THE MEASUREMENT OF SHARING AND COOPERATION AS EQUITY EFFECTS AND SOME RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THEM¹

Abstract

The initial objective was to determine whether an increase in cooperative responses (minimal cooperation) was also accompanied by an increase in the degree of correspondence in the number of reinforcers of the two subjects (maximal cooperation). Correct matching-tosample responses of seven pairs of male adolescents were reinforced with money. On each trial, a subject could (1) give the matching-to-sample problem to his coactor (give or cooperative responses), or (2) take the problem for himself (take responses). The first member of the pair to respond made the choice. Correspondence did increase under this procedure as compared to a baseline where problems were distributed randomly. However, the increased cotrespondence usually resulted from take responses rather than cooperative give responses. This equitable method of problem distribution, designated as sharing, was characterized by the subjects alternately taking problems. The spacing of daily sessions may have been partly responsible for the high degree of correspondence, because correspondence did not increase within the usual number of sessions when the sessions were massed, i.e., all in one day. Daily sessions require cooperative responses, i.e., each subject has to show up each day for the other to earn money, and this dependency upon the coactor's behavior may facilitate some sharing or cooperation to ensure the coactor's attendance.A cooperation procedure may be defined as one in which the reinforcers of each member of a pair are at least partly dependent upon the responses of the other member (Hake and Vukelich, 1972). The cooperation effect is then defined by increases in these responses by both members of the pair. Hake and Vukelich (1972) suggested a second cooperation effect. While increases in cooperative responses are indicative of control by the reinforcer resulting from the cooperation procedure, control by the reciprocal nature of the cooperation procedure also requires equality or at least an increase in the degree of correspondence between the numbers of reinforcers or cooperative responses of the members of the pair. If cooperation is to be considered a social behav-

Effects of Social Context, Reinforcer Probability, and Reinforcer Magnitude on Humans' Choices to Compete or Not to Compete

“…These findings were attributed to a phenomenon that Schmitt characterized as an "escape from, or avoidance of, competition" (Schmitt, 1976, p. 232); this characterization was also cited as being consistent with other findings by Steigleder, Weiss, Balling, Wenninger, and Lombardo (1980) and Steigleder, Weiss, Cramer, and Feinberg (1978). In addition, others (Hake, Vukelich, & Olvera, 1975;Olvera & Hake, 1976) have reported sharp decreases in subjects' preference for competing after a brief exposure to choice schedules. For example, in the Olvera and Hake experiment (1976, see Figure 1), subjects were given the opportunity to compete or work alone for reinforcers on FR schedules.…”

BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: A REVIEW OF LANA'S ASSUMPTIONS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY1

“…Experimental analyses of social behavior have been undertaken by a few, such as Hake (Hake, Donaldson, & Hyten, 1983;Hake & Olvera, 1978;Hake, Olvera, & Bell, 1975;Hake, Vukelich, & Olvera, 1975;Vukelich & Hake, 1980), Schmitt (1987), Lindsley (1966, and others (Emurian, Emurian, & Brady, 1985;Spradlin, 1985). This work is important, but, as we have seen, the lesson from Lana is that much of social behavior is enacted through arbitrary verbal and gestural patterns that are reinforced through nonspecific reinforcement from verbal communities rather than through the gain or loss of points or through other specific social reinforcers.…”

Competitive Fixed‐interval Performance in Humans

“…Other kinds of social behavior are, for example, "sharing," in which individuals take turns responding after each reinforcement so that reinforcers are distributed fairly evenly (e.g., Hake, Vukelich, & Olvera, 1975) and various forms of cooperation, such as those in which subjects take turns responding, or in which effort is shared, and the responses of one person result in the reinforcer becoming available for the other (e.g., .…”