Nourishing social solidarity in exchanging gifts: a study on social exchange in Shanghai communities during COVID-19 lockdown

In April 2022, Shanghai underwent a two-month lockdown that disrupted transportation and daily supplies, producing shortages and spurring widespread social exchanges within residential communities. The study examines how such exchanges formed and fostered social solidarity—defined as integrative bonds and trust that aid disaster recovery—amid modern urban contexts where anonymous markets and the displacement of the nearby reduce neighborhood ties. Community WeChat groups rapidly emerged, enabling both online information exchange and offline sharing, exemplified by viral cases like the "Cola for Everything" exchange box. The research question focuses on the conditions and mechanisms under which different forms of social exchange during a public health crisis generate functional, emotional, and communal aspects of social solidarity, and the role social media plays in this process. Using social exchange theory and grounded qualitative methods, the study seeks to provide a dynamic account of how exchanges evolve and how media-mediated interactions rebuild nearby social networks and solidarity.

Theoretical background situates social solidarity as emerging from social exchanges that enhance willingness to help, build trust, and strengthen prosocial intentions. Solidarity is examined across functional (meeting needs and interdependence), emotional (shared sentiments and trust), and communal (standardized interactions and social order) dimensions. Drawing on Lawler et al.’s affect theory of social exchange, the study distinguishes exchange structures: negotiated (bilateral with agreed value), reciprocal (uncertain returns, potential for trust via procedural fairness), generalized (indirect giving/receiving across three or more actors, debated effects on solidarity), and productive exchange (collective action with high inseparability and shared responsibility). Prior work debates whether generalized exchange weakens or strengthens solidarity; hypotheses include the influence of group identity, reciprocity norms, and cultural beliefs. The review also addresses cultural determinants (e.g., Chinese concepts of renqing, lishangwanglai, and mianzi) that shape moral obligation and reciprocity, noting that how culture is used depends on context. Media is positioned as a crucial contextual determinant during lockdowns: information is highly transferable and duplicable, enabling indirect exchanges to be observed, sentiments to diffuse, and micro social order to develop. Community-based WeChat groups created a virtual nearby that mediates between online and offline exchanges, potentially accelerating the formation of solidarity.

Design: Qualitative study combining participant observation and in-depth interviews under lockdown conditions, analyzed with structural grounded theory (Corbin and Strauss, 1990). Sampling and data collection: Snowball sampling recruited residents from different Shanghai communities to maximize variation in location, size, and pandemic severity. To mitigate non-randomness concerns, the team monitored friendship size, family size, and number of WeChat groups (media skills). Communities were categorized by size (≤500 households small, 500–1,000 medium, >1,000 large); similar exchange patterns appeared across sizes, partly due to subdivision into online subgroups. Pandemic severity and material scarcity varied, but similar exchange structures arose at different stages. Participants: 28 interviewees (23 female, 5 male), ages 17–86 (8 aged ≤20, 13 aged 21–40, 7 aged ≥40). Many lived in multigenerational households; family decision-making and younger members’ media proficiency aided participation and detailed reporting. Analysis and coding: NVivo was used. Open coding (word by word) identified initial concepts; axial coding organized into conditions, contexts, actions, strategies, and consequences; similar categories were merged (e.g., politeness and returning favor), and non-salient subcategories (e.g., fun) removed. Five major categories captured motivations: moral obligation, rules of reciprocity, material reward, sentiment reward, and micro social order. Theoretical saturation was tested by coding 23 samples and using 5 additional random samples (no new categories), and member feedback from three respondents confirmed interpretations. Selective coding grouped exchange behaviors by rewards (material, sentiment) and social norms (moral obligation, reciprocity rules, micro social order).

