82,891
edits
Reciprocity: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|psychology|}}{{reciprocity capsule}} | {{a|psychology|}}{{reciprocity capsule}} | ||
Investment: The first is {{author|Rory Sutherland}}’s observation that ''signalling'' one’s investment in a prospective relationship — by going to trouble and expense to commence that relationship — increases your “target”’s disposition to engage in that relationship. You have shown you obviously care about them and their relationship. It is a markup of your commitment and intent to fidelity. It is a display of trust. | There are two other dimensions to this worth considering. | ||
'''Investment''': The first is {{author|Rory Sutherland}}’s observation that ''signalling'' one’s investment in a prospective relationship — by going to trouble and expense to commence that relationship — increases your “target”’s disposition to engage in that relationship. You have shown you obviously care about them and their relationship. It is a markup of your commitment and intent to fidelity. It is a display of trust. | |||
So, to invite your wedding guests with a thick embossed card rather than by means of a group WhatsApp message is to signal that you have gone to great trouble and expense to even invite them, making them feel valued and wanted and, perhaps, someone obliged to at least respond, and even attend. | So, to invite your wedding guests with a thick embossed card rather than by means of a group WhatsApp message is to signal that you have gone to great trouble and expense to even invite them, making them feel valued and wanted and, perhaps, someone obliged to at least respond, and even attend. | ||
The second is {{author|David Graeber}}’s observation that an ongoing relationship involves a running series of undischarged mutual obligations. Those in a deep relationship give freely to each other without account or expectation of exact recompense. Those who provide services only against an expectation of full payment have ''shallow'' relationships, since upon discharge of that payment either party can dissolve the relationship finally, without notice and without fear of offence or retribution. It’s just business. | '''Obligation''': The second is {{author|David Graeber}}’s observation that an ongoing relationship involves a running series of undischarged mutual obligations. Those in a deep relationship give freely to each other without account or expectation of exact recompense. Those who provide services only against an expectation of full payment have ''shallow'' relationships, since upon discharge of that payment either party can dissolve the relationship finally, without notice and without fear of offence or retribution. It’s just business. | ||
Perhaps, we wonder, some of the rituals we go through when we start our business relationships have this kind of profile. Is that why we persist with lengthy legal negotiations? To be sure, sending a hostile 40-page screed to your client’s legal team and having them tear it to shreds is an unusual way of building trust — but is that how our courting ritual began? | Perhaps, we wonder, some of the rituals we go through when we start our business relationships have this kind of profile. Is that why we persist with lengthy legal negotiations? To be sure, sending a hostile 40-page screed to your client’s legal team and having them tear it to shreds is an unusual way of building trust — but is that how our courting ritual began? | ||