giving

Getty Images For Unsplash+

Forget Paying It Back: In Unequal Relationships, the Giver Just Keeps Giving

In A Nutshell

  • MIT researchers found that people expect generosity to be returned only in equal relationships, such as between friends, peers, or coworkers at the same level.
  • In hierarchical relationships, such as boss and employee or mentor and mentee, whoever was generous first is expected to be generous again, regardless of who holds the higher rank.
  • Even when real money was at stake, participants in lab games followed the same pattern, treating unequal relationships as ones where the giver keeps giving.
  • A single act of generosity was enough to reset expectations, suggesting the brain quickly establishes a “new normal” for how a relationship works.

There’s an unspoken rule most people absorb early in life: if someone does something nice for you, return the favor. A friend covers your coffee tab, you get it next time. A coworker brings donuts to the office, you bring bagels next week. For decades, this back-and-forth has been treated as a cornerstone of social psychology. But a new study suggests that rule only holds when the two people involved are on equal footing. When there’s a power difference between them, the whole playbook changes.

Researchers at MIT ran six experiments testing what people actually expect after someone acts generously. When two people are equals, observers expect the favor to be returned. But when there’s a rank difference, say between a boss and an employee or an uncle and a nephew, people don’t expect the recipient to pay it back. Instead, they expect the original giver to simply give again. That pattern held whether the giver outranked the recipient or the recipient outranked the giver, and it showed up consistently whether the relationship was described in abstract terms or with concrete, familiar labels.

Published in the journal Open Mind, the study was led by researchers from the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT and involved 599 U.S. adults recruited through an online platform across six experiments.

Testing the ‘Pay It Back’ Assumption in Unequal Relationships

In the first four experiments, participants acted as outside observers. They read short scenarios, one person picking up the coffee tab, preparing a meal, or deferring to the other’s restaurant preference, then answered: who will be generous next time? Each scenario was paired with a description of the relationship, ranging from abstract labels like “symmetric” or “asymmetric” to familiar pairings like cousins versus uncle-and-nephew, or coworkers versus boss-and-employee.

When the relationship was equal, participants consistently expected the other person to return the generous act. When even a small power difference was introduced, expectations flipped. Participants predicted the original giver would give again, regardless of whether that person ranked higher or lower. Whether the boss was treating the employee or the employee was doing a favor for the boss, whoever gave first was expected to give again.

Black Payment Terminal with credit card
New research says reciprocity only works between equals. When rank is involved, whoever gave first is expected to give again. (Photo by energepic.com on Unsplash)

The Hierarchy Effect Held Up Even With Real Money on the Line

To test whether these results reflect how people actually behave, rather than just what they think should happen, the final two experiments introduced real financial stakes.

Participants played coordination games with simulated partners described as having more, equal, or less power than themselves. Their choices about who would take the generous role affected their earnings, and in one version, acting generously paid less, meaning repeated givers were literally leaving money on the table.

Even so, the same pattern emerged. After a successful first interaction with an unequal simulated partner, participants acted as though whoever was generous the first time would be generous again. With equal partners, they were more likely to switch roles the second time, even at the risk of a less efficient outcome. The willingness to take turns, and accept some personal cost to do it, was specific to relationships between equals.

Why the ‘Always Return the Favor’ Rule May Not Be Universal

Anthropological research has long documented this pattern in real communities worldwide. In many cultures, gifts flow consistently in one direction within hierarchical relationships, not as part of a trading system but as a way of sustaining the relationship itself. Psychology experiments, the researchers suggest, may have focused too narrowly on strangers and equals, producing a skewed picture of how generosity actually works.

Researchers also found that expectations weren’t simply based on guessing which role fit a given type of person. Even when a generous act broke what observers initially anticipated, they still predicted that same person would do it again. A single observation was enough to reset expectations, as if the brain files away what just happened and treats it as the new normal for that relationship.

Rethinking Reciprocity in Everyday Relationships

Reciprocity may be a real social force, but this research suggests it operates in a narrower lane than previously assumed. It shows up reliably between equals, the kinds of interactions that happen to dominate psychology experiments. In the broader landscape of daily life, where most relationships carry some degree of rank or role difference, a different rule appears to take hold: whoever gave last time gives next time too.

Many everyday relationships, from bosses and employees to mentors and mentees, may run on that logic. If the pattern holds outside the lab, the boss who always picks up the tab and the mentor who always makes the introduction may not be especially generous individuals. They may simply be following a rule that set itself the first time they gave.


Disclaimer: This article is based on a single peer-reviewed study and is intended for informational purposes only. Findings reflect observations from a U.S.-based online sample and may not apply across all cultures or real-world settings. The research does not constitute professional advice on workplace, social, or interpersonal behavior.


Paper Notes

Limitations

The study relied entirely on U.S. adults recruited through an online platform. As the authors note, participants came from a large-scale society with high market integration and strong cultural norms around balanced exchange, so the findings may not generalize to other cultural contexts. The vignette-based studies used hypothetical scenarios, which may not perfectly capture real-world behavior. In Studies 5 and 6, participants interacted with simulated rather than actual partners, which may limit how fully the results reflect genuine social dynamics.

Funding and Disclosures

This research was supported by the Patrick J. McGovern Foundation. The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Publication Details

Authors: Alicia M. Chen and Rebecca Saxe, Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA | Journal: Open Mind: Discoveries in Cognitive Science, Volume 10, Pages 787–807 | Paper Title: “Expectations of Reciprocal Generosity Are Specific to Equal Relationships” | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/OPMI.a.357 | Received: January 13, 2026 | Accepted: April 15, 2026 | Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor

Leave a Comment