![]() | This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic.(April 2024) |
In social psychology, reciprocity is a social norm of responding to a positive action with another positive action, rewarding kind actions. As a social construct, reciprocity means that in response to friendly actions, people are frequently much nicer and much more cooperative than predicted by the self-interest model; conversely, in response to hostile actions they are frequently much more nasty and even brutal. [1] It has also been called reciprocity bias. [2] [3]
Reciprocity is a crucial aspect of how people interact and live in society but researchers who study these interactions often undermine its importance.
Reciprocity makes it possible to build sustainable and continuing relationships with reciprocal exchanges. Francis Fukuyama states:
“If the institutions of democracy and capitalism are to work properly, they must coexist within certain premodern cultural habits that ensure their proper functioning”. [4]
He goes on to say:
“Law, contract, and economic rationality and prosperity…. must as well be leavened with reciprocity, moral obligation, duty toward community, and trust…. The latter are not anachronisms in a modern society but rather the sine qua non of the latter’s success”
According to the sociologist Alvin Gouldner, this norm is nearly universal, and only a few members of society—the very young, the sick, or the old—are exempt from it. [5]
The R-Model was developed as a theory about sustainable healthy relationships with reciprocal elements at its core. The theory explains the need for reciprocity is necessary for the relationship to be sustainable and health. Without reciprocity, the relationship is considered less sustainable and less healthy. The author of the R-Model explains the need for balance in a relationship, and with balance there can be even growth in the relationship.[ citation needed ]
The R-Model is a Biopsychosocial model, a class of trans-disciplinary models which look at the interconnection between biology, psychology, and socio-environmental factors. It was first developed to understand the nature of relationship in the environment and discipline of group therapy. The initial model was influenced by works from Eric Berne, John Bowlby and George Kohlrieser.
Reciprocal actions differ from altruistic actions in that reciprocal actions only follow from others' initial actions, while altruism is the unconditional act of social gift-giving without any hope or expectation of future positive responses. [6] [7] Some distinguish between ideal altruism (giving with no expectation of future reward) and reciprocal altruism (giving with limited expectation or the potential for expectation of future reward). For more information on this idea, see altruism or altruism (ethics).
Reciprocity dates as far back as the time of Hammurabi (c. 1792–1750 BC). Hammurabi's code, a collection of 282 laws and standards, lists crimes and their various punishments as well as guidelines for citizens' conduct.[ citation needed ] The code demanded the individual act in terms of the public interest. The "eye for an eye" principles in which the laws were written mirror the idea of direct reciprocity. For example, if a person caused the death of another person, the killer would be put to death.
Reciprocity was also a cornerstone of Ancient Greece. In Homeric Greece, citizens relied on reciprocity as a form of transaction as there was no formal system of government or trade. [8] In Homer's Iliad , he illustrates several instances of reciprocal transactions in the form of gift giving. For example, in Book VI of the Iliad, Glaucus and Diomedes exchange armor when they discover that their grandfathers were friends. [9] However, there were times when direct reciprocity was not possible, specifically in times of great need when a citizen had nothing to give for repayment. Thus, deferred reciprocity was also prevalent in Greek culture at this time. Deferred reciprocity refers to giving a person gifts or favors with the understanding that they will repay this favor at another time when the initial giver is in great need. This form of reciprocity was used extensively by travelers, particularly in the Odyssey. [8] Odysseus often had to rely on the kindness of human strangers and other mythological creatures to secure resources along his journey.
In the classical Greek polis , large-scale projects such as construction of temples, building of warships and financing of choruses were carried out as gifts from individual donors. In Rome, wealthy elite were linked with their dependents in a cycle of reciprocal gift giving. [10] As these examples suggest, reciprocity enjoyed a cultural prestige among ancient aristocracies for whom it was advantageous. [11]
Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin attribute the very nature of humans to reciprocity. They claim humans survived because our ancestors learned to share goods and services "in an honored network of obligation". [12] Thus, the idea that humans are indebted to repay gifts and favors is a unique aspect of human culture. Cultural anthropologists support this idea in what they call the "web of indebtedness" where reciprocity is viewed as an adaptive mechanism to enhance survival. [13] Within this approach, reciprocity creates an interdependent environment where labor is divided so that humans may be more efficient. For example, if one member of the group cares for the children while another member hunts for food for the group, each member has provided a service and received one in return. Each member can devote more time and attention to his or her allotted task and the whole group benefits. This meant that individuals could give away resources without actually giving them away. Through the rule of reciprocity, sophisticated systems of aid and trade were possible, bringing immense benefits to the societies that utilized them. [1] Given the benefits of reciprocity at the societal level, it is not surprising that the norm has persisted and dictates our present cognition and behavior.
