Page 1
Reciprocity Effect 1
RUNNING HEAD: THE RECIPROCITY EFFECT
The Reciprocity of Liking Effect
R. Matthew Montoya
University of Dayton
Robert S. Horton
Wabash College
Appears in: Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2012). The reciprocity of liking effect. In Paludi,
M. (Ed.). The Psychology of Love (pp. 39-57). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Page 2
Reciprocity Effect 2
The Reciprocity of Liking Effect
Extensive research demonstrates that receiving information that another is attracted to
you is a powerful determinant of liking. Such reciprocated liking (hereafter referred to as the
reciprocity effect) is generally considered to be one of the more reliable phenomena in social
psychology (e.g., Sprecher, 1998), one that has been demonstrated between individuals (e.g.,
Wilson & Henzlik, 1986), including among adolescents (e.g., Clark & Drewry, 1985), between
groups (Burleson, 1983), and even in psychiatric populations (Martindale, Ross, Hines, &
Abrams, 1978). Further, a meta-analysis of various ingratiation processes found a positive, but
moderate, effect of expressed liking on reciprocated attraction (Gordon, 1996).
On the other hand, introspection, casual observations, and even entire research paradigms
(e.g., unrequited love; Baumeister, Wotman, & Stillwell, 1993) suggest that liking is not always
reciprocated to an admiring other. More specifically, research suggests that liking is unlikely to
be reciprocated if the expressed liking is insincere (Jones, 1964), restricts our freedom (Brehm,
1966), or is inappropriate (e.g., Schopler & Thompson, 1968). The purpose of this chapter is to
describe and evaluate a model of the reciprocity effect based on a two-dimension model of
person perception (e.g., Peeters & Czapinski, 1990; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). This
model is grounded in principles of evolutionary psychology in that it locates the origins of the
reciprocity effect in psychological mechanisms evolved as a solution to problems faced by
ancestral humans. To this end, we outline the theoretical foundation for the two-dimensional
model, evaluate critically the fit between the predictions of the model and the extant research that
explores the limitations of the reciprocity effect, and then discuss additional processes that may
be associated with reciprocated attraction.
Two Dimensional Approaches to Attraction
A number of two-dimensional models of person perception have been described, but
Page 3
Reciprocity Effect 3
these models agree that evaluations of others, as disparate and varied as they can be, originate
with common fundamental assessments that humans make about others. Further, though
researchers have used different labels to describe the common dimensions on which these
assessments take place (e.g., competence, power, morality, warmth, etc.), the dimensions
invariably describe an evaluation of a person's (a) ability to facilitate one's goals and (b)
help/harm orientation. Thus, the two dimensions of person perception can be simplified down to
(a) ability and (b) willingness assessments. The ability assessment considers the other's capacity
to satisfy/fulfill the individual's goals/interests, and the willingness assessment considers the
other's intentions to satisfy/fulfill the individual's goals/interests. These two dimensions have
their roots in early investigations of warm-cold versus competence-related dimensions (Asch,
1946, see also Hamilton & Fallot, 1974), have been confirmed using both multidimensional
scaling methods (Rosenberg, Nelson, & Vivekananthan, 1968; Jamieson, Lydon, & Zanna, 1987)
and anthropological assessment (White, 1980), and continue to be observed and to drive new
research in different research laboratories (e.g., Reeder, Pryor, &Wojciszke, 1992).
Recent work has confirmed that these two dimensions dominate one's perception of
others. For example, in a study in which participants were asked to categorize traits by the degree
to which they were associated with morality (willingness) and competence (ability), Wojciszke,
Dowhyluk, and Jaworski (1998) found that these two dimensions accounted for 97% of the
variance of global evaluations. Similarly, Oosterhof and Todorov (2008), in a study of facial
perception, asked participants to generate trait descriptions of emotionally neutral faces. A
principal component analysis of these descriptions revealed two components: trustworthiness
(which accounted for 63% of the variance), which the authors labeled "valence" (willingness),
and dominance (18% of the variance), which the authors labeled "power" (ability). Similarly,
Wojcizke (1994) found that over 75% of our experiences with others are based on morality and
Page 4
Reciprocity Effect 4
competency judgments, and Wojciszke, Bazinska, and Jaworski (1998) discovered that morality
and competence explained over 80% of the variance in global evaluations of others.
From this perspective, person perception flows from a two-dimensional consideration of
an individual: to what extent is the individual able to meet one's needs and to what extent is the
individual willing to meet one's needs. Further, this perspective posits that both assessments are
critical to facilitating the survival of the individual, and thus, critical to the degree of experienced
attraction. As will be outlined below, we posit that the reciprocity effect operates via a simple
manipulation of only one of these assessments; specifically, the willingness assessment. As a
result, it is on that assessment that we focus our attention.
Importance of the Willingness Assessment
The importance of an evaluation of another's intent to help/harm (i.e., the willingness
assessment) is proposed to have evolved under the pressures of group living, which represented a
fundamental survival strategy for ancestral humans. A group context provided mating
opportunities, help with care for offspring, protection from predators (Van Schaik, Van
Noordwijk, Warsono, & Sutriono, 1983), and improved hunting efficiency (McGrew & Feistner,
1992). In this way, living in the group context necessitated the exchange of benefits with others
to maximize the use of available resources. However, rarely are the benefits of an exchange
conferred simultaneously. Most commonly, one provides a benefit to another with the
expectation that the promised reciprocated benefit will be provided in the future. One concern
that then dominates such sequential exchanges is whether the promised benefit will ever be
exchanged. If the other fails to provide the promised benefit, the individual has been exploited
and abandoned--a situation the individual is motivated to avoid. As a result, one essential
element to exchanges is trust that reciprocation will occur (Blau, 1964; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978).
