Site Overlay


Download Citation on ResearchGate | The Norm Of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Article in American Sociological Review 25(2) · April with 1, Reads. DOI: / Cite this publication. Alvin Ward GOULDNER. Abstract. American sociologist Alvin Gouldner () was the. first to propose the existence of a universal, generalized. norm of reciprocity. He argued that almost all. (). More than four decades ago, Gouldner clarified the concept and its dimensions and assumed the existence of a universal norm of reciprocity in a.

Author: Moogulrajas Salrajas
Country: Belarus
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Education
Published (Last): 11 November 2011
Pages: 104
PDF File Size: 6.58 Mb
ePub File Size: 7.4 Mb
ISBN: 290-3-82832-479-7
Downloads: 24049
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Tojalar

The housewife may take pains with her husband’s meals notmerely because cooking may be incumbent on her as a wife; she mayalso have a particularly considerate husband. Some scholars, especially, Homans, Thurwald,Simmel, and Malinowski, assert or imply that the reciprocity normstipulates that the amount of the return to be made is “roughlyequivalent” to what had been received. Merton’s posture toward the notion of a social survival is bothpragmatic and sceptical.

The norm of reciprocity | Hein Lodewijkx –

There are also contrasting ideas when it comes to the differentiation of negative and positive norms of reciprocity. If B is considerably more powerful than A, B may force Ato benefit it with little or no reciprocuty. Free Press, ; seeesp. What was further and moredubiously assumed, however, was that if this pattern continues to be”serviced” this could only be because it reciprocally provided somegratifications to its benefactors. Can functional theory ignore them on thegrounds that they are not socially consequential?

Relations with littleor no reciprocity may, for example, occur when power disparitiesallow one party to coerce the other. In The Logic of the Gift: University of Chicago Press. Thebenefits exchanged, at one extreme, may be identical or equal.


It must however avoid the “Pollyanna Fallacy” whichoptimistically assumes that structures securing “satisfactions” fromothers will invariably be “grateful” and will always reciprocate. As mentioned above, sociologists have sometimes confused thenotion of complementarity with that of reciprocity and have recentlytended to focus on the former. Intergroup sors or cheaters may be more satisfactory than ineffective Discrimination in the Minimal Group Paradigm: The general norm ofreciprocity, however, is a second-order recirocity of stability; itprovides a further source of motivation and an additional moralsanction for conforming with specific status obligations.

Charles Taylor introduced goals, values, recipfocity identities.

Norm of reciprocity

Every social system of course has a history, which means that ithas had its beginnings even if these are shrouded in antiquity. Scientific Research An Academic Publisher. Theseconceptual distinctions only suggest a set of research possibilitiesand have value primarily as guides to investigation. The otheris a mutually contingent exchange of benefits or gratifications.

Perceived organizational support POS and perceived psychological contract violation PPCV are the two most common measures of the reciprocity norm in organizational research.

If assumptions about egoistic dispositionsare valid, however, a complementarity of rights and obligationsshould be exposed to a nlrm strain, in which each party issomewhat more actively concerned to defend or extend his own rightsthan those of others. Why is it that expedientconsiderations do not suffice to mobilize motivations to comply withother’s expectations, thereby inducing them to provide reciprocalcompliances?

A pervasive phenomenon in intergroup relations is Gouldner, Alvin W. Complementarity has at least four distinct meanings: On the empirical level,while this is often true, of course, it is also sometimes false. Overall, exchange transgressions by the English—be endorse some form of the reciprocity norm, and that only they failures to give, accept, or reciprocate property— a few members nrom exempt from it—the very young, the immediately preceded nearly every intercultural assault at sick, and the old.


This norm is so powerful, it allows the initial giver to ask for something in return for what was given rather than having to wait for a voluntary reciprocal act. It is important to guarantee that the ordinary valueimplications of a term do not intrude upon its scientific use. For example,unlike the status duties of American wives, it does not call uponthem to cook and to take care of the children.

The norm of reciprocity is arguably less scientifically advanced than reciprocal altruism, due to the degree of research underneath the name “reciprocal altruism” as opposed to the name “norm of reciprocity”. At this point he would be considering “starting mechanisms.

It is precisely for this reason that Parsons emphasizes thatvalues must be held in common by the actors, if their expectationsare to be compatible. Merton’s discussion implies that certain patterns ofhuman behavior are already known to be, or may gpuldner the future be shownto be, social survivals.