ANALYSIS OF THE CONTROL EXERTED BY A COMPLEX COOPERATION PROCEDURE<sup>1</sup>

Hake, D. F.; Vukelich, Ron

doi:10.1901/jeab.1973.19-3

Cited by 23 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Humans frequently emit responses that produce scores on their own or another person's performance. For example, in a recent study of cooperation, subjects frequently asked partners how many points were earned (Hake and Vukelich, 1973). Similar responses can be observed in many human situations, particularly those involving school, work, and games.…”

mentioning

confidence: 58%

“…Audit responses were initially observed by the authors dturing a cooperation proceduire wlhen stubjects asked one anotlher about their scores (Hake and Vukelich, 1973). In that study, cooperation did not appear to be a tunitary social process; otlher social plhenomena SuChi as aud(lit r-esponses an(I lea(lerslhip responses were observed during cooperation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Audit responses are one way that subjects can keep track of their relative score and learn whether or not their partner is responding in a reciprocal manner. In the study of Hake and Vukelich (1973), subjects were free to make cooperative responses at any rate; cooperation increased the correspondence of the number of responses of the two subjects over that observed during a parallel work procedure where the subjects were also free to respond at any rate. However, during cooperation, some subjects underestimated their score when questioned by their partner.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The apparatus was essentially the same as in Hake and Vukelich (1973). Each member of a pair had a matching-to-sample apparatus that consisted of a panel for producing the sample stimuli (left side of Figure 1) and a panel for matching the sample stimuli (riglht side of Figure 1).…”

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

AUDIT RESPONSES: RESPONSES MAINTAINED BY ACCESS TO EXISTING SELF OR COACTOR SCORES DURING NON‐SOCIAL, PARALLEL WORK, AND COOPERATION PROCEDURES¹

Hake¹,

Vukelich²,

Kaplan

1973

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human subjects, mostly between 11 and 16 yr old, matched to sample for points that were exchangeable for money. An audit response was defined as a response maintained by allowing a subject access to an existing score on his own (self audit) or a coactor's (coactor audit) performance. In Experiment I, changes from non-social procedures (no coactor) to social procedures (coactor present) increased self and coactor audits. Since both types of audits occurred at about the same rates during cooperation and parallel work procedures, the increases did not depend on the subjects' response interactions. Although Experiment I did not demonstrate that subjects were comparing scores, the frequent occurrence of each kind of audit within a brief time period (interpersonal audit) did indicate that it was reinforcing to have both scores at the same time. These interpersonal audits suggested that the coactor's score increased self audits during social procedures. Experiment II supported this notion: relative to a non-social procedure, self audits increased more during a parallel work procedure when the coactor's score was accessible than when it was not accessible. Thus, increases in other behaviors that occur in the presence of a coactor, i.e., social facilitation, may also result from or be increased by providing a coactor's score.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 58%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

AUDIT RESPONSES: RESPONSES MAINTAINED BY ACCESS TO EXISTING SELF OR COACTOR SCORES DURING NON‐SOCIAL, PARALLEL WORK, AND COOPERATION PROCEDURES¹

Hake¹,

Vukelich²,

Kaplan

1973

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Experiments have been conducted to analyze phenomena such as cooperation and competition, but mainly focusing on individual responses, as pressing a button (e.g., Hake & Vukelich, 1973;Schmitt, 1976). In experiments like these, the behavior of cooperation (responding under control of a co-participant) would lead to reinforcers of higher magnitude than responding individually.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Exposure to Macrocontingencies in Isolation and social Situations in the Production of Ethical Self-Control

