More importantly, we observe large differences in values of reciprocity and relative reciprocity of comments and favorites.
The results are reported in Table 2. Clusters reported in Table 1 were regrouped, according to sequence similarity, strand reciprocity and relative genomic position of their elements, as described in Methods.
This relative reciprocity compares the reciprocity between the members with their reciprocity toward people not belonging to the group.
Comparing relative reciprocity, there might be a trend for reciprocating more in the effort condition, but the difference is not significant (p-val = 0.27; paired t-test).
Thus, when subjects traded effort they showed a significantly higher variability of relative reciprocity values.
Relative reciprocity, although its average does not differ across conditions (recall Fig. 3), has more variance in the effort condition.
The only difference we found across the conditions was that relative reciprocity is more variable in the effort condition.
Thus, subjects give back more if they receive more, although the relative reciprocity does not appear to depend strongly on the relative trust.
The only significant difference was in the variability of behavior, with subjects showing a wider range of relative reciprocity values in the effort condition.
Our results also show a relative reciprocity in the expression of the ΔNp63 and TAp63 isoforms in young and aged thymi, with a particularly noticeable increase in TAp63 in the aged thymi.
