, at
5,5923 #5qu LIBRARY
E Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

THE PATH FROM FAVORS TO COMPLIANCE: EXPLAINING
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PREGIVING MESSAGES

presented by
RYAN GOEI

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Communication

flwé/ at:

/Major Professor’s Signature

30 Oc'to inor- 3°43

 

 

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

:7
35215 2005

 

t&
J.

 

 

OCR; 63005
1v

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65vp. 15

 

 

THE PATH FROM FAVORS TO COMPLIANCE:
EXPLAINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PREGIVING MESSAGES

By

Ryan Goei

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Communication

2003

ABSTRACT

THE PATH FROM FAVORS TO COMPLIANCE:
EXPLAINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PREGIVING MESSAGES

By

Ryan Goei

Several studies suggest that pregiving messages (providing the target with a
favor before making a direct request for compliance) are more effective than direct
requests. Most explanations for this phenomenon posit that the norm of reciprocity
causes us to feel obligated to repay the favor. Nevertheless, alternative explanations
for reciprocal behavior do exist, but are often confounded in the literature. This
dissertation attempts to differentiate between two of these explanations, gratitude and
obligation, and test the relative veracity of each as a mediator of the favors to
compliance relationship. Findings are consistent with the two factor model, challenge

the obligation explanation, and bolster the gratitude explanation.

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family who endured many hours supporting me

from afar. Amy, Grace, and Helena, I love you each very much.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to two persons. I would like to thank Frank
Boster for chairing my dissertation committee. A couple of Frank’s behaviors merit
mention. I am particularly thankful for the frankness with which Frank imparts his
thoughts and criticisms. He consistently, to my benefit, embodies the qualities of his
moniker. I would also like to express my appreciation for his patience in providing
advice and guidance. He tirelessly responded to my incessant (and not necessarily
intelligent) questioning and shaped my approach to communication research. Most
importantly, I would like to thank Frank for getting me excited to conduct

communication research for a lifetime.

I would also like to thank my wife, Amy. Her strength, commitment, and

perseverance during five of the most trying years of our lives most certainly do not go
unnoticed. In many ways, working toward my Ph.D. was equivalent to working away
from my wife. Thank you for choosing me, Amy, despite my drive to educate myself

at your expense.

I attribute my ability to sustain my family doing something I love primarily to Frank

and Amy. To them I am profoundly grateful.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

 

LIST OF FIGURES

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Obligation

 

Gratitude

 

Differentiating Obligation and Gratitude

 

PRETEST METHOD

 

Design

 

Participants

 

 

Procedure
Instrumentation

 

Obligation

 

Gratitude

 

PRETEST RESULTS

 

PRETEST DISCUSSION

 

MAIN EXPERIMENT METHOD

 

Design

 

Participants

 

Procedure

 

Instrumentation

 

 

Obligation
Gratitude

 

Enlightened Self-interest

 

Positive Affect

 

Negative Affect

 

Psychological Discomfort

 

 

Compliance

MAIN EXPERIMENT RESULTS

 

Evaluation of the Measurement Model

 

Induction Checks

 

A Test of the Effect of a Favor

 

vii

viii

MU‘Nt—l

16

18

20
21
21

24
24
25
25
25
25
25
25

26
26
27
29

Evaluation of the Proposed Model

MAIN EXPERIMENT DISCUSSION

 

 

 

Overview of Findings
Limitations and Future Research

 

Conclusions

 

APPENDICES

 

REFERENCES

 

vi

31

34
34
36
37

41
45

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Pretest: Gratitude Descriptives

 

Table 2: Pretest: Obligation Descriptives

 

Table 3: Main Experiment: Gratitude, Obligation,

 

and Enlightened Self-Interest Descriptives

Table 4: Main Experiment: Raw Correlation Matrix

 

14

15

28

31

Table 5: Main Experiment: Path Coefficients Used to Test Predicted Model .................. 32

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Main Experiment: Proposed Model

 

Figure 2: Main Experiment: The Effect of a Favor Model

 

Figure 3: Main Experiment: The Effect of a Favor (Revised Model) Results ................

Figure 4: Main Experiment: Proposed Model Results

 

Figure 5: Main Experiment: Revised Model Results

 

viii

21

29

32

33

The path from favors to compliance: Explaining the effectiveness of pregiving messages

Marwell and Schmidt (1969) defined a pregiving message as one in which the
requester provides the target of a request with a favor before making a direct request for
compliance. As such, one can conceive of a pregiving message as a favor induction
followed by a direct request. Previous research suggests that a pregiving message among
strangers increases compliance with subsequent direct requests (e.g., Boster, Rodriguez,
Cruz, & Marshall, 1995; Regan, 1971; Wilke & Lanzetta, 1970). Stated differently,
people often reciprocate favors. Acting in kind, however, presumes no explanation for
such behavior. In fact the reason that people reciprocate favors is unclear and has been an
issue of some debate. The purpose of this study is to test the relative veracity of two
potential explanations for reciprocal behavior: obligation and gratitude.

Most scholars attribute the effectiveness of a pregiving message to a sense of
obligation stemming from a social norm of reciprocity (e.g., Boster, Rodriguez, Cruz, &
Marshall, 1995; Cialdini, 2001; Gouldner, 1960; Greenberg & Frisch, 1972; Regan,
1971). Conceptualizations of the norm of reciprocity suggest that obligation, and the
requisite drive to reduce it, increases compliance after a pregiving message. Though
pervasive, the obligation explanation lacks ample empirical supporting evidence and does
not stand alone in a list of potential explanations for why persons often act in kind. .

McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, and Larson (2001) proposed that gratitude
mediates the favors-compliance relationship. The gratitude explanation does not resemble
obligation’s model of negative state relief. Quite the contrary, gratitude is a positive
affective state that drives directly increased compliance. Obligation and gratitude present

potentially unique (although probably not unrelated) explanations for the favors-

compliance relationship.

Gratitude and obligation share a confounded history and differentiating between
the two constructs is no straightforward matter. Scholars often use both terms
interchangeably or discuss the two distinctly but create a unidimensional index (usually
dubbed obligation) during analyses. Another potential difficulty is that most attempts to
induce gratitude also induce obligation and vice versa. It is certainly difficult, although
not impossible, to conceive of and implement inductions that generate one and not the
other. Therefore, the purpose of this dissertation is twofold. First, it tests the
dimensionality of gratitude and obligation. Second, it examines the relative veracity of
the roles of gratitude and obligation in explaining the effectiveness of a pregiving
message.

Obligation

The clearest account of the obligation explanation can be found in a seminal
article by Gouldner (1960). In this article Gouldner suggested that reciprocal behavior
was governed by a universal social norm that made two demands: “(1) people should help
those who have helped them, and (2) people should not injure those who have helped
them” (p. 171). Hence, one must reciprocate favors and until one does, one will
experience a sense of obligation toward their benefactor.

Thus, the obligation explanation is based on the norm of reciprocity. Upon receipt
of a favor one recognizes the norm mandating reciprocation and experiences a sense of
obligation. One experiences obligation as a psychologically aversive state (e. g.,
Gouldner, 1960; Greenberg & Shapiro, 1971), a state to eliminate. Therefore, when

provided the opportunity to reciprocate after a favor, the likelihood of compliance

increases due primarily to the drive to reduce obligation. Complying with subsequent
requests from the original favor doer constitutes one method for reducing obligation. The
obligation explanation posits a fundamentally exchange-based view of human behavior
steeped largely in equity and social exchange theories (Walster, Berscheid, & Walster,
1973).

Most scholars treat the existence of the obligation explanation as a foregone
conclusion. Hwang (1987), for example, notes that the norm of reciprocity, “. .. has been
accepted as a basic moral rule of social cohesion in most cultures.” (p. 956). Cialdini
(2001), in his enormously popular persuasion text, dedicated an entire chapter to the
norm of reciprocity and its requisite obligations. Despite obligation’s widespread
acceptance, the lack of stringent tests of the norm and its explanatory mechanisms should
leave the critical consumer a bit skeptical. In fact, to date little is known concerning why
people exhibit the tendency to reciprocate favors.

