↓ Skip to main content

Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms

Overview of attention for article published in Human Nature, March 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
policy
5 policy sources
twitter
4 X users
patent
2 patents
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
978 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1058 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms
Published in
Human Nature, March 2002
DOI 10.1007/s12110-002-1012-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ernst Fehr, Urs Fischbacher, Simon Gächter

Abstract

This paper provides strong evidence challenging the self-interest assumption that dominates the behavioral sciences and much evolutionary thinking. The evidence indicates that many people have a tendency to voluntarily cooperate, if treated fairly, and to punish noncooperators. We call this behavioral propensity "strong reciprocity" and show empirically that it can lead to almost universal cooperation in circumstances in which purely self-interested behavior would cause a complete breakdown of cooperation. In addition, we show that people are willing to punish those who behaved unfairly towards a third person or who defected in a Prisoner's Dilemma game with a third person. This suggests that strong reciprocity is a powerful device for the enforcement of social norms involving, for example, food sharing or collective action. Strong reciprocity cannot be rationalized as an adaptive trait by the leading evolutionary theories of human cooperation (in other words, kin selection, reciprocal altruism, indirect reciprocity, and costly signaling theory). However, multilevel selection theories of cultural evolution are consistent with strong reciprocity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,058 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 19 2%
Germany 12 1%
United Kingdom 12 1%
Switzerland 7 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
France 3 <1%
Hungary 3 <1%
Japan 3 <1%
Austria 2 <1%
Other 25 2%
Unknown 968 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 266 25%
Student > Master 157 15%
Researcher 133 13%
Student > Bachelor 103 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 60 6%
Other 213 20%
Unknown 126 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 252 24%
Social Sciences 159 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 155 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 85 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 74 7%
Other 168 16%
Unknown 165 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2023.
All research outputs
#672,390
of 25,727,480 outputs
Outputs from Human Nature
#70
of 551 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#445
of 50,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Nature
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,727,480 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 551 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 50,262 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them