Measuring Individual Differences in Altruism with Altruistic Learning Task

이타 행동은 타인의 안녕에 가치를 부여하는 과정을 필요로 한다. 본 연구에서는 사람들이 타인의 안녕에 가치를 부여하는 정도를 측정하는 이타적 강화학습과제를 개발하고 공감 성향과 내집단 편향과의 관련성을 살펴보았다. 강화학습과제에서 참가자들은 주어진 두 개의 옵션 중 하나를 선택하여 보상을 얻을 수 있는데, 각 옵션의 보상 확률은 30%와 70%로 다르고, 시행을 반복하면서 선택과 결과 간의 관계를 학습해야 한다. 여기서 보상에 가치를 부여하는 정도는 보상 확률이 높은 옵션을 선택하는 빈도로 측정된다. 실험 1에서는 자신에게 도움이 되는 자기-보상, 자신과 타인에게 모두 도움이 되는 공동-보상, 타인에게만 도움이 되는 타인-보상 조건에서 참가자들의 학습 정도를 비교하고 공감 성향에 따라서 어떻게 다른 선택을 하는지 살펴보았다. 그 결과, 정서적 공감 성향이 높은 참가자들이 공동-보상 조건과 타인-보상 조건에서 높은 수행을 보여서 타인의 안녕에 더 많은 가치를 부여하는 것으로 나타났다. 실험 2에서는 최소집단 패러다임을 이용하여 이타적 강화학습과제에서 내집단 편향이 관찰되는지 확인하였다. 참가자들은 내집단원에게 더 호감을 보였으며, 자신에게 도움이 되는 자기-보상 조건, 내집단원에게 도움이 되는 내집단원-보상 조건, 외집단원에게 도움이 되는 외집단원-보상 조건에서의 선택을 비교하였을 때, 자기-보상 조건과 내집단원-보상 조건에는 차이가 없고 외집단원-보상 조건에서만 보상 확률이 높은 그림을 선택하는 빈도가 낮았다. 즉, 외집단원보다는 내집단원의 안녕에 더 많은 가치를 부여했다. 실험 1과 실험 2의 결과는 이타적 강화학습과제가 이타성을 측정하는 타당한 방법으로 사용될 수 있는 가능성을 시사한다.

keywords: 강화학습, 이타성, 공감, 최소집단, 내집단 편향, reinforcement learning, altruism, empathy, minimal group, ingroup bias

Abstract

Altruism requires representing and valuing others' welfare. In the present study, we designed the Altruistic Learning task (AL task) to measure individual differences in valuing another person's welfare and examined its relationship with dispositional empathy (Experiment 1) as well as ingroup bias/parochial altruism (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, participants performed the AL task in which they made choices between a pair of stimuli with different reward probabilities (30% vs. 70%) to reduce the amount of stress for themselves or their peer participants. The task consisted of three within-subject conditions (i.e. SELF, BOTH, and OTHER conditions) where different types of outcome (i.e. points for self, for both, and for other) were associated with three different pairs of stimuli. The amount of value that each participant attached to a given outcome can be measured with the frequency of choosing the higher reward probability option (HRP option). The results showed that participants who scored higher in personal distress and empathic concern measured by IRI (Davis, 1983) were more likely to choose the HRP option in the BOTH and OTHER conditions, indicating the role of emotional empathy iin the process of valuing other-regarding outcomes. In Experiment 2, we employed the minimal group paradigm (Tajfel, 1970) and compared choices for an ingroup member with those for an outgroup member in the AL task. We employed the same experimental design as the Experiment 1, except for having INGROUP and OUTGROUP conditions, instead of previous BOTH and OTHER conditions. The choice frequency for the HRP option was higher in the SELF and INGROUP conditions than the OUTGROUP condition, indicating ingroup bias of the participants in valuing welfare of others. Our findings demonstrated that the AL task can be a useful and valid measure of individual differences in altruism.

keywords: 강화학습, 이타성, 공감, 최소집단, 내집단 편향, reinforcement learning, altruism, empathy, minimal group, ingroup bias

참고문헌

김미희, 김기범, & 차영란 (2005). 현실 및 가상공간에서의 집단범주화 방식과 상호작용 여부에 따른 집단성 지각 및 내집단편애. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 19(3), 37-54.

김용훈, 류리나, & 한성열 (2012). 도움행동을높이기 위한 방안 모색: 공감과 공정성이도움행동의도에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 18(3), 349-366.

Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. Economic Journal, 100, 464-477.

Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Batson, C. D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L., McMaster, M. R., & Griffitt, C. (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(1), 52-77.

Batson, C. D., Eklund, J. H., Chermok, V. L., Hoyt, J. L., & Ortiz, B. G. (2007). An additional antecedent of empathic concern:Valuing the welfare of the person in need. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 65-74.

Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imaging how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 751-758.

Batson, C. D., Turk, C. L., Shaw, L. L., & Klein, T. R. (1995). Information function of empathic emotion: Learning that we value the other's welfare. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 300-313.

Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of social interactions. Journal of Political Economy, 82, 10-83.

10.

Bernhard, H., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2006). Parochial altruism in humans. Nature, 442(7105), 912-915.

11.

Bolton, G. E. & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. American Economic Reivew, 90, 166-193.

12.

Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitivemotivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 307-324.

13.

Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429-444.

