"...is that positive and negative reciprocity are not symmetrical..."

I equate this statement with the glass half full/empty syndrome. Half EMPTY sounds worse than half FULL because of the negative spin, yet in effect they are the same.

As has been discussed on other threads, perhaps it comes down to that ultimate self-interest aspect of human nature. We are impacted more by the negative even if it is only illusory, because it affects our sense of self, stability and security. Or Ego.

Maybe we are all a bit Ying and Yang where all the elements interact sometimes giving yield to the positive and other times to the negative; or sometimes pulling in opposite directions.

Foxy, keep well and remember - "Problems give birth to wisdom. Sorrows cultivate compassion."

Fractelle, surely in the 'dictator game' the real thing being measured is choice and not selfishness. I am willing to share my money 50:50 but resent it if you take even 30% of my money when I have no choice in the matter.

The first instance is a game because of the choice factor; the second denies individual choice and responsibility for the possessor of the money and is not likely to be appreciated.

palimpsest

And how you perceived the 'fairness' of the game is exactly what the scientists were researching.

AT the beginning of the game no-one had any money, therefore, even though the other person only gave 30% of the $100, you are still actually $30 better off than before the game started. However, because you believe that 50% is fairer (and I personally agree BTW) you are possibly less likely to be as fair to the next person in the game because of how you reacted to the first person who kept $70 for themselves. Or if you were paired again with the same stingy person, you could then reciprocate in kind, by offering $30, $20 or even by keeping all the money. Then that person may well feel offended even though s/he was stingy to begin with.

This is how negative perceptions can escalate. As Kurt Vonnegut would say, so it goes...

Our perceptions can then be so firmly set in our minds about a situation we are unlikely to change our opinion and retain negative feelings towards others.

It is a fact of human nature. Are we more likely to be generous acting in a group? Or in a one on one situation where we have the power ($)? Acting singly it is harder to survive, hence a certain level of greed become a part of human nature. On the other side of the same coin acting cooperatively within the group situation survival is more likely, hence we also developed the ability for altruism.

Fractelle, lucky for us that most people we come across in life do not behave the way the rats did in the dictator game. Most transactions in life appear to me to go quite amicably.

The second transaction in the game where the dictator decides for us how much money we can keep reminds me of taxation, and explains why tax avoidance is so popular the world over.

palimpsest

The point I have been trying to make is that we feel a negative experience more deeply than a positive and this fact influences how we interact with others even at a subliminal level.

You can see examples of this 'emotional baggage' carried into the discussion groups on OLO, someone has had a bad experience with 'X' and applies that experience to all 'X's. This is the start of prejudice. When challenged such a person who cannot accept that their POV may not apply to all 'X's often responds with vitriol, after that the discussion thread generally loses its way and degenerates into a type of brawl. The ironical thing is that the original 'bad' experience may not even be so bad at all - it was just perceived to be grossly unfair. As I said, at the beginning of the "dictator's game" everyone started with no money at all, therefore, unless the all 'dictators' withheld all the money, only half the participants remained the same as when they started - no money.

However, most dictators did give a percentage, and depending on the recipient's experience as to the percentage received being unfair, then the game devolved into increasing unfairness, as participants decided that 'tit for tat' was more appropriate as well as rebelling against the authority of whoever was a dictator.

Fortunately, not all the world is like that, but we are very much on the brink at all times, with the pendulum swinging from 'unfair' (Pol Pot) to fair - equal opportunities for all people regardless of their social standing.

"that positive and negative reciprocity are not symmetrical."

I think this is true, but only within a particular paradigm. Every strand of human activity ultimately reaches parity, even if it takes a number of different life cycles to achieve it. At any point in time, are there unfairnesses embedded throughout the system? Yes.

But, on the bright side, it's the asymmetry in life that breaks up hegemonies and other dead patterns and keeps allows things to become new and refreshed.