A few scholars have attempted to test directly the viability of the obligation
explanation. As has been noted elsewhere though, (Goei, Lindsey, Boster, Skalski, and
Bowman, 2003) many of these tests are fraught with methodological weaknesses that
should stimulate some measure of doubt. Nevertheless, a couple interesting investigations
of obligation do exist and are worth noting.

Greenberg and Frisch (1972) conducted a consequential examination of the
obligation explanation. They asked a third party to read a pregiving message scenario and
respond to questions regarding how obligated the recipient of the pregiving message felt
after receiving the favor. They concluded that obligation mediated the pregiving-

compliance relationship. The method, however, is somewhat objectionable (although a

measurement study to verify its consistency with various self-reports would be more
persuasive). Particularly if our interests lie in the response of the person who received the
favor, surely external raters do not maintain privileged access to these internal responses
in the scenario participant. In fact it is plausible that, in making predictions of other’s
reactions to a favor, raters relied largely on widely accepted perceived social norms like
the norm of reciprocity to make their judgments (Nisbett & Bellows, 1977). In addition,
although they did not measure gratitude directly, they did measure liking and concluded
that liking was an equally plausible explanation for reciprocal behavior in the study — a
conclusion that has been since empirically substantiated (Goei, et al., 2003). Thus, this
method does not differentiate between alternative explanations and therefore does not
provide a strong test of the obligation explanation.

Regan (1971) conducted the most methodologically sound and often cited study
of the norm’s explanatory mechanisms. He tested the relative veracity of a cognitive
(obligation) and an affective (liking) mediator of the favors-compliance relationship. To
do so he induced both obligation and liking. He measured liking, not obligation, and
reasoned that to the extent that liking did not explain variance in compliance after a favor,
obligation was the active force. Assuming no viable alternative explanations and no
significant methodological weaknesses, this argument structure may be valid. Neither
assumption, however, is tenable. Certainly alternative explanations exist. Liking (e.g.,
Goei, et al., 2003), gratitude (e.g., McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, and Larson, 2001),
and mood (e.g., Carlson, Charlin, & Miller, 1988) are all possible alternatives. Moreover,
important methodological insufficiencies have been pointed out (Goei, et al., 2003) and

when remedied resulted in data inconsistent with the obligation explanation.

Gratitude

McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, and Larson (2001) defined gratitude as a
positive moral affective response to the perception of self-benefit due to some external
acting agent. Emmons and Crumpler (2000) defined it as “an emotional response to a
gift.” (p. 56). Lazarus and Lazarus (1994) defined it as the appreciation felt after one has
been the beneficiary of an altruistic act. Gratitude is the emotion of thankfulness.

Several scholars have proposed or implied that the experience of gratitude
mediates the favors-compliance relationship (e.g., Emmons, & Crumpler, 2000;
McCullough et al., 2001; Smith, 1790/1976). The argument for gratitude as mediator
states that when a benefactor acts in a way that improves the beneficiary’s well-being, the
beneficiary feels gratitude toward the benefactor. The positive feeling of gratitude causes
beneficiaries to want to assist their benefactor to improve their benefactor’s well-being
similarly. Even discussants of the norm of reciprocity occasionally suggest gratitude
mediates the relationship between favors and reciprocation (e.g., Gouldner, 1960; Tesser,
Gatewood, & Driver, 1968), a testament not to the popularity of the gratitude
explanation, but rather to the ambiguity with which scholars typically use the terms.
Diflerentiating obligation and gratitude

Researchers often treat gratitude and obligation as a unidimensional construct or
speak loosely about similar concepts like onus and indebtedness, appreciation and
thankfulness (e.g., Gouldner, 1960; Tesser, Gatewood, & Driver, 1968). As a result these
constructs have endured a confusing history. It is important to reiterate, however, that
potential differences do exist. To elaborate further some distinctions are detailed next.

Differences in the valence of the two responses constitute one distinction. One

experiences obligation as an aversive state (Gouldner, 1960). It is a negative state of duty
or indebtedness rendered aversive by its inconsistency with the social norm of
reciprocation and implies a sense of non-voluntary behavior that compels one to
eliminate it (Greenberg & Shapiro, 1971). In contrast, one experiences gratitude as a
positive emotion associated with pleasant states like contentment, pride, and happiness
(McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, 2001). Gratitude is not a negative state and
does not imply a sense of forced compliance. In fact, one may be inclined to perpetuate
the emotion of gratitude.

Obligation and gratitude also differ in terms of response type. Obligation is a
primarily cognitive response, the thought that the equity in costs and benefits has been
lost and must be restored. It is a cognitive tension based on an assessment of unequal
exchange. Gratitude, on the other hand, is a primarily affective response (e. g.,
Reisenzein, 1994; Russell & Paris, 1994) an emotional reaction one experiences after
attributing the improvement in self well-being to the actions of another external agent.
Presumably, gratitude is so affectively dominant that it overwhelms the rational mind and
any cognitive assessment of exchange. One might colloquially summarize the experience
of obligation and gratitude in the drive to reciprocate favors as the difference between, “I
have to. . .,” and, “I want to. . .,” respectively.

Perhaps the failure to distinguish between obligation and gratitude is due, in part,
to the difficulty inducing one without the other. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to imagine
feeling grateful but not obligated, obligated but not grateful, both grateful and obligated,
and neither. This thought experiment suggests that gratitude and obligation probably do

not exist as one construct. To understand more fully compliance after a favor it is

necessary to assess the factor structure and mediating roles of gratitude and obligation in
the favors-compliance relationship. Inducing gratitude and obligation independently
would create ideal conditions for testing the relative effects of the two explanations.
Pretest Method

Dual goals characterize the pretest —induce gratitude and obligation independently
and test their factor structure. The pretest does not include a measure of compliance
therefore one cannot draw conclusions concerning the mediating effects of gratitude and
obligation from the pretest. The pretest has only two dependent variables of interest:
obligation and gratitude.
Design

A favor type (no favor, gratitude favor, obligation favor, gratitude and obligation
favor) X measurement technique (self-report survey and informal interview) independent
groups design was employed. No attempts to induce obligation and gratitude
independently could be identified in the literature. Greenberg, Bar-Tal, Mowrey, and
Steinberg’s study (as cited in De Cooke, 1992), however, found that beneficiaries felt
obligated to benefactors to the extent that the beneficiary believed the benefactor
perceived a debt to exist. Thus, to the extent that a favorreceived by B from A causes B
to believe that A perceives a debt or not, B may respond accordingly. For example, if B
perceives that A expects him to feel grateful and not obligated he may respond with high
gratitude and low obligation. Therefore, to invoke gratitude and obligation independently,
the experimental inductions vary the message uttered upon presentation of the favor to
make participants aware of the favor doer’s expectations for the interaction.

There are at least two concerns with the validity of the survey measure of

gratitude and obligation. First, the experimental cover story might not adequately deceive
participants, thereby increasing the probability of demand effects. Second, and more
importantly, participants might not disclose willingly their true response to the favor. To
allay these concerns the pretest employed two methods of measuring gratitude and
obligation. In the survey method participants completed a questionnaire (ostensibly
unrelated to the present study) to measure feelings of gratitude and obligation. In the
interview method a second confederate followed participants into the hallway and, more
informally, asked questions pertaining to whether or not they felt obligated or grateful
toward their benefactor. The interview method provided a less-threatening environment
for participants to respond true to their experience in the case that reporting obligation or
gratitude had negative face-saving ramifications.
Participants

The sample included 96 college undergraduates recruited from core
Communication courses. Participants could refuse to participate and complete an
alternative assignment but, if so inclined, could participate for course credit. Sixty-two
participants responded to the survey measures, 34 to the interview measures. Fewer
undergraduates participated in the interview conditions because of difficulty securing and
scheduling extra confederates. Participants interacted with a same sex confederate so as
to not confound sex of the confederate with sex of the participant.
Procedure

Upon arrival at the laboratory, the investigator seated participant and confederate
in facing cubicles so that they could not see each other. The researcher then provided an

introduction to the study and its purpose — to determine how attitudinally similar or

dissimilar partners brainstorm. The researcher then directed confederates to an adjacent
room and instructed participants to complete an attitude questionnaire designed to
measure their similarity level with the confederate. After gathering both questionnaires
and escorting confederates back to the room, the researcher then commenced the first
five-minute brainstorming task. Pending completion of the first brainstorming task, the
investigator randomly selected one of four favor/no favor control conditions
(measurement technique varied with confederate availability).

