Behavioural science: Homo reciprocans

By Samuel Bowles, Herbert Gintis. Nature, 2002

145 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Safety Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d1fe82cdfe3aadafa9a1ee78c479c665b5cc1534

How researchers see this paper

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

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Safety Research

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The Evolution of Cognitive Bias (2015, background): “The bias toward prosociality has been the subject of competing explanations that take quite different explanatory stances (Bowles & Gintis, 2002; Gintis, Bowles, Boyd, & Fehr, 2003; Henrich & Boyd, 2001; Price, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2002), although these explanations might not be mutually exclusive.”
Complex Adaptive Systems (2003, background): “Economist Sam Bowles and his colleagues have begun to work with anthropologists to investigate, as an empirical question, how social actors make decisions in game-theoretical or economic contexts (Bowles & Gintis 2002).”
The Paranoid Optimist: An Integrative Evolutionary Model of Cognitive Biases (2006, background): “The bias toward prosociality is the subject of competing explanations that take quite different explanatory stances (Bowles & Gintis, 2002; Henrich & Boyd, 2001; Price, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2002), and it is as yet unexplored whether these are complementary or competing accounts to the social exchange…”
Wild justice and fair play: cooperation, forgiveness, and morality in animals (2004, background): “…also has been a resurgence of interest in the notion of fairness and altruism in humans (Sober and Wilson 1998, 2000; Douglas 2001; Riolo et al. 2001; Sigmund and Nowak 2001; Bowles and Gintis 2002; Fehr and Gächter 2002; Jamieson 2002; Sigmund et al. 2002; Bewley 2003; Fehr and Rockenbach 2003).”
Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: a selective survey of the literature (2011, background): “…via other mechanisms which can broadly be categorized as moral suasion (to borrow a term from Ledyard 1995) and/or assortative matching.4 See for instance Axelrod (1986), Fehr and Fischbacher (2004a, 2004b, 2005a, 2005b), Fehr and Gächter (2000, 2002), and Bowles and Gintis (2002) among others.”
The appearance of homo rivalis: Social preferences and the nature of rent seeking (2008, background): “Thus, after the introduction of homo reciprocans to replace or complement the traditional homo economicus (see Bowles and Gintis, 2002), should we now add a homo maliciosus or a homo rivalis to the family?”
Accepting Authoritative Decisions: Humans as Wary Cooperators (2004, methodology): “5A small sampling of the research utilizing this approach includes Axelrod (1984); Bowles and Gintis (2002); Cosmides and Tooby (1992); Dawkins (1976, 1982); Frank (1988); Massey (2002); Masters (1993); Nowak, Page, and Sigmund (2000); Ridley (1996); Somit and Peterson (1997, 1999); and Wiegele…”
Explaining altruistic behavior in humans (2003, methodology): “Fehr and Gächter (2000) performed their experiment for 10 rounds with punishment and 10 rounds without (for additional experimental results and their analysis, see Bowles and Gintis, 2002; Fehr and Gächter, 2002).”
Propensities to engage in and punish corrupt behavior: Experimental evidence from Australia, India, Indonesia and Singapore (2009, background): “Bowles and Gintis (2002), Fehr, Fischbacher and Gachter (2002), and Casari and Plott (2003) provide further evidence on how punishment can have an impact on behavior and social norms. its own payoff at the expense of society.”