Literature DB >> 19121138

Reciprocity is not give and take: asymmetric reciprocity to positive and negative acts.

Boaz Keysar1, Benjamin A Converse, Jiunwen Wang, Nicholas Epley.   

Abstract

Unlike economic exchange, social exchange has no well-defined "value." It is based on the norm of reciprocity, in which giving and taking are to be repaid in equivalent measure. Although giving and taking are colloquially assumed to be equivalent actions, we demonstrate that they produce different patterns of reciprocity. In five experiments utilizing a dictator game, people reciprocated in like measure to apparently prosocial acts of giving, but reciprocated more selfishly to apparently antisocial acts of taking, even when the objective outcomes of the acts of giving and taking were identical. Additional results demonstrate that acts of giving in social exchanges are perceived as more generous than objectively identical acts of taking, that taking tends to escalate, and that the asymmetry in reciprocity is not due to gaining versus losing resources. Reciprocity appears to operate on an exchange rate that assigns value to the meaning of events, in a fashion that encourages prosocial exchanges.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19121138     DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02223.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci        ISSN: 0956-7976


  6 in total

1.  Effect of holding office on the behavior of politicians.

Authors:  Daniel Enemark; Clark C Gibson; Mathew D McCubbins; Brigitte Seim
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Cruel to be kind but not cruel for cash: Harm aversion in the dictator game.

Authors:  Pri Perera; Emina Canic; Elliot A Ludvig
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-06

3.  Brain activity in fairness consideration during asset distribution: does the initial ownership play a role?

Authors:  Yin Wu; Jie Hu; Eric van Dijk; Marijke C Leliveld; Xiaolin Zhou
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Contextualised strong reciprocity explains selfless cooperation despite selfish intuitions and weak social heuristics.

Authors:  Ozan Isler; Simon Gächter; A John Maule; Chris Starmer
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  The Detrimental Effects of No Trust: Active Decisions of No Trust Cause Stronger Affective and Behavioral Reactions Than Inactive Decisions.

Authors:  Manon Schutter; Eric van Dijk; Erik W de Kwaadsteniet; Wilco W van Dijk
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-07-07

6.  Giving Is Nicer than Taking: Preschoolers Reciprocate Based on the Social Intentions of the Distributor.

Authors:  Martina Vogelsang; Michael Tomasello
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.