2017
DOI: 10.1007/s40503-017-0043-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A theory of sequential group reciprocity

Abstract: Games that appear to be independent, involving none of the same players, may be related by emotions of reciprocity between the members of the same groups. In the real world, individuals are members of groups and want to reward or punish those groups whose members have been kind or unkind to members of their own. In this paper, we extend Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger's model of sequential reciprocity (Games Econ Behav 47(2): 2004) to groups of individuals and define a new ''sequential group reciprocity equilibri… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 32 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One powerful norm within interpersonal exchanges is reciprocity, the idea that people will repay prosociality from another by acting prosocially in return (Trivers, 1971; Falk and Fischbacher, 2006; Moreno-Okuno and Mosiño, 2017). A large body of research using economic games has provided evidence for direct reciprocity, with people choosing to give more to a recipient when the recipient has previously helped them (e.g., Ben-Ner et al., 2004; Leiberg et al., 2011; Krockow et al., 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One powerful norm within interpersonal exchanges is reciprocity, the idea that people will repay prosociality from another by acting prosocially in return (Trivers, 1971; Falk and Fischbacher, 2006; Moreno-Okuno and Mosiño, 2017). A large body of research using economic games has provided evidence for direct reciprocity, with people choosing to give more to a recipient when the recipient has previously helped them (e.g., Ben-Ner et al., 2004; Leiberg et al., 2011; Krockow et al., 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%