Ideal Reciprocity

IDEAL RECIPROCITY: FROM SOCIAL EXCHANGE TO SOCIAL CHANGE 1

Ideal Reciprocity: From Social Exchange to Social Change

Jessica R. Dreistadt

BUSA 770: Advancement, Fundraising, and Philanthropy for the Nonprofit

Eastern University

August 10, 2012


Ideal Reciprocity: From Social Exchange to Social Change

Introduction

Reciprocity is most often conceptualized as a natural and effective means to

maintain social equilibrium. This paper will explore the political, economic, neurological,

emotional, normative, deontological, and contextual aspects of reciprocity and related

implications for fundraising practice. This will lead to the introduction of a new construct,

ideal reciprocity, and its two branches: existential and communal. The paradigm of ideal

reciprocity will be promoted as a means to advance individual organizations and the

nonprofit sector, leading to positive social change.

Reciprocity: A Multidisciplinary Understanding

The literature on reciprocity is rich and diverse. Scholars in political science,

economics, neurology, psychology, sociology, and anthropology have made significant

contributions to our understanding of this phenomenon. Reciprocity is typically

understood as a means of social exchange that uses economic and/or symbolic

currency to maintain social equilibrium. Development professionals can glean great

insights from the literature to improve fundraising practice. Yet, the literature also points

to the possibilities of viewing reciprocity in terms of the generative potential of

egalitarian relationships.

Political Economy of Reciprocity

Reciprocity is an exchange of economic, social, or symbolic value (Lebra, 1975;


Schieffelin, 1980; Shuman, 2000). At any given moment in time, there is an imbalance

of exchange and reciprocal action seeks to restore equilibrium (Leifer, 1988). While

reciprocity is usually understood as an exchange between two or among three people, it

can also transpire between individuals and organizations or between organizations.

When donors make charitable contributions, it is much more than a financial transaction

from donor to recipient. Such giving holds great symbolic power, often rooted in

emotion, and with it comes the expectation that some benefit will accrue to the donor,

the community, or the cause. The purpose of much charitable giving is to alleviate

discrepancies between those who are doing well, and have the means to give, and

those who need assistance, and benefit from a service provided by the organization to

which funds are entrusted.

Social exchanges are influenced, in part, by the value brought by each participant

and the expected beneficial outcomes to both (DiDomenico, Tracey, & Hough, 2009).

Reciprocity is influenced by the perceived equity of redistributive transactions (Mau,

2004). Reciprocity typically connotes an expectation of beneficial return to the initiator

and people choose to give to others when they expect the recipient will have the ability

to return the favor (DiDomenico, Tracey, & Hough, 2009; Komter, 2010). Expected

return can be immediate or over the long-term (Emerson, 1976; Engelsen, 2008).

Reciprocity involves taking a risk that what is given will not be returned (Glanville &

Bienenstock, 2009). Reciprocity can be conditional; such exchanges are often not

initiated unless there is an expectation that others will behave cooperatively (Dubreuil,

2008). When donors give, there is often an expectation placed upon to recipient


organization. These expectations may include accountability, recognition, participation,

or tangible outcomes according to the motivation of each individual donor.

Game theory can be used to understand how reciprocity is experienced in dyadic

and triadic relationships. This utilitarian theory exposes the predictable ways that people

cooperate and compete in various situations in order to maximize outcomes; it does not

reveal underlying intentions or motivation (Binmore, 2004). People both share with

others who are cooperative and sanction those who do not comply with social norms --

even when it is personally costly to them (Engelsen, 2008). There are both costs and

benefits involved in charitable giving. Donors may carefully weigh the direct and

opportunity costs of making a contribution in comparison with the expected benefit to

them, the organization, the community, and/or the cause. Because there is likely a

limited pool of funds to be contributed, which may or may not be predetermined by the

donor before interaction with organizations seeking funds, donors must carefully

evaluate how those funds can best be used to attain the desired outcomes.

Propensity to engage in reciprocity can be influenced both by the potential

contribution of the receiver and the costs she or he imposes on society (Segall, 2005).

