Social Exchange and Favors 1
A Social Exchange Perspective Applied to Favors and Compliance
Allison Shaw
KEYWORDS: social exchange, favors, compliance
Social Exchange and Favors 2
A Social Exchange Perspective Applied to Favors and Compliance
Social exchange theorists have long tried to explain what drives human
interaction. A shared concept among all social exchange theories is interdependence
between people (Blau, 1998; Thibaut & Kelly 1959; Homan, 1961). Blau (1998) suggests
that this interdependence is at the core of numerous types of social interactions.
Interdependence ensues when a person for whom someone has performed a favor is
required to reciprocate that favor when the appropriate time arrives. If that person fails to
reciprocate then they are seen as rude and ungrateful and interdependence is not obtained.
However, if the favor is reciprocated then it induces the other to reciprocate in kind and
encourages both parties to continue such exchange. Each individual’s behavior in this
exchange is dependent on the other’s behavior in order to drive the interaction. If one was
to fail to reciprocate, the exchange would then halt and interdependence would no longer
exist.
Blau (1998) posits that interdependence is not in itself sufficient enough for social
exchange to exist between two people. Blau (1998) suggests that another criterion must
also be met for a social exchange interaction to exist. He proposes that the end goal of the
interaction can only be obtained through interaction with another specific individual
which whom one is interdependent with (Blau, 1998). If one had the ability to achieve his
goal alone, or through any other non-specific individual, then there would be no need for
another to aid in pursuit of those goals. Social exchange occurs when one individual
seeks resources that another, specific individual possesses.
One specific social exchange interaction that Blau (1998) discusses is one of
social attraction. This is a voluntary association where individuals seek to expand the
Social Exchange and Favors 3
breadth and depth of their interaction after interdependence is formed. Individuals may be
socially attracted to one another because they foresee future exchange to be rewarding to
both parties. This differs from other social exchange interactions due to the nature of
rewards. In this specific type of social association individuals see rewards as intrinsically
rewarding; whereas, in an association where there is no social attraction rewards are seen
as purely extrinsic (Blau, 1998). This specific type of social exchange may exist between
romantic partners or friends.
Individuals who are engaging in this socially attractive exchange wish to stay
attractive to the other by reciprocating and allowing the other to be rewarded for the
exchange (Blau, 1998). Individuals involved in this exchange will continue to do so since
they see the exchange as rewarding and thus view the other person involved in the
exchange as someone that they like. If both individuals are mutually attracted there will
develop a continuous exchange.
One such relationship, where social exchange lays basis to, is that between pregiving, or favors, and compliance. The extant literature consistently demonstrates that
providing a favor for someone increases the likelihood of gaining compliance with a
subsequent request (Regan, 1971; Gouldner, 1960). The corpus of literature has
specifically examined to possible mediating effects of liking for and obligation towards
the favor doer on the part of the favor recipient. However, conflicting evidence exists
regarding which of the two mediators is responsible for this relationship.
Consistent with Blau’s (1998) social exchange theory, Gouldner (1960) suggests
that due to the norm of reciprocity people feel obligated to return a favor in order to
maintain a relationship. Obligation stems from a feeling of indebtedness toward the favor
Social Exchange and Favors 4
doer that drives the recipient to perform a reciprocal favor. Gouldner (1960) also posits
that people should, and do, help those that help them. Thus when a favor is done, the
recipient of that favor feels obligated to return the favor at the appropriate time in order to
maintain their continual interaction. Regan (1971) found obligation to be the stronger of
the two mediating factors in this interaction.
The other possible mediating factor between favors and compliance that has been
examined is liking for the favor doer. Liking arises from an affinity toward the favor
doer. In Blau’s (1998) socially attractive interactions, individuals like the other involved
in the interaction because rewards can be foreseen and reaped from them. Goei, Lindsey,
Boster, Skalski, and Bowman (2003) attempted to replicate Regan’s (1971) study but
found liking to be the stronger of the two mediating factors.
One limitation to both Regan’s (1971) study and Goei et al. (2003) and much of
the pre-giving, compliance literature is that the relationship is examined between
strangers whose interactions are limited to just that occurrence. However, most favors are
probably done between individuals who will engage in longer social exchange, such as
friends. Boster, Rodriguez, Cruz, and Marshall (1995) examined the relationship of
favors and compliance and how it differed between friends and strangers. They argue that
since a longer social exchange is to be expected between friends than strangers that liking
for the favor doer, their friend, would be the stronger of the two mediating factors, which
was supported by their findings. Whereas, between strangers, obligation would be the
stronger of the two mediating factors since they would feel the need to reciprocate the
favor immediately (Boster et al., 1995).
Social Exchange and Favors 5
However, Boster et al.’s (1995) methodology conflicts with Blau’s (1998)
definition of social exchange. In Boster et al’s (1995) study the exchange that occurred,
purchasing of raffle tickets, may not be considered a social exchange according to Blau
(1998) because the end goal is not dependent on the other in order to reach it. Since the
favor recipient was not entirely necessary for the favor doer’s goal of selling the most
raffle tickets, social exchange may never have taken place. This may have lead Boster et
al. (1995) to find that liking was the stronger of the two mediating factors.
Furthermore, Boster et al. (1995) used confederates to recruit their friends as
participants in their study. The initial favor doer in this interaction is not the confederate
who purchases a soft drink for their friend, but rather the friend who graciously came in
to participate in the study. The friend may not have seen his participation in the study as a
favor, since many friendships are communal in that they do favors for one another
because of concern for the other and not because of specific projected exchange (Clark &
Mills, 1979). According to Blau (1998) these friends would be engaging in a socially
attractive relationship where both individuals try to be attractive to the other by
performing favors for and showing that the other can expect rewards from them.