The critical role of trust in facilitating successful social exchanges has been documented
Page 5
Reciprocity Effect 5
extensively. To start, it has been evidenced in different types and durations of relationships,
including ad hoc exchanges (e.g., Cosmides & Tooby, 1992), close relationships (e.g., Rempel,
Holmes, & Zanna, 1985; Rempel, Ross, & Holmes, 2001), intergroup relations (Wildschut,
Pinter, Vevea, Insko, & Schopler, 2003), and cross-cultural processes (Buchan, Croson, &
Dawes, 2002; Cohen, Montoya, & Insko, 2006). Relatedly, humans have developed
psychological processes to detect violations in a wide array of exchanges and interactions with
others, including basic social exchanges (cheater detection, Cosmides & Tooby, 1992; preference
for predictability, Kurzban & Leary, 2001; derogation of freeriders, Fehr & Gächter, 2002), mate
selection (jealousy, Buss, Shackelford, Choe, Buunk, & Dijkstra, 2000; parental certainty, Dale,
1995), and intergroup relations (outgroup distrust, Insko, Schopler, & Sedikides, 1998). In this
way, evaluations of trust are vital to successful exchanges with others.
Of course, emphasizing trust and detecting its violations are not sufficient to lead to
effective exchanges. Such emphasis and detective ability must also translate into affective and
behavioral response patterns. That is, due to the increased likelihood that a trustworthy other will
uphold their side of an exchange, one should experience increased attraction for such individuals
as compared to individuals one deems untrustworthy.
Trust and Reciprocated Liking
What is the relationship between expressions of liking and evaluations of trust in the
admirer? If the reciprocity effect is a function of a willingness assessment, two different
empirical relations must first hold. First, expressed attraction must be a cue to willingness (i.e.,
lead to trust). Second, trust must lead to liking of the admirer. Importantly, research supports
both contentions.
With respect to the first point, past theorizing and results have posited the link that
attraction is reciprocated to the extent that the expressed attraction is meaningful of another's
Page 6
Reciprocity Effect 6
trust. This proposition is consistent with various theories of relationship development. Ellis
(1998), for example, proposed that symbolic acts of investment (e.g., "I love you," or other
expressions of attraction) convey cues to the individual's willingness to continue investing in the
relationship. Similarly, the Commitment Model (Frank, 2001) argued that cooperative systems
between individuals were facilitated by having identifiable marks--such as nonverbal behaviors,
blushing, or the expression of positive emotions--to help differentiate between those who would
cooperate from those who were less likely. Expressed attraction, then, can be regarded as such an
"identifiable mark" (see also, Jones, Jones, & Gergen, 1963; Nemeth, 1970). Such theories are
also consistent with Rempel, Ross, and Holmes's (2001) perspective that perceptions of trust are
a consequence of attraction in long-term relationships.
Second, recent empirical evidence also supports the contention that expressed attraction
leads to trust. Montoya and Insko (2008), for example, manipulated the presence of expressed
liking to the participant, then assessed the degree of trust in the other and reciprocated attraction.
The researchers found that the expression of liking increased attraction, and that trust mediated
the increased attraction generated by the expression of liking.
With respect to the second point, theorizing and empirical work similarly support the idea
that trust in an individual leads to liking for that individual. For instance, in a paper about how to
improve rapport with clients, Nicholson, Compeau, and Sethi (2001) postulated that a customer's
attraction to the salesperson resulted in trust in the salesperson because of the more favorable
motives attributed to those who are trusted. Doney and Cannon (1997) found that the degree to
which a person was liked was correlated positively with the degree of interpersonal trust the
person expressed. Moreover, in a series of studies investigating various degrees of trust in
another person and interpersonal behavior, Rotter (1980) noted a positive correlation between
likeability and trust. In addition, several researchers have noted that assessments of the expected
Page 7
Reciprocity Effect 7
positivity of the future interactions covaried with reciprocated attraction (e.g., Jones, Stires,
Shaver, & Harris, 1968; Schopler & Thompson, 1968; Nadler, Fisher, & Itzhak, 1983).
Alternatively, in the laboratory context, Ayers, Nacci, and Tedeschi (1973) manipulated
the perceived credibility of a confederate with whom a participant interacted in a mixed-motive
game. The researchers demonstrated that, compared with participants who interacted with
untrustworthy confederates, participants who interacted with trustworthy confederates gave more
money and, more importantly, were more attracted to the confederates. It is also noteworthy that
participants evaluated future interactions with the trustworthy partner as more beneficial than
interactions with the untrustworthy partner, a result that confirms the link between trust and the
assessment of willingness to meet one's needs. Overall, there is theoretical and empirical
evidence that the reciprocity effect is a function of perceptions of willingness. Indeed, expressed
attraction seems to lead to an inference of willingness and the accompanying trust in the admirer;
trust, in turn, leads to attraction for the admirer.
Tests of the Reciprocity Effect
To this point, we have argued that a willingness assessment is one part of a fundamental
evaluation we make of others. We further have described how this willingness assessment is
likely to have evolved due to the considerations of early group living, and presented evidence
that the reciprocity effect flows directly from this assessment of the willingness. In the following
section, we not only review research that establishes the limits of the reciprocity effect, but other
attraction research that explores reciprocated attraction (i.e., the similarity effect, pratfall effect,
matching hypothesis), and argue that this research establishes these limits by undercutting the
inference of willingness to which another's liking naturally leads.
Research on the Reciprocity Effect
Ed Jones (1964), in his famous short book on ingratiation, discussed numerous
Page 8
Reciprocity Effect 8
limitations and facilitators of the reciprocity effect. The list included many of the most pervasive
real-world concerns associated with the receipt of an expression of liking, namely, the perceived
sincerity of the expressed liking, the presence of ulterior motives for the expression of the liking,
and the amount of sacrifice the other has made for the admired, among others. Although some of
the extant research into these phenomena does not always directly manipulate the presence of
expressed attraction, the research still speaks clearly to the role of willingness to the experience
of attraction to another and is, thus, relevant to the current model of the reciprocity effect.
