Relationships, social networking, social media, society, all terms that imply cooperation, and a willingness engage with other people. Several researchers across multiple disciplines have studied these interactions and proceedings. Some looking to gain insight into why social interactions take place, and why relationships exist. Others seeking to explain that only certain types of interactions have value and what those values are. However, no single discipline focuses solely on cooperation, relationships, or their innerworkings. There are some that try to explain how cooperation and reciprocal relationships reduce the likelihood of risk in certain situations, and different researchers have proposed different models to explain this phenomenon.
…show more content…
These definitions that he has laid out will be beneficial in understanding risk reduction reciprocity and free riding, which will be later covered in research that will be presented later. The first type of reciprocity Sahlins (1972) describes is to as “transactions that are putatively altruistic on the line of assistance given and, if possible and necessary assistance returned” (p. 193-194). This term is most closely associated with reciprocal altruism, or that one performs a cooperative act without any perceptions of reciprocation. This is an interesting type of altruism that will be mentioned later with respect to the Meriam people and their food sharing that discussed in detail by Bliege Bird et al. (2002). The next form of reciprocity mentioned by Sahlins (1972) is balanced reciprocity or a, “direct exchange” (p. 194). This is the most relevant form of reciprocity with respect to the risk reduction reciprocity model. The final form of reciprocity is negative reciprocity, which Sahlins (1972) defines as, “is the attempt to get something for nothing with impunity, the several forms of appropriation, transactions opened and conducted toward net utilitarian advantage” (p. 195). This is relevant because it helps to better understand the free riding problem, which will be addressed and defined later …show more content…
(2002) conducted a similar study with food sharing among the Meriam people. These researchers had quite a few hypotheses, but their primary concern was whether the Meriam engaged in risk reduction reciprocity through food sharing. They predicted that the size of the harvest, risk of free riders, and contingency would contribute to the Meriam’s desire and essential, need to enact risk reduction reciprocity strategies. However, Bliege Bird et al. (2002) found that only harvest size truly impacted willingness to share, and contingency rates, sanctioning free riders, and risk reduction did not exist among the Meriam. It is very interesting because through risk reduction and contingency one would think they would be easily able to spot free riders and punish them. However, they do not universally practice these and even so the results from the study yielded no significant data to indicate that these strategies would have had any real impact on the food sharing customs of the Meriam. Bliege Bird et al. (2002) discusses this notion of a free rider problem. The free rider problem typically refers to the act of taking without reciprocating, and how that impacts the cooperative relationship. Traditionally, free riders can be punished through a variety of means, but what makes the Meriam so fascinating is that they don’t punish free riders and still engage in cooperative behaviors, like sharing turtle meat, which they consider to be highly desirable. Overall, this
These definitions that he has laid out will be beneficial in understanding risk reduction reciprocity and free riding, which will be later covered in research that will be presented later. The first type of reciprocity Sahlins (1972) describes is to as “transactions that are putatively altruistic on the line of assistance given and, if possible and necessary assistance returned” (p. 193-194). This term is most closely associated with reciprocal altruism, or that one performs a cooperative act without any perceptions of reciprocation. This is an interesting type of altruism that will be mentioned later with respect to the Meriam people and their food sharing that discussed in detail by Bliege Bird et al. (2002). The next form of reciprocity mentioned by Sahlins (1972) is balanced reciprocity or a, “direct exchange” (p. 194). This is the most relevant form of reciprocity with respect to the risk reduction reciprocity model. The final form of reciprocity is negative reciprocity, which Sahlins (1972) defines as, “is the attempt to get something for nothing with impunity, the several forms of appropriation, transactions opened and conducted toward net utilitarian advantage” (p. 195). This is relevant because it helps to better understand the free riding problem, which will be addressed and defined later …show more content…
(2002) conducted a similar study with food sharing among the Meriam people. These researchers had quite a few hypotheses, but their primary concern was whether the Meriam engaged in risk reduction reciprocity through food sharing. They predicted that the size of the harvest, risk of free riders, and contingency would contribute to the Meriam’s desire and essential, need to enact risk reduction reciprocity strategies. However, Bliege Bird et al. (2002) found that only harvest size truly impacted willingness to share, and contingency rates, sanctioning free riders, and risk reduction did not exist among the Meriam. It is very interesting because through risk reduction and contingency one would think they would be easily able to spot free riders and punish them. However, they do not universally practice these and even so the results from the study yielded no significant data to indicate that these strategies would have had any real impact on the food sharing customs of the Meriam. Bliege Bird et al. (2002) discusses this notion of a free rider problem. The free rider problem typically refers to the act of taking without reciprocating, and how that impacts the cooperative relationship. Traditionally, free riders can be punished through a variety of means, but what makes the Meriam so fascinating is that they don’t punish free riders and still engage in cooperative behaviors, like sharing turtle meat, which they consider to be highly desirable. Overall, this