{"title":"合作与互惠的分类学:超越跨学科社会科学帝国主义。","authors":"Elias L Khalil","doi":"10.1007/s12124-025-09906-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The literature on cooperation acknowledges different forms of cooperation and their corresponding forms of reciprocity. This paper goes further and shows that most of these different forms are indeed distinct types; hence, the terms \"cooperation\" and \"reciprocity\" are portmanteau. This paper proposes a taxonomy of ten types: i) quid pro quo; ii) intertemporal allocation; iii) altruism; iv) formal obligations (justice); v) informal obligations (repayment of favors); vi) gifts; vii) allegiance; viii) hegemony; ix) grants; and x) philanthropy. Nonetheless, \"beneficence\", defined as the promotion of the good, is common to all ten types. The promotion of the good entails actions that are free from i) opportunism and deception; ii) self-aggrandizement; and iii) malevolence (envy, schadenfreude, etc.). One payoff of the proposed ten-type taxonomy of cooperation/reciprocity is the delineation of five disciplines: anthropology, economics, political science, sociology, and psychology. Each discipline is suitable for the study of one or two types of cooperation/reciprocity. This raises a question: how does each discipline conceive of the other types appropriate for adjacent disciplines? This paper finds that each discipline effectively sculptures the other types after its own preconceived mode of conception (toolkit)-amounting to \"interdisciplinary social science imperialism.\" The proposed ten-type taxonomy promises a transdisciplinary platform that is impartial, i.e., able to help researchers avoid interdisciplinary imperialism. This payoff shows the possibility of unifying the social sciences without interdisciplinary imperialism, i.e., reducing all types of cooperation/reciprocity to one's favored preconceived toolkit.</p>","PeriodicalId":50356,"journal":{"name":"Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science","volume":"59 2","pages":"44"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12021698/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Taxonomy of Cooperation and Reciprocity: Beyond Interdisciplinary Social Science Imperialism.\",\"authors\":\"Elias L Khalil\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12124-025-09906-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The literature on cooperation acknowledges different forms of cooperation and their corresponding forms of reciprocity. This paper goes further and shows that most of these different forms are indeed distinct types; hence, the terms \\\"cooperation\\\" and \\\"reciprocity\\\" are portmanteau. This paper proposes a taxonomy of ten types: i) quid pro quo; ii) intertemporal allocation; iii) altruism; iv) formal obligations (justice); v) informal obligations (repayment of favors); vi) gifts; vii) allegiance; viii) hegemony; ix) grants; and x) philanthropy. Nonetheless, \\\"beneficence\\\", defined as the promotion of the good, is common to all ten types. The promotion of the good entails actions that are free from i) opportunism and deception; ii) self-aggrandizement; and iii) malevolence (envy, schadenfreude, etc.). One payoff of the proposed ten-type taxonomy of cooperation/reciprocity is the delineation of five disciplines: anthropology, economics, political science, sociology, and psychology. Each discipline is suitable for the study of one or two types of cooperation/reciprocity. This raises a question: how does each discipline conceive of the other types appropriate for adjacent disciplines? This paper finds that each discipline effectively sculptures the other types after its own preconceived mode of conception (toolkit)-amounting to \\\"interdisciplinary social science imperialism.\\\" The proposed ten-type taxonomy promises a transdisciplinary platform that is impartial, i.e., able to help researchers avoid interdisciplinary imperialism. This payoff shows the possibility of unifying the social sciences without interdisciplinary imperialism, i.e., reducing all types of cooperation/reciprocity to one's favored preconceived toolkit.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50356,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science\",\"volume\":\"59 2\",\"pages\":\"44\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12021698/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-025-09906-7\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-025-09906-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Taxonomy of Cooperation and Reciprocity: Beyond Interdisciplinary Social Science Imperialism.
The literature on cooperation acknowledges different forms of cooperation and their corresponding forms of reciprocity. This paper goes further and shows that most of these different forms are indeed distinct types; hence, the terms "cooperation" and "reciprocity" are portmanteau. This paper proposes a taxonomy of ten types: i) quid pro quo; ii) intertemporal allocation; iii) altruism; iv) formal obligations (justice); v) informal obligations (repayment of favors); vi) gifts; vii) allegiance; viii) hegemony; ix) grants; and x) philanthropy. Nonetheless, "beneficence", defined as the promotion of the good, is common to all ten types. The promotion of the good entails actions that are free from i) opportunism and deception; ii) self-aggrandizement; and iii) malevolence (envy, schadenfreude, etc.). One payoff of the proposed ten-type taxonomy of cooperation/reciprocity is the delineation of five disciplines: anthropology, economics, political science, sociology, and psychology. Each discipline is suitable for the study of one or two types of cooperation/reciprocity. This raises a question: how does each discipline conceive of the other types appropriate for adjacent disciplines? This paper finds that each discipline effectively sculptures the other types after its own preconceived mode of conception (toolkit)-amounting to "interdisciplinary social science imperialism." The proposed ten-type taxonomy promises a transdisciplinary platform that is impartial, i.e., able to help researchers avoid interdisciplinary imperialism. This payoff shows the possibility of unifying the social sciences without interdisciplinary imperialism, i.e., reducing all types of cooperation/reciprocity to one's favored preconceived toolkit.
期刊介绍:
IPBS: Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science is an international interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the advancement of basic knowledge in the social and behavioral sciences. IPBS covers such topics as cultural nature of human conduct and its evolutionary history, anthropology, ethology, communication processes between people, and within-- as well as between-- societies. A special focus will be given to integration of perspectives of the social and biological sciences through theoretical models of epigenesis. It contains articles pertaining to theoretical integration of ideas, epistemology of social and biological sciences, and original empirical research articles of general scientific value. History of the social sciences is covered by IPBS in cases relevant for further development of theoretical perspectives and empirical elaborations within the social and biological sciences. IPBS has the goal of integrating knowledge from different areas into a new synthesis of universal social science—overcoming the post-modernist fragmentation of ideas of recent decades.