Giving leads to more consistent and generous reciprocity than taking away, which leads

to negative forms of reciprocity that may quickly escalate (Keysar, Converse, Wang, &

Epley, 2008). Negative reciprocity may include withholding rewards or coercion (Befu,

1977); this can come from the other person or from a third party (Binmore, 2004). In

most societies, people are punished – formally or informally – when they are not in

compliance with social norms; this often happens through the removal of rewards or


expectancies for normal social interaction with others (Binmore, 2004). Punishments

differ according to the social distance and understood motivation of the person who

violates social norms (Dubreuil, 2008). Bicchieri, Xiao, and Muldoon (2011) found that

most people expect punishment when people do not comply with the expectation that

trust would be reciprocated. A lack of reciprocation can lead to a suspension of future

gifts; reciprocation is positive reinforcement for the giving behavior (Emerson, 1976).

When organizations do not fulfill the expected reciprocal arrangement with donors, the

donor may sanction the organization by withdrawing support and sharing negative

information within their social network. There are expected courtesies for organizations

that receive gifts such as appropriate acknowledgement and using funds for the

purpose intended by the donor. In addition, individual donors may have unique needs

that that they seek to satisfy through their involvement with the organization. Through

both adherence to ethical fundraising practice and intentional relationship building with

donors, organizations can avoid transforming a positive reciprocal relationship into one

that becomes negative.

Relationships are a particularly important form of social capital for charitable

giving (Brown & Ferris, 2007). Reciprocity and trust are both antecedents and outcomes

of social capital; trust and reciprocity also influence each other (Glanville & Bienenstock,

2009). Trust can be interpersonal or communal (Glanville & Bienenstock, 2009). Access

to social capital leads to increased individual involvement in charitable organizations

through volunteering and financial contributions; in fact, charitable giving increases

social capital in communities (Brown & Ferris, 2007).Nonprofit organizations increase


and create social capital both directly through the programs that are delivered and

indirectly through the relationships that are developed throughout the community. By

initiating and maintaining positive reciprocal relationships with donors, volunteers,

program participants, and the community-at-large, nonprofit organizations can develop

both community trust and social capital.

Benefits are sometimes distributed to a third party rather than directly back to the

initiator; this is called serial reciprocity and can last into perpetuity (Moody, 2006). An

initiator can also directly provide a benefit to a third party on behalf of another person

with the hope of personal return from that person – this can lead to a sense of

indebtedness and promote cooperation (Goldstein, Griskevicius, & Cialdini, 2011).

While donors have a direct reciprocal relationship with the organization to whom funds

are entrusted, there may also an indirect reciprocal relationship with the people that the

organization is serving. Funds are given to the organization with the hope that those

who participate in its programs will be better equipped to contribute to society. Many

donors give to organizations as a way to express their gratitude for the resources that

have been entrusted to them.

Reciprocity can be asymmetrical (Segall, 2005) as is the case with much

charitable giving. In charitable transactions, the benefits of the giver and receiver may

differ or be inequivalent (Eckstein, 2001; Engelsen, 2008; Shuman, 2000). Givers do not

necessarily expect an equivalent economic return for their contributions; instead, they

may expect a direct symbolic or indirect communal benefit. Reciprocity often represents

conditional generosity that determines the level of distribution based on merit (Leon,


2012). Organizations that portray their program participants as deserving in some way,

and those that demonstrate program effectiveness, may be able to raise more funds

than those who do not convey these messages. People who are not able to give – those

with limited financial resources -- may find that they receive very little from others

(Komter, 2010). Nonprofit organizations serve as a conduit to equalize opportunity and

resources for those who may otherwise not have access, thus restoring a sense of

community equilibrium.

Charitable giving can maintain the social order by suppressing revolt or by

reinforcing hierarchical power structures and legitimizing inequality; thus, giving is often

politically motivated and benefits both the giver and recipient (Bowie, 1998; Lebra,

1975). Reciprocity reinforces political legitimacy and is the basis of shared meaning

(Bianchin, 2003). Two types of power influence exchange – personal and institutional

(Befu, 1977). In fundraising practice, greater power is held by organizations than by

individual people. Reciprocity may be based on social or economic interdependence

(Lebra, 1975). The prevailing paradigm in fundraising tends to be more utilitarian than

egalitarian; it is often viewed in terms of a zero sum game or redistributive justice (Befu,

1977). In contrast, philanthropy can be thought of as a positive sum game where both

giver and recipient benefit from the relationship both immediately and over time, with

ripples of reciprocity extending from each initial gift.