In all conditions the confederate (within earshot of the participant) asked, “Can I
get a drink?” The researcher replied, “Sure”. In the no favor control condition the
confederate left the room to get a drink and returned to recommence the brainstorming
sessions. Thirty seconds later the experimenter returned to begin the second and third
brainstorming tasks.

In the gratitude favor condition the confederate returned with two soft drinks, gave
one to participants and said, “Hey, I got you one too”. If participants offered payment,
confederates refused it. After participants expressed their thanks, confederates made it
clear that they did not expect the participant to operate via obligation by replying, “Don’t
worry about it, it’s nothing. And don’t feel like you have to pay me back it’s really not
necessary.”

In the obligation favor condition confederates returned with two soft drinks, gave
one to participants, and said, “Hey, I got you one too”. If participants offered payment,
confederates refused it. After participants expressed thanks, confederates made it clear
that they expected participants to operate via the obligation explanation by replying

directly, “Yep, you owe me one.”

Assuming that favors induce obligation and gratitude, the confederate provided the
participant a favor without a message in the obligation and gratitude favor condition. In
the obligation and gratitude favor condition confederates returned with two soft drinks
and said to participants, “Hey, I got you one, too.” They then handed the soft drink to
participants. If participants offered payment, confederates refused it. When thanked,
confederates replied, “You’re welcome” and immediately returned to their desk.

After completing the second, third, and fourth brainstorming task, the researcher
returned to the room and asked participants and confederates to report their understanding
of the study. After recording their responses, the investigator pronounced the study
complete, but paused and asked, "But I have to ask you something (looking toward the
confederate). Did you give her a drink during the study?" After an affirmative response
the experimenter then turned to participants and asked, "Did you ask her to get it for
you?” Participants invariably responded negatively, and the researcher continued, “This
is great! Because I am doing another study on favors and I'm interested in why people do
favors and how favors make people feel. Would you two mind filling out a questionnaire
for this other study before you leave? It would really help me with that project and will
only take a minute." All participants agreed to complete the survey. The experimenter
then retrieved the gratitude and obligation questionnaires from another room and brought
them to participants (and confederates) to complete.

In the no favor condition the investigator simply asked participants to complete
another questionnaire. This questionnaire imbedded gratitude and obligation items within
a few others to disguise its true purpose. After participants completed the obligation and

gratitude questionnaire the researcher debriefed, pledged to secrecy and dismissed them.

10

In the informal interview conditions participants engaged in the study with two
confederates. The interview favor conditions parallel the survey favor conditions. In the
interview conditions Confederate A brought a Pepsi for both Confederate B and the
participant while Confederate B completed a questionnaire in another room. Confederate
A returned to the lab with three Pepsi’s. They left one on their own desk, one on
Confederate B’s desk, and handed one to the participant. Pending completion of the
fourth brainstorming task, the researcher dismissed the participant and confederates.
Confederate B (who did not provide the favor) exited with the participant and once out of
earshot of the laboratory engaged the participant in conversation, "Did that person give
you a Pepsi, too?" Following an affirmative response, confederates followed with two yes
or no questions designed to measure whether or not participants felt obligated or grateful.

In the control condition, confederates said, “Excuse me. I have a strange question
to ask you.” He then proceeded to ask the same two yes or no questions designed to
measure obligation and gratitude. After participants responded the investigator called
them back into the laboratory where they debriefed, pledged to secrecy and dismissed
them.

Instrumentation

Obligation. Obligation was measured using a four item, 7-point, Likert self-report
measure. Items included, “I felt obligated to my favor-doer” and “I felt that I owed the
person who did a favor for me.” Obligation items were coded such that the lowest score
(strongly disagree) represented an absence of obligation and the highest score (strongly
agree) represented a strong sense of obligation. The midpoint of the scale was labeled

“neutral” and represented moderate amounts of obligation. This scale has passed previous

11

tests of internal consistency and parallelism (Goei, et al., 2003). Standardized item alpha
was computed for the scale and found to be .88. The mean was moderate (M = 4.09, SD =
1.30). In the interview conditions, confederate B asked the participant, "Did you feel like
you owed him/her one?" Participant’s yes or no response constituted the measure of
obligation in these conditions.

Gratitude. Gratitude was measured with three, seven-point, Likert-type items.
Items included, “I felt thankful toward my favor-doer” and “I felt grateful toward the
person who did the favor for me.” Gratitude items were coded such that the lowest score
(strongly disagree) represented an absence of gratitude and the highest score (strongly
agree) represented intense feelings of gratitude. The midpoint of the scale was labeled
“neutral” and represented moderate amounts of gratitude. The mean was high, the vast
majority of persons indicating that they felt strongly grateful (M = 6.22, SD = 1.09).
Standardized item alpha was computed for the scale and found to be .96. In the interview
conditions confederate B asked the participant, "Did you feel thankful toward him/her?"
Participant’s yes or no responses constituted the measure of gratitude in these conditions.

Pretest results

Confirmatory factor analysis (Hunter & Gerbing, 1982) was employed to test the
dimensionality of the obligation and gratitude measures. Based on the small size of the
errors in tests of internal consistency and parallelism, the data were deemed consistent
with the hypothesized two—factor solution. Furthermore, the data did not fit a
unidimensional model suggesting that obligation and gratitude do not form a single
construct and should be differentiated.

The effectiveness of the inductions on participant’s self-reported levels of

12

gratitude and obligation were examined next. To consider the independent variables
minimally successful at inducing gratitude and obligation independently, gratitude and
obligation means must differ from baseline (i.e., no favor control) according to a priori
predictions. Specifically, gratitude scores should increase from baseline after a gratitude
favor and obligation scores should not. Obligation scores should increase from baseline
after an obligation favor and gratitude scores should not. Obligation and gratitude scores
should both increase from baseline in the gratitude and obligation favor conditions and
they should not differ significantly from baseline in the no favor conditions.

One can examine the means (see Tables 1 and 2) and deduce readily that the
inductions failed to produce gratitude and obligation as expected. Specifically, the
obligation induction increased gratitude as well as obligation and the obligation and
gratitude induction increased gratitude but failed to increase obligation.

A two-way independent groups analysis of variance with contrast coefficients was
used to test formally the inductions effect upon gratitude. Contrast coefficients of 1 were
assigned to the gratitude favor and favor conditions and -1 to the obligation favor and no
favor conditions. This computation yielded a substantial and statistically significant result
(t [58] = 5.43, p < .01, r = .58). Examination of the cell means, however, suggested that
the significance of this test originated from a magic cell. Specifically, low gratitude
scores in one cell (the no favor condition) and high scores in all other cells (all favor
conditions) produced the illusion of a main effect for the gratitude induction, but arose
due primarily to a main effect for favor on gratitude. A post-hoc test (assigning a
coefficient of -3 to the no favor condition and 1 to all favor conditions) accounted for

more variance than the a priori contrast test (t [58] = 9.12, p < .01, r = .77). In fact,

13

corrected for attenuation due to error of measurement favors correlated with gratitude
quite strongly [r = .79, P(.69 S p S .89 = .95)]. One can view the gratitude means for each

condition in Table 1.

Table 1

Pretest: Gratitude Descriptives

 

 

 

 

 

N o favor Favor Obligation favor Gratitude favor
survey 4.53(1.38) 6.59(.46) 6.67(.42) 6.60(.40)
Interview
(% yes) .17 1.0 .88 .75

 

 

 

 

* Note: Mean (Standard Deviation)

With contrast coefficients of 1 assigned to the obligation favor and favor
conditions and -l to the gratitude favor and no favor conditions, the effectiveness of the
obligation inductions on obligation was tested. A statistically significant result did not
emerge (t [5 8] = -.53, p = .60, r = -.07). Moreover, in contrast to the effect of favor on
gratitude, the correlation between favor (across all types of favor) and obligation [r = .08,
P(-.17 S p S .33 = .95)] fell within sampling error of zero. One can view the obligation
means for each condition in Table 2.