Amount of sacrifice. Jones (1964) posited that the reciprocity effect would be more
potent if an individual perceived that the other had made a costly sacrifice of his/her self-interest
(e.g., Nadler, Fisher, & Streufert, 1974). If another gives up a great deal to (or as a part of an)
exchange with an individual, the individual is more likely to perceive that the other will act in a
trustworthy fashion in the future. From an evolutionary biological perspective, perceived
sacrifice operates as a cue to the other's honesty. Zahavi (1975) proposed that displays tend to be
evaluated to be honest if, and only if, they are costly to display. If a display is presented without
cost, the display is unreliable because it is too easily mimicked and the chances of being cheated
increases (see also, Grafen, 1990).
As an example, Pruitt (1968), had participants interact with a confederate who had
resources of either $1 or $4 (versus the participants' $2). During the exchange period,
confederates gave the participants either 20% or 80% of their money. Those participants who
received 80% of the confederate's $1 gave more money back to the confederate than those who
received 20% of $4. Although all participants received the same amount of money, attraction
was greater when the participant received 80% of $1 compared with 20% of $4. Pruitt found that
participants rated those confederates who gave a greater percentage of their monies as more
willing to provide good future outcomes; and participants were also more attracted to these
Page 9
Reciprocity Effect 9
confederates.
Fisher and Nadler (1976) similarly noted that attraction was greatest toward partners who
offered aid when they possessed low, rather than high, resources. In this study, attraction
covaried with participants' ratings of the expected positivity of the future interactions with their
partner. In other words, attraction increased in so far as it indicated that the partner was
perceived as willing to be a good interaction partner in the future. Those who sacrificed greatly
(had low resources but who offered aid anyway) were perceived as better future partners, and
thus, were liked more by participants. This mediational finding, which emphasizes the
importance of the willingness assessment in the reciprocity effect, has been replicated multiple
times (e.g., Nadler, Fisher, & Streufert, 1974; Tesser, Gatewood, & Driver, 1968).
Perceived motives/sincerity. The power of the reciprocity effect is also affected by the
perceived motives of the target. Jones (1964) posited that liking is less likely to be reciprocated
when there are perceived to be ulterior motives for the expression of the liking. As suggested
previously, before interacting with another, individuals need to determine whether the other will
exploit the interaction or will act benevolently (Loomis, 1959). If the other person is judged to be
motivated by liking, the individual can come to believe that the interaction will be successful,
and attraction (or benefits) can be reciprocated. One problem with the receipt of liking, though, is
determining the authenticity of that expression. If the other is judged as possessing alternative
motives or as lacking sincerity, attraction will not be experienced despite fulfillment of the other
requirements of a social exchange (e.g., positive ability assessment).
The dominant explanation in the extant literature for reduced attraction given a possible
ulterior motive is psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966). A classic study by Brehm and Cole
(1966) demonstrated how reactance affects reciprocated liking. In their study, participants were
told to form an impression of another participant. Participants in a high-importance condition
Page 10
Reciprocity Effect 10
were told that the study's goal was to predict the other participant's future success in life and that
accuracy of one's prediction was critical. Participants in the low-importance condition were
simply told that the study's goal was the completion of a student project. Next, the other
participant (whose outcomes the participants thought they were predicting; actually a
confederate) then either brought the participant a coke (favor) or not (no favor). After the
participant rated the confederate, participants were given the opportunity to help the confederate.
Results revealed that, compared to participants in the low-importance condition, fewer
participants in the high-importance condition helped after receiving a favor. According to the
reactance explanation, the favor in the high-importance condition threatened participants'
freedom to evaluate the confederate accurately. Only by restoring freedom (by not reciprocating
help) could the participants restore freedom and evaluate the confederate accurately.
Important for the two-dimensional approach, Worchel, Andreoli, and Archer (1976) later
conducted a study to further address the causal processes associated with the reciprocation of
attraction as observed in the original Brehm and Cole (1966) study. Worchel et al. (1976)
replicated the Brehm and Cole procedure but also manipulated the attributions participants could
make after the high-importance versus low-importance manipulations. The researchers noted that
perceptions of ulterior motives were greatest in the high-importance condition, which covaried
with attraction assessments. In other words, the other was liked to the extent that ulterior motives
for the expression of liking could not be made.
Although we have argued that the expression of liking is an excellent indicator of trust, a
better, more sincere, source of information regarding another's trust comes from their behavior,
rather than simply their words (i.e., "Actions speak louder than words"; Hardin, 2002; McArthur
& Baron, 1983). In such a case, we would expect behavioral cues, when available, to be more
influential than verbal expressions of liking.
Page 11
Reciprocity Effect 11
In a laboratory investigation of the effects of favor giving and liking on compliance, D. T.
Regan (1971) manipulated whether or not a confederate purchased a soft drink for the participant
(favor or not), and whether or not the confederate was likable. Regan found that when a favor
was present, it affected reciprocated attraction but the likability of the confederate did not.
Alternatively, when the favor was absent, likability predicted reciprocated liking and favor-
giving. When a favor was presented, participants used the favor, exclusively, to infer the
confederate's trustworthiness, and reciprocated attraction. When no favor was present,
participants went by the only cue they had about the confederate's intent, his likability.
Potential Rejection and the Reciprocity Effect
An alternative test of the reciprocity effect's link to the willingness assessment is to
investigate whether people experience a reduction in attraction to those whom they expect
rejection. In the language of two-dimensional models, do individuals experience less liking
toward those who they view as low in willingness? Indeed, there are two well-known phenomena
that allow for such investigation: the matching hypothesis and the pratfall effect.
Matching hypothesis. Despite overwhelming evidence that we are most attracted to the
most physically attractive others, the matching hypothesis posits that we will end up dating
others who match our level of physical attractiveness. The tendency for individuals to mate with
a partner who approximates their own physical attractiveness (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, &
Rottman, 1966) has been documented numerous times (Cash, 1981). Indeed, a meta-analysis of
the matching hypothesis found a reliable correlation between the physical attractiveness of
relationship partners (r = .39; Feingold, 1988). According to the original explanation for this
effect, a perceivers' subjective self-evaluation was critical for differentiating between realistic
mate choices--choices determined by the objective desirability of the date while constrained by
the perceived likelihood of attaining the date--from idealistic mate choices--choices that are
Page 12
Reciprocity Effect 12
determined solely by the objective desirability of the date. Idealistic preferences result in
preferences for maximally attractive partners, whereas realistic preferences result in matching for
physical attractiveness. "Realistic" individuals consider the other's physical attractiveness and the
probability of acceptance, and then attempt to date the most attractive other who will accept
them. Thus, realistic individuals, due primarily to equity and market processes, end up dating
others who approximate their own physical attractiveness.
