Small communities enforce generalized reciprocity rather than one-on-one exchange

Evidence

In small communities, instead, general norms of cooperativeness govern many behaviors. Anthropologists and sociologists sometimes call this generalized reciprocity. These norms are enforced at the group or communal level and not in reciprocal one-on-one relationships. For example, if one of us has a serious illness or death in the family or some other crisis, others help in various ways according to their own particular capacities. I might help you but then we might never be in positions in which you should, according to our norm, help me. Hence the norm is not reciprocal but is general—it is “universal” within our community. — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 821

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines generalized reciprocity as group-enforced, non-reciprocal cooperation — distinguishes it from dyadic exchange.
• XREF: Connects to the reader’s sociological integration: Luhmann’s familiarity in small communities maps directly here, and forms a contrast with Hardin’s encapsulated-interest trust. — connects to: Reciprocity motivations can be self-reinforcing where further interactions are plentiful; Close communities substitute communal sanctioning norms for dyadic trust relationships; Small groups succeed at collective action because dyadic trust motivates cooperation (+10 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 821

Broader Connections

• Close communities substitute communal sanctioning norms for dyadic trust relationships #expands (0.82)
• Reciprocity motivations can be self-reinforcing where further interactions are plentiful #expands (0.78)
• Small groups succeed at collective action because dyadic trust motivates cooperation #complicates (0.78)