14.

Buttelmann, D., & Böhm, R. (2014). The ontogeny of the motivation that underlies in-group bias. Psychological Science, 25(4), 921-927.

15.

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306-307.

16.

Charness, G. and Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 817-869.

17.

Choi, J. K., & Bowles, S. (2007). The coevolution of parochial altruism and war. Science, 318(5850), 636-640.

18.

Cialdini, R. B. (1991). Altruism or egoism? That is (still) the question. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 124-126.

19.

Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS:Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

20.

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113-126.

21.

Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.

22.

De Dreu, C. K., Greer, L. L., Handgraaf, M. J., Shalvi, S., Van Kleef, G. A., Baas, M., ... & Feith, S. W. (2010). The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans. Science, 328(5984), 1408-1411.

23.

De Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 279-300.

24.

Eisenberg, N., & Eggum, N. D. (2009). Empathic responding: Sympathy and personal distress. In J. Decety, & W. Ickes, (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp.71-83). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

25.

Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Cumberland, A., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Zhou, Q., & Carlo, G. (2002). Prosocial development in early adulthood: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 993-1006.

26.

Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91-119.

27.

Fehr, E., Bernhard, H., & Rockenbach, B. (2008). Egalitarianism in young children. Nature, 454(7208), 1079-1083.

28.

Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425(6960), 785-791.

29.

Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817-868.

30.

García, J., & van den Bergh, J. C. (2011). Evolution of parochial altruism by multilevel selection. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(4), 277-287.

31.

Harbaugh, W. T. (1998). What do donations buy?: A model of philanthropy based on prestige and warm glow. Journal of Public Economics, 67(2), 269-284.

32.

Harbaugh, W. T., Mayr, U., & Burghart, D. R. (2007). Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science, 316(5831), 1622-1625.

33.

Hare, T. A., Camerer, C. F., Knoepfle, D. T., O'Doherty, J. P., & Rangel, A. (2010). Value computations in ventral medial prefrontal cortex during charitable decision making incorporate input from regions involved in social cognition. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30(2), 583-590.

34.

Halevy, N., Bornstein, G., & Sagiv, L. (2008). “In-group love” and “out-group hate” as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict: A new game paradigm. Psychological Science, 19(4), 405-411.

35.

Halevy, N., Weisel, O., & Bornstein, G. (2012). “In‐group love” and “out‐group hate” in repeated interaction between groups. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(2), 188-195.

36.

Hein, G., Silani, G., Preuschoff, K., Batson, C. D., & Singer, T. (2010). Neural responses to ingroup and outgroup members' suffering predict individual differences in costly helping. Neuron, 68(1), 149-160.

37.

Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 575-604.

38.

Iacoboni, M. (2009). Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 653-670.

39.

Kim, H., Shimojo, S., & O'Doherty, J. P. (2006). Is avoiding an aversive outcome rewarding? Neural substrates of avoidance learning in the human brain. PLoS Biology, 4(8), e233.

40.

Lamm, C., Batson, C. D., & Decety, J. (2007). The neural substrate of human empathy:Effects of perspective-taking and cognitive appraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(1), 42-58.

41.

Levine, D. K. (1998). Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Review of Economic Dynamics, 1, 593-622.

42.

Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention:How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(4), 443-453.

43.

Ma, Y., Wang, C., & Han, S. (2011). Neural responses to perceived pain in others predict real-life monetary donations in different socioeconomic contexts. NeuroImage, 57(3), 1273-1280.

44.

Macaulay, J., & Berkowitz, L. (Eds.). (1970). Altruism and helping behavior: Social psychological studies of some antecedents and consequences. New York, NY: Academic Press.

45.

Maner, J. K., Luce, C. L., Neuberg, S. L., Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S., & Sagarin, B. J. (2002). The effects of perspective taking on motivations for helping: Still no evidence for altruism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(11), 1601-1610.

46.

Masten, C. L., Morelli, S. A., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2011). An fMRI investigation of empathy for ‘social pain’ and subsequent prosocial behavior. NeuroImage, 55(1), 381-388.

47.

Oswald, P. A. (1996). The effects of cognitive and affective perspective taking on empathic concern and altruistic helping. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136(5), 613-623.

48.

Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. American Economic Review, 83, 1281-1302.

49.

Saxe, R. (2006). Uniquely human social cognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16(2), 235-239.

50.

Singer, T. (2006). The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading:review of literature and implications for future research. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(6), 855-863.

51.

Sobel, J. (2005). Interdependent preferences and reciprocity. Journal of Economic Literature, 43, 392-436.

52.

Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (2014). 타인에게로:이타 행동의 진화와 심리학. (설선혜, 김민우 옮김). 서울: 서울대학교출판문화원. (원서출판: 1999).

53.

Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., Kropp, A., & Siem, B. (2006). Empathy-motivated helping: The moderating role of group membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 943-956.

54.

Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Introduction to reinforcement learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

55.

Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), 96-102.

56.

Yamagishi, T., & Mifune, N. (2009). Social exchange and solidarity: In-group love or out-group hate? Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(4), 229-237.

바로가기메뉴

논문 상세

Vol.33 No.2

이타적 강화학습 과제를 이용한 이타성의 측정

Measuring Individual Differences in Altruism with Altruistic Learning Task

초록

Abstract

참고문헌

한국심리학회지: 일반