Aspects of social and political life. Theories of constrained relativism other than RMT are, in particular, the JNJ-26481585 custom synthesis theory of socio-cultural viability (or cultural theory) initiated by Mary Douglas and developed further by others [16, 17] and Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations theory [18], among others. Until now, the focus of RMT was on Basmisanil biological activity people and relationships rather than on abstract representations of the social actions instantiated within relationships. A common point of previous approaches of RMT is that they define the RMs as cognitive models. Correspondingly, their implementation has been described in terms of how people mentally represent their relationships, using concepts like group belonging (CS), asymmetrical hierarchies (AR), peer equality (EM) and cost-benefit calculations (MP). Formally, the RMs were compared to the four measuring scales defined by Stevens [19]: nominal (CS), ordinal (AR), interval (EM) and ratio (MP) [1] (pp. 210-223). All of this made any attempt to understand why and how people from widely different cultures manage to coordinate using these same psychological concepts a veryPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0120882 March 31,3 /A Generic Model of Dyadic Social Relationshipsambitious undertaking, and naturally led to consider the evolution and functioning of the human brain, as did Bolender [20] and Iacoboni et al. [7], for instance. Nettle et al. [21] recently opened the way to model what is being transferred from one individual to another. The authors defined three strategies to allocate a resource between two individuals. They presented one of the strategies as typifying CS. Their result was to determine the domain of parameters making each strategy evolutionarily stable. In an analogous modeling spirit, our approach offers an abstract representation of the patterns of social actions performed by dyads in all four relational models, as well as the asocial and null interactions. The rest of this article is organized as follows. In the method, we present our model of action fluxes. In the results, we demonstrate the exhaustiveness of the six categories arising from that representation, and match the categories to the four relational models and the asocial and null interactions. We then generalize the finding of these six categories to the situation involving any number N of social actions. In the discussion, we touch on a method to analyze and interpret data sets of dyadic social interactions. We also express a hypothesis about how social actions are valued and matched by the agents.MethodWe consider a model of two agents interacting through social actions. A social action corresponds to any action intentionally targeting the receiver and affecting her welfare positively or negatively. It can consist in the transfer of commodities (e.g. objects, food, water, etc.) or services, but can also be a comforting act, talking, harm, violence, and so on. Let A and B be two distinct agents, and X and Y different social actions. In general, we assume that A and B are two people. However, an agent can also represent a group that acts as a social unit toward a person or another group (e.g. a nation, in the context of its diplomatic relation with another nation). We posit that each agent can act in one out of three ways toward the other agent: do X, Y or nothing (;). The idea at the root of our model is that, in general, each individual in a dyadic interaction can do either the same thing as the other individual, a di.Aspects of social and political life. Theories of constrained relativism other than RMT are, in particular, the theory of socio-cultural viability (or cultural theory) initiated by Mary Douglas and developed further by others [16, 17] and Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations theory [18], among others. Until now, the focus of RMT was on people and relationships rather than on abstract representations of the social actions instantiated within relationships. A common point of previous approaches of RMT is that they define the RMs as cognitive models. Correspondingly, their implementation has been described in terms of how people mentally represent their relationships, using concepts like group belonging (CS), asymmetrical hierarchies (AR), peer equality (EM) and cost-benefit calculations (MP). Formally, the RMs were compared to the four measuring scales defined by Stevens [19]: nominal (CS), ordinal (AR), interval (EM) and ratio (MP) [1] (pp. 210-223). All of this made any attempt to understand why and how people from widely different cultures manage to coordinate using these same psychological concepts a veryPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0120882 March 31,3 /A Generic Model of Dyadic Social Relationshipsambitious undertaking, and naturally led to consider the evolution and functioning of the human brain, as did Bolender [20] and Iacoboni et al. [7], for instance. Nettle et al. [21] recently opened the way to model what is being transferred from one individual to another. The authors defined three strategies to allocate a resource between two individuals. They presented one of the strategies as typifying CS. Their result was to determine the domain of parameters making each strategy evolutionarily stable. In an analogous modeling spirit, our approach offers an abstract representation of the patterns of social actions performed by dyads in all four relational models, as well as the asocial and null interactions. The rest of this article is organized as follows. In the method, we present our model of action fluxes. In the results, we demonstrate the exhaustiveness of the six categories arising from that representation, and match the categories to the four relational models and the asocial and null interactions. We then generalize the finding of these six categories to the situation involving any number N of social actions. In the discussion, we touch on a method to analyze and interpret data sets of dyadic social interactions. We also express a hypothesis about how social actions are valued and matched by the agents.MethodWe consider a model of two agents interacting through social actions. A social action corresponds to any action intentionally targeting the receiver and affecting her welfare positively or negatively. It can consist in the transfer of commodities (e.g. objects, food, water, etc.) or services, but can also be a comforting act, talking, harm, violence, and so on. Let A and B be two distinct agents, and X and Y different social actions. In general, we assume that A and B are two people. However, an agent can also represent a group that acts as a social unit toward a person or another group (e.g. a nation, in the context of its diplomatic relation with another nation). We posit that each agent can act in one out of three ways toward the other agent: do X, Y or nothing (;). The idea at the root of our model is that, in general, each individual in a dyadic interaction can do either the same thing as the other individual, a di.