While self-interest does motivate some people, most are driven to reciprocate as

an expression of altruism and cooperation (Engelsen, 2008). Reciprocity, and reasons

for giving, can vary according to orientations toward the conditions placed on recipients


and the comprehensiveness of provisions leading to four ideal types: generalized based

on mutuality; dispositional based on human rights and egalitarianism; obligating based

on helping those who are needy; and balanced based on social insurance (Mau, 2004).

Donor motivations may cross these categories but will likely fall within one type within

the context of a particular organization. Such knowledge about donors can help

fundraisers identify prospective donors that are a good fit for the organization, develop

relationships with those who want to be involved, and develop a reciprocation strategy

that meets the needs of each individual donor.

People may do something to help another person, even incurring a personal cost,

if they expect a return at some point in the future or to enhance their reputation; people

who tend to be more altruistic than egoistic are less concerned with reputation and

opportunities for public recognition (Simpson & Willer, 2008). Nonprofit organizations

often work to address very complicated community challenges, serve people with

multiple difficulties, and/or influence public policy against great opposition; the return on

donations is often not immediate but rather occurs and accrues over time. While many

donors demand interim reports exhibiting progress toward organizational and

community goals, organizations should also improve donor sensitivity to the difficult

nature of the work and personal or community changes that are being pursued.

Reciprocity promotes cooperation and the achievement of communal goals

(Engelen, 2008). Synthesis maximizes economic and community benefits and can be

achieved by resolving the differences between the two and promoting mutually

beneficial exchanges (DiDomenico, Tracey, & Hough, 2009). Organizations can


promote reciprocity through fundraising as a means to help communities better

cooperate so that its economic resources are used to create the most community

benefit.

Neurological Bases of Reciprocity

There is a strong mind-body connection; our physical experiences and

interactions are understood through cognitive classification and such schemas are

influenced by both our innate tendencies and the environment in which we live

(Adenzato & Garbarini, 2006). When we observe others’ emotions and physical

experiences, our brain responds as though we ourselves were experiencing the same

phenomenon; this can lead to a sense of resonance (Adenzato & Garbarini, 2006).

Mirror neurons are activated by our own performance or by observation of others

performing (Casile, Caggiano, & Ferrari, 2011). Observers cognitively experience the

experiences, emotions, and sensations of others through the mirror neuron system; this

process is unconscious and automatic but can lead to intentional, deliberative thought

(Gallesse, Eagle, & Migone, 2007). Through the mirror neuron system, we can attune to

the actions and emotions of others and identify with them (Gallesse, 2006). This system

can help us to predict the outcomes of our behavior as well as that of others (Gallesse,

2006; Shmuelof & Zohary, 2007). The mirror neuron system promotes intersubjective

understanding by mapping the experience of others within our own brains which can

improve cognizance of others’ intentions and emotions; this may lead to the

development of empathy. (Gallesse, 2006).

The mirror neuron system extends our visual and auditory senses by replicating


the mental process of others; however, it does not lead to reproducing the behavior or

to social contagion (Gallesse, Eagle, & Migone, 2007). Many neurology scholars (i.e.

Decety, 2010) believe that the impact of mirror neurons is limited to the physical domain

and therefore has no connection to shared emotions such as empathy while others (i.e.

Vivona, 2009) question the availability of empirical data to link neuroscience findings

with psychology overall. Others question the existence of mirror neurons altogether (i.e.

Hollan, 2012). Thus, applicability of mirror neuron studies to reciprocity in fundraising

may be limited; however, understanding how donors may react and respond to

interactions with organizations, their collateral, and the people and communities they

serve can help fundraisers intentionally craft compelling communications that lead to

donor resonance.

Specifically, there are several ideas from the neurological literature that can

inform fundraising practice. Observation of others’ facial display emotions leads to a

similar response, or mimicry, in the observer (Decety, 2010). Mirror neurons are

influenced by social distance, personal interpretation of the action, and the type of

action performed (Casile, Caggiano, & Ferrari, 2011). When we observe other human

beings taking action, our neurological response is different from interaction with material

objects (Stueber, 2012; Wheatley, Milleville, & Martin, 2007). Fundraising activities take

many forms such as letters, reports, events, individual meetings. Given the findings of

these neurological studies, it would seem that fundraising activities that involve

interpersonal interaction would be most effective. Reciprocity is enhanced by frequent

interaction and remembrance of past interactions (Dubreuil, 2008).