Reciprocity is not only a strong determining factor of human behavior; it is a powerful method for gaining one's compliance with a request. The rule of reciprocity has the power to trigger feelings of indebtedness even when faced with an uninvited favor [14] and irrespective of liking the person who executed the favor. [15] In 1971, Dennis Regan tested the strength of these two aspects of reciprocity in a study where participants believed they were in an art appreciation experiment with a partner, Joe, who was really Regan's assistant. During the experiment, Joe would disappear and bring back a soft drink for the participant. After this phase of the experiment was over, Joe would ask the participant to buy raffle tickets from him. The more the participants liked Joe, the more likely they were to buy raffle tickets from him. However, when Joe had given them a soda and thus indebted them to reciprocate, it made no difference whether the participants liked Joe or not, the rule of reciprocity overpowered liking. [15] Thus, individuals who we might not even like have the power to greatly increase our chances of doing them a favor simply by providing us with a small gift or favor prior to their request. Furthermore, we are obliged to receive these gifts and favors which reduces our ability to choose to whom we wish to be indebted. [1]
In 1976, Phillip Kunz demonstrated the automatic nature of reciprocity in an experiment using Christmas cards. In this experiment, Kunz sent out holiday cards with pictures of his family and a brief note to a group of complete strangers. While he expected some reaction, holiday cards came pouring back to him from people who had never met nor heard of him and who expressed no desire to get to know him any better. [16] The majority of these individuals who responded never inquired into Kunz's identity, they were merely responding to his initial gesture with a reciprocal action.
Politics is another area where the power of reciprocity is evident. While politicians often claim autonomy from the feelings of obligation associated with gifts and favors that influence everyone else, they are also susceptible. In the 2002 election, U.S. Congress Representatives who received the most money from special interest groups were over seven times more likely to vote in favor of the group that had contributed the most money to their campaigns. [1]
Fehr & Gächter (2000) showed that, when acting within reciprocal frameworks, individuals are more likely to deviate from purely self-interested behavior than when acting in other social contexts. Magnanimity is often repaid with disproportionate amounts of kindness and cooperation, and treachery with disproportionate amounts of hostility and vengeance, which can significantly surpass amounts determined or predicted by conventional economic models of rational self-interest. Moreover, reciprocal tendencies are frequently observed in situations wherein transaction costs associated with specific reciprocal actions are high and present or future material rewards are not expected. Whether self-interested or reciprocal action dominates the aggregate outcome is particularly dependent on context; in markets or market-like scenarios characterized by competitiveness and incomplete contracts, reciprocity tends to win out over self-interest. [17]
Positive reciprocity occurs when an action committed by one individual that has a positive effect on someone else is returned with an action that has an approximately equal positive effect. [18] [19] For example, if someone takes care of another person's dog, the person who received this favor should then return this action with another favor such as with a small gift. However, the reciprocated action should be approximately equal to the first action in terms of positive value, otherwise this can result in an uncomfortable social situation. [20] If someone takes care of another person's dog and that person returns the favor by buying that individual a car, the reciprocated gift is inappropriate because it does not equal the initial gesture. Individuals expect actions to be reciprocated by actions that are approximately equal in value. [18]
One example of positive reciprocity is that waitresses who smile broadly or given small gifts receive more tips than waitresses who present a minimal smile. [21] [22] Also, free samples are not merely opportunities to taste a product but rather invitations to engage in the rule of reciprocity. Many people find it difficult to accept the free sample and walk away. Instead, they buy some of the product even when they did not find it that enjoyable. [1]
Negative reciprocity occurs when an action that has a negative effect on someone is returned with an action that has an approximately equal negative effect. [19] [23] For example, if an individual commits a violent act against a person, it is expected that person would return with a similar act of violence. If, however, the reaction to the initial negative action is not approximately equal in negative value, this violates the norm of reciprocity and what is prescribed as allowable. [20] Retaliatory aspects i.e. the aspects of trying to get back and cause harm, are known as negative reciprocity. This definition of negative reciprocity is distinct from the way negative reciprocity is defined in other domains. In cultural anthropology, negative reciprocity refers to an attempt to get something for nothing. [24] It is often referred to as "bartering" or "haggling" (see reciprocity (cultural anthropology) for more information).