In the context of the two-dimensional model, matching is a function of the tendency for
ability and willingness assessments to be inversely related: Participants regard attractive targets,
either directly or by inference, as more able to meet their needs, but less willing to do so (see
Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972). Huston (1973), for example, noted that men generally
estimated that the more attractive targets were less likely to accept them, but when induced to
think that acceptance of the proposal was certain, men chose more attractive partners. Similarly,
Montoya (2008) found as target's physical attractiveness increased, participants' expectations of
rejection increased and judgments of the likelihood of a relationship occurring decreased. In this
case, the matching effect seems to arise, at least partially, from the preemptive rejection (e.g.,
avoidance) of potential partners that individuals assume will reject them. Such prediction of a
rejection is grounded in the evaluation of potential partners, typically high quality ones, as
unwilling to meet one's needs.
Role of self-esteem. The argument regarding the role of willingness assessments in the
matching phenomenon is further bolstered by matching studies that explore the role of self-
esteem. From our perspective, self-esteem alters the way willingness information is interpreted,
such that those with high self-esteem (or whose esteem has been temporarily inflated) should
regard romantic targets as more willing to meet their needs than do those with low self-esteem
(or whose esteem has been temporarily deflated). Such a claim is consistent with past theorizing
Page 13
Reciprocity Effect 13
and empirical investigations in which self-esteem affects mate selection choices and preferences.
Subjective self-evaluations, which have been central to a diverse set of mate-preference
models (e.g., Feingold, 1988; Huston, 1973; Kiesler & Baral, 1970; Sloman & Sloman, 1988;
Walster et al., 1966), are hypothesized to be important because they represent one's belief that
one can acquire a desired goal. In the dating realm, individuals with a poor self-evaluation regard
themselves as less able and thus, less likely to attract a desirable target (Lewin, Dembo,
Festinger, & Sears, 1944). Such an approach is consistent with an evolutionary perspective,
which posits that self-esteem reflects a self-evaluation of one's mate value (e.g., Dawkins, 1982;
Todd & Miller, 1999; Wright, 1994). Kirkpatrick and Ellis (2001) similarly proposed that a
function of self-esteem is to facilitate approach toward others who are high in mate quality, but
not too high so that they would not reciprocate benefits (see also Kavanagh, Robins, & Ellis,
2010).
Empirical evidence is consistent with such theorizing. Kiesler and Baral (1970), for
example, found that men whose self-esteem had been lowered displayed more romantic approach
behaviors toward a moderately physically attractive woman than toward a very attractive one. In
contrast, men whose self-esteem had been raised showed the reverse pattern. Similarly, research
indicates that participants with higher self-rated mate value express higher mate preferences than
those with lower self-rated mate value (e.g., Pawlowski & Dunbar, 1999; P. C. Regan, 1998).
Pratfall effect. In their famous pratfall study, Aronson, Willerman, and Floyd (1966)
found that attraction toward a competent target was greater when the target committed an
embarrassing blunder than when the target did not. Helmrich, Aronson, and LeFan (1970) later
reasoned that the blunder "humanized" the confederate and made him more approachable. By our
reasoning of two-dimensional approaches, the blunder "humanized" the confederate by
decreasing, in the participants' minds, the possibility that this confederate might evaluate them
Page 14
Reciprocity Effect 14
negatively (i.e., might be unwilling to meet their needs, reject them).
This reasoning is supported with multiple lines of research. To start, Morse and Gergen
(1970) concluded that comparisons with another whose performance surpasses one's own
reduces one's self-esteem, ostensibly because participants compared themselves unfavorably
with the other. In the face of such threat to the self, self-protective motives guide decreased
attraction to an exceptional individual who could evaluate the self negatively (Fromkin, 1972;
Sedikides, 1993; Sigall & Landy, 1973). As such, an exceptional blunder-less confederate would
represent a more damaging comparison for the participant, one of which the participant would
assume the confederate is keenly aware and could use as a basis for rejection. As such, the
blunder's impact on attraction resulted from the real change in the nature of the self-comparison
with the confederate (i.e., the comparison became less "upward" than it was before) and the
resultant change in the perceived probability that the participants would be be evaluated
negatively by the target (see Stapel & Tesser 2001).
By this thinking then, one's attraction to a target is influenced by the extent to which we
expect the other to like us. If we expect a person to not like us (as we might expect when
confronted by a flawless person), we will be less attracted to this target than to a target who is
competent but who is less likely to reject us. In effect, the blunder increases attraction toward a
competent other because it alleviates the danger of a negative evaluation to one's self-esteem.
Consistent with this thinking, Herbst, Gaertner, and Insko (2003) manipulated the degree to
which a target other fell short of, matched, or exceeded, one's own ideal self on a self-relevant
attribute. They found that attraction rose as the target's ability increased but that attraction fell
when the target person's ability exceeded one's own ideal self. Similarly, Montoya and Horton
(2004) found that when participants were not faced with the possibility of a negative evaluation
from the partner (e.g., in the "minimal interaction" condition with a superior other or in an
Page 15
Reciprocity Effect 15
intense interaction with a poor or average partner), attraction increased as the ability assessment
of the partner increased. In contrast, when a negative evaluation was made possible (e.g., by an
expected intense interaction with a highly competent partner), attraction decreased. Similarly,
Amabile (1983) found that although participants regarded individuals who criticized others as
more intelligent, these individuals were also rated as less likable. Each of these studies
demonstrates that as a target's ability level increases, there is an increased perception that the
target will not like us. Such expected rejection leads to a lack of trust in the target, which then
leads to reduced liking.