In addition, neurological composition influences economic decision making and

behavior through interactive cognitive and emotional processes that are both automatic

and deliberative (Camerer, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2005). Social awareness, altruism,

and cooperation are rooted in our brain structure and have evolved over time to

promote group survival (Neiworth, 2009). Further research in the neurology of reciprocal

giving may yield important information for the fundraising profession.

Emotion: Empathy and Altruism

The decision making process can be rational and predictable, but it can also be

based on emotion or habit (Emerson, 1976; Engelsen, 2008). While many donors may

prioritize the economic domain, others give as an expression of their emotional

connection with an organization, community, cause, or individual people.

Empathy can be felt both for people who are known and for strangers (Singer &

Fehr, 2005). When others feel pain, we can experience empathy through both an

evaluative cognitive and an automatic emotional response (Shamay-Tsoory, 2010).

People are able to both empathize with others and mentally understand their feelings,

intentions, motivations, and experiences (Singer & Fehr, 2005; Stueber, 2012). Because

the people who benefit from the work of nonprofit organizations are often unknown -- or

are only peripherally known -- to donors, it is important to create a meaningful

connection so that donors can truly empathize with the circumstances and goals of

those whom their contributions will benefit. This will create a positive reciprocal

agreement, possibly increasing ongoing involvement and support. Empathy and

prosocial behavior, such as reciprocal initiation, are positively related (Piliavan &


Charng, 1990).

Increasingly, researchers are finding that people are naturally inclined to be

altruistic; reciprocal relationships are not necessarily motivated by self-interest (Piliavan

& Charng, 1990). Empathy also emerges and develops from the interaction of cognitive

and emotive processes influenced by the social and environmental context (Shamay-

Tsoory, 2010). Emotions help people make sense of their circumstances (Gallesse,

2006). Interactions with nonprofit organizations can help donors cultivate a stronger

sense of empathy, leading to the development of social capital and positive community

reciprocity.

Emotions may motivate donors in other ways. Empathy can promote self-

preservation as it can help to stabilize interactions and relationships with others (Singer

& Fehr, 2005). Positive and negative emotions mediate the relationship between social

norms and reciprocity; for example, the anticipated shame of noncompliance may

influence reciprocity behavior (Engelsen, 2008). Donors who are inclined to give to

maintain or enhance their reputations among their circle of friends or in the community

may be influenced by these ideas.

While our emotions may influence behavior, our actions are also shaped by the

opportunities and choices that are available to us (Binmore, 2004). Providing donors

with multiple means of involvement and reaching out to them on a regular, but not

overwhelming, basis will create additional opportunities for them to initiate or continue a

reciprocal relationship.

Values


Reciprocity can be an expression of social norms (Engelsen, 2008). Our

decisions and actions are influenced by history, institutions, relationships, culture, and

social norms (Engelsen, 2008; Ghezzi & Mingione, 2007). Norms reflect collective

beliefs about intentions, expectations, and outcomes of actions (Bicchieri, Xiao, &

Muldoon, 2011). These norms, and the behaviors they promote, lead to a sense of

cooperative equilibrium within communities (Binmore, 2004). When people act, there is

an expectation that others will react in a certain way; there is a mutual understanding of

each others’ intentions that can be formalized through institutions (Bianchin, 2003) and

these institutions can be changed when they no longer reflect those who are governed

by their laws and practices (Binmore, 2004). As mentioned earlier, there are certain

basic expectations that donors may have of recipient organizations, or beneficiaries of

their work. The norms of the donor organization, recipient organization, or community

may further stipulate expectations for intentions and actions in reciprocal giving

relationships.

Social norms may also be influenced by the means available to enforce them

(Andreoni, Harbaugh, & Vesterlund, 2003). Institutions can maintain the social contract

by regulating and punishing deviance (Dubreuil, 2008). When others do not comply with

social norms, including those of being compassionate, they are sometimes punished to

maintain those norms; in addition, those who do comply may be rewarded (Andreoni,

Harbaugh, & Vesterlund, 2003). While contributions to nonprofit organizations are

voluntary, recipient organizations do have latitude to use those resources in a way that

solidifies the norms, or expectations, of donors. In addition, donors can wield their


power over recipient organizations by threatening to withhold support if norms are

violated or by providing additional funds to organization that uphold social norms.

