An Operant Analysis of Human Altruistic Responding

Abstract

Human altruistic responding (called give responding), which delivered a reinforcer to someone other than the responder, was compared to responding where the responder was the recipient of the reinforcer (called earn responding). The same type of response (button pressing), the same reinforcer (a point representing a penny), and the same reinforcer contingency (a 40-response fixed-ratio schedule) were used for both give and earn responding. Since points representing pennies were used to reinforce give and earn responding, responding for points not worth money was also assessed. Give, earn, and point responding were arranged as concurrent incompatible operants. Lowest rates were obtained for point responding. Compared to earn responding, give responding occurred at lower rates, was more susceptible to cessation when point responding was possible, extinguished more rapidly in the absence of money, and produced less responding during reconditioning compared to conditioning when reconditioning followed a period of nonreinforcement. Give responding was less when it reduced the giver's opportunity to earn. Finally, histories of getting reinforcement from others were shown to determine give responding.

Free culturant: A software for the experimental study of behavioral and cultural selection.

“…Demonstrating that the behavior of one person is a relevant part of the environment of another in experimental contexts allows the description of social behavior from a natural science perspective. Early examples of this attempt include studies on cooperation (Hake, Donaldson, & Hyten, 1983; Hake, Olvera, & Bell, 1975; Hake & Schmid, 1981; Hake & Vukelich, 1972, 1973; Hake, Vukelich, & Kaplan, 1973; Hake, Vukelich, & Olvera, 1975; Marwell & Schmitt, 1975; Schmid & Hake, 1983; Schmitt, 1976, 1984, 1987), competition (Buskist, Barry, Morgan, & Rossi, 1984; Buskist & Morgan, 1987; Dougherty & Cherek, 1994; Hake, Olvera, & Bell, 1975; Lindsley, 1966), empathy (Watanabe & Ono, 1986), and altruism (Weiner, 1977).…”

Efecto del tipo de contingencia en el establecimiento y cualidad de intercambios verbales: su papel en la elección de alternativas compartidas

“…Dado que se observó que todos los participantes que no establecieron intercambios verbales de cualidad estratégica permanecieron respondiendo en la alternativa no compartida, pese a que dicha alternativa de respuesta otorgaba la mitad de las ganancias posibles en relación con las ganancias disponibles por responder en la alternativa compartida, puede decirse que la tesis económica que intenta explicar la conducta social dictada desde constructos teórico-experimentales como el Paradigma Operante del Análisis Experimental de la Conducta (e.g. Azrin & Lindsley, 1956;Glenn, 2004;Hake & Vukelich, 1972;Hursh & Roma, 2013;Lindsley, 1966;Okouchi, 2012;Skinner, 1962;Weiner, 1977;Yi & Rachlin, 2004) o la Teoría de Juegos (e.g. Bilbao & Fernández, 1999;Camerer, 2003;Gibbons, 1997;Osborne, 2004;Rostek, 2010;Shubik, 1982) y que puede resumirse para fines prácticos en un enunciado tal como las consecuencias y su posible maximización son suficientes para promover la conducta cooperativa, no ha sido apoyada por los datos recabados en este experimento.…”

“…El Paradigma Operante del Análisis Experimental de la Conducta y la Teoría de Juegos son ejemplos de perspectivas cuyos enunciados fundamentales para explicar la conducta cooperativa descansan en un principio económico-utilitario básico: el de las ganancias y su posible maximización (e.g. Azrin & Lindsley, 1956;Bilbao & Fernández, 1999;Camerer, 2003;Dugatkin, 1977;Glenn, 2004;Hake & Olvera, 1978;Hake & Vukelich, 1972;Hursh & Roma, 2013;Homans, 1961;Okouchi, 2012;Osborne, 2004;Rostek, 2010;Shubik, 1982;Skinner, 1953Skinner, , 1962Stephens & Anderson, 1997;Weiner, 1977;Weingarten & Mechner, 1966;Yi & Rachlin, 2004).…”

Positive Psychology: A Clinical Behavior Analytic Perspective

“…Similarly, Weiner (1977) demonstrated that sharing, the participant's willingness to "give" reinforcement to other experimental participants (thereby diminishing his or her own reinforcement), is actively created when the participant's own history of receiving sharing from others is manipulated appropriately. Weiner's work suggests that conditions arranged to evoke sharing at one point in time may have a lasting, useful effect.…”