Nothing at all. To represent these three possibilities, it is sufficient

Nothing at all. To represent these three possibilities, it is sufficient to consider that each agent can do X, Y orPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0120882 March 31,1 /A Generic Model of Dyadic ICG-001MedChemExpress ICG-001 Social Relationshipsnothing (;) to the other agent. X and Y are two different “social actions,” in the sense that they intentionally affect their target. Social actions can have positive or negative effects on the receiver’s welfare. For example, an agent A could transfer a useful commodity to an agent B, or A could hit and harm B. In what follows, we generally assume that an agent is a person, but it can also represent a social group (e.g. a company, team, nation and so on) that acts as a single entity in specific interactions. ! This setting is represented by A B. For instance, an interaction in which A does X and X=Y=;X=Y=;B does Y is represented by A ! B. We call the arrows in these symbols “action fluxes.” That YXmodel generates a number of possible relationships between the two agents A and B. We find that these relationships aggregate into exactly six disjoint categories of action fluxes. These six categories describe all possible relationships arising from our model, singly or in combination. We propose a mapping between these categories and the four basic social relationships, or relational models (RMs), defined by RMT. Namely, four of the six categories map to the RMs, while the remaining two correspond to asocial and null interactions. We argue that this categorization and mapping show that the RMs constitute an exhaustive set of coordinated dyadic social relationships. To take into account that real social interactions involve an infinite variety of social actions, we generalize our model to the presence of any number N of social actions and show that this leads to the same six categories of action fluxes. Relational models theory was introduced by Alan Fiske [1, 2] in the field of anthropology to study how people construct their social relationships. RMT posits that people use four elementary models to organize most aspects of most social interactions in all societies. These models are Communal Sharing, Authority Ranking, Equality Matching, and Market Pricing. RMT has motivated a considerable amount of research that supports, develops or applies the theory, not only in its original field of social cognition [3?], but also in diverse disciplines such as neuroscience [7], psychopathology [8], ethnography [9], experimental psychology [10], evolutionary social psychology [11], and perceptions of justice [12], to name a few. For an overview of this research, see [13, 14]. ?In the Communal Sharing (CS) model, people perceive in-group members as equivalent and undifferentiated. CS relationships are based on principles of unity, identity, conformity and undifferentiated sharing of resources. Decision-making is achieved through consensus. CS is typically manifested in close family or friendship bonds, teams, nationalities, ethnicities or between soldiers. ?In Authority Ranking (AR) relationships, people are asymmetrically ranked in a linear hierarchy. Subordinates are expected to defer, respect and obey high-rankers, who take precedence. Conversely, superiors protect and lead low-rankers. Subordinates are thus not exploited and also benefit from the relationship. Resources are distributed according to ranks and decision-making follows a top-down chain of PXD101 chemical information command. ?Equality Matching (EM) relationships are based on a principle of equal bala.Nothing at all. To represent these three possibilities, it is sufficient to consider that each agent can do X, Y orPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0120882 March 31,1 /A Generic Model of Dyadic Social Relationshipsnothing (;) to the other agent. X and Y are two different “social actions,” in the sense that they intentionally affect their target. Social actions can have positive or negative effects on the receiver’s welfare. For example, an agent A could transfer a useful commodity to an agent B, or A could hit and harm B. In what follows, we generally assume that an agent is a person, but it can also represent a social group (e.g. a company, team, nation and so on) that acts as a single entity in specific interactions. ! This setting is represented by A B. For instance, an interaction in which A does X and X=Y=;X=Y=;B does Y is represented by A ! B. We call the arrows in these symbols “action fluxes.” That YXmodel generates a number of possible relationships between the two agents A and B. We find that these relationships aggregate into exactly six disjoint categories of action fluxes. These six categories describe all possible relationships arising from our model, singly or in combination. We propose a mapping between these categories and the four basic social relationships, or relational models (RMs), defined by RMT. Namely, four of the six categories map to the RMs, while the remaining two correspond to asocial and null interactions. We argue that this categorization and mapping show that the RMs constitute an exhaustive set of coordinated dyadic social relationships. To take into account that real social interactions involve an infinite variety of social actions, we generalize our model to the presence of any number N of social actions and show that this leads to the same six categories of action fluxes. Relational models theory was introduced by Alan Fiske [1, 2] in the field of anthropology to study how people construct their social relationships. RMT posits that people use four elementary models to organize most aspects of most social interactions in all societies. These models are Communal Sharing, Authority Ranking, Equality Matching, and Market Pricing. RMT has motivated a considerable amount of research that supports, develops or applies the theory, not only in its original field of social cognition [3?], but also in diverse disciplines such as neuroscience [7], psychopathology [8], ethnography [9], experimental psychology [10], evolutionary social psychology [11], and perceptions of justice [12], to name a few. For an overview of this research, see [13, 14]. ?In the Communal Sharing (CS) model, people perceive in-group members as equivalent and undifferentiated. CS relationships are based on principles of unity, identity, conformity and undifferentiated sharing of resources. Decision-making is achieved through consensus. CS is typically manifested in close family or friendship bonds, teams, nationalities, ethnicities or between soldiers. ?In Authority Ranking (AR) relationships, people are asymmetrically ranked in a linear hierarchy. Subordinates are expected to defer, respect and obey high-rankers, who take precedence. Conversely, superiors protect and lead low-rankers. Subordinates are thus not exploited and also benefit from the relationship. Resources are distributed according to ranks and decision-making follows a top-down chain of command. ?Equality Matching (EM) relationships are based on a principle of equal bala.