Examination of the cell means suggested that both the gratitude favor and
obligation favor conditions (the only favors provided with a message) induced higher
levels of obligation. Therefore, with contrast coefficients of -1 assigned to the no favor
and favor conditions and 1 to gratitude favor and obligation favor conditions, a post-hoc

test of the effect of both messages on obligation was undertaken. Results of this analysis

14

 

revealed a substantial effect (t [58] = 2.90, p = .005, r = .36) suggesting that both the
gratitude and obligation favors had a substantial positive effect on obligation. Note,
however, that the means for obligation in these two conditions still did not substantially
exceed the neutral midpoint of the scale (t [35] = 1.62, p = .11, r = .26). In fact, across all
favor conditions participants in this study reported feeling highly grateful [M = 6.62,
P(6.54 S a S .6.70 = .95)] and moderately obligated [M = 4.09, P(3.9 S a S 4.28 = .95)],

a difference that was statistically significant (t [98] = -14.21, p < .001, r = .82).

Table 2

Pretest: Obligation Descriptives

 

 

 

 

 

No favor Favor Obligation favor Gratitude favor
survey 3900.27) 3270.02) 4.65(1.12) 4.36(1.38)
Interview
(% yes) .17 .38 .25 .25

 

 

 

 

* Note: Mean (Standard Deviation)

Results from the interview method mirror findings from the self-report survey. In
the no favor condition 17% percent of the participants reported that they felt gratitude or
obligation. In the favor condition all participants indicated that they felt grateful, and only
37% reported feeling obligated. In the obligation favor condition 88% percent of
participants responded that they felt gratitude and only 25% responded that they felt
obligation. In the gratitude favor condition seventy-five percent reported they felt
gratitude, and only 25% reported they felt obligated.

The majority of participants in all three favor conditions felt gratitude and very

15

 

few felt obligation. Nearly 88% of all participants reported feeling some amount of
gratitude, and only 29% of all participants reported feeling some amount of obligation.
Interview results do not mirror survey results that suggested the gratitude favor and
obligation favor increased obligation. Nevertheless, these findings corroborate survey
findings that suggested all favor conditions induced high levels of gratitude but not
obligation.

Pretest discussion

The favor inductions failed to induce gratitude and obligation as predicted. An
interesting pattern, however, did emerge. The overwhelming, and somewhat surprising,
finding from the pretest is that participants in favor conditions reported high feelings of
gratitude and only moderate levels of obligation. Second, and more importantly, favors
drive gratitude strongly but fail to affect obligation in any significant fashion. If favors do
not drive obligation, then obligation becomes a less plausible mediator of the favors-
compliance relationship. Multiple explanations exist for this finding — participants may
not have the ability to report their own obligation, may not desire to report obligation, or
simply may not experience obligation after this type of favor.

Participants may not be aware of obligation. Feeling obligated due to the norm of
reciprocity may not exist within our consciousness. This proposition seems unlikely,
however, considering the multiple, direct obligation probes. Moreover, based on
interviews in the pretest after debriefing, many participants reported past experiences of
obligation. For these reasons it does not seem likely that participants lack the ability to
assess obligation. Participants, however, might not wish to report obligation.

Goei, et al. (2003) suggested that humans may not wish to report feeling obligated

l6

after being asked to comply with a prosocial request (i.e., support cancer research). Given
that most of us desire to present ourselves as kind and generous persons, it does not
reflect positively on a person who reports donating money to cancer research solely to
alleviate a sense of obligation. In this pretest, however, the confederate did not make a
compliance-gaining request by which to frame feelings of obligation negatively.
Therefore it makes less sense that participants do not want to report obligation.
Moreover, the interview condition provided a less-threatening environment for
participants to report gratitude or obligation to someone in a similar position experiencing
the same phenomenon. Yet, despite this participants still failed to report increased
obligation. If not inability or unwillingness, might it be that participants simply do not
experience obligation when provided small favors from strangers?

Given the lack of supporting evidence for the obligation explanation, one must
consider the possibility that obligation is not the primary response to favors of this ilk and
that the affective components of gratitude overwhelm assessments of obligation. If favors
do not lead to obligation then obligation cannot mediate the favors-compliance
relationship and the notion of a ubiquitous norm of reciprocity (at least as commonly
explained) becomes less plausible. At this point, this argument seems the most plausible
of the three. These preliminary data, however, do not allow us to draw strong
conclusions. The limitations of the pretest are worth reiterating.

First, because no measure of compliance was taken, these data do not speak
directly to the full mediating roles of obligation and gratitude. Additionally, and more
poignantly, low levels of obligation could be an artifact of pretest idiosyncrasies.

Specifically, because the pretest employs a small favor (i.e., a single soda) during a one-

17

time interaction among strangers, these findings may not generalize to situations in which

participants expect ongoing interactions and receive favors that cost the benefactor

greatly. Despite the limitations, these findings challenge the notion that small favors

among strangers produce a sense of obligation as predicted by the norm of reciprocity.
Main Experiment Method

A study was designed to test these notions further and address the limitations of
the pretest. This main experiment contains notable differences from the pretest. First, a
measure of compliance was added to enable analyses of the mediating roles of gratitude
and obligation. Second, given the failure of the pretest predictions, the main experiment
employs alternate inductions of gratitude and obligation. Third, further thought prompted
the inclusion of an additional potential obligation factor, a factor that requires some
clarification.

Many conceptions of the obligation explanation are based in theories of social
exchange. Obligations, according to social exchange theories, may come from the desire
to further one’s own benefits in the future. Thus, although people may feel obligated to
repay favors directly, they may also feel obligated to comply with subsequent requests for
their own, more self-interested reasons. For example, I may choose to reciprocate my
wife’s favors because I feel obligated to comply with the norm of reciprocity. On the
other hand, I may choose to reciprocate my wife’s favors because I feel it is necessary to
ensure my ability to attain favors from her in the future or because I feel I must to prevent
an angry reaction that will subsequently affect my mood. The shift from a pure obligation
approach to obligation for self-interested reasons constitutes a subtle but potentially

important distinction. Therefore, this variable, henceforth labeled enlightened self-

18

interest, was included to detect a potential missing nuance to the obligation explanation.

The main experiment varies two concepts likely to affect gratitude, obligation,
and enlightened self-interest: favor cost and anticipation of future interaction. Given the
trouble inducing obligation and the relative ease of inducing gratitude in the pretest, the
main experiment employs these two independent variables crafted explicitly to increase
feelings of obligation. In addition to the changes in favor inductions, the nature of the
favor was altered to increase the potential for obligation. It was thought that the degree to
which one requires help might increase feelings of obligation toward the beneficiary
perhaps due to increased feelings of responsibility for the costs incurred by the
beneficiary in providing the favor. Specifically, participants were provided a favor only
after the need for said object had been made apparent. In general, because pretest findings
challenged the obligation explanation, the second experiment was designed to provide
obligation every chance to succeed.

The first induced variable is favor cost. It has been suggested that obligation
varies with the cost of the favor to the benefactor (e. g., Greenberg & Frisch, 1972).
Feelings of gratitude, however, may also vary with changes in favor cost (Tesser,
Gatewood, & Driver, 1968). Therefore, it is purported that increased cost to the
benefactor will produce stronger feelings of obligation and gratitude in the beneficiary.

The second induced variable is anticipation of future interaction. Research on
social dilemmas suggests that one-time interactions may not produce cooperative patterns
and that perceptions of cooperation increase over time (e.g., Henry, 2000; Rutte & Wilke,
1992). Given the transitory nature of the pretest experiment, participants may have failed

to make an assessment of obligation (or enlightened self-interest had it been measured).

19

Put differently, anticipating future interaction with the benefactor should increase the
probability that beneficiaries operate from a more exchange based perspective. Thus

anticipation of future interaction should increase the two exchange-based constructs:

obligation and enlightened self-interest.

Completing the second half of the model, each of the induced mediators
(gratitude, obligation, and enlightened self-interest) should work to increase compliance
with subsequent requests from the favor giver. Figure 1 displays the expected
relationships. The figure posits that favor cost causes obligation and gratitude, that
anticipation of future interaction causes obligation and enlightened self-interest, and that
obligation, gratitude and enlightened self-interest subsequently drive compliance. The
main experiment was designed to test these suppositions.

