2 factorial design crossing exchange patterns (incremental vs. constant) in resource level versus frequency. In all conditions, participants completed 50 rounds of exchange with a simulated partner. As in Study 1, the sender received an endowment and decided how many points to send. Unlike in Study 1, it was possible to offer no points, and such instances were announced to the participant as nonexchanges instead of 0 points to make exchange frequency salient. Endowment was 12 points to ensure that incremental patterns in resource level were discernible enough despite disruptions by noninteractions. In the constant condition, the exchange partner was programmed to send the entire endowment to the participant in every round (unless the participant defected in the previous round). In the incremental level (and constant frequency) condition, the partner sent 30 percent of each endowment in the beginning. In the incremental frequency (and constant level) condition, the partner sent the entire endowment with 30 percent probability in the beginning. In the incremental level x incremental frequency condition, the exchange partner sent 30 percent of the endowment with 30 percent probability. In all incremental level and frequency conditions, the exchange partner increased to full resource level and/or frequency by round 25. All other procedures were identical to Studies 1 and 2.
Results and Discussion
Table 2 summarizes the means and standard deviations. As shown, cohesion was the highest in the incremental level x constant frequency condition and lowest in the constant level x incremental frequency condition. Note that this pattern can be produced by either an interaction effect or additive effects of exchange patterns in resource level and frequency. Regression produced a positive main effect of exchanging at constant frequency (β = .72, p < .05) and a negative main effect of exchanging constant level (β = -.66, p < .05), but no interaction effect. Thus, exchanging incrementally in resource level produced more cohesion, whether the exchange pattern in frequency was constant or incremental. Conversely, exchanging incrementally in frequency produced less cohesion, whether the exchange pattern in level was constant or incremental. Exchanges in the last round evidenced convergent patterns. Regression revealed a positive effect of constant exchange frequency (β = .18, p = .03) and a negative effect of constant exchange level (β = -.20, p = .02), but no interaction effect.
Means and Standard Deviations, Study 2 (Exchange Frequency x Resource Level)
| Exchange Pattern | Cautious | Cohesion | Trust | Regard | Sent in Last Rounda |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant level x constant frequency | 4.28 | 4.43 | 5.30 | 5.41 | 5.36 |
| (1.17) | (1.15) | (1.16) | (1.06) | (5.10) | |
| Incremental level x constant frequency | 5.04* | 5.22* | 4.96 | 5.22 | 6.88 |
| (1.52) | (.97) | (1.20) | (1.35) | (5.29) | |
| Constant level x incremental frequency | 4.92+ | 3.79+ | 4.5** | 4.60** | 2.54* |
| (1.22) | (1.04) | (1.03) | (1.12) | (4.36) | |
| Inc. level x incremental frequency | 5.09* | 4.50 | 3.82** | 4.45** | 5.27 |
| (1.77) | (.93) | (.85) | (.91) | (5.37) |
| Exchange Pattern | Cautious | Cohesion | Trust | Regard | Sent in Last Rounda |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant level x constant frequency | 4.28 | 4.43 | 5.30 | 5.41 | 5.36 |
| (1.17) | (1.15) | (1.16) | (1.06) | (5.10) | |
| Incremental level x constant frequency | 5.04* | 5.22* | 4.96 | 5.22 | 6.88 |
| (1.52) | (.97) | (1.20) | (1.35) | (5.29) | |
| Constant level x incremental frequency | 4.92+ | 3.79+ | 4.5** | 4.60** | 2.54* |
| (1.22) | (1.04) | (1.03) | (1.12) | (4.36) | |
| Inc. level x incremental frequency | 5.09* | 4.50 | 3.82** | 4.45** | 5.27 |
| (1.77) | (.93) | (.85) | (.91) | (5.37) |
Notes: Asterisks denote differences from the constant x constant condition in Mann-Whitney two-tailed tests, +p < .1 *p < .05 **p < .01.
a Out of 12 points.
Means and Standard Deviations, Study 2 (Exchange Frequency x Resource Level)
| Exchange Pattern | Cautious | Cohesion | Trust | Regard | Sent in Last Rounda |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant level x constant frequency | 4.28 | 4.43 | 5.30 | 5.41 | 5.36 |
| (1.17) | (1.15) | (1.16) | (1.06) | (5.10) | |
| Incremental level x constant frequency | 5.04* | 5.22* | 4.96 | 5.22 | 6.88 |
| (1.52) | (.97) | (1.20) | (1.35) | (5.29) | |
| Constant level x incremental frequency | 4.92+ | 3.79+ | 4.5** | 4.60** | 2.54* |
| (1.22) | (1.04) | (1.03) | (1.12) | (4.36) | |
| Inc. level x incremental frequency | 5.09* | 4.50 | 3.82** | 4.45** | 5.27 |
| (1.77) | (.93) | (.85) | (.91) | (5.37) |
| Exchange Pattern | Cautious | Cohesion | Trust | Regard | Sent in Last Rounda |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant level x constant frequency | 4.28 | 4.43 | 5.30 | 5.41 | 5.36 |
| (1.17) | (1.15) | (1.16) | (1.06) | (5.10) | |
| Incremental level x constant frequency | 5.04* | 5.22* | 4.96 | 5.22 | 6.88 |
| (1.52) | (.97) | (1.20) | (1.35) | (5.29) | |
| Constant level x incremental frequency | 4.92+ | 3.79+ | 4.5** | 4.60** | 2.54* |
| (1.22) | (1.04) | (1.03) | (1.12) | (4.36) | |
| Inc. level x incremental frequency | 5.09* | 4.50 | 3.82** | 4.45** | 5.27 |
| (1.77) | (.93) | (.85) | (.91) | (5.37) |
Notes: Asterisks denote differences from the constant x constant condition in Mann-Whitney two-tailed tests, +p < .1 *p < .05 **p < .01.
