关键词: 回馈行为, 交往动机, 义务动机, 观察学习, 身份权威性

Abstract:

Previous studies have shown that the reciprocal behaviors of beneficiaries stem from the trade-off between two emotional motivations: gratitude and guilt as communal motivations (internal motivations) that promote reciprocity, while the sense of obligation as an obligation motivation (external motivation) that promotes reciprocity. However, an excessive preference for either obligation motivation (obligation-motivated individuals) or communal motivation (communal-motivated individuals) during reciprocity may lead to negative social effects. What factors can modulate the reciprocal preferences of obligation-motivated and communal-motivated individuals? Whether these factors differentially affect the reciprocity behaviors and underlying emotional motivations of the two types of individuals? Addressing these questions not only helps to deepen our understanding of the dynamic process of human reciprocal behavior but also provides the theoretical bases for individual social decision-making, the formulation of relevant social policies, and the interventions in related issues. To answer these questions, we conducted two behavioral experiments by incorporating an observational learning stage into the previously established interpersonal task of favor-receiving and reciprocity, and applying computational modeling to quantitatively capture individual reciprocal preferences (the relative weight of how obligation and communal motivations contribute to reciprocity).
Experiment 1 employed a 2 (testing phase: before vs. after observational learning) × 2 (participant’s emotional motivation preference: communal-motivated vs. obligation-motivated) mixed experimental design, aiming to preliminarily explore the impact of observational learning on the reciprocity behavior and underlying emotional motivations of obligation-motivated and communal-motivated individuals. The results showed that for both types of individuals, observational learning significantly promoted their reciprocal preferences to converge with those of the observed individuals, with a stronger observational learning effect observed in obligation-motivated individuals.
Experiment 2 employed a 2 (testing phase: before vs. after observational learning) × 2 (participant’s emotional motivation preference: communal-motivated vs. obligation-motivated) × 2 (the authority of the observed individual: authoritative vs. non-authoritative) mixed experimental design, aiming to further validate the findings of Experiment 1 and explore the boundary conditions of the differences in observational learning effects between the two groups by manipulating the authority of the observed individual. The results replicated the findings and further showed that the observational learning effects on the reciprocal preferences of the two types of individuals were moderated by the authority of the observed individual, with a stronger moderating effect observed in communal-motivated individuals.
In summary, for both obligation-motivated and communal-motivated individuals, observational learning can promote their reciprocity behavior and emotional motivations to converge with those of the observed individuals. The sensitivity of the two types of individuals to observational learning differs and is moderated by the authority of the observed individual: obligation-motivated individuals exhibit a stronger observational learning effect and are less moderated by the authority of the observed individual, while communal-motivated individuals show a weaker observational learning effect but are significantly moderated by the authority of the observed individual. This study provides new evidence for understanding the dynamics of reciprocity behavior and provides implications for individual social decision-making, the formulation of relevant social policies, and the interventions in related issues.

Key words: reciprocity, communal motivation, obligation motivation, observational learning, authority of the observed individual