The Case Against Non-Reciprocal Friendships
Friends owe you. Always expect something in return for what you give.
Most people would agree that relationships can't be one-sided. You scratch my back, and I scratch yours. But, if you reframe the statement as, "friendships last when you always expect to get something back," many people disagree. I have done this exercise before, and people have said no one owes you anything.
But friends owe you. And you should always expect something in return for what you give. As you will learn, exchanges are why humans and other species have lived this long. Saying they are not necessary for friendships because of moral reasons is a shortcut to letting people exploit you.
I'm presenting a species-level argument, so I'll use the concept of biological altruism in the essay. An altruistic act benefits the receiver but not the doer, the altruist. Altruistic acts come with a fitness cost—the altruist reduces the likelihood of spreading their genes. Also, for it to be altruistic, the receiver mustn't be kin. So no doer's parents, children, or spouses can benefit from the act.
For example, in the latest season of Stranger Things, a character named Joyce flies to Soviet Russia to free her unofficial partner, Hopper. Hopper is at risk, but not because of Joyce's actions. He is the benefit receiver, and Joyce takes all the cost. The act is altruistic because they are not married, so they are not related. If they were married, she would be acting to preserve her kin, so the act would not be altruistic. It's the same as diving to save someone in danger. It's altruistic if you are not related to the person; it's not if you are saving your son.
Friendships can only exist when organism A does an altruistic act for organism B, and organism B reciprocates. Biologists call this exchange Reciprocal Altruism. These are actions you take for non-kin because they did something for you. Giving half of your chips to your friend after they said they were not hungry is a form of altruism. Your friend giving you half of their chips in the future is a form of reciprocal altruism.
Reciprocal altruism also operates between nations. Let's say country A is at war with country C, and country B helps. In return for their altruistic act, B will expect to receive help in future wars. But, say A does not reciprocate. In that case, B will be less likely to help A in another war. If the benefits of assisting C outweigh those of having an asymmetrical relationship with A, B might even support C. Other forms of cross-nation reciprocal altruism do not include wars:
Aiding nations battling through a new disease
Sharing technology with another country to advance science
Sending food to people who have been affected by an earthquake
Altruistic behaviors can sound incoherent because the doer takes risks they could avoid. But they are coherent in evolutionary terms because the doer's act helps their kin live longer.
A soldier sacrificing themselves for their countries' sake contradicts our instinct of self-preservation. But it is coherent because billions get to exist. At some point, ancient humans decided not to eat wild wolves, and wild wolves did not eat smelly humans. Both species had a food source meters away. Yet, they collaborated to survive nature and enemy attacks for longer.
Altruism is not limited to humans. Primatologists Robert Seyfarth and Dorothy Cheney found altruistic acts in vervet monkeys. They studied three groups to see if they were more likely to help kin and non-kin who had groomed them. Results showed vervet monkeys were more likely to support non-kin who had helped them. As with us, sharing food or supporting other species in a fight can seem irrational. But, if it increases the chances of receiving help in one's battles, it is not only rational but necessary.
Vervet monkey’s response to the call for help from kin and non-kin. Source.
You don't have to give as much as you receive to keep friends, but the difference shouldn't be too disproportionate. If you help a friend 80% of the time and they help you 10% of the time, you will feel the relationship is one-sided. This asymmetry doesn't mean you will stop being friends. If the 10% you receive outweighs the cost of not being friends, you might want to preserve relationships. Say you always give a whole sandwich to a friend, and they only share half. And that the cost of cutting the ties is to never get half a sandwich on days you don't bring food to the office. If you feel you are about to pass out when you don't eat, as I do, then it makes sense not to cut the relationship. It's asymmetrical but beneficial.
According to biologist Robert Trivers, organisms have two choices if they are not pleased with what they receive. First, they can restore the relationship to a reciprocal state. I can tell my friend they are not supporting there for me as much as they used to. If they care about me, they will try to reciprocate more. Second, they can look for new people who reciprocate more. If my friend doesn't listen, support, or share as much as I do, I can look for someone else who does. In "best friendships," non-reciprocal altruism is more likely to end relationships. You expect more from your best friends than from anybody else.
The consequences of not reciprocating outweigh the benefits of not doing it. The cost is that you will be on your own. We can argue that many people are alone and happy. But, these people often have the chance of not being alone. It's not the same to be all by ourselves 24/7 but have someone to talk to or see when we feel like it instead of not having anyone. This second form of loneliness contributes to depression. Since stable relationships predict genuine happiness, not reciprocating is a price we can't pay. If you are from a hunter tribe, in which case, nice to meet you, not reciprocating has worse costs. Altruists may migrate to other tribes, leaving yours vulnerable.
Since it's more beneficial to reciprocate than not, some species mimic the traits of altruists. Mimicry happens when one species imitates the color, movement, or odor of another to survive. For example, tiger moths emit ultrasonic waves that communicate they are noxious—they are not. When predator bats hear this sound, they change their trajectory to avoid the taste of toxic species. People who don't reciprocate or do it asymmetrically mimic the traits of a good friend to reap the benefits of being one. In personal branding, most experts recommend mimicry. They encourage people never to ask someone for something during the first interaction. And instead, research their background, interests, and needs to gift them something. Mimicry is at play because you make the person believe you care about them as a true friend does. But you are not.
People perceive you as a good friend when you reciprocate on the same or similar scale to what you receive. If you take more than you give, what you provide must be at least enough for person B to benefit from the relationship. Verbal and physical disputes often revolve around asymmetrical relationships. You retaliate for someone's stingy, unfair, or disproportionate behavior.
I used biology to explain what many believe to be the obvious foundation of friendships. But I did so to reach a less obvious conclusion: you should always expect something in return. Doing so reduces the likelihood of others taking advantage of you. Or of over-committing to a friendship only you believe to exist. Expecting retribution for what you do might feel morally wrong. While it isn't a solution, challenging the reciprocity of your relationships may be one of the keys to building long-term relationships.