FREE SPEECH

Recognition of the harms done by free speech is a function of the social ontology presupposed. An atomist ontology implies that the harms suffered are restricted to individual people. This paper suggests an alternate ontology—one that describes systems established by the causal reciprocities of their proper parts. It proposes a consequentialist moral theory, and considers the harms suffered by these systems (a) when speech exposes their internal, otherwise private, behaviors or features, (b) when speech is malicious and false, and (c) when speech is monopolistic. Does the proposed ontology have objectionable implications for public policy? Alternative answers are considered briefly.     

Closeness, support and reciprocity: a study of attachment styles in adolescence

In the context of boarding schools, the transactions between adolescents internal working models of self and others, their peers perceptions of them, as well as the reciprocity between perceptions of others and by others were explored. Findings supported the assumed effect of models of the other on a persons social environment, as well as the expected relations between the congruency of models of self and other and the actual reciprocity between perceptions of others and others perceptions of self. Patterns of reciprocity in interpersonal relationships were found to characterize secure (positive reciprocity) and fearful (negative reciprocity) attachment styles, while non-reciprocal relations appeared more frequently among preoccupied and dismissing persons. These findings suggest specific person-environment transactions that may be involved in securing the continuity of styles of relating.     

To whom do positive norm and negative norm of reciprocity apply? Effects of inequitable offer, relationship, and relational-self orientation

Various theories have been proposed to account for people’s reciprocity behavior in social exchange. The current research is designed to delineate the conditions under which and for whom the relational theoretical explanation is most applicable. We hypothesize that while people in general show positive (negative) reciprocity responses toward favorable (unfavorable) inequitable treatments from others, such a tendency varies depending on the relationship with the exchange counterpart, and their own relational-self orientation. While we used country (China vs. the US) as a proxy for participants’ relational-self orientation in Study 1, this orientation was directly assessed in Study 2. Results from both studies showed consistent support for our hypothesis. Implications of these findings to literatures in reciprocity and social exchange are discussed.     

Giving and receiving social support at work: The roles of personality and reciprocity

Social support is an important variable in occupational stress research and theory, yet little is know about the factors that influence the amount of social support one gives, and receives at work. We examined personality (extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness) and reciprocity as potential antecedents to giving and receiving support from co-workers. Data collected from 108 participants employed in a number of organizations indicated that giving social support was positively associated with the receipt of social support. Both extraversion and agreeableness predicted giving and receiving non-job support and positive work-related support. The relationship between personality and social support received was, in many cases, mediated by social support given.     

Reactions toward an unexpected or counternormative favor-giver: Does it matter if we think we can reciprocate?

People may experience two opposing motivations after receiving unexpected or counternormative favors: an obligation to reciprocate and psychological reactance. We investigated whether awareness of a future opportunity to reciprocate might affect which reaction would ultimately guide reciprocity behavior. Participants received a generous payment from a “supervisor.” This favor was either expected or unexpected and either normative or counternormative. Recipients were either aware or unaware of a future chance to reciprocate. As predicted, unaware participants demonstrated reactance by reciprocating less when the favor was unexpected or counternormative, whereas aware participants demonstrated obligation by reciprocating more under those circumstances. Participants’ evaluations of the supervisor suggested that people have mixed impressions of someone whose favors violate expectancies or norms.