Effects of being harmed or observing the harm on others in university students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24265/liberabit.2021.v27n2.03Keywords:
Social behavior; harmful behavior; socially valued behavior; harm distribution; harm notifications.Abstract
Background: Based on the characterization of harmful behaviors, understood as preventing others the fulfillment of their behavioral criterion. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different harm distributions and amounts regarding the choice of harming others or not. Method: An A-B design was used with a baseline and an experimental phase. Thirty-five (35) higher education students participated in the study. They were selected through a non-probability convenience sampling and randomly assigned to one of the seven study groups or a control group. Such study groups differed from each other by the type of harm distribution –i.e., received or observed– and the number of harm notifications –i.e., 1, 5 and 15–. The task was to solve arithmetic operations wherein the participation of three students was simulated. Said simulated students’ role could be to harm or be harmed, according to the group they belonged to. Results: The results indicate a significant differential effect among the distributions. Additionally, a tendency towards reciprocity was shown when someone was harmed, which was directly proportional to the harm amount. Conclusions: It is concluded that there are multifactorial emergency conditions of harmful behaviors, including the identification of the person who harms others, the score, the moment and the harmed person
Authorship contribution
RGR: contributed with the conception of the study and the programming of the task. He carried out the supervision of the study instrumentation, data collection, statistical analysis and proposed the general structure of the manuscript.
APH: contributed with the formal invitation to study participants, data collection and statistical analysis. She reviewed and revised the manuscript.
ARH: contributed with the formal invitation to the study participants, supervision of the study instrumentation, as well as data collection and data entry. She carried out the revision and modification of the manuscript.
ERH: contributed to the conception of the study and discussion of the design. She carried out the review and modification of the final manuscript.
HOSV: contributed with the discussion of the study design, as well as with the design and elaboration of the task to be performed. Carried out the final revision of the manuscript.
Downloads
References
Social Scientists. En J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, & H. Gintis (eds.), Foundations of
Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies (pp. 55-95). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199262055.003.0003
Carpio, C., Pacheco, V., Hernández, R., & Flores, C. (1995). Creencias, criterios y desarrollo psicológico. Acta
Comportamentalia, 3(1), 89-98. http://www.revistas. unam.mx/index.php/acom/article/view/18314/17398
Carpio, C., Silva, H., Garduño, H., Pacheco, L., Rodríguez, R., Chaparro, M., Carranza, J., & Morales, G. (2018).
Comportamiento pernicioso: el efecto de las consecuencias en la elección entre perjudicar/no perjudicar a un compañero. Universitas Psychologica, 17(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy17-3.cpec
Carranza, J. (2018). El papel de los componentes verbales en la transgresión: efectos de la historia referencial
valorativa y las consecuencias [tesis de doctorado, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México]. http://132.248.9.195/ptd2018/noviembre/0782348/Index.html
De Waal, F. (2002). El simio y el aprendiz de sushi. Reflexiones de un primatólogo sobre la cultura.Paidós.
Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., Aselage, J., & Rohdieck, S. (2004). Who Takes the Most Revenge? Individual
Differences in Negative Reciprocity Norm Endorsement. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30(6), 787-799. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264047
Fernández, A., Galguera, R., Galindo, L., & Silva, H. (2018). Efectos de la simetría/asimetría en la dificultad de la
tarea sobre la conducta perniciosa. Conductual, Revista Iinternacional de Interconductismo y Análisis
de Conducta, 6(1), 53-65. https://www.conductual.com/ articulos/Efectos%20de%20la%20simetria-asimetria
%20en%20la%20dificultad%20de%20la%20tarea%20sobre%20la%20conducta%20perniciosa.pdf
Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2010). Lying to Level the Playing Field: Why People may Dishonestly Help or Hurt
Others to Create Equity. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(S1), 89-103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0792-2
Kantor, J. R. (1978). Psicología interconductual. Un ejemplo de construcción científica sistemática. Trillas.
Kantor, J. R., & Smith, N. (2015). La ciencia de la psicología. Un estudio interconductual. Universidad de Guadalajara.
Kropotkin, P. (2016). El apoyo mutuo. Un factor de evolución. Editorial Pepitas de Calabaza.
Martínez, D., Olvera, L., Rocha, E., García, A., & Silva, H. (2018). Asimetría en la dificultad de la tarea y ventaja
del compañero en la elección entre perjudicar o no. Enseñanza e Investigación en Psicología, 23(3), 281-291.
Matthews, H. (1966). Lucha abierta en los mamíferos. En J. D. Carthy, & F. J. Ebling (eds.), Historia natural de la agresión (pp. 34-58). Siglo XXI Editores.