Social reciprocity holds significant importance in the workplace as it contributes to the foundation for effective collaboration, teamwork, and a positive work environment. The principle of reciprocity fosters a sense of trust [25] and interdependence among employees, which enhances overall workplace dynamics. When employees reciprocate positive actions, such as providing support, sharing information, or acknowledging achievements, it contributes to a culture of mutual respect and cooperation. Moreover, practicing social reciprocity in the workplace can strengthen interpersonal relationships, recognized as a social norm within employees of the same status. [26] Meanwhile, failed reciprocity at work has the potential to lead to negative emotions and heightened stress. [27] By experiencing a continued lack of reciprocity, the perception of positive work culture erodes and work becomes a negative life event. Failed reciprocity, or lack thereof, in the workplace has the potential to diminish trust, weaken social support, and increase stress-related diseases. [27] In attempting to improve the quality of a work environment, it is crucial to acknowledge the efforts of reciprocity within the employees.
According to reciprocity, harmful behavior also tends to be reciprocated with harmful behavior. [28] A meta-analysis analyzed negative workplace behaviors, which range from bullying and harassment to counterproductive work behavior, by separating them into different categories according to severity (describing the amount of harm: minor, moderate, severe), activity (describing the harm that comes from the withdrawal of positive behaviors: passive, balanced, active), and target (whether the behavior was reciprocated or displaced to another person). [28] The analysis found that negative behaviors tend to be reciprocated with the same kind of behavior and the strongest relationship was found in reciprocity using a matched level of severity and activity; however, negative workplace behaviors that escalate in severity or activity also showed a strong and positive relationship. [28] Moreover, when the frequency of negative workplace behaviors increases this is reciprocated by the other person also increasing the frequency of their negative behaviors. [28] The weakest effect was found to be de-escalation in activity or severity, which means that most people tended to respond with the same or a greater amount of reciprocity in negative workplace behaviors. [28] In the category of severity, de-escalation only took place when Party A was engaging in severe behaviors like violence or harassment, in Party B engages in moderately severe behavior, which could be a result of not wanting to cross the line of ethical norms and legal repercussions as a consequence of the behaviors. [28] Many of the articles analyzed did not include the target of the negative behaviors; this is why their information on this category was limited. [28] However, they found that for two cases of de-escalation, the reciprocated negative behavior was directed at the instigator instead of being displaced. [28] There was also one case of escalation in which the reciprocated behavior was targeting the instigator. [28] A news article summarizing research studies suggests that negative reciprocity might exist in order to restore or build a cooperative relationship. [29] They stated that it is a strategy that has balance as a goal, especially because it involves a relatively proportional response to harm. [29]
Trust in reciprocity takes into consideration three different factors: the individual’s risk preferences (whether or not the person has a tendency to accept risks in trust decisions), their social preferences (whether the individual shows prosocial tendencies or betrayal aversion), and lastly, their beliefs about the other’s trustworthiness (includes social priors like implicit racial attitudes and the reputation of the other individual based on previous experiences. [30] A coordinated meta-analysis of 30 fMRI studies has concluded that trust in reciprocity might cause an adversive feeling at the beginning of a series of interactions with a stranger because of the uncertainty of the decision outcome, which means that individuals are not sure if the other person will reciprocate their actions. [30] However, as interpersonal trust grows people are more confident and willing to cooperate with their partners. [30] Interpersonal trust builds up through a learning mechanism that takes information from previous interactions in which the other individual cooperated or did not cooperate. [30] This learning mechanism helps the individual label the other person as trustworthy or untrustworthy. [30] This meta-analysis also found that reciprocity, trust, and feedback learning show activity in different areas of the brain, which suggests that all of them are part of different cognitive processes. [30] This theme of reciprocity and trust is also discussed in science magazines like in the Greater Good Magazine where the writers mention that people are more likely to be cooperative with others who act cooperatively towards them or have a reputation of being cooperative. [31]
