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

Abstract

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.

Acquisition and Maintenance of Trusting Behavior

“…The apparatus was similar to that described in earlier reports (e.g., Hake, Vukelich, & Kaplan, 1973) which may be consulted for exact dimensions. Each member of a pair had a sample panel for producing sample stimuli (left side of Figure 1) and a matching panel for matching responses (right side of Figure 1).…”

EFFECTS OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SELF AND COACTOR SCORES UPON THE AUDIT RESPONSES THAT ALLOW ACCESS TO THESE SCORES1

“…However, little is known about the rate of the responses that allow access to the scores or the variables that affect these responses. This is because the scores typically have been (1) provided by the experimenter's rather than the subject's responses, or (2) made available by responses that have consequences in addition to allowing access to a score (Hake, Vukelich, and Kaplan, 1973 pendent upon behavior has been an important method in social psychology for measuring the reinforcing aspects of social stimuli. Examples are imprinting stimuli (Peterson, 1960;Hoffman, Searle, Toffey, and Kozma, 1966), young offspring (Cross and Harlow, 1963), and sex stimuli (Sheffield, Wulff, and Backer, 1951).…”

“…Examples are imprinting stimuli (Peterson, 1960;Hoffman, Searle, Toffey, and Kozma, 1966), young offspring (Cross and Harlow, 1963), and sex stimuli (Sheffield, Wulff, and Backer, 1951). This same approach was followed by Hake et al (1973) in their attempt to measure scorechecking responses and the effects of another person upon them. Responses that allowed access to one's own or to another person's scores were designated as audit responses.…”

Efeitos do tipo de acesso à soma da pontuação do outro jogador na emissão de respostas "cooperativas" no jogo dilema do prisioneiro repetido

“…(Dougherty & Cherek, 1994;Hake, Vukelich, & Kaplan, 1973;Schmitt, 1998Schmitt, , 2000Vukelich & Hake, 1974). Porém, tais estudos têm investigado o efeito desta variável em respostas competitivas e não em respostas "cooperativas", no Jogo Dilema do Prisioneiro Repetido.…”

“…A primeira quando o próprio jogador opta por ter o acesso, clicando em um botão que lhe permite identificar os pontos (resposta de exame) (Dougherty & Cherek, 1994;Hake, Vukelich, & Kaplan, 1973;Schmitt, 2000e Vukelich & Hake, 1974. Neste caso não é necessário emitir a resposta de exame para que a tentativa seja concluída.…”