Published September 28, 2018 | Version v1
Journal article Open

BEHAVIOR REACTIONS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH EGOISTIC AND ALTRUISTIC TYPE OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Creators

  • 1. Lutsk Pedagogical College
  • 2. Lesya Ukrainka Eastern European National University
  • 3. Lessya Ukrainka Eastern European National University

Description

Different types of social behavior are characterized by different behavioral reactions. Characteristics of selfish and altruistic social behavior are not clearly confirmed by the data of psychophysiological studies. Therefore, the purpose of the work is to identify the peculiarities of behavioral reactions of individuals with more expressed egoistic and altruistic social behavior, which are based on data of electroencephalographic research. 120 (aged 21±4 years) individuals took part in the study. As a result of complex psychological testing (based on Leary’s test) all subjects were divided into two groups - altruistic and egoistic. Registration of electrical activity was carried out in a model of collective interaction using the Stag Hunt Game and a specially developed model of social behavior Mini-Basketball. The number of elections for egoistic and altruistic stimulus and the reaction time to them were observed in the study. The stimulus "Rabbit" and "Throw" were considered as egoistic; “Stag" and "Pass" - as altruistic in accordance with the test methods. As a result, the frequency of choosing the type of stimuli corresponds to the social orientation of the individuals. The reaction time increases with the choice of the type of stimulus, which does not coincide with the type of social orientation of the subject.

Files

BEHAVIOR REACTIONS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH EGOISTIC AND ALTRUISTIC TYPE OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR.pdf

Files (331.7 kB)

Additional details

References

  • Adolphs, R. (1999). Social cognition and the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3 (12), 469–479. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(99)01399-6
  • Walker, O. L., Henderson, H. A. (2012). Temperament and Social Problem Solving Competence in Preschool: Influences on Academic Skills in Early Elementary School. Social Development, 21 (4), 761–779. doi: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00653.x
  • Declerck, C. H., Boone, C., Emonds, G. (2013). When do people cooperate? The neuroeconomics of prosocial decision making. Brain and Cognition, 81 (1), 95–117. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2012.09.009
  • Engemann, D. A., Bzdok, D., Eickhoff, S. B., Vogeley, K., Schilbach, L. (2012). Games people play—toward an enactive view of cooperation in social neuroscience. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–14. doi: http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00148
  • De Vico Fallani, F., Nicosia, V., Sinatra, R., Astolfi, L., Cincotti, F., Mattia, D. et. al. (2010). Defecting or Not Defecting: How to "Read" Human Behavior during Cooperative Games by EEG Measurements. PLoS ONE, 5 (12), e14187. doi: http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014187
  • Leary, T. (1958) Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 37 (6), 331.
  • Liebrand, W. B., Jansen, R. W. T., Rijken, V. M., Suhre, C. J. (1986). Might over morality: Social values and the perception of other players in experimental games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22 (3), 203–215. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(86)90024-7
  • Declerck, C. H., Boone, C., Kiyonari, T. (2010). Oxytocin and cooperation under conditions of uncertainty: The modulating role of incentives and social information. Hormones and Behavior, 57 (3), 368–374. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.01.006
  • Bhatt, M., Camerer, C. F. (2005). Self-referential thinking and equilibrium as states of mind in games: fMRI evidence. Games and Economic Behavior, 52 (2), 424–459. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2005.03.007
  • Fox, N. A., Henderson, H. A., Marshall, P. J., Nichols, K. E., Ghera, M. M. (2005). Behavioral Inhibition: Linking Biology and Behavior within a Developmental Framework. Annual Review of Psychology, 56 (1), 235–262. doi: http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141532