The reciprocity rule works in two ways through mutual concession. First, a person is pressured to respond to a concession to another by the very nature of the rule. Second, because the person who admits at first can expect the other person to recognize in return, that person is free to make the concession. If there was no social pressure to make the concession, a person might give up something and get nothing in return. Reciprocal concessions are a procedure that can foster compromise within a group so that individuals can reorient their efforts towards achieving a common goal. Mutual concessions promote compromise within a group, so that the initial and irreconcilable wishes of individuals can be set aside for the benefit of social cooperation. [1] Reciprocal actions of dissemination are distinguished from altruistic acts by the fact that reciprocal actions derive only from the initial actions of others, while altruism is the unconditional act of giving socially, without hope or positive reaction in the future, as is expected. [4] [5] Some distinguish ideal altruism (with no prospect of future reward) and reciprocal altruism (giving with limited expectation or the potential for anticipation of future reward). For more information on this idea, see altruism or altruism (ethics). There are more subtle ways to initiate the rule of reciprocity than to do something beautiful for someone, so that you expect something in return. A more subtle form of reciprocity is the idea of reciprocal concessions in which the applicant lowers his original application, making it more likely that the respondent will accept a second application. Under the rationing rule, we are obliged to accept someone who has made a concession to us.

[1] That is, if a person starts asking for something big and you refuse, you feel compelled to accept their smaller application, even if you may not be interested in any of the things they are proposing. Robert Cialdini illustrates an example of this phenomenon by telling the story of a boy who asks him to buy five-dollar circus tickets and, if Cialdini refuses to ask him to buy a few dollars worth of chocolate bars. Cialdini feels obliged to return the favor and accepts the purchase of some of the chocolate bars. [1] In 1976, Phillip Kunz experimented with Christmas cards to demonstrate the automatic nature of reciprocity. In this experiment, Kunz sent holiday cards with photos of his family and a brief note to a group of strangers. While he expected a reaction, holiday cards poured in from people who had never met or heard him, and who did not express a desire to get to know him better. [15] The majority of those who responded never inquired about Kunz`s identity, but simply responded to his initial gesture with reciprocal action. In classical Greek polish, major projects such as temple construction, warship construction and choir funding were carried out in the form of gifts to individual donors. In Rome, the well-to-do elites were linked to their loved ones in a cycle of mutual giving. [9] As these examples suggest, reciprocity enjoyed cultural prestige among the former aristocrats for whom it was advantageous. [10] Fehr and Gochter (2000) have shown that individuals, when acting in a reciprocal setting, are more likely to deviate from purely selfish behaviour than in other social contexts.

Generosity is often repaid with disproportionate kindness and cooperation and betrayal with disproportionate hostilities and revenges that can far exceed the amounts determined or predicted by conventional economic models of rational self-interest. In addition, in situations where transaction costs related to specific reciprocal measures are high transaction costs and where current or future material rewards are not expected, reciprocal trends are often observed.