- Multiple exchange structures co-existed, with reciprocal and generalized exchanges dominating: 86% (24/28) reported reciprocal exchanges; 50% (14/28) reported generalized exchanges; 43% (12/28) mentioned negotiated exchanges. - Negotiated exchanges included money-for-goods and item-for-item trades, but money’s mediating role weakened due to supply scarcity, prompting alternative systems. - Reciprocal exchanges were prevalent and often gift-like with delayed or uncertain returns; participants frequently gave without clear expectations of equivalence. - Generalized exchanges operated via non-transparent intermediaries (e.g., barter closets, doorman offices), where contributors and recipients were not directly matched, yet contributions remained robust. - Productive exchanges emerged: collaborative cooking using shared ingredients; group purchasing and distribution (heads organizing block-level orders); coordinated information exchanges; and widespread community volunteering. - Exchange patterns shifted over time from bilateral negotiated to reciprocal/generalized and more unilateral/indirect forms, signaling reduced perceived non-reciprocity risks and growing trust. - Cultural norms (renqing, lishangwanglai, mianzi, thrift, helpfulness) catalyzed initiation and sustainability of indirect exchanges, reducing emphasis on strict equivalence and lowering perceived risk. - Sentiments (gratitude, belonging, care) amplified through social media; online visibility turned otherwise invisible indirect exchanges into emotionally resonant, community-wide events. - Social media enabled observation of contributions, symbolic recognition, and norm diffusion, reinforcing a micro social order that rewarded active contributors and encouraged ongoing exchanges. - Social solidarity strengthened across functional (meeting needs), emotional (shared sentiments and trust), and communal (standardized practices and micro social order) dimensions, with effects persisting beyond peak lockdown.

Findings address how social exchanges during a public health crisis generate social solidarity and clarify the mediating role of social media. Cultural norms provided a toolkit for initiating unilateral and indirect exchanges despite uncertainty, transforming exchanges into gift-like practices. Sentiments served as catalysts, and, via media, became widely observable, encouraging imitation and strengthening trust. The micro social order emerging in WeChat groups standardized expectations, reduced perceived non-reciprocity risks, and sustained exchanges. The results align with Molm et al. (2007), showing that reciprocal and generalized exchanges can produce stable norms and emotional solidarity, while challenging aspects of Lawler et al. (2008) that emphasize joint task inseparability: less collaborative reciprocal/generalized exchanges, when mediated by social media, still generated strong solidarity through visible sentiments and shared identity. Moreover, social media mitigated risks of larger exchange networks by making norms and contributions observable and accountable, and shared crisis concerns fostered a collective orientation. These insights underscore the importance of contextual factors (media infrastructures and cultural norms) in exchange structures and highlight implications for community resilience and public health response.

The study shows that during Shanghai’s COVID-19 lockdown, social media-mediated exchanges transformed stranger-like neighborhoods into communities with strengthened functional, emotional, and communal solidarity. Although negotiated exchanges can reduce risk, reciprocal and generalized exchanges were more prevalent and impactful for solidarity formation. Traditional cultural norms initiated and guided exchanges, while media diminished information gaps, amplified sentiments, and enabled the emergence of a micro social order that sustained ongoing exchanges. Contributions include: articulating media’s social mechanism in promoting offline exchange and rebuilding the nearby; offering a framework connecting media, exchange structures, and solidarity; and providing practical insights for public health management and community development. Future research should explore sustaining solidarity outside crisis periods, governance of media spaces to include less-connected residents (e.g., elderly), and the long-term institutionalization of micro social orders across varied contexts.

Two key limitations are noted. First, heterogeneous media use—especially among elderly residents less familiar with mobile applications—was not fully incorporated, potentially affecting inclusion in exchange processes and sentiment diffusion. Second, differences in residents’ underlying social networks and authorities were not fully accounted for; those more adept at media had greater influence in shaping exchange order, which may bias long-term solidarity development. Maintaining solidarity likely requires effective community-level media management. Further, reliance solely on self-management is inefficient and external administrative support must be tailored to community-specific needs. Future work should examine how to maintain long-term solidarity in non-crisis periods and to better integrate less-connected groups.