Reciprocity

Activate when: someone is being unexpectedly generous before making a request; you're deciding whether to accept a gift, free sample, or unsolicited concession; you're designing a sales or fundraising sequence and want to give first; a negotiation counterpart just retreated from an extreme position and you feel pulled to match; you're asking "why do they keep buying me lunch?" or "should I send a gift first?" Do NOT activate when: the exchange is explicitly priced (commerce, not reciprocity); the gift is a normal recurring pattern in an established friendship with no pending ask.

Overview

The rule of reciprocity — if someone gives you something, you owe them something back — recurs across virtually every documented human culture (Mauss 1925; Gouldner 1960). The rule operates below deliberation, scales asymmetrically, and fires even when the favor was unrequested or from someone you dislike. Regan (1971): a 10¢ Coke produced ~50¢ in compliance, and liking stopped predicting behavior once a favor was in play. Three operating properties: (1) asymmetric exchange — repayment routinely exceeds the favor; (2) override of liking — the obligation does the work; (3) "no obligation" disclaimers are part of the install, not an exception.

Composes with social-proof, anchoring (door-in-the-face combines reciprocity with concession-anchoring), and repeated-games-reputation.

When to Use

Apply when: accepting a gift/sample/concession where the giver has a future ask; designing sales, fundraising, or partner-development sequences; a negotiation counterpart just conceded and you feel pulled to match; evaluating cumulative small gifts in regulated relationships; someone asks "why are they so generous?" or "should I concede back?"

When NOT to use: exchange is explicitly priced; gift is a normal friendship pattern with no pending ask; favor is too small to constrain any future action; bright-line legal/ethical rules apply — follow the rule, skip the analysis.

Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)

• Engine mode: user has a concrete situation → run The Process directly.
• Coach mode: user is unfamiliar or has no concrete case → guide step by step.

In Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.

1. One-line what-it-is: if someone gives you something — even small, even unwanted — you'll feel a strong pull to repay, and the repayment tends to be bigger than what you got, even when you don't like the giver.
2. Check fit against When to Use / When NOT to use. If it's commerce or normal friendship, point elsewhere.
3. Elicit their real situation — a concrete current case. Never run the analysis on hypotheticals.

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

4. Run The Process one step at a time — name the favor, cost to giver, eventual ask, counterfactual test.

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

5. Close by naming the one concrete move — accept, decline, restructure, or counter — with the reason.

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

The Process

Run the Reciprocity Analysis.

1. Name the favor. What exactly is being given? Be specific — vague favors cannot be analyzed.
2. Estimate cost to giver. Real dollars, time, risk. Pull is proportional to perceived cost to giver, not value to you.
3. Estimate value to you. The gap between cost and value is where calibration goes wrong.
4. Identify the eventual ask. What does the giver want — now or later? If you can't articulate it, either there isn't one (analysis stops) or the install is still being staged.
5. Run the counterfactual. Would you say yes if asked directly, absent the gift? If yes — install is benign. If no — the rule is converting a "no" into a "yes." Decline the install, not the eventual ask.
6. Check for door-in-the-face. Large ask → decline → smaller ask → you feel pulled to match the concession. Naming it weakens the pull.
7. Decide: accept and reciprocate at par / decline up front / accept with explicit frame reset / accept then evaluate the ask on its own merits in writing.
8. Audit cumulative install. Analyze the whole relationship, not just the latest favor — especially in regulated professions.

Output: Reciprocity Analysis

text

Favor: [what / cost to giver / value to me]
Eventual ask: [probable ask / time horizon / explicit or unstated]
Counterfactual: [would I say yes cold? yes → benign; no → decline install]
Structure: [door-in-the-face? concession-anchoring? cumulative?]
Decision: [move + why + how to execute]

→ Method in Action: Dennis Regan's Coke Experiment, Cornell, 1971

Pack: Reciprocity in Practice

• B2B sales: give weeks before asking; thoughtful > generic. Buyer: counterfactual test — would I sign absent this relationship?
• Fundraising: free-gift enclosures lift response rates; evaluate cause on merits, not the unsolicited gift.
• Negotiation: door-in-the-face = open extreme → retreat → counterparty feels pulled to match. Defend by anchoring on merits, not concession magnitude.
• Lobbying/regulation: cumulative install across meals and invitations. Bright-line "no gifts" rules exist because per-event analysis underestimates aggregate effect.
• Founder-investor: write comparison criteria before value-add is delivered; don't update them based on subsequent generosity.

Applying It Well

• Give only when you're willing to give regardless of return — genuine value, not a manufactured trigger
• Signal no-obligation explicitly when you mean it: "no expectation — just thought you'd find this useful"
• In regulated relationships, institutional rules override per-event analysis

→ Primary sources: references/sources.md

Common Rationalizations

[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.

Fake move	Reality
[D] "It's just a small gift, it doesn't influence me"	Regan 1971: a 10¢ Coke produced ~50¢ of repayment. Small gifts are individually deniable, statistically reliable.
[D] "I'll accept but I won't be influenced"	The rule operates automatically; deliberate intent to resist provides only partial protection. If the obligation matters, decline up front or evaluate the ask in writing before it arrives.
[D] "I genuinely like them, that's why I'm helping"	Regan's finding: in the favor condition, liking dropped out as a predictor. If liking has stopped predicting your behavior, obligation has taken over.
[D] "It's only a problem if the gift is large"	Wazana 2000, Dana & Loewenstein 2003: even small gifts produce significant behavioral effects. Bright-line rules exist because per-event analysis underestimates cumulative impact.
[D] "They said no obligation, so it's genuine"	The disclaimer is part of the staged install — it prevents refusal; the ask comes later.
[D] "Door-in-the-face isn't real, it's just negotiation"	Cialdini et al. 1975 (JPSP): one of the most replicated influence findings. Naming the technique reduces but does not eliminate its pull.
→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern	What went wrong and why

Red Flags

• Someone you barely know is unusually generous and you can't articulate why
• "No obligation" precedes a favor that precedes a significant ask
• Negotiation opens extreme, then "concedes" to a moderate position
• You're defending a vendor's behavior more than the merits warrant
• Small gifts have accumulated over time and you've never run the cumulative analysis

Verification

• Favor and cost-to-giver are named specifically
• Eventual ask is articulated explicitly
• Counterfactual test performed: would I say yes approached cold?
• If counterfactual fails: decision is decline/refuse, not accept-and-rationalize
• Structural patterns (door-in-the-face, concession anchoring, "no obligation") were checked
• Cumulative install across many small favors was audited
• If sender: intent is named; receiver is not someone whose deliberation you wish to subvert

---

Part of deciqAI Knowledge Skills — 163 open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. The same skills power every deciqAI agent, which runs them autonomously to operate your company. See it run → https://www.deciqai.com/skills/reciprocity?utm_source=clawhub&utm_medium=marketplace&utm_campaign=knowledge-skills&utm_content=reciprocity · ⭐ Star the repo → https://github.com/deciqAI/knowledge-skills · Contributions welcome.