, we do not write how many times (m and n) each action flux occurs within the relationship. For clarity, it is useful to examine how many relationships can be defined in our setting. Each of the nine elementary interactions can be present or not in a relationship. There are thus29 = 512 possible relationships. However, by definition, the null interaction A ! B cannot ; coexist with any non-null elementary interaction within the same relationship. Therefore, we really only have eight elementary interactions that can combine to form relationships, giving 28 = 256 relationships, plus the null relationship that we keep separated. But one of the 256 relationships corresponds to the eight non-null elementary interactions being absent. We identify that relationship with the null relationship. Hence, since we want to count the null relationship;PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0120882 March 31,5 /A Generic Model of Dyadic Social Relationshipsonly once, our model results in 256 relationships in total. Of these relationships, nine are simple. These are the nine elementary interactions. The other relationships are composite and include between two and eight elementary interactions each. These 256 relationships constitute the “relationships space” of our model with two social actions. Our goal is to determine the smallest complete categorization of relationships able to span the relationships space. That is, we want to find “representative relationships” such that all relationships arising from our model can be expressed in terms of representative relationships, singly or in combination. X Y Let us give the example of two individuals in a relationship [A ! B and A ! B]. They areX Yimplementing the same interaction with respect to actions X and Y, respectively. If we posit X that A ! B is a representative relationship, we can fully describe A and B’s relationship by sayXing that they are in this representative relationship for both X and Y. In what follows, we present the reasoning that leads us to define six representative relationships and demonstrate that these six correspond to an exhaustive categorization of the relationships space.Results Building six representative relationshipsBased on the fact that two individuals can act in either the same or different ways in an elementary interaction, we categorize the relationships arising from our model by exhausting the distinctions that can be done in that setting: ?actions can be null (;) or not (X or Y); ?agents can GSK-1605786 price perform identical or different actions; ?in the case of different actions, individuals can be able to exchange roles or not within their relationship. For example, say that A pays B to provide her with goods. This is represented X by A ! B, an elementary interaction involving different actions: X for “giving money” and YYfor “giving goods”. Agent A also has the possibility to sell or return goods to B, and this occaY X Y sionally occurs (A ! B). Overall, this is a relationship written [A ! B and A ! B] and inX Y Xvolving exchangeable roles. Now, say that A pays B so that B protects A (A ! B, with Y Y ZM241385 site representing this time “protecting”). On the other hand, A is unable to offer any protection to B, so that this never happens nor is expected to happen. This is a relationship consisting of X only A ! B and involving non-exchangeable roles.This leads to six different representativeYXrelationships, or six categories of action fluxes, that are summarized in Table 3 and explained below. The., we do not write how many times (m and n) each action flux occurs within the relationship. For clarity, it is useful to examine how many relationships can be defined in our setting. Each of the nine elementary interactions can be present or not in a relationship. There are thus29 = 512 possible relationships. However, by definition, the null interaction A ! B cannot ; coexist with any non-null elementary interaction within the same relationship. Therefore, we really only have eight elementary interactions that can combine to form relationships, giving 28 = 256 relationships, plus the null relationship that we keep separated. But one of the 256 relationships corresponds to the eight non-null elementary interactions being absent. We identify that relationship with the null relationship. Hence, since we want to count the null relationship;PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0120882 March 31,5 /A Generic Model of Dyadic Social Relationshipsonly once, our model results in 256 relationships in total. Of these relationships, nine are simple. These are the nine elementary interactions. The other relationships are composite and include between two and eight elementary interactions each. These 256 relationships constitute the “relationships space” of our model with two social actions. Our goal is to determine the smallest complete categorization of relationships able to span the relationships space. That is, we want to find “representative relationships” such that all relationships arising from our model can be expressed in terms of representative relationships, singly or in combination. X Y Let us give the example of two individuals in a relationship [A ! B and A ! B]. They areX Yimplementing the same interaction with respect to actions X and Y, respectively. If we posit X that A ! B is a representative relationship, we can fully describe A and B’s relationship by sayXing that they are in this representative relationship for both X and Y. In what follows, we present the reasoning that leads us to define six representative relationships and demonstrate that these six correspond to an exhaustive categorization of the relationships space.Results Building six representative relationshipsBased on the fact that two individuals can act in either the same or different ways in an elementary interaction, we categorize the relationships arising from our model by exhausting the distinctions that can be done in that setting: ?actions can be null (;) or not (X or Y); ?agents can perform identical or different actions; ?in the case of different actions, individuals can be able to exchange roles or not within their relationship. For example, say that A pays B to provide her with goods. This is represented X by A ! B, an elementary interaction involving different actions: X for “giving money” and YYfor “giving goods”. Agent A also has the possibility to sell or return goods to B, and this occaY X Y sionally occurs (A ! B). Overall, this is a relationship written [A ! B and A ! B] and inX Y Xvolving exchangeable roles. Now, say that A pays B so that B protects A (A ! B, with Y Y representing this time “protecting”). On the other hand, A is unable to offer any protection to B, so that this never happens nor is expected to happen. This is a relationship consisting of X only A ! B and involving non-exchangeable roles.This leads to six different representativeYXrelationships, or six categories of action fluxes, that are summarized in Table 3 and explained below. The.