Similarity Effect
One of the most robust phenomena in attraction literature is the "similarity effect"
(Byrne, 1971): Increased similarity to a target--with respect to attitudes, personality traits, or a
number of other attributes--is associated with increased attraction to the target. The similarity
effect has been observed in a multitude of different populations (e.g., Tan & Singh, 1995) and
has been observed for personality traits (e.g., Carli, Ganley, & Pierce-Otay, 1991), attitudes
(Bond, Byrne, & Diamond, 1968), hobbies (Jamieson, Lydon, & Zanna, 1987), among other
attributes (e.g., Spuhler, 1968). Indeed, a meta-analysis of the similarity effect observed that
similarity produces a positive, moderate, effect on attraction (Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner,
2008).
Although there are multiple competing explanations for the similarity effect (e.g.,
affective processes, Byrne, 1971; cognitive evaluations, Montoya & Horton, 2004), one
prominent interpretation proposes that the similarity effect is mediated by the individual's belief
that the similar other will accept/like the individual (Aronson & Worchel, 1966; Condon &
Crano, 1988). One step further, Singh and colleagues have explored the influence of the trust
inferred from similarity on attraction. For example, Singh, Ho, Tan, and Bell (2007) argued that
Page 16
Reciprocity Effect 16
it was the trust "built" by the acceptance inferred from similarity that generated attraction to
similar others (also see Singh et al., 2009). Indeed, other work has found that inferred attraction
mediates the similarity effect and that such mediation persists even when controlling for the
other assessment of the target (Singh, Yeo, Lin, & Tan, 2007). As a further test of this
interpretation, McWhirter and Jecker (1967) manipulated similarity and asked participants to
estimate the degree to which they believed that the target person would like him/her. McWhirter
and Jecker found that similarity led to greater expectations of acceptance and more liking for the
target, as compared with dissimilarity. They further noted that acceptance and similarity were
highly correlated (r = .87), providing additional evidence of the role of perceived acceptance in
the similarity effect.
Additional Processes
To this point, we have argued that an assessment of a target's willingness to meet one's
needs is fundamental to the reciprocity effect. That argument is grounded, at least in part, in
person perception literature that identifies assessments of willingness and ability as foundational
to human interaction. However, there is additional evidence that points to an evolved, critical
role for willingness in such interaction. First, non-human species display similar sensitivity to
trust, and second, humans appear to possess physiological mechanisms specialized for trust
consideration.
Cross-species presence of similar mechanisms. The need to exchange resources with
others is not a uniquely human problem. Thus, other species should display the same
mechanisms as humans when determining who will be a good exchange partner. For instance, it
may be unsurprising that chimpanzees display abundant evidence of trust-based behaviors. Quite
generally, chimps can recognize specific other chimpanzees (Parr, 2003), can discriminate
intentional from accidental intentions (Call, Hare, Carpenter, & Tomasello, 2004), can
Page 17
Reciprocity Effect 17
discriminate between different partners dependent on the specific task required (Melis, Hare, &
Tomasello, 2006), and will engage in altruistic behavior (Warneken & Tomasello, 2006). More
importantly for the current argument, chimps also understand when a distribution of resources
are not equitable (Brosnan, Schiff, & de Waal, 2005) and determine whether they will cooperate
by gauging reciprocity potential. Indeed, chimps are more inclined to share food with another
chimp if that chimp had previously groomed him/her (de Waal, 1997; see also Koyama, Caws, &
Aureli, 2006) and display direct exchange of grooming, coalitionary support, and meat sharing
(Mitani, 2006). Additional research identifies somewhat less sophisticated reciprocity in other
primates (e.g., Silk, 1992) and in lower species (Wilkinson, 1984).
Physiological Processes
If the willingness assessment is universal across species and people, an evolved
adaptation, there should be physiological structures present to support such an assessment.
Below, we discuss two structures necessary for the link between trust and reciprocated liking:
One structure that allows humans to determine the intent of others, and a second structure that
facilitates the development of trust/distrust in others.
Superior temporal sulcus. One critical localized neurological structure important for
processing trust information is the superior temporal sulcus (STS). Research into the role of the
STS postulates that the STS processes the intentions of others. More specifically, the STS has
been linked to inferring another's intentions, rather than to more general cognitive cues, such as
precautionary reasoning (Fiddick, Spampinato, & Grafman, 2005) or descriptive rule reasoning
(Canessa, Gorini, Cappa, Piatelli-Palmarini, Danna, Fazio, et al., 2005). Indeed, the STS is active
when people make judgments of facial emotion (Narumoto, Okada, Sadato, Fukui, & Yonekura,
2001), trustworthiness (e.g., Winston, Strange, O'Doherty, & Dolan, 2002), and intentions (e.g.,
Castelli, Happe, Frith, & Frith, 2000). A similar wealth of studies has noted that the STS, along
Page 18
Reciprocity Effect 18
with its proximate neural cortices (including the medial prefrontal cortex, anterior temporal
cortex, posterior temporal cortex, superior temporal gyrus, and temporo-parietal junction), is
engaged by inferring another's intentions (e.g., Apperly, Samson, Chiavarino, & Humphreys,
2004; Saxe & Kanwisher, 2003).
Oxytocin. Oxytocin is a neuropeptide hormone released by the posterior pituitary and
found throughout the limbic system and brainstem. Oxytocin receptors are especially prevalent
in brain regions regulating memory, reproduction, and social behavior; and thus, oxytocin is
important to regulating social exchanges and assessments relevant to trust (Bartz & Hollander,
2006; Carter, 1998). For example, oxytocin attenuates anxiety aroused by social stimuli.