Pacheco-Lechón, L., & Carpio, C. (2014). Mediación lingüística en las interacciones sociales: el caso de las
instrucciones y los acuerdos verbales. Revista Electrónica de Psicología Iztacala, 17(2), 695-714. http://www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/repi/article/view/47175/42448
Pulido, L., Ribes, E., López, I., & López, B. (2015a). Interacciones altruistas totales como función de la
inducción de reciprocidad. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 41(1), 32-52. http://rmacmx.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/02_RMAC_41_1.pdf
Pulido, L., Ribes, E., López, I., & Reza, A. (2015b). Interacciones competitivas como función de la
inducción de reciprocidad. Acta Comportamentalia, 23(4), 359-374. https://www.academia.edu/28031558/In
teracciones_competitivas_como_funci%C3%B3n_de_la_inducci%C3%B3n_de_reciprocidad_2015_
Rangel, N., & Ribes, E. (2009). Leve of Authority and Response Cost in the Obedience of Schoolchildren.
Journal of Behavior, Healt & Social Issues, 1(2), 53-65. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2822/282221726006.pdf
Reyes, J., Galindo, L., Luevano, S., Rocha, E., & Olvera, L.(en prensa). Efectos de la historia situacional sobre la elección de contingencias individuales y compartidas. Revista Electrónica de Psicología Iztacala.
Ribes, E. (1990). Psicología general. Trillas.
Ribes, E. (1992). Factores macro y micro-socialesparticipantes en la regulación del comportamiento
psicológico. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 15(monográfico), 39-55. http://rmac-mx.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/VOL-18-M-39-55.pdf
Ribes, E. (2001). Functional Dimensions of Social Behavior: Theoretical Considerations and some Preliminary Data.
Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 27(2),285-306. http://rmac-mx.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/
05/Vol-27-n-2-285-306.pdf
Ribes, E. (2007). Estados y límites del campo, medios de contacto y análisis molar del comportamiento: reflexiones
teóricas. Acta Comportamentalia, 15(2), 229-259. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2745/274520160007.pdf
Ribes, E., & López, F. (1985). Teoría de la conducta. Un análisis de campo y paramétrico. Trillas.
Ribes, E., & Pérez-Almonacid, R. (2012). La función lógica del concepto de medio de contacto. Acta Comportamentalia, 20(2), 235-249. https://www. redalyc.org/pdf/2745/274524471008.pdf
Ribes, E., & Pulido, L. (2015). Reciprocidad, tipos de contingencias sociales sistémicas y lenguaje: investigación de las interacciones interindividuales. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 32(1), 81-91. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2430/243045363009.pdf
Ribes-Iñesta, E., Rangel, N., & López-Valadéz, F. (2008). Análisis teórico de las dimensiones funcionales del
comportamiento social. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 25(1), 45-57. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2430/243016300003.pdf
Rocha, E., Galguera, R., Pedraza, A., Aguilar, F., & Silva, H. (2018). Distribución del perjuicio como factor
disposicional situacional en la elección entre perjudicar o no a un compañero. Revista Electrónica de
Psicología Iztacala, 21(4), 1567-1586. http://www. revistas.unam.mx/index.php/repi/article/view/68031/60003
Rocha, R., Olvera-Hernández, L., Díaz-Garduño, A.,Basaldúa-Martínez, L., & Silva-Victoria, H. (2021).
Conducta perniciosa: efectos de la exposición a diferentes condiciones de perjuicio. Journal ofBehavior, Health & Social Issues, 13(1), 50-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/fesi.20070780e.2021.13.1.68965
Rodríguez, M. (2000). Análisis contingencial. UNAMFESI.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright: In the event that the manuscript is approved for future publication, the authors retain the copyright and assign to the journal the rights to publish, edit, reproduce, distribute, exhibit, and communicate nationally and internationally in the various databases, repositories and portals.
Self-archiving policy: The author can share, disseminate, and publicize his research published by the media (e.g., academic social networks, repositories, and portals) available on the web. During the editorial review process, the journal will provide the author with the previous versions (post-print) which should NOT be disclosed by any media, only for personal use and for final approval. Liberabit will send the author the final version of the article (published version) in PDF and HTML to be shared, disseminated and disclosed by the media available on the web. After the publication of the articles, the authors can make other independent or additional agreements for the non-exclusive dissemination of the version of the article published in this journal (publication in books or institutional repositories), provided that it is indicated with the respective reference that the work has been published for the first time in this journal.
How to Cite