Institutional norms of reciprocity influence individual attitudes toward giving and

sharing (Mau, 2004). Within each organization, norms of reciprocity will develop and

govern interactions with donors. Behavior is influenced by both social norms and by

individual values (Bicchieri, Xiao, & Muldoon, 2011). Development staff and volunteers

may integrate institutional norms with their own ideas about how to best interact with

donors; this may lead to the development of new institutional norms or to punishment of

the violator.

Reciprocity can be spurred by either courtesy, which is ritualistic and promotes

self-esteem, or intimacy, which is a long-term and intense way to express positive

feelings for another person (Lebra, 1975). This is similar to the previous discussion of

giving being influenced by economic or symbolic exchange as well as that regarding

egoistic and altruistic motives. Perhaps relationships that begin as transactional can be

developed into relationships that are collaborative and transformational. Reciprocal

exchanges lead to the development of trust over time (Bichierei, Xiao, & Muldoon, 2011;

Eckstein, 2001).

When a giver does not expect the receiver to reciprocate, rules are created to

govern the conditions for the transaction; such exchanges are based on low trust and

weak connections (Phan, Blumer, & Demaiter, 2009). In development work, this is often

experienced as major donors making contributions with strings attached. These donors

call for accountability and impose their goals and vision, which may not have been as


closely informed by the community served, on the organization. Some (i.e. Veit-Wilson,

2009) feel that charitable organizations are morally required to comply with the

demands of donors as they are not able to enter an equitable reciprocal relationship.

Many people reciprocate out of a sense of duty, particularly when those helped

are not able to care for themselves (Engelsen, 2008; Quong, 2007). A sense of duty

derives from the social contract (Binmore, 2004). Reciprocity can intentionally equalize

social inequalities when those who have more share with those who have less; this may

be a social expectation (Gregory, 1975). Some (i.e. Renwick Monroe, Martin, & Ghosh)

believe that morality is innate and is not culturally relative but is influenced by the

environment; this morality creates a desire to help others. Some donors give for this

reason; they feel a moral obligation to support charitable organizations because it is

expected of them. This feeling may derive from innate personal characteristics, social

exchanges, or the interaction of both.

Reciprocal initiation is based on the past and predicted behaviors of others

(Sobel, 2005). When donors make a contribution, they also make a prediction, or have

an expectation, about how that donation will be reciprocated. This may be based upon

previous interactions with that particular organization or even with other charitable

organizations. Opening up conversations between organization development staff and

potential donors can promote the beginning of new reciprocal relationships.

Prosocial people are inclined to cooperate; however, their willingness to do so

may decline if there is a lack of reciprocity and immediate reciprocity will result in more

frequent cooperation (Parks & Rumble. 2001). Reciprocity can be disrupted by


mismatches in timing expectations and levels of exchange according to social norms

(Leifer, 1988). If others are uncooperative, people who are prosocial may become

defensive and uncooperative (Parks & Rumble, 2001). Donors, who express a

commitment to the work of an organization by making a contribution, are acting

prosocially. Timely reciprocity, which may take the form of a thank you note or phone

call, can improve donor cooperation and lead to future and further involvement.

Context

While the mirror neuron system may provide preliminary information about

others, our interpretation of their motivation, intention, and feelings is situated within our

prior knowledge of that person as well as the cultural, political, economic, and social

context (Hollan, 2012). Our self-concept and understanding of the world in which we live

is based on our interactions with others and our collective culture (Adenzato &

Garbarini, 2006). The social context includes normative, distributive, symbolic, and

organizational components with influence opportunities for interaction (Michalski, 2003).

Generosity is more frequent among people who are related or connected in some

other way (Komter, 2010). Reciprocity increases with intimacy (Michalski, 2003).

Neighborhood factors such as proximity, cohesiveness, and availability of resources

may influence expectations for, and ability to participate in, reciprocity (Phan, Blumer, &

Demaiter, 2009; Segall, 2005). Perhaps if donors view themselves as part of the same

group as those served by the organization, such as members of the same community,

they will be more inclined to reciprocate. This can be promoted through intentional

messaging by the organization and it staff or volunteers.


Expectations for reciprocity, including why, when, and how to reciprocate, are

also culturally embedded (Befu, 1977; Schieffelin, 1980). It is not always socially

acceptable for gift givers to expect a return (Emerson, 1976). Understanding the cultural

traditions of donors, organizations, communities, and people served can promote

understanding and cooperation leading to increased engagement.

