Reciprocity in a Securely Attached Mother-Infant Dyad

This article describes the interactions between a highly attuned, sensitive mother, who had the capacity to achieve primary maternal preoccupation, and her infant during his first four months of life. The evolving secure attachment patterns discerned from weekly observations in a naturalistic setting correspond with Beatrice Beebe’s findings using microanalysis of mother-infant face-to-face interactions to predict the nature of the four-month infant’s emerging internal working model of attachment. Using a series of vignettes, the author illustrates how this mother-infant dyad were adept at coordinating their attention, affective responses, vocal rhythms, and touch in ways that seemed to promote feelings of mutual recognition and enjoyment for them both. The mother’s capacity for reflective functioning enabled her to imagine what her baby was feeling and to consistently comfort him, contributing to the formation of their secure mother-infant bond.     

Responsibility and Reciprocity

Discussions of responsibility typically focus on the person who is held responsible: what are the conditions or criteria of responsibility; what can be done to or demanded of a person who is responsible? This paper shifts focus onto those who hold, rather than those who are held, responsible: what do we owe to those whom we hold responsible? After distinguishing responsibility as answerability from responsibility as liability, it attends mainly to the former, and points out the ways in which it is multiply relational: I am responsible for something to someone who has the standing to call me to account for it, under the norms of some particular practice. Responsibility as thus understood is also reciprocal: if you are to be answerable to me, I must treat you with a certain respect, attend seriously to your answer, and be ready to answer to you myself. The paper explores some of the implications of this point both for our moral dealings with each other, and for criminal law and the criminal trial.     

Comparing sequential associations within a single dyad

We present a new application of sampled permutation testing to examine whether two sequential associations are different within a single dyad (e.g., a teacher and a student). A Monte Carlo simulation with the same (i.e., 100 vs. 100) or a different (100 vs. 400) number of event pairs was used to simulate designs that use time-based (typicallyproducing equal-length comparisons) and event-based (typically producing different-length comparisons) data, respectively. For these pairs of simulated data streams, we compared the Type I error rates and the kappa for agreement on significance decisions, using the sampled permutation tests and the more traditional asymptotic log linear analysis. The results provide the first evidence relevant to evaluating the accuracy of log linear analysis and sampled permutation testing for the purpose of comparing sequential associations within a single dyad.     

Reciprocity and uncertainty

Guala points to a discrepancy between strong negative reciprocity observed in the lab and the way cooperation is sustained "in the wild." This commentary suggests that in lab experiments, strong negative reciprocity is limited when uncertainty exists regarding the players' actions and the intentions. Thus, costly punishment is indeed a limited mechanism for sustaining cooperation in an uncertain environment.     

Reciprocity: Choice shift in a social trap

In the present study it was investigated if choice behaviour in a social trap situation was affected by feedback about the choice of others. On top of the social trap reward structure investigated by Schroeder, Jensen, Reed, Sullivan and Schwab (1983) a bonus was added. In the individual bonus condition subjects were promised an unspecified bonus if they would obtain more points than any other group member of one's group. In the group bonus condition subjects would obtain a bonus if the own group acquired more points than the other group. As expected, in the group bonus condition one took fewer points than in the individual bonus condition. As suggested by the reciprocity explanation of choice behaviour (Liebrand, Wilke, Vogel and Wolters 1986; Liebrand, Jansen and Rijken 1986) it appeared that first choice corresponded strongly with one's expectations about the choices of others. Before the second choice and also before the third choice one received purported feedback about the choices of other members of one's group. In the conserving condition one learned that all others made a conserving choice, whereas in the consuming condition one learned that all others made a consuming choice. According to the reciprocity explanation it was found that when choice behaviour was in agreement with own previous expectations and previous choice, no choice change did occur. Shifts took place in conditions in which own previous expectations about the choices of others and own choice were disconfirmed by information about choices of others.     

Insight and the analytic dyad

Insight reflects the unitary nature of psychic activity in contrast to the fragmentation created in abstracting categories for the purpose of study and discussion. The unique analytic clinical dyad offers a structure in which intrapsychic fragments can be actualized and integrated. As a result, the analyst's contribution is more crucially one of exploration than of revelation. Whatever the area of examination, past or present, the link to analytic immediacy offers the opportunity to make meanings meaningful, to convert known facts to psychic truths. The analyst's clinical task requires his private self-analysis as part of the collaborative exploration of how the patient's mind works. Higher level ego functioning, including acutely active remembering, is at times transiently loosened in order for the analyst to share in the clinical work of discovery. The words the analyst uses to communicate his understanding convey only approximate manifest meanings, though they structurally reveal deeper messages of importance to the patient. These verbal approximations help stimulate self-reflection in the analysand as a step in the process of gaining insight.     

