Skip to main content
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior logoLink to Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
. 1975 Nov;24(3):343–354. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-343

Switching from competition to sharing or cooperation at large response requirements: competition requires more responding1

Don F Hake, Dennis Olvera, James C Bell
PMCID: PMC1333436  PMID: 16811886

Abstract

Two pairs of high-school students matched-to-sample for money. On each trial, a subject could either respond on one lever to take the matching-to-sample problem himself (taking response) or respond on a second lever to give the problem to his coactor (giving response). The first subject to complete the response requirement determined the distribution of the problem. Competition maximizes the amount of responding over trials, i.e., both subjects make taking responses on each trial. Sharing and cooperation minimize responding: only one subject makes a taking response (sharing) or a giving response (cooperation) on each trial, and the subjects alternate responding such that there is an equitable distribution of responses and reinforcers over trials. Large increases in the fixed-ratio response requirement to distribute problems produced: (1) a switch from competition to sharing or cooperation, (2) the expected concomitant change from inequitable to equitable distributions of reinforcers, and (3) a reduction in the amount of responding for three of the four subjects. Previous animal research has shown that large response requirements may have aversive properties. Switching from competition to sharing or cooperation at large response requirements allows a reduction in responding and, at the same time, a moderate number of reinforcers for each subject.

Keywords: competition, sharing, cooperation, fixed ratio, adjusting ratio, force requirement, audit response, match-to-sample, humans

Full text

PDF
343

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. APPEL J. B. Aversive aspects of a schedule of positive reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Jul;6:423–428. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. AZRIN N. H. Time-out from positive reinforcement. Science. 1961 Feb 10;133(3450):382–383. doi: 10.1126/science.133.3450.382. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dardano J. F. Self-imposed timeouts under increasing response requirements. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Mar;19(2):269–287. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hake D. F., Vukelich R., Kaplan S. J. Audit responses: responses maintained by access to existing self or coactor scores during non-social, parallel work, and cooperation procedures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 May;19(3):409–423. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hake D. F., Vukelich R., Kaplan S. J. Audit responses: responses maintained by access to existing self or coactor scores during non-social, parallel work, and cooperation procedures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 May;19(3):409–423. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hake D. F., Vukelich R., Olvera D. The measurement of sharing and cooperation as equity effects and some relationships between them. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Jan;23(1):63–79. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.23-63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES