互惠利他的先行优势：品牌的互惠角色影响消费者亲社会行为

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0315

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在当前强调社会责任传播与披露的背景下, 品牌与利益相关方的互动成为影响人们参与公益事业的重要因素。作为观察者, 个体通常消极评价品牌追求利益的善行。然而, 当品牌在互惠关系中率先发起利益并获得回报后, 观察者在新情境中对品牌的响应表现出比回报一方更高的亲社会性。具体而言, 本研究探究了品牌的互惠角色(发起者vs.回报者)对消费者亲社会行为的作用机理及边界条件。通过1项二手数据和4项设计实验发现：相较于回报者的角色, 品牌在互惠关系中担任发起者的角色会提升消费者对其善行的内在动机归因, 从而激励自己积极参与品牌倡导的亲社会行为。然而, 当品牌具有疏离外部群体(vs.成员群体)标签时, 该效应会发生逆转。本研究丰富了互惠关系的不对称性和传递性研究, 同时从资源循环的情境角度补充了先行优势。

关键词: 亲社会行为, 互惠关系, 发起者, 回报者, 群体标签

Abstract:

Disclosure of brand’s social relation has been a vital antecedent in promoting social welfare. Prior studies have examined the impact of family, friends, partners, and companies’ social interaction on observers’ prosocial response, ignoring the role of brand. The existing research suggests that brand’s role of initiator and reciprocator in a reciprocal relationship can affect observers’ prosocial response. We extend the literature by examining consumers’ prosocial behavior to an observed reciprocal relation in view of mutual exchange.

As a “good is repaid by good” relation, reciprocity implies the motivation to search for self-benefits. However, the role of reciprocation (initiator vs. reciprocator) can influence consumers’ behavioral responses through their attribution of the brand’s goodness. Individuals will associate the benefits of an initial act and the actors’ characteristics in a new scenario. With the role positioning of an initiator, focal brands demonstrate added benefits and genuine goodwill to social welfare, thereby encouraging consumers’ social engagement through prosociality. In contrast, reciprocal acts may be perceived as less encouraging because of ambiguous characteristics and liquidation of liabilities. Consumers may attribute goodness to reducing indebtedness and satisfying social constraints. However, there is one boundary condition for the applicability of the main effects. Brands’ group identity moderates the relationship between the role of reciprocity and consumers’ prosocial behavior. Specifically, brands’ role of reciprocator (vs. initiator) produces a greater effect on consumers’ prosociality when the brand owns a dissociative out-group identity (vs. membership identity).

One secondary data analysis and four experiments were used to test the framework. A dataset of Weibo, a Chinese social media platform, first proved the main effect and the interaction effect. In experiments 1 and 2, two designed between-subjects experiments respectively representing brand-brand/-other consumer relations were conducted. Results replicated the asymmetry of reciprocity on prosocial behaviors, and established the underlying mechanism of intrinsic motivation, namely, the brand engages in reciprocity due to dispositional factors. Experiment 3 excluded the alternative explanation of the framing effect. The last study, including one experiment representing brand-brand relations, demonstrated that when a brand has a dissociative out-group identity, the relationship between the role of reciprocation and consumers’ prosocial behavior would be reversed.

In the study, we find that the initiator effect remains effective in reciprocal exchange, in terms of consumers’ prosocial responses. Our finding expands the theoretical perspective of asymmetric effect and transmission effect of reciprocity, and explores antecedents of prosociality. The finding promotes the smooth flow of resources and offers suggestions for brand sustainable marketing.

Key words: prosocial behavior, reciprocity, initiator, reciprocator, group identity

中图分类号:

B849: F713.55

孙瑾, 杨静舒. (2025). 互惠利他的先行优势：品牌的互惠角色影响消费者亲社会行为. 心理学报, 57(2), 315-330.

SUN Jin, YANG Jingshu. (2025). The initiator effect in reciprocal altruism: The impact of brand’s role on consumers’ prosocial behavior in reciprocal relations. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(2), 315-330.

图/表 3

参考文献 70

[1]	Anderson, C. P., John, O. J., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (1), 116-132. pmid: 11474718
[2]	André, K., Bureau, S., Gautier, A., & Rubel, O. (2017). Beyond the opposition between altruism and self-interest: Reciprocal giving in reward-based crowdfunding. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(2), 313-332.
[3]	Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464-477.
[4]	Balliet, D., Tybur, J. M., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2017). Functional interdependence theory: An evolutionary account of social situations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(4), 361-388. doi: 10.1177/1088868316657965 pmid: 27466269
[5]	Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46-53.
[6]	Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. London: Transaction Publishers.
[7]	Cakanlar, A., Nikolova, H., & Nenkov, G. Y. (2023). I will be green for us: When consumers compensate for their partners’ unsustainable behavior. Journal of Marketing, 60(1), 110-129.
[8]	Chen, Z., & Huang, Y. (2016). Cause-related marketing is not always less favorable than corporate philanthropy: The moderating role of self-construal. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(4), 868-880.
[9]	Choi, W. J., & Winterich, K. P. (2013). Can brands move in from the outside? How moral identity enhances out-group brand attitudes. Journal of Marketing, 77(2), 96-111.
[10]	Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
[11]	Delmas, M. A., & Kohli, A. (2020). Can apps make air pollution visible? Learning about health impacts through engagement with air quality information. Journal of Business Ethics, 161(2), 279-302.
[12]	Desteno, D., Bartlett, M., Baumann, J., Williams, L., & Dickens, L. (2010). Gratitude as moral sentiment: Emotion-guided cooperation in economic exchange. Emotion, 10 (2), 289-293. doi: 10.1037/a0017883 pmid: 20364907
[13]	Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(3), 224-241.
[14]	Dungan, J. A., Gomez, D. M. M., & Epley, N. (2022). Too reluctant to reach out: Receiving social support is more positive than expressers expect. Psychological Science, 33(8), 1300-1312. doi: 10.1177/09567976221082942 pmid: 35802611
[15]	Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147-157.
[16]	Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what they eat: The influence of reference groups on consumers' connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 339-348.
[17]	Flynn, F. J., & Yu, A. (2021). Better to give than reciprocate? Status and reciprocity in prosocial exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(1), 115-136. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000349 pmid: 33492155
[18]	Garvey, A. M., Germann, F., & Bolton, L. E. (2015). Performance brand placebos: How brands improve performance and consumers take the credit. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(6), 931-951.
[19]	Giebelhausen, M., Chun, H. H., Cronin, J. J., & Hult, G. T. M. (2016). Adjusting the warm-glow thermostat: How incentivizing participation in voluntary green programs moderates their impact on service satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 80(4), 56-71.
[20]	Ginder, W., Kwon, W.-S., & Byun, S.-E. (2021). Effects of internal-external congruence-based CSR positioning: An attribution theory approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(2), 355-369.
[21]	Goldstein, N. J., Griskevicius, V., & Cialdini, R. B. (2011). Reciprocity by proxy: A novel influence strategy for stimulating cooperation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(3), 441-473.
[22]	Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178.
[23]	Groza, M. D., Pronschinske, M. R., & Walker, M. (2011). Perceived organizational motives and consumer responses to proactive and reactive CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(4), 639-652.
[24]	Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed). NJ: Prentice Hall.
[25]	Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. NY: Guilford.
[26]	Hecke, T. V. (2012). Power study of ANOVA versus Kruskal-Wallis test. Journal of Statistics and Management Systems, 15(2-3), 241-247.
[27]	Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychology Review, 51(6), 358-374.
[28]	Hoppner, J., & Griffith, D. (2011). The role of reciprocity in clarifying the performance payoff of relational behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 920-928.
[29]	Ilmarinen, J. (2007). The work ability index (WAI). Occupational Medicine, 57(2), 160-160.
[30]	Jung, H., Seo, E., Han, E., Henderson, M., & Patall, E. (2020). Prosocial modeling: A meta-analytic review and synthesis. Psychology Bulletin, 146(8), 635-663.
[31]	Katherine, W., & Darren, D. (2008). Are all out-groups created equal? Consumer identity and dissociative influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 525-536.
[32]	Kelley, H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107-128.
[33]	Khodakarami, F., Petersen, J. A., & Venkatesan, R. (2015). Developing donor relationships: The role of the breadth of giving. Journal of Marketing, 79(4), 77-93.
[34]	Kumar, P. (2005). The impact of cobranding on customer evaluation of brand counterextensions. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 1-18.
[35]	Marques, J., Abrams, D., Páez, D., & Martinez-Taboada, C. (1998). The role of categorization and in-group norms in judgments of groups and their members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 976-988.
[36]	Mat Roni, S., Djajadikerta, H. G., Mat Roni, S., & Djajadikerta, H. G. (2021). Non-parametric tests. In S. Mat Roni, & H. G. Djajadikerta (Eds.), Data analysis with SPSS for survey-based Research (pp. 219-260), Springer.
[37]	Molm, L. D. (2003). Theoretical comparisons of forms of exchange. Sociological Theory, 21(1), 1-17.
[38]	Newman, G. E., & Cain, D. M. (2014). Tainted altruism: When doing some good is evaluated as worse than doing no good at all. Psychological Science, 25(3), 648-655. doi: 10.1177/0956797613504785 pmid: 24403396
[39]	Newman, K., & Brucks, M. (2018). The influence of corporate social responsibility efforts on the moral behavior of high self-brand overlap consumers. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(2), 253-271.
[40]	Nowak, M. A., & Roch, S. (2007). Upstream reciprocity and the evolution of gratitude. Proceedings Biological Sciences, 274 (1610), 605-609.
[41]	Peloza, J., White, K., & Shang, J. (2013). Good and guilt-free: The role of self-accountability in influencing preferences for products with ethical attributes. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 104-119.
[42]	Rimal, R. N., & Lapinski, M. K. (2015). A re-explication of social norms, ten years later. Communication Theory, 25(4), 393-409.
[43]	Romani, S., Grappi, S., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2016). Corporate socially responsible initiatives and their effects on consumption of green products. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(2), 253-264.
[44]	Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
[45]	Saad, G. (2013). Evolutionary consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(3), 351-371.
[46]	Shalev, E., & Morwitz, V. G. (2011). Influence via comparison-driven self-evaluation and restoration: The case of the low-status influencer. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 964-980.
[47]	Sherman, D. K., Kinias, Z., Major, B., Kim, H. S., & Prenovost, M. (2007). The group as a resource: Reducing biased attributions for group success and failure via group affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(8), 1100-1112. pmid: 17630262
[48]	Silver, I., Kelly, B. A., & Small, D. A. (2021). Selfless first movers and self-interested followers: Order of entry signals purity of motive in pursuit of the greater good. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(3), 501-517.
[49]	Spielmann, N. (2020). Green is the new white: How virtue motivates green product purchase. Journal of Business Ethics, 173(4), 759-776.
[50]	Story, J., & Neves, P. (2015). When corporate social responsibility (CSR) increases performance: Exploring the role of intrinsic and extrinsic CSR attribution. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(2), 111-124.
[51]	Strahilevitz, M. (1999). The effects of product type and donation magnitude on willingness to pay more for a charity-linked brand. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8 (3), 215-241.
[52]	Sun, J., & Yang, J. (2023). The power of circulation: The impact of reciprocal relationship on consumer behavior. Advances in Psychological Science, 31(6), 1094-1108. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.01094
	[孙瑾, 杨静舒. (2023). 循环的力量: 互惠关系对消费者行为的影响. 心理科学进展, 31(6), 1094-1108. ] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.01094
[53]	Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. doi: 10.1126/science.7455683 pmid: 7455683
[54]	van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2009). Leveling up and down: The experiences of benign and malicious envy. Emotion, 9(3), 419-429. doi: 10.1037/a0015669 pmid: 19485619
[55]	Verhoef, P. C., Franses, P. H., & Hoekstra, J. C. (2001). The impact of satisfaction and payment equity on cross-buying: A dynamic model for a multi-service provider. Journal of Retailing, 77(3), 359-378.
[56]	Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A. P., & Avramidis, P. K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 170-180.
[57]	Walker, M., Heere, B., Parent, M. M., & Drane, D. (2010). Social responsibility and the Olympic games: The mediating role of consumer attributions. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 659-680.
[58]	Weiss, J. K., & Cohen, E. L. (2019). Clicking for change: The role of empathy and negative affect on engagement with a charitable social media campaign. Behavior & Information Technology, 38(12), 1185-1193.
[59]	White, K., & Dahl, D. W. (2006). To be or not be? The influence of dissociative reference groups on consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 404-414.
[60]	White, K., Argo, J. J., & Sengupta, J. (2012). Dissociative versus associative responses to social identity threat: The role of consumer self-construal. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 704-719.
[61]	White, K., Simpson, B., & Argo, J. J. (2014). The motivating role of dissociative out-groups in encouraging positive consumer behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 433-447.
[62]	Xiong, X., Guo, S., Gu, L., Huang, R., & Zhou, X. (2018). Reciprocity anxiety: Individual differences in feeling discomfort in reciprocity situations. Journal of Economic Psychology, 67, 149-161.
[63]	Xu, L., Zhao, S., Cui, N., Zhang, L., & Zhao, J. (2020). The impact of story design mode on consumers' brand attitude. Management World, 36(10), 76-94.
	[徐岚, 赵爽爽, 崔楠, 张留霞, 赵津怡. (2020). 故事设计模式对消费者品牌态度的影响. 管理世界, 36(10), 76-94.]
[64]	Yang, A. X., & Hsee, C. K. (2022). Obligatory publicity increases charitable acts. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(5), 839-857.
[65]	Yang, D., Zhou, H., Lei, X., & Huang, Z. (2021). Celebrities or ordinary people? Research on the differences in consumer preference for brand group label in different goal pursuit stages. Nankai Business Review, 25(3), 170-183.
	[杨德锋, 周涵, 雷希, 黄赞. (2021). 明星还是普通人?不同目标追逐阶段消费者对品牌群体标签的偏好差异研究. 南开管理评论, 25(3), 170-183.]
[66]	Yang, Z., Janakiraman, N., Hossain, M. T., & Grisaffe, D. B. (2020). Differential effects of pay-it-forward and direct-reciprocity on prosocial behavior. Journal of Business Research, 121, 400-408.
[67]	Zhang, W., Chen, Y., & Zhu, L. (2023). “Attraction of the like”: The influence of peer's donation choice on prosocial behavior of adolescents and the role of the belief in a just world. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(9), 1453-1464.
	[张玮玮, 陈逸群, 朱莉琪. (2023). "近朱者赤":同伴捐赠决策信息对青少年亲社会行为的影响及公正世界信念的作用. 心理学报, 55(9), 1453-1464.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01453
[68]	Zhao, X., Cai, F., & Yang, Z. (2022). Are people less generous after a family member gives to charity? The interaction of self-construal and relationship type. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 40(2), 398-416
[69]	Zheng, X., Peng, S., & Peng, L. (2015). Feeling better and becoming more benevolent: Impact of social comparison on prosocial behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(2), 243-250.
	[郑晓莹, 彭泗清, 彭璐珞. (2015). “达”则兼济天下?社会比较对亲社会行为的影响及心理机制. 心理学报, 47(2), 243-250. ]
[70]	Zou, W., Tian, Q., & Liu, J. (2012). “Give a plum in return for a peach”: A review of reciprocity theory of organizational behavior. Advances in Psychological Science, 20(11), 1879-1888.
	[邹文篪, 田青, 刘佳. (2012). “投桃报李”——互惠理论的组织行为学研究述评. 心理科学进展, 20(11), 1879-1888.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.01879

变量	模型1				模型2
变量	β	SE	t	p	β	SE	t	p
因变量：评论数量
常量		0.09	−1.61	0.109		0.11	−0.89	0.375
互惠角色	0.11	0.11	1.98	0.048	0.01	0.14	0.14	0.891
群体标签					−0.05	0.18	−0.63	0.531
互惠角色×群体标签					0.29	0.24	3.33	0.001
F	3.93^*				8.12^***
调整后R²	0.01				0.06
因变量：点赞数量
常量		0.09	−1.7	0.09		0.12	−1.23	0.22
互惠角色	0.11	0.11	2.1	0.037	0.04	0.14	0.61	0.545
群体标签					−0.02	0.18	−0.19	0.851
互惠角色×群体标签					0.23	0.24	2.62	0.009
F	4.4^*				6.54^***
调整后R²	0.01				0.05

变量	模型1				模型2
变量	β	SE	t	p	β	SE	t	p
因变量：评论数量
常量		0.09	−1.61	0.109		0.11	−0.89	0.375
互惠角色	0.11	0.11	1.98	0.048	0.01	0.14	0.14	0.891
群体标签					−0.05	0.18	−0.63	0.531
互惠角色×群体标签					0.29	0.24	3.33	0.001
F	3.93^*				8.12^***
调整后R²	0.01				0.06
因变量：点赞数量
常量		0.09	−1.7	0.09		0.12	−1.23	0.22
互惠角色	0.11	0.11	2.1	0.037	0.04	0.14	0.61	0.545
群体标签					−0.02	0.18	−0.19	0.851
互惠角色×群体标签					0.23	0.24	2.62	0.009
F	4.4^*				6.54^***
调整后R²	0.01				0.05