Reciprocity has been previously documented as automatic because it requires less cognitive control than other self-serving behaviors. [32] The researchers of a series of experiments around this topic wanted to investigate whether this automatic reciprocity existed as a motivation to be fair and reciprocal or whether it is a result of wanting to look like a fair person. [32] To test this they used a two-player activity called the trust game or the investment game. [32] Participants were given a determined amount of chips/money, the sender is supposed to decide the amount of money/chips (all, some, none) they want to transfer to the trustee or whether they want to keep the money/chips for themselves. [32] The experimenter triples, in this case, doubles, the amount transferred from the sender and gives it to the trustee, then the trustee decides whether or not to transfer (all, some, none) back. [32] This series of experiments added a condition where the trustees are informed that their chips are worth twice as much as the sender’s chips, which gives them the option to appear fair and another option to be genuinely fair. [32] They also divided the groups manipulating the participant’s cognitive control. [32] Researchers replicated the finding showing that people tend to turn to reciprocal behavior when there is a lack of cognitive control due to ego depletion. [32] They also showed that when participants had limited cognitive control, they used the extra information to positively reciprocate to a lesser extent than people without the cognitive control manipulation; however, even with reduced cognitive control, they chose to benefit from the exchange if the outward perception of their behavior would look fair and reciprocal, showing that their main goal was to appear fair, it was not to behave in a fair manner. [32] A news article summarized a research study that supports these findings in which researchers found that people tend to take more time to make a generous choice than to make a selfish one. [33]
The topic of reciprocity in non-human primates has been a field with a lot of research contradictions and opposite findings; however, in a recent meta-analysis, the researchers concluded that primates have the cognitive and social prerequisites needed to use reciprocity. [34] They evaluated previous findings and found that there are more positive than negative findings. [34] They added that reciprocity could have been misrepresented in some research studies because it also includes helps between relatives and trading. [34] Researchers also identified that many of the negative findings come from articles where researchers did not measure the primate’s understanding of the task or studies where the primates did not show an understanding of the activity. [34] The authors also state that previous researchers saw the studies that did not show reciprocity as a failure to prove reciprocity instead of looking at the situations where reciprocity was involved versus the situations where it was not used. [34] Different species also take different time periods to reciprocate an action, it might be short or long-term. [34] Some specific behaviors also seem less likely to be reciprocated. [34] For example, it is less likely for a non-human primate to reciprocate food donations. [34] Overall, the researchers concluded that non-human primate reciprocity is more common than it seems to be and that negative findings should not be thrown out but used for a better comprehension of their use of reciprocity. [34] News sources also support these findings suggesting that other primates use reciprocity in food sharing and other domains; and some of them, like chimpanzees, are more likely to do so if the other chimpanzee had also helped them in the past, which also supports the connection between trust and reciprocity in non-human primates. [35]
There are more subtle ways of initiating the reciprocity rule than merely doing something nice for someone so you may expect something in return. One form of this more subtle form of reciprocity is the idea of reciprocal concessions in which the requester lowers his/her initial request, making the respondent more likely to agree to a second request. Under the rule of reciprocity, we are obligated to concede to someone who has made a concession to us. [1] That is, if an individual starts off by requesting something large and you refuse, you feel obligated to consent to their smaller request even though you might not be interested in either of the things they are offering. Robert Cialdini illustrates an example of this phenomenon by telling a story of a boy who asks him to buy five-dollar circus tickets and, when Cialdini refuses, asks him to buy some one dollar chocolate bars. Cialdini feels obligated to return the favor and consents to buying some of the chocolate bars. [1]
The rule of reciprocity operates in reciprocal concessions in two ways. First, an individual is pressured to reciprocate one concession for another by nature of the rule itself. Second, because the individual who initially concedes can expect to have the other person concede in return, this person is free to make the concession in the first place. If there were no social pressure to return the concession, an individual runs the risk of giving up something and getting nothing in return. Mutual concession is a procedure that can promote compromise in a group so that individuals can refocus their efforts toward achieving a common goal. Reciprocal concessions promote compromise in a group so that the initial and incompatible desires of individuals can be set aside for the benefit of social cooperation. [1]
The door-in-the-face technique, otherwise known as the rejection-then-retreat technique, involves making an outrageous request that someone will almost certainly turn down, and then make the smaller request that was the favor of interest all along. If done skillfully, the second request is seen as a concession so compliance with the second request is obtained. [36] [37] [38] However, one must proceed with caution when using this technique. If the first request is so big that it is seen as unreasonable, the door in the face technique proves useless as the concession made after is not perceived as genuine. [39] The door in the face technique is not to be confused with the foot-in-the-door technique where individuals getting a person to agree with a large request by first getting them to agree to a moderate request. [40]
Altruism is the principle and practice of concern for the well-being and/or happiness of other humans or animals above oneself. While objects of altruistic concern vary, it is an important moral value in many cultures and religions. It may be considered a synonym of selflessness, the opposite of selfishness.
