Give and Take: a revolutionary Approach to Success pdfdrive com

participants helped. It was not just any commonality that drove people to act like
givers. It was an uncommon commonality. In Pelham’s studies, name-similarity
effects on where we live, what careers we choose, and whom we marry are
stronger for people with rare names than common names. We gravitate toward
people, places, and products with which we share an uncommon commonality.
This is the bond that the two Adam Rifkins felt when they first connected. Adam
Rifkin is a rare name, and the uncommon commonality may have greased the
attraction process. Indeed, Pelham’s research shows that the more unique your
name is, the more likely you are to identify with places that resemble your name.
To explain why uncommon commonalities are so transformative, the
psychologist Marilynn Brewer developed an influential theory. On the one hand,
we want to fit in: we strive for connection, cohesiveness, community, belonging,
inclusion, and affiliation with others. On the other hand, we want to stand out:
we search for uniqueness, differentiation, and individuality. As we navigate the
social world, these two motives are often in conflict. The more strongly we
affiliate with a group, the greater our risk of losing our sense of uniqueness. The
more we work to distinguish ourselves from others, the greater our risk of losing
our sense of belongingness.
How do we resolve this conflict? The solution is to be the same and different
at the same time. Brewer calls it the principle of
optimal distinctiveness
: we look
for ways to fit in and stand out. A popular way to achieve optimal distinctiveness
is to join a unique group. Being part of a group with shared interests, identities,
goals, values, skills, characteristics, or experiences gives us a sense of
connection and belonging. At the same time, being part of a group that is clearly
distinct from other groups gives us a sense of uniqueness. Studies show that
people identify more strongly with individuals and groups that share unique
similarities. The more rare a group, value, interest, skill, or experience is, the
more likely it is to facilitate a bond. And research indicates that people are
happier in groups that provide optimal distinctiveness, giving a sense of both
inclusion and uniqueness. These are the groups in which we take the most pride,
and feel the most cohesive and valued.
Freecycle initially provided a sense of optimal distinctiveness through its
emphasis on protecting the environment. The central goal was different from
most recycling movements: instead of reprocessing old materials into new ones,

---

members found recipients who wanted goods that couldn’t be reprocessed,
keeping them out of landfills. This common purpose created a shared identity
within the Freecycle community, fostering a sense of connection across diverse
ideologies. The original group of Freecycle volunteers in Tucson included a
liberal Democrat who was passionate about environmental sustainability, a
conservative Republican who didn’t believe in waste, and a Libertarian who
wanted to empower people to do things themselves, rather than relying on
governmental support. Over time, as membership expanded and diversified, each
Freecycle community provided an outlet for people to customize giving to their
own interests. In New York, for example, a local group made a habit of shutting
down a city block for Freecycle gifting events.
By fostering a common identity and opportunities for unique self-expression,
Freecycle was able to mobilize a giving system based on generalized reciprocity:
you give to help others in the community, and you know that someone in the
community will give to you. But Willer’s team finds that there’s a catch: such a
system depends on a “critical mass of exchange benefits,” which “creates
positive sentiments toward the group, sentiments that help fuel further
contributions.” In other words, people only identify with a generalized giving
group after they receive enough benefits to feel like the group is helping them.
With Freecycle, this outcome was by no means guaranteed; after all, if the givers
on the site had been overwhelmed by takers looking for a free ride, the whole
thing might never have gotten off the ground. How did Freecycle accumulate
that initial critical mass of giving and discourage free riding?

---