Design

A favor cost (low cost / high cost) x anticipation of future interaction (no
anticipation of future interaction / anticipation of future interaction) with two no favor
control conditions (no anticipation of future interaction / anticipation of future
interaction) design was employed. Confederates varied favor cost either by providing
participants with an examination booklet from their backpack in the laboratory, or
providing participants with an examination booklet which they volunteered to retrieve
from their automobile parked approximately 200 yards away. The researcher varied
anticipation of future interaction by informing participants that they would meet only this
once, or continuing the study in two subsequent meetings during which they would
interact extensively with the same partner. Participant’s feelings of gratitude, obligation,

enlightened self-interest, positive and negative affect, psychological discomfort, and

20

subsequent compliance were measured.
Participants
One hundred and sixty undergraduates from Michigan State University

participated in the study (70 males and 90 females). The researcher recruited participants

Figure 1

Main Experiment: Proposed Model

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Favor CO“ ; Gratitude
Obligation Compliance
Anticipation of Enlightened self-
future interaction interest

 

 

 

 

 

from introductory communication classes at Michigan State University (they received
class credit for participation) and randomly assigned participants to one of the six
conditions. Participants interacted with a same sex confederate to not confound sex of the
confederate with sex of the participant.
Procedure

One participant and one confederate arrived at the laboratory where the researcher
welcomed the two into the laboratory. Instructions for the brainstorming cover story
paralleled those of the pretest. During these instructions the researcher varied anticipation

of future interaction. To induce anticipation of future interaction the investigator stated,

21

“Today’s study is one of a series in which you two will be brainstorming together. In this
first study you will not be interacting with one another. In subsequent meetings, however,
you will be working together to produce ideas as a pair. We will contact you in the a few
days to schedule the subsequent brainstorming sessions.” In the no anticipation of future
interaction condition the researcher told participants, “Today’s study is short and simple,
I will first be assessing your level of attitude similarity. Then I will have you brainstorm
two topics. After you have produced ideas for both issues, we’re done!”

After the brainstorming instructions, participants and confederates completed an
attitude questionnaire and the researcher asked them to take out their examination
booklets to record their brainstorming responses. Participants reported that they did not
remember receiving an email and that they did not have an exam booklet. Confederates
had their own booklet (ostensibly a necessity they were informed of via email) as well as
an extra. The location of the extra booklet constituted the favor cost induction.

In the low cost induction confederates reached into their backpack, handed the
extra booklet to participants and said, “Here ya go. I bought an extra one. You can use
it.” After being thanked, confederates said, “You’re welcome,” and reseated. In the high
cost induction, confederates said, “You know, I have an extra one in my car. I’ll run out
and grab it for you. You can use that one.” The researcher said, “I’m not sure we have
time for that.” Confederates replied, “I can run.” The researcher said, “Ok, just hurry
we’re really short on time.” Confederates then rushed out to grab the extra examination
booklet. Confederates returned three minutes later breathing heavily from running,
handed the examination booklet to participants and said, “Here you go.” After being

thanked confederates said, “You’re welcome,” and took a seat. In both cases confederates

22

refused any offer by participants for repayment.

After the favor cost induction the researcher began the brainstorming sessions. He
provided participants and confederates with the first of two problems and instructed them
to produce independently as many ideas as possible. Pending completion the researcher
returned and presented the second problem. He allowed participants and confederates
three minutes to brainstorm solutions to each of the problems. Upon completion of the
second brainstorming session the researcher returned, thanked them for their
participation, and prepared to dismiss them. Before dismissing them he said, “You know,
I wanted to ask you guys something. I am doing another study on the impact of favors. I
want to know why people choose to do them and what it makes people feel like to receive
them. I am looking for real life instances of favor giving. You (looking toward the
confederate) gave him/her (looking toward the participant) a favor by giving him/her an
exam booklet. Would you two mind completing a questionnaire for this other study
before you leave? It is very short and your responses will remain completely
confidential.” All participants assented to completing the questionnaire.

The researcher exited and returned with the questionnaire. This instrument
included measures of six constructs: gratitude, obligation, enlightened self-interest,
positive affect, negative affect, and psychological discomfort. The latter three were
included to assess nomothetically distinctions between gratitude, obligation, and
enlightened self-interest. As the researcher handed out the questionnaires they asked
participants and confederates to respond honestly and reminded them that he would treat
their responses confidentially.

In both control conditions participants did not receive a favor. The anticipation of

23

future interaction inductions paralleled those employed in the favor conditions. In both
control conditions the researcher provided the confederate and participant with
examination blue books to record their brainstorming ideas. In addition, gratitude,
obligation, enlightened self-interest, positive and negative affect, and psychological
discomfort were not measured in the no favor controls to prevent heightened suspicion.

Pending completion of the gratitude and obligation measure the researcher
dismissed confederates and participants. After exiting the lab confederates made the
compliance-gaining request, stating, “Hey can I ask you something. I’m selling raffle
tickets for my old high school. The tickets cost $1.00 each and the prize is a new DVD
player. Would you like to buy some? If you don’t have the money now, you can pay me
later.” The number of raffle tickets participants agreed to purchase constituted the
measure of compliance. Immediately following a response from participants,
confederates signaled to the researcher who then asked participants to return to the
laboratory because he had forgotten to provide some information. At this point the
researcher debriefed, pledged to secrecy, and dismissed participants.
Instrumentation

Obligation. Obligation was measured using a six item, 7-point, Likert measure.
Items included, “After receiving the favor, I felt pressure to do something in return” and
“I felt that I owed the person who did a favor for me.” Obligation items were scored such
that the lowest score (strongly disagree) represents an absence of obligation and the
highest score (strongly agree) represents extremely high obligation. The midpoint of the
scale was labeled “neutral” and therefore represents moderate amounts of obligation. All

items subsequent were measured in exactly the same fashion. Overall the mean was

24

moderate (M = 4.08, SD = .96). Standardized item alpha for the scale was .87.

Gratitude. Gratitude was measured with four, seven-point, Likert-type items.
Items included, “I felt thankful toward my favor-doer” and “I felt grateful toward the
person who did the favor for me.” The mean was high (M = 5.86, SD = .81). Standardized
item alpha was computed and found to be .80.

Enlightened self—interest. Enlightened self-interest was measured using a four
item, 7-point, Likert measure. Items included, “I was worried that people would think I
was a bad person if I did not do something in return” and “I felt I had to reciprocate
because that would be most beneficial for me in the end.” The mean was low (M = 2.90,
SD = 1.13). Standardized item alpha for the scale was .84.

Positive aflect. Positive affect was measured using a one-item, 7—point, Likert
measure. The item stated, “I felt generally positive after receiving the favor.” The means
was high (M = 5.94, SD = .77).

Negative aflect. Negative affect was measured using a one-item, 7-point, Likert
measure. The item read, “I felt generally negative after receiving the favor.” The mean
was low (M = 1.73, SD = .69).

Psychological Discomfort. Discomfort was measured using a one-item, 7-point,
Likert measure. The item read, “I felt somewhat uncomfortable after receiving the favor.”
The mean was low (M = 3.03, SD = 1.59).

Compliance. The number of raffle tickets participants verbally agreed to buy from
the confederate constituted the measure of compliance. An increase in the number of
tickets purchased represented increased compliance. The mean tickets purchased was low

(M = 1.04, SD = 1.16).

25

Main Experiment Results

Of the 160 participants five reported feeling suspicious of the confederate and two
insisted on repaying the confederate before they could make the compliance gaining
request. Subsequent analyses do not include these seven participants.

Evaluation of the measurement model

Confirmatory factor analysis was employed to test a seven factor measurement
model containing gratitude, obligation, enlightened self interest, positive affect, negative
affect, psychological discomfort, and compliance. Small errors between predicted and
observed correlations in the tests of internal consistency (where possible) and parallelism
led to the conclusion that the data were consistent with the hypothesized seven-factor
model.

Correlational analyses were undertaken to assess the degree to which gratitude
and obligation reflected positive and negative affect or a state of psychological
discomfort. All correlations have been corrected for attenuation due to error of
measurement. The correlations between gratitude and positive affect [r = .37, P (. 17 S p S
.57) = .95], gratitude and negative affect [r = -.39, P (-.59 S p S -.19) = .95], and gratitude
and discomfort [r = .13, P (-.09 S p S .35) = .95] support the notion that participants
experienced gratitude as a predominantly positive affective state that was not related to
psychological comfort.