a Out of 12 points.
The results for trust and affect were also consistent with our previous results. Trust decreased with incremental exchange in frequency (β = -1.24, p < .01), but was unaffected by the exchange patterns in resource level (β = .29, p = .39). Similarly, affect decreased with incremental exchange in frequency (β = -1.02, p < .01) but was unaffected by the exchange patterns in resource level (β = .15, p = .68). No interaction effect was found for either trust or affect. Taken together, these results converge directly with our results from Study 1 and show that relational attributions, more than dispositional attributions, are critical for the emergence of cohesion.
Study 3: Relational Attributions in Workplace Relations
Although Studies 1 and 2 offer convergent support for our hypotheses, at least two limitations remain. First, they were laboratory studies designed to test internal validity, at the expense of external validity. Second, neither study examined relational attributions directly. To address these issues, we conducted a vignette survey employing a more diverse and representative sample.
Design and Procedures
One hundred and sixty participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) to respond to a vignette about a workplace relationship. AMT has become a popular tool among researchers for quickly recruiting heterogeneous participants outside the laboratory for simple studies. Studies show significant convergence between results from AMT and lab experiments (Buhrmester, Kwang and Gosling 2011; Mason and Suri 2010).
The vignette described the development of a new workplace relationship during the participant's first year as a programmer at an information systems company. Specifically, the scenario described reciprocal exchange of work-related favors (help writing code and debugging) between the participant and a coworker (androgenously named L) during this first year. In the resource level conditions, the scenario described how the participant and this coworker either began exchanging high value favors immediately and regularly upon meeting each other (constant resource level) or began exchanging favors that grew in extent and cost over the course of the year (incremental resource level). In the frequency conditions, the scenario described how they and this coworker either began exchanging favors of moderate value regularly starting their first week on the job (constant frequency) or instead began exchanging favors occasionally but increasingly frequently over the course of the year (incremental frequency). Each participant read one of these four versions. Manipulation checks confirmed that participants perceived the relationship to have “grown” more significantly in the incremental conditions (both p < .01). Because we found no interaction effects in Study 2, we examined resource level and exchange frequency separately.
After reading their scenario, participants responded to follow-up questions assessing how they would feel about their relationship with L. Two questions asked how committed and close they would feel toward L. Questions on attribution concerned the extent to which they would attribute L's behavior over the course of the year to L's personality, something about how the relationship developed, or something about their workplace. Finally, participants were asked to choose which of the three potential explanations was the most significant factor affecting how they would feel about their relationship with L.
Results and Discussion
Our findings are three-fold. First, consistent with Studies 1 and 2, participants in the vignette study reported greater cohesion (felt more committed and close) in incremental-level than constant-level exchange (4.325 > 3.938, z = 2.114, p < .05) but less cohesion in incremental than constant frequency exchange (z = 1.996, p < .05). These results lend external validity, extending results from our lab studies to a more heterogeneous population in a real-world (albeit hypothetical) context.
Second, turning to measures of attribution, more participants pointed to the relationship as the most important factor affecting their feelings of cohesion in incremental-level than constant-level exchange and in constant than incremental-frequency exchange (both p < .05, Fisher's exact test). Finally, participants reported that their feelings of cohesion were affected more by the relationship than by the partner's disposition in incremental-level exchange, t(39) = 2.10, p < .05, but not in constant-level exchange, and more by the relationship than the situation in constant-frequency exchange (t(39) = 2.60, p < .05) but not in incremental-frequency exchange. These results highlight relational attribution as an important mechanism underlying the development of cohesion.
General Discussion
According to Blau (1964), feelings of solidarity emerge from social exchange through “recurrent and gradually expanding” exchanges. Although much research has tested the importance of recurrent exchanges (Lawler 2001), the present research, to our knowledge, is the first to directly examine how gradually expanding exchanges affect trust, regard and cohesion. Some exchange relations begin slowly and cautiously as actors hedge against exploitation and “test the water,” while other relations settle quickly into high-stakes exchange in a “leap of faith.” Our research indicates that these early exchange patterns have significant implications for how actors come to view both each other and the relationship.