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethical self-control is conceived of as self-controlled responding under concurrent contingencies involving (conflicts of) consequences for the individual, and consequences for the group. The study assessed the production of ethical self-control repertoires in laboratory microcultures under four different macrocontingency arrangements. The experiment was held with eleven groups of four college students each. They were exposed to a task that required a choice of odd or even rows in an 8x8 matrix. Odd rows produced higher individual reinforcements and delayed aversive consequences for the group, thus being labeled impulsive selfish choices; even rows produced lower reinforcements for the individual participant, but positive delayed consequences for the group, thus labeled ethical selfcontrolled choices. Each group was exposed to only one condition. In the first condition, each participant was exposed alone to the task, producing high rates of impulsive selfish choices. In the second condition, the four participants were exposed to the task together, with access to one another's choices and being allowed to talk. The result was a high rate of ethical self-controlled choices. In the third condition, participants were exposed to the task together, could talk, but had no direct access to each other´s choices, which also resulted in a high rate of ethical self-controlled choices. In the fourth condition, participants were exposed to the task together, but could not talk, and had no access to each other´s choices. Results from this experiment show a higher rate of impulsive selfish choices. The data on the four conditions suggest that the possibility of verbal interaction has more effect on the emergence of ethical selfcontrolled responses than access to each other´s responses.

show abstract

An analysis of coordinated responding of pigeons

Katz,

Lattal

2024

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experimental analyses of coordinated responding (i.e., cooperation) have been derived from a procedure described by Skinner (1962) in which reinforcers were delivered to a pair of subjects (a dyad) if both responded within a short interval, thus satisfying a coordination contingency. Although it has been suggested that this contingency enhances rates of temporally coordinated responding, limitations of past experiments have raised questions concerning this conclusion. The present experiments addressed some of these limitations by holding the schedule of reinforcement (Experiment 1: fixed ratio 1; Experiment 2; variable interval 20 s) constant across phases and between dyad members and by varying, in different conditions, the number of response keys (one to three) across which coordination could occur. Greater percentages of coordinated responding occurred under the coordinated‐reinforcement phases than under independent‐reinforcement phases in most conditions. The one exception during the one‐key condition of Experiment 1 appeared to be a consequence of variability introduced by the independent‐reinforcement phase procedure. Furthermore, coordination percentages decreased with increasing response options under both schedules. These results confirm and extend the finding that coordination contingencies control higher rates of temporally coordinated responding than independent‐reinforcement contingencies do.

show abstract

ANALYSIS OF THE CONTROL EXERTED BY A COMPLEX COOPERATION PROCEDURE¹

Cited by 23 publications

References 8 publications

AUDIT RESPONSES: RESPONSES MAINTAINED BY ACCESS TO EXISTING SELF OR COACTOR SCORES DURING NON‐SOCIAL, PARALLEL WORK, AND COOPERATION PROCEDURES¹

AUDIT RESPONSES: RESPONSES MAINTAINED BY ACCESS TO EXISTING SELF OR COACTOR SCORES DURING NON‐SOCIAL, PARALLEL WORK, AND COOPERATION PROCEDURES¹

Effects of Exposure to Macrocontingencies in Isolation and social Situations in the Production of Ethical Self-Control

An analysis of coordinated responding of pigeons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

ANALYSIS OF THE CONTROL EXERTED BY A COMPLEX COOPERATION PROCEDURE1

Cited by 23 publications

References 8 publications

AUDIT RESPONSES: RESPONSES MAINTAINED BY ACCESS TO EXISTING SELF OR COACTOR SCORES DURING NON‐SOCIAL, PARALLEL WORK, AND COOPERATION PROCEDURES1

AUDIT RESPONSES: RESPONSES MAINTAINED BY ACCESS TO EXISTING SELF OR COACTOR SCORES DURING NON‐SOCIAL, PARALLEL WORK, AND COOPERATION PROCEDURES1

Effects of Exposure to Macrocontingencies in Isolation and social Situations in the Production of Ethical Self-Control

An analysis of coordinated responding of pigeons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

ANALYSIS OF THE CONTROL EXERTED BY A COMPLEX COOPERATION PROCEDURE¹

AUDIT RESPONSES: RESPONSES MAINTAINED BY ACCESS TO EXISTING SELF OR COACTOR SCORES DURING NON‐SOCIAL, PARALLEL WORK, AND COOPERATION PROCEDURES¹

AUDIT RESPONSES: RESPONSES MAINTAINED BY ACCESS TO EXISTING SELF OR COACTOR SCORES DURING NON‐SOCIAL, PARALLEL WORK, AND COOPERATION PROCEDURES¹