IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0120882.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Generic Model of Dyadic Social Relationships

Author

Listed:
  • Maroussia Favre
  • Didier Sornette

Abstract

We introduce a model of dyadic social interactions and establish its correspondence with relational models theory (RMT), a theory of human social relationships. RMT posits four elementary models of relationships governing human interactions, singly or in combination: Communal Sharing, Authority Ranking, Equality Matching, and Market Pricing. To these are added the limiting cases of asocial and null interactions, whereby people do not coordinate with reference to any shared principle. Our model is rooted in the observation that each individual in a dyadic interaction can do either the same thing as the other individual, a different thing or nothing at all. To represent these three possibilities, we consider two individuals that can each act in one out of three ways toward the other: perform a social action X or Y, or alternatively do nothing. We demonstrate that the relationships generated by this model aggregate into six exhaustive and disjoint categories. We propose that four of these categories match the four relational models, while the remaining two correspond to the asocial and null interactions defined in RMT. We generalize our results to the presence of N social actions. We infer that the four relational models form an exhaustive set of all possible dyadic relationships based on social coordination. Hence, we contribute to RMT by offering an answer to the question of why there could exist just four relational models. In addition, we discuss how to use our representation to analyze data sets of dyadic social interactions, and how social actions may be valued and matched by the agents.

Suggested Citation

  • Maroussia Favre & Didier Sornette, 2015. "A Generic Model of Dyadic Social Relationships," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0120882
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120882
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120882
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120882&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0120882?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan Thurner & Michael Szell & Roberta Sinatra, 2012. "Emergence of Good Conduct, Scaling and Zipf Laws in Human Behavioral Sequences in an Online World," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(1), pages 1-7, January.
    2. Gigerenzer, Gerd & Todd, Peter M. & ABC Research Group,, 2000. "Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195143812.
    3. Felix C Brodbeck & Katharina G Kugler & Julia A M Reif & Markus A Maier, 2013. "Morals Matter in Economic Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. V. Yukalov & D. Sornette, 2011. "Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 283-328, March.
    6. Vyacheslav I. Yukalov & Didier Sornette, 2010. "Mathematical Structure Of Quantum Decision Theory," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(05), pages 659-698.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexandru-Ionuț Băbeanu & Diego Garlaschelli, 2018. "Evidence for Mixed Rationalities in Preference Formation," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-19, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eichberger, Jürgen & Pirner, Hans Jürgen, 2018. "Decision theory with a state of mind represented by an element of a Hilbert space: The Ellsberg paradox," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 131-141.
    2. Maroussia Favre & Amrei Wittwer & Hans Rudolf Heinimann & Vyacheslav I Yukalov & Didier Sornette, 2016. "Quantum Decision Theory in Simple Risky Choices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-29, December.
    3. Ashtiani, Mehrdad & Azgomi, Mohammad Abdollahi, 2015. "A survey of quantum-like approaches to decision making and cognition," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 49-80.
    4. Ismaël Rafaï & Sébastien Duchêne & Eric Guerci & Irina Basieva & Andrei Khrennikov, 2022. "The triple-store experiment: a first simultaneous test of classical and quantum probabilities in choice over menus," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 387-406, March.
    5. Fellnhofer, Katharina & Sornette, Didier, 2022. "Embracing The Intuitive-Analytical Paradox? How Intuitive And Analytical Decision-Making Drive Paradoxes In Simple And Complex Environments," OSF Preprints evjd6, Center for Open Science.
    6. Christopher B. Bingham & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 2014. "Response to Vuori and Vuori's commentary on “Heuristics in the strategy context”," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(11), pages 1698-1702, November.
    7. Thomas Boyer-Kassem & Sébastien Duchêne & Eric Guerci, 2016. "Quantum-like models cannot account for the conjunction fallacy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(4), pages 479-510, November.
    8. Godfrey Cadogan, 2012. "Representation theory for risk on markowitz-tversky-kahneman topology," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(4), pages 1-34.
    9. Eichberger, Jürgen & Pirner, Hans Jürgen, 2017. "Decision Theory with a Hilbert Space as Possibility Space," Working Papers 0637, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    10. Rossmo, D. Kim & Summers, Lucia, 2022. "Uncertainty and heuristics in offender decision-making: Deviations from rational choice," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    11. Holtfort, Thomas, 2023. "Quantenökonomie: Einfluss der Quantenphysik auf ökonomische Entscheidungsprozesse," Arbeitspapiere der FOM 88, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management.
    12. Thomas Holtfort & Andreas Horsch, 2023. "Social science goes quantum: explaining human decision-making, cognitive biases and Darwinian selection from a quantum perspective," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 99-116, August.
    13. Yu Zhang & Jason Leezer, 2010. "Simulating human-like decisions in a memory-based agent model," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 373-399, December.
    14. Tomasz Potocki, 2012. "Cumulative Prospect Theory as a model of economic rationality," Ekonomia journal, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, vol. 31.
    15. Krzysztof Zieliński, 2012. "Błędy popełniane w procesie podejmowania decyzji w świetle behawioralnej ekonomii finansowej," Ekonomia journal, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, vol. 31.
    16. Bednarik, Peter & Linnerooth-Bayer, Joanne & Magnuszewski, Piotr & Dieckmann, Ulf, 2019. "A Game of Common-pool Resource Management: Effects of Communication, Risky Environment and Worldviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 287-292.
    17. Ferro, Giuseppe M. & Kovalenko, Tatyana & Sornette, Didier, 2021. "Quantum decision theory augments rank-dependent expected utility and Cumulative Prospect Theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    18. V. I. Yukalov & D. Sornette, 2012. "Quantum decision making by social agents," Papers 1202.4918, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2015.
    19. Lester, Bijou Yang, 2011. "An exploratory analysis of composite choices: Weighing rationality versus irrationality," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 949-958.
    20. Huang, Zhiming & Yang, Lin & Jiang, Wen, 2019. "Uncertainty measurement with belief entropy on the interference effect in the quantum-like Bayesian Networks," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 347(C), pages 417-428.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0120882. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.