The relationships between obligation and positive affect [r = -.18, P (—.38 S p S -
.02) = .95], obligation and negative affect [r = .06, P (-.16 S p S .28) = .95], obligation
and discomfort [r = .35, P (.16 S p S .54) = .95] suggest that people probably do not

experience obligation as an affect, but rather as a psychologically uncomfortable state.

26

Similar patterns emerged when examining the relationship between enlightened self-
interest and positive affect [r = .04, P (-.18 S p S .26) = .95], enlightened self-interest and
negative affect [r = .13, P (-. 15 S p S .35) = .95], and enlightened self-interest and
discomfort [r = .28, P (.08 S p S .48) = .95]. Like obligation, enlightened self-interest was
not related to affect, but was related to a psychological state of discomfort.

Induction checks

Initial examination of the data reveals patterns similar to those from the pretest.
After receiving a favor, participants reported feeling high levels of gratitude (across all
four favor conditions, M = 6.41, P(6.31 S it S 6.51) = .95). Similarly, after receiving a
favor participants reported moderate levels of obligation (across all favor conditions, M =
4.18, P(3.94 S u S 4.42) = .95). Participants reported low levels of enlightened self-
interest [M = 2.89, P(2.65 S u S 3.13) = .95] in the main experiment. One can see
descriptive statistics for all three mediating variables in Table 3. Before assessing the
mediating roles of these three variables, the impact of anticipation of future interaction
and favor cost on gratitude, obligation, and enlightened self-interest was assessed.

A two-way independent groups analysis of variance was employed to test the
effectiveness of the cost and anticipation of future interaction inductions on gratitude,
obligation, enlightened self-interest and compliance. As predicted the cost induction had
a positive effect on gratitude [F (1,96) = 7.79, p = .006, r = .28] and neither the
anticipation induction [F (1,96) = .15, p = .70, r = .04] nor the cost by anticipation
interaction [F (1,96) = 1.42, p = .24, r = .12] had a substantial or statistically significant
effect on gratitude. In terms of obligation, neither the cost induction [F (1,96) = .07, p =

.80, r = .03], the anticipation induction [F (1,96) = .46, p = .50, r = .07], nor the cost by

27

anticipation interaction [F (1,96) = .34, p = .56, r = .06] had a substantial or statistically
significant effect on obligation. Anticipation of future interaction increased enlightened
self interest as expected [F (1,96) = 5.34, p = .02, r = .23]. Cost, however, did not increase
enlightened self-interest [F (1,96) = .30, p = .59, r = .06] nor did the anticipation by cost

interaction [F(l,96) = .02, p = .89, r < .001].

Table 3

Main Experiment: Gratitude, Obligation, and Enlightened Self-Interest Descriptives

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gratitude Low favor cost High favor cost
Anticipation 6.35 (.49) 6.50 (.50)
No anticipation 6.20 (.42) 6.58 (.45)
Obligation
Anticipation 4.17 (1.36) 4.37 (1.19)
No anticipation 4.14 (1.01) 4.06 (1.26)
Enlightened
Self-Interest
Anticipation 3.09 (1.24) 3.24 (l .25)
No anticipation 2.59 (.85) 2.68 (1.09)
Positive affect
Anticigltion 5.74 (.86) 5.91 (.85)
No anticipation 5.75 (.61) 6.31 (.62)
Negative affect
Anticipation 1.69 (.70) 1.70 (.47)
No anticipation 1.92 (.83) 1.62 (.70)
Psychological
discomfort
Anticipation 3.52 (1.78) 3.04 (1.43)
No anticipation 3.25 (1.57) 2.39 (1.42)

 

Results from the two-way independent groups ANOVA to assess the effect of the
cost and anticipation of future interaction inductions on compliance indicated no
substantial main effect for anticipation [F (1,97) = .21, p = .65, r = .04], cost [F (1,97) =

.11, p = .74, r = .03] or anticipation by cost interaction [F (1,97) = .37, p = .55, r = .06].

28

These findings were not surprising given the predicted mediated nature of the
relationship.

A one-way independent groups ANOVA was undertaken to determine if the
receipt of a favor (compared to control conditions) affected compliance rates. Means fell
in the expected direction such that the mean for favor conditions [M = 1.25, P(l.01 S u S
1.49) = .95] exceeded significantly the mean for the no favor conditions [M = .68, P(.39 S
pt S .97) = .95]. Results from the ANOVA indicated a substantial and statistically
significant effect for favor [F (1,152) = 8.93, p = .003, r = .24].

A test of the efi‘ect of a favor

Recall the mediating variables of gratitude and obligation and enlightened self-
interest were not measured in the no favor conditions of the main experiment. These
values could be estimated, however, with data from the pretest. Therefore to estimate of
the effect of favor on these gratitude, obligation, and subsequent compliance (see Figure
2), the pretest correlations between favors and gratitude [r = .79, P(.69 S p S .89 = .95]
and favors and obligation [r = .08, P(—.l7 S p S .33 = .95)] were inserted in to the model.
This method did not allow an estimate of enlightened self-interest variable because it was
not measured in the pretest. Figure 2

Main Experiment: The Efi‘ect of a Favor Model

 

.88 Gratitude 37

 

 

 

 

 

Favor Compliance

 

 

 

 

 

 

'09 Obligation .09

 

 

 

29

A path analysis of the model presented in Figure 2 which posited that favors
affect obligation and gratitude which both subsequently increase compliance failed. It
failed specifically because the path coefficients between favors and obligation [r = .09,
P(-.09 S p S .27) = .95] and obligation and compliance [,6 = .09, P(—.09 S p S .27) = .05]
were both within sampling error of zero. Therefore, obligation was dropped from the
model and the revised model reexamined.

Examination of the simple causal string from favors to gratitude, and gratitude to
compliance (see Figure 3) revealed a small error between observed and predicted
correlations (-.07) which fell well within sampling error of zero [X2(1)= .40, p = .53].
These findings suggested that the data fit the revised model well. Certainly one should
use caution when interpreting these analyses. Participants in the no favor conditions of
the main experiment did not respond directly to measures of gratitude and obligation.
Nevertheless, the no favor conditions in the main experiment approximately closely the
no favor conditions in the pretest. In addition, the gratitude and obligation means from
the pretest approached those from the main experiment. Further, the large discrepancy
between the favors-gratitude and the favors-obligation relationships and the close fit of

the data with the simple causal string make these findings noteworthy.

Figure 3

Main Experiment: The Effect of a Favor (Revised Model) Results

 

 

 

Favor -88 Gratitude 35 Compliance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X2(1) = .40, p = .53

30

Evaluation of the Proposed Model

The standardized item alpha estimates computed earlier were used to correct all
correlations for attenuation due to error of measurement. The corrected correlations were
then used to test the fit of the proposed model. One can see all of the corrected and

uncorrected correlations in Table 4.

Table 4

Main Experiment: Raw Correlation Matrix

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anticipation Cost Gratitude Obligation EN SI Comply
Anticipation . -.03 .08 .25 -.08
Cost . .31 .02 .06 .03
Gratitude .03 .28** .29 .02 .30
Obligation .07 .02 .24** .59 .02
EN SI .23* .05 .02 .50** .01
Comply -.08 .03 .27** .02 .01

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: The raw correlations are presented in the bottom of the matrix. The correlations
corrected for attenuation due to measurement error are presented in the top of the matrix.

The proposed model posits that anticipation of future interaction increases
obligation and enlightened self-interest. It also posits that favor cost increases obligation
and gratitude and that subsequent gratitude, obligation, and enlightened-self interest drive

compliance. One can view the path coefficients used to test this model in Table 5.

Figure 4 makes it clear that many relationships did not reach a substantial size and
were not statistically significant. The path coefficients linking anticipation of future

interaction and obligation [r = .08, P (-. 14 S p S .30) = .95], favor cost and obligation, [r

31

=.02, P (-.20 S p S .24) = .95], enlightened self-interest and compliance, [fl =.12, P (-.15

S B S .39) = .95], compliance and obligation, [fl = -.20, P (-.53 S ,8 S .13) = .95] did not

reach traditional levels of significance or substantial size. Furthermore, non-linearity

could not explain any of these small effect sizes.