Givers may act differently in private and public situations (Simpson & Willer,

2008). The situation we are in can lead us to act with self-interest or with altruism;

however, people are generally inclined to reciprocate (Leon, 2012). Understanding the

motivations and desires of donors, and the circumstances under which they have

chosen to make a gift, can help organizations better serve their needs.

Social approval is typically sought from others whom the seeker socially

approves; social approval may be influenced by the incentives that are offered and can

be symbolic (Ellingsen & Johannesson, 2008). Organizations that are perceived to be

conventional tend to receive more resources (Michalski, 2003). Thus, alignment of

donors with organizations that reflect their values and represent their social networks

will lead to enhanced reciprocity. This knowledge can influence communication with

donors to enhance their confidence in the organization to appropriately reciprocate.

Ideal Reciprocity

While most of the literature explains that reciprocity is a means of restoring social

equilibrium, it can also disrupt the social order (Shuman, 2000). Such disruption can be

positive, leading to generative social change rather than social maintenance. This

section will introduce the concept of ideal reciprocity, based on the philosophy of


idealism, and its two iterations: existential and communal. Existential ideal reciprocity is

based on an intersubjective understanding of self and has the ultimate goal of becoming

whereas communal ideal reciprocity is based on an understanding of the self rooted in

the collective and/or the cosmos and has the ultimate goal of transcendence. Through

both types of ideal reciprocity, individuals actively live their true life purpose which

contributes to social harmony (Befu, 1977; Goldfarb, 2011; Sen, 2012). These types are

not necessarily mutually exclusive but can be interactive; an individual could also move

between them according to the context. These ideal types may not fully capture the

complete range or the nuances of reciprocity practice.

Throughout this paper, several dichotomies have been introduced in relation to

reciprocity. Ideal reciprocity is based on intimate relationships, symbolic meaning,

altruistic motivations, cooperation, egalitarian relationships, and the accrual of

complementary individual and communal rewards – a positive sum relationship.

Individuals may understand themselves as individuals through interactions and in

contrast with others (Bianchin, 2003). Alternatively, self-understanding may be rooted in

belonging to a group or in relation to spirituality. In either case, self-awareness is

cultivated through external relationships, contexts, and environments. In the former,

representing existential ideal reciprocity, social norms and social intentional are co-

created through communication by autonomous and equal individuals (Bianchin, 2003)

whereas in the latter, representing communal ideal reciprocity, these constructs are

externally defined and regulated a political or religious entity. Thus, both forms of ideal

reciprocity have the outcome of generative social change; however, the individual


motivation and goals differentiate the two types.

Ideal Reciprocity in Fundraising Practice

There are many factors that influence charitable giving. These factors include

personal experiences, altruism, empathy, sympathy, guilt, peer pressure, psychological

rewards, tax benefits, being asked, becoming aware of needs, ability to give,

opportunities to socialize, maintaining or enhancing reputation, being able to make a

difference, career advancement, identification with a group, enhancement of self-image,

a feeling of obligation, or a sense of feeling good; these motivations are not necessarily

mutually exclusive but may interact to create unique individual reasons for making a

contribution (Andreoni, 1990; Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011; Michalski, 2003; Piliavan &

Charng, 1990; Sobel, 2005; Van Slyke & Brooks, 2005). Reciprocity balances self-

interest and altruism through justice (Quong, 2007); thus, donors with a range of

motivations can enter into reciprocal relationships through philanthropy. Adding ideal

reciprocity to the repertoire of practice will expand the ability of fundraisers and

philanthropists to partner for meaningful community and social change.

Charitable organizations serve as a social network (Michalski, 2003) linking those

with resources with those in need; they may also connect people with common needs

and desires. Economic inequities need not result in unequal relationships when people

are united by a common vision. Each individual and every organization has the ability to

influence the realization of that vision and the contributions of each enhance and

expand those of others.

In practice, ideal reciprocity is performed with love of self, others, and/or G-d and


in the context of mutual support and common goals. Each altruistic act encourages

others to respond accordingly by aligning their intention and action with their true

purpose and sharing that gift with others. This contributes to ever more ambitious

manifestations of human and community potential. By developing equitable, respectful,

understanding, and responsive relationships with donors, fundraisers can encourage

them to enthusiastically engage others thereby increasing the social and economic

capital of the organization and the community served.

