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

Abstract

An audit response allows access to an existing score from a subject's own performance (self audit) or from his coactor's performance (coactor audit), A previous study found that social stimuli (coactor present) increased audits relative to a non-social (no coactor) condition. The increase, designated a social-stimulus effect, was found to be due more to the coactor's score than to his mere presence. This finding suggested that the difference between self and coactor scores might affect the size of the social-stimulus effect. In the present study, six pairs of human subjects matched-to-sample for points that were exchangeable for money. During a session, matching-to-sample problems were distributed so that a subject's score was ahead, behind, or about even with his coactor's score. The even condition produced the largest social-stimulus effects, i.e., the most audits that could not be attributed to nonsocial variables such as time or number of problems. The even condition may have produced the largest social-stimulus effects because it was the only condition where the major social reinforcer (being ahead) could be both present or absent and, consequently, the even condition was the only one where audits had a discriminative function with respect to the presence of the major social reinforcer.

Effects of Competitive Reward Distribution on Auditing and Competitive Responding

“…These differences likely account for the more frequent auditing in 100%/0% contests, particularly those in which partners were evenly matched. This result is consistent with earlier findings of more frequent auditing with small score discrepancies (Buskist & Morgan, 1988;Vukelich & Hake, 1974). Consistent with the greater reinforcing effects of good news, auditing was more frequent by winners than losers regardless of distribution, but winners did not consistently choose to view such news (i.e., audit rates were well below the maximum).…”

“…Each audit response consisted of five responses on a lever, and provided information concerning the other's score (coactor audits). In both studies, auditing was more frequent when scores were similar than when large discrepancies developed, consistent with Vukelich and Hake's (1974) findings. In the second study, they also found auditing by subjects who were behind during competition, but not by ones who were far ahead.…”

“…Hake et al (1973) found that adding a 2nd subject to the setting led to coactor audits and an increase in self-audits. Vukelich and Hake (1974) found that subjects made interpersonal audits more frequently when their scores were even, as opposed to ahead or behind. Hake and Olvera (1978) suggested that the audit option should increase the likelihood of exchange by allowing subjects to adjust their responding to achieve an equitable exchange.…”

Positive and Negative Reinforcement Effects on Behavior in a Three‐person Microsociety

“…These two response domains may be functionally related: An initially high rate of interpersonal auditing under conditions of positive reinforcement may indicate, as a behavioral "marker" of individual differences, sensitivity to disruptive reactions when inequity exists under conditions of negative reinforcement. The importance of measuring several concurrent responses has also been demonstrated with human behavior analyses where a person's rate of auditing his and anothers performance "score," produced within the context of a dyadic social relationship, was interpretable in terms of other observations (Hake, Vukelich, & Kaplan, 1973;Vukelich & Hake, 1974). High rates of auditing in both situations may be functionally related to a subject's low level of "trust" that an equitable relationship between work and reinforcers will prevail over time (Hake & Schmid, 1981;Schmid & Hake, 1983).…”

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.…”