Fostering cooperation on the Internet: social exchange processes in ...
Fostering cooperation on the Internet: social exchange processes in ...
Fostering cooperation on the Internet: social exchange processes in ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
c<strong>on</strong>trast, <strong>in</strong>dividuals act accord<strong>in</strong>g to descriptive norms when <strong>the</strong>y do what is d<strong>on</strong>e <strong>in</strong> a particularsituati<strong>on</strong> with<strong>in</strong> a specific culture.Belk and Co<strong>on</strong> challenged <strong>the</strong> paradigmatic assumpti<strong>on</strong> of reciprocity <strong>in</strong> <strong>exchange</strong> modelsby ask<strong>in</strong>g: "Do we give <strong>on</strong>ly to get someth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> return?" (Belk and Co<strong>on</strong> 1993, p.393) and<strong>in</strong>troduced <strong>the</strong> agapic love metaphor as an alternative explanati<strong>on</strong> for gift-giv<strong>in</strong>g behavior.Theories of gift-giv<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong> general posit that <strong>the</strong> <strong>social</strong> significance of products arises not solelyby be<strong>in</strong>g displayed by <strong>the</strong>ir owner but ra<strong>the</strong>r by be<strong>in</strong>g given away as gifts to o<strong>the</strong>rs (Mauss et al.,1970). “In gift-cultures, <strong>social</strong> status is determ<strong>in</strong>ed not by what you c<strong>on</strong>trol, but what you giveaway.” (Raym<strong>on</strong>d, 1999, p.99). Although gift-giv<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> communities also implies that peoplereciprocate and give back what <strong>the</strong>y are able to give, gifts may also be given without expectati<strong>on</strong>sof anyth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> return. Murn<strong>in</strong>ghan et al., for <strong>in</strong>stance, argued that <strong>the</strong> key difference betweensystems of reciprocal altruism and volunteer<strong>in</strong>g is that a voluntary act rarely <strong>in</strong>cludes str<strong>on</strong>greciprocal expectati<strong>on</strong>s. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, volunteer<strong>in</strong>g may depend <strong>on</strong> emoti<strong>on</strong>al, moral, or empathicfeel<strong>in</strong>gs that are typically associated with altruism (Murn<strong>in</strong>ghan et al., 1993, p.516). Similararguments can be found <strong>in</strong> various c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> pro<strong>social</strong> behavior (Thomps<strong>on</strong> and B<strong>on</strong>o,1993; J<strong>in</strong>, 1993; Fernando and Hest<strong>on</strong>, 1997; van Oorschot, 1999). Individuals learn ‘altruistic’behavior <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sense of ‘do<strong>in</strong>g someth<strong>in</strong>g good’ for o<strong>the</strong>rs. It is not based <strong>on</strong> expectedsatisfacti<strong>on</strong> of needs and may even demand <strong>the</strong> denial of need satisfacti<strong>on</strong> and <strong>the</strong> sacrifice ofpers<strong>on</strong>al pleasure. These favors have been described as a pure gift which is not c<strong>on</strong>t<strong>in</strong>gent offuture reciprocati<strong>on</strong> (Stirrat and Henkel, 1997). However, it has been argued that <strong>social</strong>ly-<strong>in</strong>ducedaltruism is but <strong>on</strong>e possible cause for do<strong>in</strong>g a favor. Provid<strong>in</strong>g help has also been described as<strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sically reward<strong>in</strong>g, receiv<strong>in</strong>g gratificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong>directly through <strong>the</strong> happ<strong>in</strong>ess of o<strong>the</strong>rs(Marwell, 1982). In ei<strong>the</strong>r case, pure gifts are unselfish and symbolize an <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sically reward<strong>in</strong>g10