In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time.
Reciprocity may refer to:
Social exchange theory is a sociological and psychological theory that studies the social behavior in the interaction of two parties that implement a cost-benefit analysis to determine risks and benefits. The theory also involves economic relationships—the cost-benefit analysis occurs when each party has goods that the other parties value. Social exchange theory suggests that these calculations occur in romantic relationships, friendships, professional relationships, and ephemeral relationships as simple as exchanging words with a customer at the cash register. Social exchange theory says that if the costs of the relationship are higher than the rewards, such as if a lot of effort or money were put into a relationship and not reciprocated, then the relationship may be terminated or abandoned.
In cultural anthropology, reciprocity refers to the non-market exchange of goods or labour ranging from direct barter to forms of gift exchange where a return is eventually expected as in the exchange of birthday gifts. It is thus distinct from the true gift, where no return is expected.
The norm of reciprocity requires that people repay in kind what others have done for them. It can be understood as the expectation that people will respond to each other by returning benefits for benefits, and with either indifference or hostility to harms. The social norm of reciprocity may take different forms in different areas of social life, or in different societies. This is distinct from related ideas such as gratitude, the Golden Rule, or mutual goodwill. See reciprocity for an analysis of the concepts involved.
Expectancy violations theory (EVT) is a theory of communication that analyzes how individuals respond to unanticipated violations of social norms and expectations. The theory was proposed by Judee K. Burgoon in the late 1970s and continued through the 1980s and 1990s as "nonverbal expectancy violations theory", based on Burgoon's research studying proxemics. Burgoon's work initially analyzed individuals' allowances and expectations of personal distance and how responses to personal distance violations were influenced by the level of liking and relationship to the violators. The theory was later changed to its current name when other researchers began to focus on violations of social behavior expectations beyond nonverbal communication.
Reciprocal liking, also known as reciprocity of attraction, is the act of a person feeling an attraction to someone only upon learning or becoming aware of that person's attraction to themselves. Reciprocal liking has a significant impact on human attraction and the formation of relationships. People that reciprocally have a liking for each other typically initiate or develop a friendship or romantic relationship. Feelings of admiration, affection, love, and respect are characteristics for reciprocal liking between the two individuals. When there is reciprocal liking there is strong mutual attraction or strong mutual liking, but with others there is not. The feelings of warmth and intimacy also play a role. The consideration and desire to spend time with one another is another strong indicator for reciprocal liking.
The concept of the evolution of morality refers to the emergence of human moral behavior over the course of human evolution. Morality can be defined as a system of ideas about right and wrong conduct. In everyday life, morality is typically associated with human behavior rather than animal behavior. The emerging fields of evolutionary biology, and in particular evolutionary psychology, have argued that, despite the complexity of human social behaviors, the precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals. Sociobiological explanations of human behavior remain controversial. Social scientists have traditionally viewed morality as a construct, and thus as culturally relative, although others such as Sam Harris argue that there is an objective science of morality.
The need for affiliation (N-Affil) is a term that was popularized by David McClelland and describes a person's need to feel a sense of involvement and "belonging" within a social group; McClelland's thinking was strongly influenced by the pioneering work of Henry Murray who first identified underlying psychological human needs and motivational processes (1938). It was Murray who set out a classification of needs, including achievement, power and affiliation—and placed these in the context of an integrated motivational model. People with a high need for affiliation require warm interpersonal relationships and approval from those with whom they have regular contact. Having a strong bond with others make a person feel as if they are a part of something important that creates a powerful impact. People who place high emphasis on affiliation tend to be supportive team members, but may be less effective in leadership positions. A person who takes part in a group, whether it be a movement or project, helps create a push towards a sense of achievement and satisfaction for the individual and the whole.
Prosocial behavior, or intent to benefit others, is a social behavior that "benefit[s] other people or society as a whole", "such as helping, sharing, donating, co-operating, and volunteering". Obeying the rules and conforming to socially accepted behaviors are also regarded as prosocial behaviors. These actions may be motivated by culturally influenced value systems; empathy and concern about the welfare and rights of others; egoistic or practical concerns, such as one's social status or reputation, hope for direct or indirect reciprocity, or adherence to one's perceived system of fairness; or altruism, though the existence of pure altruism is somewhat disputed, and some have argued that this falls into the philosophical rather than psychological realm of debate. Evidence suggests that prosociality is central to the well-being of social groups across a range of scales, including schools. Prosocial behavior in the classroom can have a significant impact on a student's motivation for learning and contributions to the classroom and larger community. In the workplace, prosocial behaviour can have a significant impact on team psychological safety, as well as positive indirect effects on employee's helping behaviors and task performance. Empathy is a strong motive in eliciting prosocial behavior, and has deep evolutionary roots.