Table 5

Main Experiment: Path Coefiicients Used to Test Predicted Model

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anticipation Cost Gratitude Obligation ENSI Comply
Anticipation
Cost
Gratitude .3 1
Obligation .08 .02
EN SI .25
Comply .36 -.20 .12
Figure 4
Main Experiment: Proposed Model Results
Favor Cost 31 Gratitude
02
Obligation Compliance
.08
Anticipation of .25 Enlightened self-

 

 

 

future interaction

 

X2(7) = 14.90, p = .04

 

interest

 

 

32

 

 

Based on these findings, subsequent path analyses do not include anticipation of
future interaction, enlightened self—interest, or obligation. Anticipation of future
interaction was eliminated because it was unrelated to compliance and failed to be related
to a mediator that had a substantial effect on compliance. Enlightened self-interest was
eliminated because it had no effect on compliance. Obligation was removed because it
had only a negligible effect on compliance (interestingly in the direction opposite from
that predicted) and because obligation was not driven by either independent variable. The
remaining variables formed a simple causal string from favor cost to gratitude to
compliance. Figure 5 shows these relationships.

The data were examined for consistency with the revised path model (paths are
corrected for attenuation due to measurement error). The path coefficient linking favor
cost and gratitude was .31 P (.09 S p S .53) = .95. The path coefficient linking gratitude
and compliance was .30, P (.08 S p S .52) = .95. Both effects fell in the predicted
direction, passed traditional tests of significance and approached a reasonable effect size.
Moreover, errors between the predicted and observed unconstrained correlation were
small (-.06) suggesting that the data were consistent with the simple causal string [X2(1) =

.20, p = .65]. This model can be seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5

Main Experiment: Revised Model Result

 

 

 

 

Favor Cost '31 Gratitude '30 Compliance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X2(1) = .20, p = .65

33

Main Experiment Discussion

The tested model proposed that favor cost would increase obligation and
gratitude, whereas the anticipation of future interaction induction would increase,
obligation and enlightened self-interest. Subsequently it was hypothesized that gratitude,
obligation, and enlightened self-interest would predict compliance after a favor. In this
discussion section I review the major findings from the test of this model, place it in the
context of previous pregiving and reciprocity studies, discuss the limitations, propose
future avenues of research, and advance three conclusions
Overview of Findings

First, findings suggest that gratitude and obligation form two factors. A good deal
of evidence supports this claim. In particular, findings from two confirmatory tests of the
factor structure found the hypothesized two- (gratitude and obligation in pretest) and
three-factor (gratitude, obligation, and enlightened self-interest in main experiment)
solutions to be consistent with the data. Additionally, data from this study found that
gratitude, obligation, and enlightened self-interest were related to measures of positive,
negative affect, and psychological discomfort and in the directions predicted by their
definitions. That is, those who felt more grateful also reported a more positive and a less
negative mood and did not experience psychological discomfort. Whereas those who felt
more obligated and enlightened self-interest experienced increased uncomfortable
psychological states and did not report systematically any change in positive or negative
affect. Given gratitude and obligation’s history of conflation, these constitute notable
findings and provide some evidence that initial a priori conceptions of these two

constructs were valid.

34

It is also of interest that neither favor cost, anticipation of future interaction, nor
the anticipation by cost interaction had a substantial effect on obligation. Recall the main
experiment was designed with the primary goal of inducing obligation. Nevertheless, the
majority of participants reported experiencing little or no obligation or enlightened self-
interest and more importantly obligation did not vary with different levels of cost or
anticipation. These findings replicate pretest findings and provide additional evidence
that obligation is not a primary response to favors among strangers.

Perhaps most interesting, neither obligation nor enlightened self-interest mediated
the relationship between favors and compliance. This challenges most all previous
predictions concerning the critical role of obligation in explaining human reciprocal
behavior. Moreover, after removing both obligation and enlightened self-interest from the
path model, gratitude accounted for all of the variance in compliance attributable to favor
cost. These data lead to the conclusion that the affective experience of gratitude
overpowers the aversive cognitive state of obligation, a conclusion very much at odds
with existing research and beliefs.

The favors-compliance effect size constitutes one other interesting finding. In the
main experiment, the correlation of pregiving message with compliance was .24 [P (.09 S
p S .39) = .95]. Boster, Rodriguez, Cruz, and Marshall (1995) found a relationship
between pregiving and compliance among strangers larger than that in the present study
[r = .46, P (.18 S p S .73) = .95]. Regan (1971) also found a larger relationship between
pregiving and compliance among strangers [r = .43, P (.24 S p S .60) = .95]. The present
effect size, however, still falls within the 95% confidence intervals of these two findings

and therefore does not exceed what one would expect from sampling error. This is

35

probably due primarily to the fact that Regan and Boster et al. (1995) had relatively small
sample sizes (n = 77 and n = 32 respectively).

Despite statistical insignificance, one should note the sizeable difference in effect
size. Admittedly speculative, these findings may have emerged due to differences in the
compliance gaining request. Regan and Boster et al. employed a written request, whereas
the present study used a verbal, face-to-face request. One may also argue reasonably that
the difference in favor type produced these differences. Regan and Boster et al. used an
unsolicited soda as the favor. In the present study the unsolicited favor involved helping
someone in need by offering an examination bluebook. Providing a bluebook to a fellow
student in need may differ from giving someone a soda without a voiced need from the
beneficiary, although the bluebook favor did not differ from the soda favor in terms of
their effect upon gratitude and obligation.

Moreoever the effect size from the main experiment was consistent with the
pregiving-compliance effect size [r = .19, P (.04 S p S .34) = .95] in at least one other
study using a soda favor and a written compliance-gaining request (Whatley, Webster,
Smith, & Rhodes, 1999). Notably, the effect reported by Whatley, et al. (1999) is more
stable due to the larger sample size (n = 150).

Limitations and future research

One potential explanation for variance in gratitude, obligation, and enlightened
self-interest unaccounted for in the present study may come from individual differences
(Cotterell, Eisenberger, & Speicher, 1992; Gallucci & Perugini, 2003; McCullough,
Emmons, & Tsang, 2002). Put differently, it may be true that people vary in the degree to

which they live a life marked by gratitude (e. g., a grateful disposition) or obligation (e. g.,

36

an exchange based disposition). Undoubtedly these data cannot speak to these matters.
Plans are underway to examine the role that individual differences plays on these
relationships.

Missing induction checks constitute one other weakness of the present study. One
could have more confidence in these results with a check on the inductions of anticipation
of future interaction and favor cost. Asking participants to note how much of a cost they
perceived the high cost condition versus the low cost condition. Future research should
include such checks or pretest them directly. Nonetheless the lack of these induction
checks does not infirm the unique contribution made in this work. These findings imply a
set of extremely intriguing conclusions that defy previous assumptions about reciprocal
behavior.

It may be argued that there are alternative ways to reduce obligation. Certainly it
cannot be argued that complying with subsequent requests is the only way in which to
reduce a sense of obligation. One particularly interesting possibility is obligation can be
reduced simply by uttering the phrase, “Thank you” which could explain the lower than
expected obligation means. Perhaps participants not allowed the opportunity to say thank
you would feel higher levels of obligation than those in the present study. This argument
makes two suggestions. One, that “thank you” dispels feelings of obligation but does not
dispel feelings of gratitude. Two, that the low to moderate levels of obligation found in
this study render obligation useless as a predictor of compliance; that is, obligation must
be high for it to affect compliance — both possible, but not extremely plausible claims.
Conclusions

Results from this investigation suggest three general conclusions that challenge

37

current practice and principles. First, gratitude and obligation merit distinction. Second,
scholars should critically evaluate assumptions about obligation and the norm of
reciprocity. Third, gratitude deserves increased attention in explanations for reciprocal
behavior.

Findings indicate that obligation and gratitude form two distinct constructs. In
addition, enlightened self-interest forms a third construct. Therefore, one can conclude
from these findings that scholars should begin to speak and write about gratitude,
obligation, and enlightened self-interest with greater conceptual clarity. This distinction
will help advance the study of reciprocal behavior and increase our understanding of how
favors and pregiving messages operate to increase compliance.