Relatedly, Kirsch et al. (2005) observed that an intranasal administration of oxytocin was more
effective at reducing participants' anxiety responses to social (e.g., angry faces), as compared to
non-social (e.g., snakes), anxiety-producing stimuli. Similarly, Heinrichs, Baumgartner,
Kirschbaum, and Ehlert (2003) found that men who received intranasal oxytocin produced less
stress hormone in response to social stressors than men who did not receive oxytocin. In general,
then, oxytocin provides a physiological buffer against social anxiety.
The clearest link, though, between oxytocin and trust comes from research that
investigates trust between unacquainted individuals participating in a social dilemma. Zak,
Kurzban, and Matzner (2005) found that oxytocin levels increased when participants received
trust signals (in the form of monetary allocations) from their opponents and that such increases
predicted increased reciprocation from the participants. Similarly, Kosfeld, Heinrichs, Zak,
Fischbacher, and Fehr (2005) observed that individuals who inhaled oxytocin invested more
money in their opponent, indicating more trust in their opponent to reciprocate later rewards. It is
important to note that these findings resulted when participants interacted with another "live"
partner, but did not occur when participants interacted with a computer, indicating that human
Page 19
Reciprocity Effect 19
contact is important for the release and influence of oxytocin.
In sum, the STS and Oxytocin seem to be specialized for responding to and/or regulating
trust information. The presence of such mechanisms is consistent with the notion that a
sensitivity to trust is an evolved component of our social wiring, wiring that we seem to share
with only those species with whom we share significant evolutionary heritage.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we posited that the key determinant of reciprocated attraction derives
from the fundamental evaluations we make of others. The impact of the willingness assessment
on attraction can be observed not only in the basic reciprocity of liking effect, but in a broad
spectrum of other attraction phenomena identified frequently in the literature, including the
similarity effect, pratfall effect, and the matching hypothesis. Taken in total, the conclusions
from the present research offer insights regarding the processes individuals use to evaluate and
determine their level of attraction to another, particularly as it relates to the expression of
attraction.
Page 20
Reciprocity Effect 20
References
Amabile, T. M. (1983). Brilliant but cruel: Perceptions of negative evaluators. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 146–156.
Apperly, I. A., Samson, D., Chiavarino, C., & Humphreys, G. W. (2004). Frontal and temporo-
parietal lobe contributions to theory of mind: Neuropsychological evidence from a false-
belief task with reduced language and executive demands. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 16, 1773-1784.
Aronson, E., & Worchel, P. (1966). Similarity versus liking as determinants of interpersonal
attractiveness. Psychonomic Science, 5, 157–158.
Aronson, E., Willerman, B., & Floyd, J. (1966). The effect of a pratfall on increasing
interpersonal attractiveness. Psychonomic Science, 4, 227-228.
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 41, 259–290.
Ayers, L., Nacci, P., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1973). Attraction and reactions to noncontingent
promises. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1, 75–77.
Bartz, J. A., & Hollander, E. (2006). The neuroscience of affiliation: Forging links between basic
and clinical research on neuropeptides and social behavior. Hormones and Behavior, 50,
518–528.
Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., & Stillwell, A. M. (1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak,
anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64, 377-394.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bond, M., Byrne, D., & Diamond, M. J. (1968). Effect of occupational prestige and attitude
similarity on attraction as a function of assumed similarity of attitude. Psychological
Page 21
Reciprocity Effect 21
Reports, 23, 1167-1172.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Oxford, England: Academic Press.
Brehm, J. W., & Cole, A. H. (1966). Effect of a favor which reduces freedom. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 420–426.
Brosnan, S. F., Schiff, H. C., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2005). Tolerance for inequity may increase
with social closeness in chimpanzees. Proceedings from the Royal Society London B:
Biological Science, 272, 253-258.
Buchan, N. R., Croson, R. T., & Dawes, R. M. (2002). Swift neighbors and persistent strangers:
A cross-cultural investigation of trust and reciprocity in social exchange. American
Journal of Sociology, 108, 168–206.
Burleson, J. A. (1983). Reciprocity of interpersonal attraction within acquainted versus
unacquainted small groups. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43(12-B), 4194.
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Choe, J., Buunk, B. F., & Dijkstra, P. (2000). Distress about
mating rivals. Personal Relationships, 7, 235-243.
Byrne, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Call, J., Hare, B., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2004). "Unwilling" versus "unable":
Chimpanzees' understanding of human intentional action. Developmental Science, 7, 488-
498.
Carli, L. L., Ganley, R., & Pierce-Otay, A. (1991). Similarity and satisfaction in roommate
relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 419-426.
Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 779–818.
Cash, T. F. (1981). Physical attractiveness: An annotated bibliography of theory and research in
the behavioral sciences. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 11, 83.
Page 22
Reciprocity Effect 22
Canessa, N., Gorini, A., Cappa, S. F., Piatelli-Palmarini, M., Danna, M., Fazio, F., et al. (2005).
The effect of social content on deductive reasoning: An fMRI study. Human Brain
Mapping, 26, 30-43.
Castelli, F., Happe, F., Frith, U., Frith, C. D. (2000). Movement and mind: a functional imaging
study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns.
NeuroImage, 12, 314-325.
Clark, M. L., & Drewry, D. L. (1985). Similarity and reciprocity in the friendships of elementary
school children. Child Study Journal, 15, 251–264.
Cohen, T., Montoya, R. M., & Insko, C. A. (2006). Group morality and intergroup relations:
Cross-cultural and experimental evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
31, 1559-1572.
Condon, J. W., & Crano, W. D. (1988). Inferred evaluation and the relation between attitude
similarity and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
789-797.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. H. Barkow, L.
Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the
generation of culture (pp. 163–228). New York: Oxford University Press.
Dale, J. (1995). Problems with pair-wise comparisons: Does certainty of paternity covary with
paternal care? Animal Behaviour, 49, 519-521.
Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype: The gene as the unit of selection. San Francisco:
Freeman.
de Waal, F. B. M. (1997). The chimpanzee's service economy: food for grooming. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 18, 375-386.
Dion, K. K., Berscheid. E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of
Page 23
Reciprocity Effect 23
Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61, 35–51.