Ideal reciprocity will not work for every person or in every situation. Because

decisions are often based on habit, and the nonprofit sector has overwhelmingly

pursued zero-sum or even negative-sum reciprocal relationships, ideal reciprocity

represents a shift in both practice and understanding. There may always be people who

prefer economic transactions to symbolic – and real -- transformations. Yet, this concept

has the potential to transform the nonprofit sector from one that sincerely attempts to

solve problems to one that creates vibrant communities.

Conclusion

. By understanding how reciprocity is framed and experienced according to

multiple disciplines and perspectives, fundraising professionals can effectively respond

to the needs of, and build meaning relationships with, donors. Much of the literature

limits reciprocity to practices to maintain the status quo. Ideal reciprocity, within the

context of development in nonprofit organizations, is an alternative understanding of

reciprocity as it promotes social advancement rather than social stagnation. While it is

not widely understood or practiced, and may be resisted by some, ideal reciprocity does


have potential to enhance some relationships between organizations and donors.


References

Adenzato, M. and Garbarini, F. (2006). The as if in cognitive science, neuroscience and anthropology: A journey among robots, blacksmiths and neurons. Theory & Psychology, 16(6), 747-759.

Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464-477.

Andreoni, J., Harbaugh, W., and Vesterlund, L. (2003). The carrot or the stick: Rewards, punishment, and cooperation. The American Economic Review, 93(3), 893-902.

Befu, H. (1977). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Anthropology, 6, 255-281.

Bekkers, R. and Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924-973.

Bianchin, M. (2003). Reciprocity, individuals, and community: Remarks on phenomenology, social theory and politics. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 29(6), 631-654.

Bicchieri, C., Xiao, E., and Muldoon, R. (2011). Trustworthiness is a social norm, but trusting is not. Politics, Philosophy, & Economics, 10(2), 170-187.

Binmore, K. (2004). Reciprocity and the social contract. Politics, Philosophy, & Economics, 3(1), 5-35.

Boehm, C. (1993). Egalitarian behavior and reverse dominance hierarchy. Current Anthropology, 34(3), 227-254.

Bowie, K. (1998). The alchemy of charity: Of class and Buddhism in northern Thailand. American Anthropologist, 100(2), 469-481.

Brown, E. and Ferris, J. M. (2007). Social capital and philanthropy: An analysis of the impact of social capital on individual giving and volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 85-99.

Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., and Prelec, D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(1), 9-64.

Casile, A., Caggiano, V., and Ferrari, P. F. (2011). The mirror neuron system: A fresh view. The Neuroscientist, 17(5), 524-538.

Decety, J. (2010). To what extent is the experience of empathy mediated by shared


neural circuits? Emotion Review, 2(3), 204-207.

DiDomenico, M., Tracey, P., and Haugh, H. (2009). The dialectic of social exchange: Theorizing corporate-social enterprise collaboration. Organization Studies, 30(8), 887-907.

Dubreuil, B. (2008). Strong reciprocity and the emergence of large-scale societies. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 38(2), 192-210.

Eckstein, S. (2001). Community as gift-giving: Collectivist roots of volunteerism. American Sociological Review, 66(6), 829-851.

Ellingsen, T. and Johannesson, M. (2008). Pride and prejudice: The human side of incentive theory. The American Economic Review, 98(3), 990-1008.

Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335-362.

Engelen, B. (2008). The sources of cooperation: On strong reciprocity and its theoretical implications. Theory & Psychology, 18(4), 527-544.

Gallesse, V. (2006). Mirror neurons and intentional attunement: Commentary on Olds. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 54(1), 47-57.

Gallesse, V., Eagle, M. N., and Migone, P. (2007). Intentional attunement: mirror neurons and the neural underpinnings of interpersonal relations. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 55(1), 131-176.

Ghezzi, S. and Mingione, E. (2007). Embeddedness, path dependency and social institutions: An economic sociology approach. Current Sociology, 55(1), 11-23.

Glanville, J. L. and Bienenstock, E. J. (2009). A typology for understanding the connections among different forms of social capital. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(11), 1507-1530.

Goldfarb, N. D. (2011). Josiah Royce’s philosophy of loyalty as philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(4), 720-739.

Goldstein, N. J., Griskevicius, V., and Cialdini, R. B. (2011). Reciprocity by proxy: A novel influence strategy for stimulating cooperation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(3), 441-473.

