Risk Reduction and Resource Pooling on a Cooperation Task

Abstract

Two experiments investigated choice in adult humans on a simulated cooperation task to evaluate a risk-reduction account of sharing based on the energy-budget rule. The energy-budget rule is an optimal foraging model that predicts risk-averse choices when net energy gains exceed energy requirements (positive energy budget) and risk-prone choices when net energy gains fall below energy requirements (negative energy budget) . Because sharing can minimize variability in energy gain (i.e. , is a riskaverse strategy) , the model predicts that sharing should occur under positive but not negative budget conditions. Energy budgets were modeled by substituting money gains for energy gains and earnings requirements for energy requirements. Participants chose between work-alone or work-with-others (sharing) response options. Experiment 1 investigated the effects on choice of manipulating the value of the earnings requirement and the presence of the partner's money counter. Choice for the sharing option varied as a function of the earnings requirement in a pattern consistent with the predictions of the energy-budget rule. The presence of the partner's money counter did not influence preference. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1 and also showed that under conditions with no earnings requirement (conditions in which the energy-budget rule makes no predictions) , subjects often preferred the sharing option over the independent option when sharing increased the partner's 13arnings, and that subjects often preferred an independent option over the sharing option when the independent option produced a constant earnings amount. Overall, the results replicate and extend the results of earlier earnings-budget studies and further show that laboratory procedures are useful for evaluating the plredictions of risksensitive and social-foraging models.

Gender Differences in a Risk-Reduction Model of Sharing

“…These results are generally congruent with the predictions of the risk-reduction model, which suggests that individuals should engage in sharing when it reduces the variability of food outcomes and, in turn, reduces the risk of experiencing a shortfall (Winterhalder, 1986). In addition, the current study provides further evidence that human sharing using monetary outcomes in a laboratory setting can be accounted for by the risk-reduction model (e.g., Jimenez & Pietras, 2017, 2018Kameda et al, 2002;Kaplan et al, 2012;Pietras et al, 2006;Suleiman et al, 2015;Ward et al, 2009), as well as risksensitive choice laid out by the energy-budget rule (e.g., Deditius-Island et al, 2007;Ermer et al, 2008;Mishra & Fiddick, 2012;Mishra & Lalumiere, 2010;Pietras & Hackenberg, 2001;Pietras et al, 2003Pietras et al, , 2008Rode et al, 1999;Wang, 2002). Although it is interesting to note that the current participants' preference for the sharing option when experiencing a positive budget (M ¼ 5.05) was lower than in Jimenez and Pietras (2017) using the exact same methodology, M ¼ 5.54 (Exp 1); M ¼ 6.21 (Exp 2).…”

An Experimental Analysis of Cultural Materialism: The Effects of Various Modes of Production on Resource Sharing

“…Some before-mentioned optimal foraging research (cf. Pietras, Cherek, Lane, & Tcheremissine, 2006;Pietras & Hackenberg, 2001) also claim to investigate aspects of survival in relation to resources. Even though the latter studies have important methodological differences concerning the ways in which resources are used, the general subject-matter is somewhat similar and warrants the consideration of a methodological fusion in future research.…”

“…At least one existing program of research has the potential to be integrated into the current methodology-optimal foraging research on energy-budgets (Pietras & Hackenberg, 2001;Pietras, Cherek, Lane, & Tcheremissine, 2006). For instance, recent optimal foraging work extending energy-budget research to individual (Pietras & Hackenberg, 2001) and cooperative (Pietras et al, 2006) human behavior uses methods similar to those comprising survival contingencies in the current study.…”

“…For instance, recent optimal foraging work extending energy-budget research to individual (Pietras & Hackenberg, 2001) and cooperative (Pietras et al, 2006) human behavior uses methods similar to those comprising survival contingencies in the current study. An energy-budget refers to the relation between: (a) an organism's current resource intake and reserves, and (b) an organism's resource requirements for survival over a given unit of time.…”

“…Furthermore, the Pietras et al (2006) study asked a question similar to the present study concerning the combinations of resource availability and requirements that evoke cooperative or independent responding. Pietras et al found that when average earnings for individual work fell below the energy requirement (i.e., participants couldn't keep many earnings by working individually), participants chose a cooperative resource-pooling response that produced stable and sufficient earnings.…”