Ellis, B. J. (1998). The partner-specific investment inventory: An evolutionary approach to
individual differences in investment. Journal of Personality, 66, 383-442.
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137-140.
Feingold, A. (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: A
meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 226-235.
Fiddick, L., Spampinato, M. V., & Grafman, J. (2005). Social contracts and precautions activate
different neurological systems: An fMRI investigation of deontic reasoning. NeuroImage,
28, 778-786.
Fisher, J. D., & Nadler, A. (1976). Effect of donor resources on recipient self-esteem and self-
help. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 139-150.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype
content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from the perceived status and
competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
Frank, R. (2001). Cooperation through emotional commitment. In R. M. Hesse (Ed.), Evolution
and the capacity for commitment (pp. 57-76), New York: Russell Sage.
Fromkin, H. L. (1972). Feelings of interpersonal undistinctiveness: An unpleasant affective state.
Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 6, 178–185.
Gordon, R. A. (1996). Impact of ingratiation on judgments and evaluations: A meta-analytic
investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 54-70.
Grafen, A. (1990). Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology 144, 517–
546.
Page 24
Reciprocity Effect 24
Hamilton, D., & Fallot, R. (1974). Information salience as a weighting factor in impression
formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 444–448.
Hardin, R, (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Heinrichs, M., Baumgartner, T., Kirschbaum, C., & Ehlert, U. (2003). Social support and
oxytocin interact to suppress cortisol and subjective responses to psychosocial stress.
Biological Psychiatry, 54, 1389–1398.
Helmreich, R., Aronson, E., & LeFan, J. (1970). To err is humanizing sometimes: Effects of self-
esteem, competence, and a pratfall on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 16, 259–264.
Herbst, K. C., Gaertner, L., & Insko, C. A. (2003). My head says yes but my heart says no:
Cognitive and affective attraction as a function of similarity to ideal self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1206–1219.
Huston, T. L. (1973). Ambiguity of acceptance, social desirability, and dating choice. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 32-42.
Insko, C., Schopler, J., & Sedikides, C. (1998). Personal control, entitativity, and evolution.
Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 109-120). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Jamieson, D., Lydon, J., & Zanna, M. (1987). Attitude and activity preference similarity:
Differential bases of interpersonal attraction for low and high self-monitors. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1052-1060.
Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation: A social psychological analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts.
Jones, E. E., Jones, R. G., & Gergen, K. J. (1963). Some conditions affecting the evaluation of a
conformist. Journal of Personality, 31, 270-288.
Page 25
Reciprocity Effect 25
Jones, E. E., Stires, L. K., Shaver, G. K., & Harris, V. A. (1968). Evaluation of an ingratiator by
target persons and bystanders. Journal of Personality, 36, 349–385.
Kavanagh, P. S., Robins, S. C., Ellis, B. J. (2010). The mating sociometer: A regulatory
mechanism for mating aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99,
120-132.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence.
New York: Wiley.
Kiesler, S. B., & Baral, R. L. (1970). The secret for a romantic partner: The effects of self-
esteem and physical attractiveness on romantic behavior. In K. J. Gergen & D. Marlove
(Eds.), Personality and social behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Kirsch, P., Esslinger, C., Chen, Q., Mier, D., Lis, S., Siddhanti, S., Gruppe, H., Mattay, V.S.,
Gallhofer, B., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2005). Oxytocin modulates neural circuitry for
social cognition and fear in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 11489–11493.
Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P.J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005): Oxytocin increases
trust in humans. Nature, 435, 673–676.
Koyama, N. F., Caws, C. & Aureli, F. (2006). Interchange of grooming and agonistic support in
chimpanzees. International Journal of Primatology, 27, 1293-1309.
Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatism: The function of social
exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 187–208.
Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L., & Sears, P. S. (1944). Level of aspiration. In Hunt, J. (Ed.),
Personality and the behavior disorders. (pp. 333-378). Oxford, England: Ronald Press.
Loomis, J. L. (1959). Communication, the development of trust, and cooperative behavior.
Human Relations, 12, 305-315.
Martindale, C., Ross, M., Hines, D., & Abrams, L. I. (1978). Independence of interaction and
Page 26
Reciprocity Effect 26
interpersonal attraction in a psychiatric hospital population. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 87, 247-255.
McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception.
Psychological Review, 90, 215-238.
McGrew, W.C., & Feistner, A. T. (1992). Two nonhuman primate models for the evolution of
human food sharing: Chimpanzees and callitrichids. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J.
Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture
(pp. 229-243). New York: Oxford University Press.
McWhirter, R. M., & Jecker, J. D. (1967). Attitude similarity and inferred attraction.
Psychonomic Science, 7, 225-226.
Melis, A. P., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Chimpanzees recruit the best collaborators.
Science, 311, 1297–300.
Mitani, J. C. (2006). Reciprocal exchange in chimpanzees and other primates. In P. M. Kappeler
& C. P. van Schaik (Eds.), Cooperation in Primates and Humans: Mechanisms and
Evolution (pp. 107-119). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Montoya, R. M. (2008). I'm hot, so I'd say you're not: The influence of objective physical
attractiveness on mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1315-
1331.
Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. (2004). On the importance of cognitive evaluation as a
determinant of interpersonal attraction in the similarity effect. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 86, 696-712.
Montoya, R. M., & Insko, C. A. (2008). Toward a more complete understanding of the
reciprocity of liking effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 477–498.
Montoya, R. M., Horton, R., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction?
Page 27
Reciprocity Effect 27
A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 25, 889-922.
Morse, S. J., & Gergen, K. J. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency, and the presentation of
self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 148-159.
Nadler, A., Fisher, J. D., & Ben Itzhak, S. (1983). With a little help from my friend: Effect of
single or multiple act aid as a function of donor and task characteristics. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 310-321.
Nadler, A., Fisher, J. D., & Streufert, S. (1974). The donor's dilemma: Recipient's reactions to
aid from friend or foe. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 272-285.
