An operant analysis of human altruistic responding.
Behaviors that help others fade faster than behaviors that help the learner, even when the payoff looks the same.
01Research in Context
What this study did
College students sat at a computer. They could press one button to earn money for themselves or another button to give the same amount to a stranger.
Both buttons paid 25 cents on the same schedule. The team watched how long each choice kept going when payments stopped.
What they found
People pressed the selfish button more often. When payments ended, the altruistic button died out twice as fast.
Even when payments came back, the selfish button bounced back stronger. Past history with money made the gap even bigger.
How this fits with other research
Thrailkill et al. (2018) later showed that any behavior backed by lots of reinforcement comes back harder after extinction. The altruistic button had less history, so it faded faster — the same rule in action.
Kuroda et al. (2018) proved that the link between response and reward matters more than the reward itself. Here, the link to another person weakened that bond.
LeBlanc et al. (2003) found that rich schedules make behavior tough to disrupt. The self-benefit schedule felt richer to the students, so it resisted change better.
Why it matters
Your client’s prosocial skills may look strong during training, yet drop fast when rewards pause. Build extra practice trials and booster sessions for any behavior that benefits others, not just the client.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add extra maintenance trials for any prosocial skill and schedule booster checks after breaks.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Human altruistic responding (called give responding), which delivered a reinforcer to someone other than the responder, was compared to responding where the responder was the recipient of the reinforcer (called earn responding). The same type of response (button pressing), the same reinforcer (a point representing a penny), and the same reinforcer contingency (a 40-response fixed-ratio schedule) were used for both give and earn responding. Since points representing pennies were used to reinforce give and earn responding, responding for points not worth money was also assessed. Give, earn, and point responding were arranged as concurrent incompatible operants. Lowest rates were obtained for point responding. Compared to earn responding, give responding occurred at lower rates, was more susceptible to cessation when point responding was possible, extinguished more rapidly in the absence of money, and produced less responding during reconditioning compared to conditioning when reconditioning followed a period of nonreinforcement. Give responding was less when it reduced the giver's opportunity to earn. Finally, histories of getting reinforcement from others were shown to determine give responding.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1977 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1977.27-515