Our starting point was the notion that cohesion develops on the basis of attributions to the relationship. However, we proposed that the extent to which the relationship actually becomes the object of attributions depends on two key factors. First, the nature of exchange decisions – that is, how much versus whether to give – determines which units of exchange – the disposition, relation or situation – become salient targets of attributions. We argued that decisions about how much to give create causal uncertainties between the disposition and the relation (i.e., how trusting the giver is versus how much he values the relation), whereas decisions about whether to give create uncertainties between the relation and the situation (i.e., whether the giver is willing to enter the relationship or pursue an outside option). Second, based on Kelley's (1962) covariation principle, we argued that consistent behavioral patterns invoke attributions focused on more internal objects.
Combined, these factors explain why exchange patterns in resource level and frequency can have opposite effects on cohesion. Our attribution model of exchange dynamics suggests that incremental exchange patterns can promote or inhibit cohesion because the basis of attributional tension shifts from disposition-relation to relation-situation or vice versa, depending on whether exchange patterns vary in resource level or frequency. Thus, as Study 1 showed, exchanging incrementally in resource level draws the focus of causal attributions externally from the partner's disposition to the dynamics of the exchange relation, signifying growing commitment to the relationship and producing higher levels of cohesion relative to exchanging at a constant and high resource level. This result stands in contrast to past findings on hedging. Pillutla, Malhotra and Murnighan (2003) found that offering less than one's entire endowment signals distrust and reduces reciprocation from the partner. However, these researchers examined one-shot interactions only. Our findings suggest that, in repeated exchanges, some initial hedging in resource level is more likely to reinforce relational bonds than is making full offers from the outset. More generally, our results suggest that merely aggregating positive interactions or “simply being linked to others through social networks is not enough” to produce cohesive bonds (Molm, Collett and Schaefer 2007: 215). In other words, maximizing the instrumental value of exchange does not ensure maximum expressive value. Rather, cohesion requires exchange conditions that trigger attributions directed specifically at the relationship.
On the other hand, exchanging incrementally in frequency amounts to intermittent exchanges that inhibit cohesion by drawing attention away from the relationship to the situation and disrupting the transformation of repeated exchanges into something more expressive, symbolic and relational. This finding converges with past research (e.g., Lawler, Thye and Yoon 2000) to highlight the importance of exchange frequency as an essential ingredient, apart from the instrumental benefits of resource levels, in the development of cohesion. Finally, exchange patterns in resource level and frequency can co-vary, but according to our model and results, they have only independent effects on cohesion.
Although exploratory, our results for trust and affective regard converged with cohesion in general but diverged in important ways, consistent with the idea that solidarity comprises distinct components. Specifically, incremental exchange in frequency had the same negative effect on cohesion as well as trust and regard (Study 1b), but exchange patterns in resource level affected cohesion only (Study 1a). These results suggest that, unlike cohesion, trust and affective regard can develop on the basis of attributions to either the relationship or the partner, or both.
We are by no means the first to discuss incremental interaction patterns. For instance, rational choice models of trust building suggest incremental processes in which “trust grows gradually as positive interactions accumulate,” allowing “each party to take successively larger risks as trust grows” (Weber, Mahlotra and Murnighan 2005: 78; also Lewicki and Bunker 1996). Our model of exchange differs from such models in two important ways. First, our question is not about what types of exchange patterns tend to occur naturally, but how they affect feelings of solidarity. Second, our model departs from rational choice models by focusing on how solidarity emerges from expressive value rather than instrumental value of exchange.
Sociological research has focused extensively on networks in stasis, paying far less attention to how individual exchange relations emerge, evolve, stabilize or vanish over time, or to how actors perceive such dynamics. Our research takes an important step towards unpacking the complex microprocesses through which temporal patterns of exchange shape the development of solidarity. Our experiments demonstrate that how actors repeat exchanges – gradually or constantly – has systematic effects on how they come to perceive and identify with their emerging relations. As Blau (1964) proposed, solidarity is most likely when actors invest in each other through “recurrent and gradually expanding” exchanges. We find that this is generally true for trust, but particularly true for cohesion.
Notes
Although we focus on partner-perceptions, our analysis applies to self-perceptions as well. Research suggests that people use substantively similar processes to infer their own attitudes and feelings as they do to infer other people's feelings (Bem 1967).
Kelly (1967) identifies distinctiveness and consensus as additional patterns that induce internal attributions. Research shows that consistency is typically the most important factor (Fiske 2010: 106).
Specifically, participants were told that they “did not have to enter an exchange with your partner and may instead invest in a lottery that represents an alternative exchange partner […] much as if you are diving your time and resources between multiple people.”
Our version of reciprocal exchange departs from the version used by Molm and Lawler by making exchange decisions sequential rather than simultaneous. Our version allows the partner to take the lead more strongly and shape the pattern of exchange.
For realism, preprogrammed exchange partners responded to exploitations (operationalized as participants offering less in absolute and percentage points when they could have sent more than received) by reducing offers by 2-3 points or withholding offers with 65 percent probability in the next round. Participants defected in 18 percent of all transactions in Study 1a, 37 percent in Study 1b and 34 percent in Study 2. Defection in Study 1a was lower because it precluded noninteractions (i.e., points were exchanged in every round by design).