Narumoto, J., Okada, T., Sadato, N., Fukui, K., & Yonekura, Y. (2001). Attention to emotion
modulates fMRI activity in human right superior temporal sulcus. Cognitive Brain
Research, 12, 225–231.
Nemeth, C. (1970). Effects of free versus constrained behavior on attraction between people.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 302-311.
Nicholson, C. Y., Compeau, L. D., & Sethi, R. (2001). The role of interpersonal liking in
building trust in long-term channel relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 29, 3-15.
Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 11087–11092.
Parr, L. A. (2003). The discrimination of faces and their emotional content by chimpanzees (Pan
troglodytes). Annual New York Academy of Science, 1000, 56–78.
Pawlowski, B., & Dunbar, R. I. (1999). Impact of market value on human mate choice decisions.
Proceedings of The Royal Society in London, Series B, 266(1416), 281–285.
Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. (1990). Positive–negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction
Page 28
Reciprocity Effect 28
between affective and informational negativity effects. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone
(Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 33 – 60). New York: Wiley.
Pruitt, D. G. (1968). Reciprocity and credit building in a laboratory dyad. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 8, 143-147.
Reeder, G. D., Pryor, J. B., & Wojciszke, B. (1992). Trait-behavior relationships in social
information processing. In G. R. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Language, interaction and
social cognition (pp. 37–57). London: Sage.
Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 7, 627-639.
Regan, P. C. (1998). What if you can't get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal
mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1294–1303.
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95–112.
Rempel, J. K., Ross, M., & Holmes, J. G. (2001). Trust and communicated attributions in close
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 57–64
Rosenberg, S., Nelson, C, & Vivekananthan, P. S. (1968). A multidimensional approach to the
structure of personality impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9,
283-294.
Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist,
35, 1-7.
Saxe, R., & Kanwisher, N. (2003). People thinking about people: The role of the tempo-parietal
junction in "theory of mind". NeuroImage, 19, 1835-1842.
Schopler, J., & Thompson, V. D. (1968). Role of attribution processes in mediating amount of
Page 29
Reciprocity Effect 29
reciprocity for a favor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 243-250.
Sedikides, C. (1993). Assessment, enhancement, and verification determinants of the self-
evaluation process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 317–338.
Sigall, H., & Landy, D. (1973). Radiating beauty: Effects of having a physically attractive
partner on person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 218–
224.
Silk, J. B. (1992). The patterning of intervention among male bonnet macaques: reciprocity,
revenge, and loyalty. Current Anthropology, 33, 318-324.
Singh, R., Ho, L. J., Tan, H. L., & Bell, P. A. (2007). Attitudes, personal evaluations, cognitive
evaluation, and interpersonal attraction: On the direct, indirect, and reverse-causal effects.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 19–42.
Singh, R., Simons, J. J. P., Young, D. P. C. Y., Sim, B. S. X., Chai, X. T., Singh, S., et al.
(2009). Trust and respect as mediators of the effects of other- and self-profitable trait on
interpersonal attraction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1021–1038.
Singh, R., Yeo, S. E., Lin, P. K. F., & Tan, L. (2007). Multiple mediators of the attitude
similarity-attraction relationship: Dominance of inferred attraction and subtlety of affect.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 61–74.
Sloman, S., & Sloman, L. (1988). Mate selection in the service of human evolution. Journal of
Social Biological Structures, 11, 457-468.
Sprecher, S. (1998). Insiders' perspectives on reasons for attraction to a close other. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 61, 287–300.
Spuhler, J. N. (1968). Assortative mating with respect to physical characteristics. Eugenics
Quarterly, 15, 128-140.
Stapel, D. A., & Tesser, A. (2001). Self-activation increases social comparison. Journal of
Page 30
Reciprocity Effect 30
Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 742–750.
Tan, D. T., & Singh, R. (1995). Attitudes and attraction: A developmental study of the similarity
attraction and dissimilarity repulsion hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21, 975-986.
Tesser, A., Gatewood, R., & Driver, M. (1967). Some determinants of gratitude. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 233-236.
Todd, P. M., & Miller, G. F. (1999). From pride and prejudice to persuasion: Satisficing in mate
search. In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & the ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple
heuristics that make us smart (pp. 287–308). New York: Oxford University Press.
Van Schaik, C. P., Van Noordwijk, M. A., Warsono, B., & Sutriono, E. (1983). Party size and
early detection of predators in Sumatran forest primates. Primates, 24, 211-221.
Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). Importance of physical
attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 508-
516.
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Altruistic helping in human infants and young
chimpanzees. Science, 311, 1301-1303.
White, G. M. (1980). Conceptual universals in interpersonal language. American Anthropologist,
82, 759–781.
Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J. L., Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (2003). Beyond the group
mind: A quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect.
Psychological Bulletin, 129, 698–722.
Wilkinson, G. R. (1984). Reciprocal food sharing in vampire bats. Nature, 308, 181-184.
Wilson, W., & Henzlik, W. (1986). Reciprocity of liking following face-to-face encounters with
attractive and unattractive others. Psychological Reports, 59, 599–609.
Page 31
Reciprocity Effect 31
Winston, J. S., Strange, B. A., O'Doherty, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2002). Automatic and intentional
brain responses during evaluation of trustworthiness of faces. Nature Neuroscience, 5,
277–283.
Wojciszke, B. (1994). Multiple meanings of behaviour: Construing actions in terms of
competence or morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 222–232.
Wojciszke, B., Bazinska, R., & Jaworski, M. (1998). On the dominance of moral categories in
impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1245-1257.
Worchel, S., Andreoli, V. A., & Archer, R. (1976). When is a favor a threat to freedom: The
effects of attribution and importance of freedom on reciprocity. Journal of Personality,
44, 294-310.
Wright, R. (1994). The moral animal: The new science of evolutionary psychology. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection: A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology,
53, 205-214.
Zak, P. J., Kurzban, R. & Matzner, W. T., (2005). Oxytocin is associated with human
trustworthiness. Hormones and Behavior, 48, 522–527.