I wrote a brief essay here on the Forum a while back which suggested that reciprocity as anthropologists understand the term may account for the historical origins of money. The theory (not my own) holds that humans are hardwired by evolution to repay kindness with kindness and insult with insult. In a natural (pre-civilized) society, these tit-for-tat obligations can build up over time until a crisis occurs such that the network of obligations must be resolved. Money, according to this view, came into use as a way of paying off or canceling social debts that needed to be quantified so that they could be settled.
The source article provides some background on the way anthropologists think about reciprocity.
Personally, I think it is wonderful to discover how tit-for-tat psychology might explain historical events or even the unconscious processes that yield evolutionary success, but that doesn’t mean that tit-for-tat is a good rule to live by. More likely, this particular neurological wiring is merely hackable.
To be immune, one must at least conceive of higher possibilities.