Shame and fragmentation in the marital dyad

The paper outlines an expansion of object relations theory to account for fragmentation and shame. This expansion promotes a better psychodynamic perspective on the type of marital conflict escalation that occurs when each spouse turns to the other for empathic receptiveness while that other is also in a disorganized and vulnerable state of mind. Escalation occurs when spouses have different needs for safety and optimum distance and when the shame generated by continued exposure of these needs is not acknowledged. Clinical precepts promoting a focus on fragmentation and acknowledgement of shame are elaborated.     

Changes in Negative Reciprocity as a Function of Age

Standard economic models assume people exclusively pursue material self‐interests in social interactions. However, people exhibit social preferences; that is, they base their choices partly on the outcomes others obtained in a social interaction. People care about fairness, and reciprocity affects behavior. This study examines the differences in negative reciprocity (costly punishment for unfair divisions) as a function of age. Sixty‐one kindergarteners (5‐year‐olds), 53 second graders (8‐year‐olds), and 57 sixth graders (12‐year‐olds) played a dictator game or a mini–ultimatum game either with a human proposer or with a random machine that determined the division between the two players. By keeping the divisions between the players constant and varying the source of the unfair proposal, we were able to differentiate between reciprocity‐based and inequality‐aversion preferences. We found that kindergarteners proposed and accepted unfair divisions regardless of the source of the offer, behaving according to the standard economic model. Children in the sixth grade tended to reject unfair offers from a human proposer but accept unfair divisions from a random device, indicating the emergence of negative reciprocity preferences by age eight (and contrary to inequality aversion). Children at this age also tended to give more fair offers in the ultimatum game than in the dictator game, indicating the emergence of strategic thinking. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

When and Why People Evaluate Negative Reciprocity as More Fair Than Positive Reciprocity

If you are kind to me, I am likely to reciprocate and doing so feels fair. Many theories of social exchange assume that such reciprocity and fairness are well aligned with one another. We argue that this correspondence between reciprocity and fairness is restricted to interpersonal dyads and does not govern more complex multilateral interactions. When multiple people are involved, reciprocity leads to partiality, which may be seen as unfair by outsiders. We report seven studies, conducted with people from the United States, in which participants were asked to evaluate situations involving resource distribution in contexts such as economic games, government, and the workplace. Specifically, we find that equal resource distribution in multilateral interactions is seen as more fair than engaging in reciprocity. We also find that negative reciprocity is seen as more fair than positive reciprocity in these multilateral situations because positive reciprocity is perceived as based in favoritism. We rule out alternative explanations and demonstrate that there are contexts where favoritism is not viewed as unfair. These findings are important for theories of fairness and reciprocity as they demonstrate the central role of perceived partiality in the evaluation of multi‐party resource allocation.     

Basic Income, Self-Respect and Reciprocity

相似文献   

Gratuity,Embodiment, and Reciprocity

Protestant Christian ethicist Timothy Jackson and secular feminist philosopher Eva Feder Kittay each explore the relationship between love or care and justice through the lens of human dependency. Jackson sharply prioritizes agape over justice, whereas Kittay articulates a more complex and integrated understanding of the relationship of care and distributive justice. An account of Christian love and its relation to justice must account for the gratuity, mutuality, and reciprocity that pervade human existence. Such an account must integrate provision for another's basic needs, a feature of agape, with a distributive justice that fairly allocates the material prerequisites of care and the burden of caring labor. Kittay's treatment of care and justice is more adequate to the realities of human embodiment and the social organization of care than Jackson's, but neither offers a fully adequate ground for the moral personhood of all human beings, including deeply dependent persons.     

Accountably Other: Trust,Reciprocity and Exclusion in a Context of Situated Practice

The first part of this paper makes five points: First, the problem of Otherness is different and differently constructed in modern differentiated societies. Therefore, approaches to Otherness based on traditional notions of difference and boundary between societies and systems of shared belief will not suffice; Second, because solidarity can no longer be maintained through boundaries between ingroup and outgroup, social cohesion has to take a different form; Third, to the extent that Otherness is not a condition of demographic, or belief based, exclusion in modern societies, but rather something that happens to people otherwise available to one another in interaction, othering is a processthat occurs over the course of interaction, turn by turn, not a set of beliefs or a state of mind; Fourth, othering may be supported by accounts and narratives, and these may exist before the fact – or be articulated after the fact. But, over the course of an ongoing interaction, beliefs and narratives do not explain what goes wrong with practices; Fifth, practices require reciprocity and trust. Therefore, practices require a morestringent form of morality – not a less stringent form – and moresocial cohesion – not less – than traditional society.The second part of the paper illustrates these five points with an extended analysis of a cross-race interaction in which accounts are invoked, reciprocity breaks down, and participants are rendered as Accountable Others.