Egory 6 where only agent A acts toward B (A ! B). The asocial interaction of RMT specifically corresponds to the case in which A acts in a harmful, exploitative and abusive way that makes it EPZ-5676 manufacturer impossible for B to act back in a socially coordinated way toward A. However, our model generally involves social actions that can be beneficial or harmful to their target. From that point of view, category 6 is more general than the asocial interaction of RMT, and perhaps may best be called “unilateral,” with the asocial interaction being a particular case of that category. Based on the above mapping, we infer that the categories of action fluxes arising from our model offer suitable abstract representations of the exchange of social actions performed by dyads implementing the RMs. Also, given the exhaustiveness of our categorization, we propose that the four RMs constitute an exhaustive description of coordinated dyadic social relationships. Let us now highlight properties of our model and resulting categorization that match important aspects of RMT. The dyadic property of our model reflects the main focus of RMT. The majority of examples given by Fiske [1] from various societies around the world are of interactions between two people and sometimes between two groups. Fiske also uses RMs to characterize groups of more than two individuals in which all members use the same relational model in the context of a social activity. For example, if members of a group are all implementing CS when sharing food, it can be called a “CS group” with respect to that activity [1] (p. 151). Rotating credit associations [1] (p. 153) or equal distribution of any common resource are typical examples of EM within a group of more than two people. In such situations of homogeneous collective action, our representation also gives an accurate description of what happens between any two members and thus can be used to characterize the group as a whole. The six classes of action fluxes that we define are mutually disjoint categories. This is in line with Haslam’s proposition [22] that the relational models are indeed categories, as opposed to “dimensions” (whereby there would be no well-defined SP600125 web boundaries between the RMs) or “prototypes” (whereby theoretical, ideal RMs would never be realized by real social interactions; RMs would only be approximated along continuous dimensions). Moreover, the disjointness of the categories reflects the view of RMT that any specific aspect of any social interaction corresponds to one, and only one RM (or alternatively, the asocial or the null interaction). This applies to two levels: the way people think of their dyadic relationships with particular persons [22, 23], and the way people categorize each aspect (e.g. decision making, allocation of resources, organization of work) of the coordination of a particular dyad [24]. At the same time, RMT points out that any relationship generally consist in a composite of RMs [1] (pp. 155-168). Using Table 3, any composite relationship arising from our model can X Y now be interpreted in terms of the RMs. For example, the relationship [A ! B and A ! B] isX Yinterpreted as EM for both X and Y. The relationship [A ! B, A ! B and A XX YYB] is an instanceof EM for X and CS for Y. The relationships space also includes cases that are less obvious. For X X Y instance, [A ! B, A ! B and A ! B] is interpreted in our categorization as EM for X and MPX Y Xfor X and Y. Yet it is rather odd to imagine two people.Egory 6 where only agent A acts toward B (A ! B). The asocial interaction of RMT specifically corresponds to the case in which A acts in a harmful, exploitative and abusive way that makes it impossible for B to act back in a socially coordinated way toward A. However, our model generally involves social actions that can be beneficial or harmful to their target. From that point of view, category 6 is more general than the asocial interaction of RMT, and perhaps may best be called “unilateral,” with the asocial interaction being a particular case of that category. Based on the above mapping, we infer that the categories of action fluxes arising from our model offer suitable abstract representations of the exchange of social actions performed by dyads implementing the RMs. Also, given the exhaustiveness of our categorization, we propose that the four RMs constitute an exhaustive description of coordinated dyadic social relationships. Let us now highlight properties of our model and resulting categorization that match important aspects of RMT. The dyadic property of our model reflects the main focus of RMT. The majority of examples given by Fiske [1] from various societies around the world are of interactions between two people and sometimes between two groups. Fiske also uses RMs to characterize groups of more than two individuals in which all members use the same relational model in the context of a social activity. For example, if members of a group are all implementing CS when sharing food, it can be called a “CS group” with respect to that activity [1] (p. 151). Rotating credit associations [1] (p. 153) or equal distribution of any common resource are typical examples of EM within a group of more than two people. In such situations of homogeneous collective action, our representation also gives an accurate description of what happens between any two members and thus can be used to characterize the group as a whole. The six classes of action fluxes that we define are mutually disjoint categories. This is in line with Haslam’s proposition [22] that the relational models are indeed categories, as opposed to “dimensions” (whereby there would be no well-defined boundaries between the RMs) or “prototypes” (whereby theoretical, ideal RMs would never be realized by real social interactions; RMs would only be approximated along continuous dimensions). Moreover, the disjointness of the categories reflects the view of RMT that any specific aspect of any social interaction corresponds to one, and only one RM (or alternatively, the asocial or the null interaction). This applies to two levels: the way people think of their dyadic relationships with particular persons [22, 23], and the way people categorize each aspect (e.g. decision making, allocation of resources, organization of work) of the coordination of a particular dyad [24]. At the same time, RMT points out that any relationship generally consist in a composite of RMs [1] (pp. 155-168). Using Table 3, any composite relationship arising from our model can X Y now be interpreted in terms of the RMs. For example, the relationship [A ! B and A ! B] isX Yinterpreted as EM for both X and Y. The relationship [A ! B, A ! B and A XX YYB] is an instanceof EM for X and CS for Y. The relationships space also includes cases that are less obvious. For X X Y instance, [A ! B, A ! B and A ! B] is interpreted in our categorization as EM for X and MPX Y Xfor X and Y. Yet it is rather odd to imagine two people.