AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF COOPERATION IN A NATURAL SETTING
Resumen
differentiate at least two different types of interactions: cooperation and competition.
Specifically, several attempts have been made to predict and explain
cooperative behavior. Typically, it has been studied using artificial situations
(e.g. Azrin & Lindsley, 1956; Cohen & Lindsley, 1964; Lindsley, 1966; Mithaug
& Burgess, 1967, 1968; Schmitt, 1987; Schmitt & Marwell, 1968; Shimoff &
Matthews, 1975), being the most typical matrix games like the Prisoner’s
Dilemma, but recent studies have incorporated more naturalistic situations.
Following the research initiated by Ribes-Iñesta (Ribes-Iñesta, 2001; Ribes-
Iñesta & Rangel, 2002) we show how a computerized puzzle-solving task can
be used to improve our knowledge of dyadic interactions, as minimal settings
representative of social behavior. In three studies, the candidates for a job
position could cooperate or not cooperate with another candidate by helping
with the other’s puzzles. Results show that the behaviors could be classified
in three groups: non-cooperation, graded cooperation, and systematic cooperation.
These behavioral tendencies were highly consistent throughout the task and reasonably stable after a one-year interval. Their distribution is not
independent of gender; females show a higher frequency of non-cooperative
behavior than of systematic cooperation, whereas males show the reverse.
These results are in accordance with recent reports in the literature (e.g. Kurzban
& Houser, 2001). As previous studies, we demonstrate that the tendency
to cooperate is influenced by the cooperative tendency of the others.
Specifically, several attempts have been made to predict and explain
cooperative behavior. Typically, it has been studied using artificial situations
(e.g. Azrin & Lindsley, 1956; Cohen & Lindsley, 1964; Lindsley, 1966; Mithaug
& Burgess, 1967, 1968; Schmitt, 1987; Schmitt & Marwell, 1968; Shimoff &
Matthews, 1975), being the most typical matrix games like the Prisoner’s
Dilemma, but recent studies have incorporated more naturalistic situations.
Following the research initiated by Ribes-Iñesta (Ribes-Iñesta, 2001; Ribes-
Iñesta & Rangel, 2002) we show how a computerized puzzle-solving task can
be used to improve our knowledge of dyadic interactions, as minimal settings
representative of social behavior. In three studies, the candidates for a job
position could cooperate or not cooperate with another candidate by helping
with the other’s puzzles. Results show that the behaviors could be classified
in three groups: non-cooperation, graded cooperation, and systematic cooperation.
These behavioral tendencies were highly consistent throughout the task and reasonably stable after a one-year interval. Their distribution is not
independent of gender; females show a higher frequency of non-cooperative
behavior than of systematic cooperation, whereas males show the reverse.
These results are in accordance with recent reports in the literature (e.g. Kurzban
& Houser, 2001). As previous studies, we demonstrate that the tendency
to cooperate is influenced by the cooperative tendency of the others.