The Group as the Container of Generalized Reciprocity

By T. Yamagishi, T. Kiyonari. 2000

476 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Safety Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/936719e277a31af13903fc11e80f37199b672c8d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Safety Research

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Altruism toward in-group members as a reputation mechanism (2010, unknown): “We believe that at least one aspect of the adaptive importance of groups for humans is that they provide a venue for indirect reciprocity to operate (Yamagishi & Kiyonari, 2000).”
Groups Reward Individual Sacrifice: The Status Solution to the Collective Action Problem (2009, background): “There are many solutions to the collective action problem, reflecting different methodologies, theoretical approaches, and levels of analysis (for reviews, see Kollock 1998; Ledyard 1995; Oliver 1993; Yamagishi 1995).”
It’s the Conventional Thought That Counts (2017, background): “This happens not because the common code is widely endorsed as a personal conviction, but because it is what everyone knows that everyone knows, or what Ridgeway and Correll (2006) call a “third-order belief ” (see also Adut 2008; Chwe 2001; Swidler 2001; Yamagishi and Kiyonari 2000).”
The Social Exchange Heuristic: Managing Errors in Social Exchange (2007, result): “…(proportion of participants who chose to give) was higher in the sequential game than in the simultaneous game, as shown in Figure 3, replicating the pattern observed in previous studies (Cho and Choi 1999; Hayashi et al. 1999; Kiyonari et al. 2000; Watabe et al. 1996; Yamagishi and Kiyonari 2000).”
Strategies for cooperation in biological markets, especially for humans (2013, methodology): “Perceived similarity and group membership could be used as cues of common goals (Tooby & Cosmides, 1996) or the likelihood of receiving reciprocity (Yamagishi & Kiyonari, 2000).”
Culture, trust, and social networks (2008, background): “People who share a group membership are perceived to be trustworthy (Brewer, 1979; Yamagishi & Kiyonari, 2000); trusting behaviour is directed towards members of one’s ingroup more than outgroups (Tanis & Postmes, 2005).”
Group Identity and Social Preferences (2009, unknown): “In this section, we review the social identity literature in social psychology and experimental economics respectively.”
Prosocial behavior: multilevel perspectives. (2005, background): “Because trust often is based on an expectation of reciprocity (Yamagishi & Kiyonari 2000), it has special significance in situations of interdependence (Chaudhuri et al. 2002).”
Reputation, Gossip, and Human Cooperation (2016, background): “Groups contain networks of indirect reciprocity, where cooperators tend to be selected as coalition partners and receive future benefits from in-group members (Nowak & Sigmund, 2005; Yamagishi & Kiyonari, 2000).”
Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: a meta-analysis. (2014, background): “Researchers have claimed that this interdependence, compared to self-categorization, could be the factor that caused ingroup favoritism in the minimal group studies (Gaertner & Schopler, 1998; Rabbie et al., 1989; Yamagishi & Kiyonari, 2000).”
From social projection to social behaviour (2007, background): “Behavioural ingroup favouritism could occur simply because people hold the expectation that, compared with outgroup members, ingroup members have stronger social preferences to benefit members of their own group (i.e., a high value of pc; Yamagishi & Kiyonari, 2000).”
Social ties and coordination on negative reciprocity: The role of affect (2008, background): “…interact across different countries (e.g. Charness et al., 2006), or by studying in-group vs. outgroup behavior in minimally created groups (e.g. Yamagishi and Kiyonari, 2000) and real social groups (Bernhard et al., 2006; Goette et al., 2006), there is practically no experimental work on the…”
Why being right is not enough: Predicting defensiveness in the face of group criticism (2005, background): “Within categories the probability of reciprocity is assumed, a priori, to be high, while between categories it is presumed to be low’’ (see Yamagishi & Kiyonari, 2000, for a related argument).”
Two Egocentric Sources of the Decision to Vote: The Voter's Illusion and the Belief in Personal Relevance (2004, background): “Because people are more likely to project to members of an ingroup than to members of an outgroup (Clement & Krueger, 2002), they also tend to cooperate more with the former (Yamagishi & Kiyonari, 2000).”