The social norm of reciprocity is the expectation that people will respond to each other in similar ways—responding to gifts and kindnesses from others with similar benevolence of their own, and responding to harmful, hurtful acts from others with either indifference or some form of retaliation. Such norms can be crude and mechanical, such as a literal reading of the eye-for-an-eye rule lex talionis, or they can be complex and sophisticated, such as a subtle understanding of how anonymous donations to an international organization can be a form of reciprocity for the receipt of very personal benefits, such as the love of a parent.
Helping behavior refers to voluntary actions intended to help others, with reward regarded or disregarded. It is a type of prosocial behavior.
Homo reciprocans, or reciprocating human, is the concept in some economic theories of humans as cooperative actors who are motivated by improving their environment through positive reciprocity or negative reciprocity, even in situations without foreseeable benefit for themselves.
Social preferences describe the human tendency to not only care about one's own material payoff, but also the reference group's payoff or/and the intention that leads to the payoff. Social preferences are studied extensively in behavioral and experimental economics and social psychology. Types of social preferences include altruism, fairness, reciprocity, and inequity aversion. The field of economics originally assumed that humans were rational economic actors, and as it became apparent that this was not the case, the field began to change. The research of social preferences in economics started with lab experiments in 1980, where experimental economists found subjects' behavior deviated systematically from self-interest behavior in economic games such as ultimatum game and dictator game. These experimental findings then inspired various new economic models to characterize agent's altruism, fairness and reciprocity concern between 1990 and 2010. More recently, there are growing amounts of field experiments that study the shaping of social preference and its applications throughout society.
Evolutionary biologists have developed various theoretical models to explain the evolution of food-sharing behavior—"[d]efined as the unresisted transfer of food" from one food-motivated individual to another—among humans and other animals.
Reciprocal altruism in humans refers to an individual behavior that gives benefit conditionally upon receiving a returned benefit, which draws on the economic concept – ″gains in trade″. Human reciprocal altruism would include the following behaviors : helping patients, the wounded, and the others when they are in crisis; sharing food, implement, knowledge.
The gift-exchange game, also commonly known as the gift exchange dilemma, is a common economic game introduced by George Akerlof and Janet Yellen to model reciprocacy in labor relations. The gift-exchange game simulates a labor-management relationship execution problem in the principal-agent problem in labor economics. The simplest form of the game involves two players – an employee and an employer. The employer first decides whether they should award a higher salary to the employee. The employee then decides whether to reciprocate with a higher level of effort due to the salary increase or not. Like trust games, gift-exchange games are used to study reciprocity for human subject research in social psychology and economics. If the employer pays extra salary and the employee puts in extra effort, then both players are better off than otherwise. The relationship between an investor and an investee has been investigated as the same type of a game.
Generalized exchange is a type of social exchange in which a desired outcome that is sought by an individual is not dependent on the resources provided by that individual. It is assumed to be a fundamental social mechanism that stabilizes relations in society by unilateral resource giving in which one's giving is not necessarily reciprocated by the recipient, but by a third party. Thus, in contrast to direct or restricted exchange or reciprocity, in which parties exchange resources with each other, generalized exchange naturally involves more than two parties. Examples of generalized exchange include; matrilateral cross-cousin marriage and helping a stranded driver on a desolate road.
Parochial altruism is a concept in social psychology, evolutionary biology, and anthropology that describes altruism towards an in-group, often accompanied by hostility towards an out-group. It is a combination of altruism, defined as behavior done for the benefit of others without direct effect on the self, and parochialism, which refers to having a limited viewpoint. Together, these concepts create parochial altruism, or altruism which is limited in scope to one's in-group. Parochial altruism is closely related to the concepts of in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination. Research has suggested that parochial altruism may have evolved in humans to promote high levels of in-group cooperation, which is advantageous for group survival. Parochial altruism is often evoked to explain social behaviors within and between groups, such as why people are cooperative within their social groups and why they may be aggressive towards other social groups.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)