Gregory, J. R. (1975). Image of limited good, or expectation of reciprocity? Current Anthropology, 16(1), 73-92.

Hollan, D. (2012). Emerging issues in the cross-cultural study of empathy. Emotion


Review, 4(1), 70-78.

Keysar, B., Converse, B. A., Wang, J., and Epley, N. (2008). Reciprocity is not give and take: Asymmetric reciprocity to positive and negative acts. Psychological Science, 19(2), 1280-1286.

Komter, A. (2010). The evolutionary origins of human generosity. International Sociology, 25(3), 443-464.

Lebra, T. S. (1975). An alternative approach to reciprocity. American Anthropologist, 77(3), 550-565.

Leifer, E. M. (1988). Interaction preludes to role setting: Exploratory local action. American Sociological Review, 53(6), 865-878.

Leon, F. J. (2012). Reciprocity and public support for the redistributive role of the state. Journal of European Social Society, 22(2), 198-215.

Mau, S. (2004). Welfare regimes and the norms of social exchange. Current Sociology, 52(1), 53-74.

Michalski, J. H. (2003). Financial altruism or unilateral resource exchanges? Toward a pure sociology of welfare. Sociological Theory, 21(4), 341-358.

Moody, M. (2006). Serial reciprocity: A preliminary statement. Sociological Theory, 26(2), 130-151.

Neiworth, J. J. (2009). Thinking about me: How social awareness evolved. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 143-147.

Parks, C. D. and Rumble, A. C. (2001). Elements of reciprocity and social value orientation. Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1301-1309.

Phan, M. B., Blumer, N., and Demaiter, E. I. (2009). Helping hands: Neighborhood diversity, deprivation, and reciprocity of support in non-kin networks. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(6-7), 899-918.

Piliavan, J. A. and Charng, H. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 27-65.

Quong, J. (2007). Contractualism, reciprocity, and egalitarian justice. Politics, Philosophy, & Economics, 6(1), 75-105.

Renwick Monroe, K., Martin, A., and Ghosh, P. (2009). Politics and an innate moral sense: Scientific evidence for an old theory? Political Research Quarterly, 62(3), 614-634.


Schieffelin, E. L. (1980). Reciprocity and the construction of reality. Man, 15(3), 502-517.

Segall, S. (2005). Unconditional welfare benefits and the principle of reciprocity. Politics, Philosophy, & Economics, 4(3), 331-354.

Sen, A. (2012). Dharma concepts in emotional intelligence. Vision, 16(2), 93-99.

Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2010). The neural bases for empathy. The Neuroscientist, 17(1), 18-24.

Shmuelof. L. and Zohary, E. (2007). Watching others’ actions: mirror representations in the parietal cortex. The Neuroscientist, 13(6), 667-672.

Shuman, A. (2000). Food gifts: Ritual exchange and the production of excess meaning. The Journal of American Folklore, 113(450), 495-508.

Simpson, B. and Willer, R. (2008). Altruism and indirect reciprocity: The interaction of person and situation in prosocial behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71(1), 37-52.

Singer, T. and Fehr, E. (2005). The neuroeconomics of mind reading and empathy. The American Economic Review, 95(2), 340-345.

Sobel, J. (2005). Interdependent preferences and reciprocity. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(2), 392-436.

Stueber, K. R. (2012). Varieties of empathy, neuroscience and the narrativist challenge to the contemporary theory of the mind debate. Emotion Review, 4(1), 55-63.

Van Slyke, S. M. and Brooks, A. C. (2005). Why do people give? New evidence and strategies for nonprofit managers. The American Review of Public Administration, 35(3), 199-222.

Veit-Wilson, J. (2009). Who sets the conditions? Conditionality, reciprocity, human rights, and inclusion in society. Global Social Policy, 9(2), 171-174.

Vivona, J. M. (2009). Leaping from brain to mind: A critique of mirror neuron explanations of countertransference. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 57(3), 525-550.

Wheatley, T., Milleville, S. C., and Martin, A. (2007). Understanding animate objects: Distinct roles for the social network and mirror system. Psychological Science, 18(6), 469-474.

Ideal Reciprocity

Documents

american psychoanalytic association

necessarily mutually exclusive

mirror neuron system

voluntary sector quarterly

american sociological review

american economic review

generative social change

maintain social equilibrium