Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-3210, USA.
Behav Brain Sci. 2012 Feb;35(1):34-5. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X11001294.
Claims regarding negative strong reciprocity do indeed rest on experiments lacking established external validity, often without even a small "menu of options." Guala's review should prompt strong reciprocity proponents to extend the real-world validity of their work, exploring the preferences participants bring to experiments. That said, Guala's approach fails to differentiate among group selection approaches and glosses over cross-cultural variability.
关于负面强互惠的说法确实基于缺乏既定外部有效性的实验，这些实验往往甚至没有一个小的“选项菜单”。Guala 的评论应该促使强互惠的支持者扩展他们工作的现实世界有效性，探索参与者在实验中带来的偏好。也就是说，Guala 的方法未能区分群体选择方法，也忽略了跨文化的可变性。