, A number of studies (of which this is the fourth) contest the ubiquity of the
obligation explanation. Boster, Rodriguez, Cruz, and Marhsall (1995) found the
obligation explanation only viable among strangers, not friends. Boster, Fediuk, and
Kotowski (2001) found the obligation explanation was only viable with prosocial, not
anti-social requests. Goei, Lindsey, Boster, Skalski, and Bowman (2003) found that, with
some methodological improvements, the obligation explanation could not explain the
effect of favors on compliance even among strangers with pro-social requests.

The results from this study challenge the obligation explanation even further.
These findings suggest that obligation does not explain increased compliance from a
pregiving message even under conditions designed expressly to foster obligation.
Specifically, this study demonstrates that when benefactors go out of their way (high
favor cost) and when beneficiaries expect to interact directly with their benefactor in the

immediate future (anticipation of future interaction) obligation is still not a viable

38

explanation for reciprocal behavior. These findings contradict the predictions and
conclusions of several researchers concerning the role of the obligation explanation (e. g.,
Boster, Rodriguez, Cruz, & Marshall, 1995; Gouldner, 1960; Greenberg & Frisch, 1972;
Homans, 1958; Regan, 1971; Tesser, Gatewood, & Driver, 1968; Whatley, Webster,
Smith, & Rhodes, 1999; Wilke & Lanzetta, 1970).

Gratitude, on the other hand, did mediate the pregiving—compliance relationship.
Results from this study corroborate recent claims acknowledging the significant role
gratitude plays in the reciprocal patterns of daily behavior (e.g., Emmons & Crumpler,
2000; Lazarus & Lazarus; 1994; McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, 2001).
Gratitude is mysteriously absent from our social psychological, psychological,
sociological, and communication texts and journals. These results, however, suggest that
gratitude no longer be ignored. Not only did gratitude mediate the favors-compliance
relationship, it did so both in the absence and presence of obligation and enlightened self-
interest effects.

Despite failure of the proposed model, specifically the failure of obligation or
enlightened self-interest as mediators to the favors-compliance relationship, it is still
premature to assert the denouement of the obligation explanation or the norm of
reciprocity. It remains to be seen if obligation or enlightened self-interest predicts
reciprocal behavior after a pregiving message in other more precise contexts or if
methodological issues in the present study obfuscate the true mediating role of obligation
or enlightened self-interest.

The available data taken as a whole, however, make a strong case; obligation does

not predict reciprocal behavior in many instances of strangers presented with prosocial

39

requests after a favor. Given the lack of power inherent to the obligation explanation
under these conditions the ubiquity of Gouldner’s (1960) Norm of Reciprocity is less
plausible. Moreover, consistent with recent claims of affect-driven (i.e., liking) reciprocal
behavior (Goei, et al., 2003), gratitude provides us with a viable alternative to the

obligation explanation and should be pursued further.

40

APPENDICES

41

Appendix A

Gratitude scale

Answer the following questions about your feelings toward the person who gave you the
favor after you received the favor. Each of these questions pertains to your feelings
toward the person who gave you the favor

1. I felt thankful.

2. I felt grateful.

3. I appreciated the actions of the person who did me a favor.

4. I felt a deep sense of gratitude after receiving the favor.

42

Appendix B

Obligation scale

Answer the following questions about your feelings toward the person who gave you the
favor after you received the favor. Each of these questions pertains to your feelings
toward the person who gave you the favor.

1. I felt obligated to return the favor.

2. I didn’t feel that I owed anything at all to the person who did me a favor.

3. I felt indebted to the favor—doer.

4. After receiving the favor, I felt pressure to do something in return.

5. I felt that I absolutely had to something in return for the favor they gave me.

6. I had no choice. I simply had to do something for the other.

43

Appendix C

Enlightened self-interest scale

Answer the following questions about your feelings toward the person who gave you the
favor after you received the favor. Each of these questions pertains to your feelings
toward the person who gave you the favor.

l. I felt that I should do something in return for the favor because it would help me.

2. I had no choice. I simply had to do something in return or risk hurting our relationship.

3. I felt I had to reciprocate because that would be most beneficial for me in the end.

4. I thought that if I did something in return that it would make me look better.

REFERENCES

45

References

Boster, F. J., Rodriguez, J. I., Cruz, M. G., & Marshall, L. (1995). The relative
effectiveness of a direct request message and a pregiving message on friends and
strangers. Communication Research, 22(4), 475-484.

Boster, F. J., Fediuk, T., & Kotowski, M. R. (2001). The effectiveness of an altruistic
appeal in the presence and absence of favors. Communication Monographs,
68(4), 340-346.

Carlson, M., Charlin, V., & Miller, N. (1988). Positive mood and helping behavior: A test
of six hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 211-229.

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Cotterell, N ., Eisenberger, R., & Speicher, H. (1992). Inhibiting effects of
reciprocation wariness on interpersonal relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 658-668.

De Cooke, RA. (1992). Children’s understanding of indebtedness as a feature
of reciprocal help exchanges between peers. Developmental

Psychology, 28(5), 948-954.

Emmons, R.A. & Crumpler, CA. (2000). Gratitude as a human strength: Appraising the
evidence. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(1), 56-69.

Goei, R., Massi, L., Boster, F.J., Skalski, P., & Bowman, J. (2003). Reconsidering the

effects of favors and liking on compliance. Communication Research, 30(2), 178-
197.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.
American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.

Greenberg, M.S., & Frisch, D.M. (1972). Effect of intentionality on willingness to
reciprocate a favor. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8(2), 99—1 11.

Greenberg, M.S., & Shapiro, SP. (1971). Indebtedness: An adverse aspect of asking for
and receiving help. Sociometry, 34(2), 290-301.

Henry, KB. (2000). Perceptions of cooperation in a longitudinal social dilemma. Small
Group Research, 31(5), 507-527.

Homans, CC. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology,
63(6), 597-606.

46

Hunter, J. E., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, second
order factor analysis and causal models. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 267-320). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.

Hwang, K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of
Sociology, 92(4), 944-974.

Lazarus, R.S., & Lazarus, B.N. (1994). Passion and reason: Making sense of our
emotions. New York: Oxford University Press.

Marwell, G., & Schmidt, D. R. (1967). Dimensions of compliance-gaining
behavior: An empirical analysis. Sociometry, 30, 350-364.

McCullough, M.E. Kilpatrick, S.D., Emmons, R.A., & Larson, DB. (2001). Is gratitude a
moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 249-266.

Nisbett, R.E., & Bellows, J. (1977). Verbal reports about causal influences on social

judgments: Private access versus public theories. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 35(9), 613-624.

Perugini, M., & Gallucci, M. (2001). Individual differences and social norms: The
distinction between reciprocators and prosocials. European Joumal of
Personality, 15(1, Special issue), 19-35.

Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 7(6), 627-639.

Reisenzein, R. (1994). Pleasure-arousal theory and the intensity of emotions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 525-539.

Russell, J .A., & Paris, FA. (1994). Do children acquire concepts for complex emotions
abruptly? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17(2), 349-365.

Rutte, C.G, & Wilke H. (1992). Goals, expectations and behavior in a social dilemma
situation. In Liebrand, W.B.G., Messick, D.M., & Wilke, H.A.M. (Eds), Social
dilemmas: Theoretical Issues and Research Findings. International Series in
Experimental Social Psychology. (pp. 289-305). Elmsford, NY, US: Pergamon
Press, Inc.

 

Smith, A. (1790/ 1999). The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Tesser, A., Gatewood, R., & Driver, M. (1968). Some determinants of gratitude. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(3), 233-236.

Walster, A., Berscheid, E. & Walster, G.W. (1973). New directions in equity research.

47

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 151-176.

Whatley, M. A., Webster, J. M., Smith, R. H., & Rhodes, A. (1999). The effect of a favor
on public and private compliance: How internalized is the norm of reciprocity?
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(3), 251-259.

Wilke, H., & Lanzetta, J .T. (1970). The obligation to help: The effects of amount of prior

help on subsequent helping behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
6(4), 488-493.

48

   

Iiiiiiiiiiiiviii):