Article contents
Towards a unified theory of reciprocity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 January 2012
Abstract
In a unified theory of human reciprocity, the strong and weak forms are similar because neither is biologically altruistic and both require normative motivation to support cooperation. However, strong reciprocity is necessary to support cooperation in public goods games. It involves inflicting costs on defectors; and though the costs for punishers are recouped, recouping costs requires complex institutions that would not have emerged if weak reciprocity had been enough.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012
References
Fehr, E. & Gächter, S. (2000a) Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. American Economic Review
90(4):980–94. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/117319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kollock, P. (1993) An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind: Cooperation and accounting systems. American Sociological Review
58(6):768–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledyard, J. O. (1995) Public Goods: A survey of experimental research, In: Handbook of experimental economics, ed. Kagel, John H. & Roth, Alvin E. pp. 111–94. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Milinski, M., Semmann, D. & Krambeck, H. J. (2002) Reputation helps solve the “tragedy of the commons.”
Nature
415(6870):424–26. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=11807552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trivers, R. L. (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology
46:35–57. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2822435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 1
- Cited by
Target article
Towards a unified theory of reciprocity
Related commentaries (1)
Reciprocity: Weak or strong? What punishment experiments do (and do not) demonstrate