However, if their friendship was to be disturbed, so that one no longer seems
socially attractive, a different mediating factor may drive this relationship than what
Boster et al (1995) had found. For instance, if the favor doer’s favor is momentarily
disregarded, not that the favor hasn’t been repaid, but rather that the favor doer believes
that their favor has not been fully recognized by the recipeint, the interaction that ensues
may differ. Blau (1998) suggests that when one can not repay a favor but the favor has
been done, the favor recipient, instead of doing a favor, relinquishes “power” over to the
Social Exchange and Favors 6
favor doer. This may also be true when a favor is disregarded by the favor recipient, it
may instill a since of “power” within the favor doer over the favor recipient. Future
exchanges after this point may result from different mediating factors than what Boster et
al. (1995) had found to exist between friends.
Furthermore, this specific type of scenario may elicit similar results to that of antisocial behavior. Disregard toward a favor may be seen as a anti-social jesture since it
would be against social norms to not want to portray oneself as socially attractive. The
limited amount of research conducted the effect pre-giving has on compliance in an antisocial context has found that when presented with a favor and compliance is solicited
using a direct request, compliance is low (Boster, Fediuk, and Kotowski, 2001). Only
about 30% of individuals complied with a direct request when a favor was performed
first; whereas, 40% of individuals complied in a control where no favor was performed.
Boster et al’s (2001) explanation is that within an anti-social context a favor may be seen
as a bribe and therefore compliance is not reciprocated. Individuals may not wish to
continue a social exchange relationship with an individual who, although performed a
favor which is seen as pro-social, acts anti-socially. The anti-social individual no longer
appears to be socially attractive anymore and the interaction ceases.
This study will examine the relationship between favors and compliance when
social exchange relationships are disrupted. The initial favor doer’s favor will be
disregarded so that social attractiveness of his friend is momentarily decreased and thus
liking will be decreased. Furthermore, the exchange that takes place between the two
friends will be clearly defined as a social exchange relationship where one is needed in
order to obtain the end goal and future interaction beyond the study will be ensured. If
Social Exchange and Favors 7
compliance is gained after the second favor is performed, by the confederate, then it can
be determined that obligation for the favor doer is the mediating factor driving the favor,
compliance relationship.
Methods
Subjects
The sample consisted of 80 participants (P), 20 confederates (C) were asked to
recruit four friends of the same-sex. They were to have been friends for at least a year
and plan on continuing their friendship after the current year.
Design
In this experiment a 2 (disregard, no disregard) X 2 (favor, no favor) independent groups
design will be employed. P’s were assigned to one of four conditions randomly with the
constraint that there were equal numbers of participants in each condition.
Procedures
Before the study began the C was instructed to ask their friend to participate in
their study for them as a favor. C asked using the following request:
“Do you think you could do me a favor by participating in a communication study
with me?”
The C’s were also instructed not to arrive with their friends to the laboratory, but
instead meet the experimenter (E) at a discrete location. When the P arrived at the
laboratory they were greeted by E and escorted to a room. In the no disregard condition
C’s arrive within five minutes of the P arriving. In the disregard condition the P was then
informed by the E that their friend was running late. P’s, who were told that this study
Social Exchange and Favors 8
was about study habits among friends, are asked to wait and fill out a questionnaire about
their friendship with C. After 20 minutes of waiting the C arrives and joins the P.
In the no favor condition once the C arrives he joins the P and continues with the
experiment. In the favor condition when the C arrives and joins the P, the C hands P a
pop and says, “I went to get myself a pop, and I got one for you, too.”
The E arrives and distributes some material for the participants to read over,
which instructs the participants not to talk to one another. As the E is exiting the room,
the C asked “If we can’t talk at all, is it OK if I give my friend a note that doesn’t have
anything to do with the experiment?” The E states that notes are fine, but there is to be no
talking.
When the E is gone, the C took out a sheet of paper and copies the following
message:
Would you do me a favor? I have a paper due right after this study and it still
needs to be proof read. You are the only person I am going to see before I need to
turn it in. Do you think you can proof read it for me?
Instrumentation
Both the C and the P’s relationship will be assessed with a five 7-point Likerttype item, which is designed to measure the extent to which the relationship is exchange
or communal, according to Clark and Mills (1979). The P will then fill out a 7-point
semantic differential scale to measure liking of the C and the P will fill out a 7-point to
measure temporary disliking.
Social Exchange and Favors 9
Blau, P.M. Exchange & Power in social life, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick,
1998.
Boster, F., Rodriguez, J., Cruz, M., & Marshall, L. (1995). The relative effectiveness of a
direct request message and a pregiving message on friends and strangers.
Communication Research, 22, 475-484.
Clark, M.S., & Mills, J.R. (1979) Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal
relationship. Journal of personality and Social psychology, 37, 12-24.
Goei, R., Massi-Lindsey, L.L., Boster, F.J., Skalski, P.D., & Bowman, J.M. (2003). The
mediating roles of liking and obligation on the relationship between favors and
compliance. Communication Research, 39, 178-197.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
Homans, G.C. Social Behavior, New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961.
Regan, D.T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 7, 627-639.
Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. The Social psychology of Groups, New York: Wiley,
1959.