Abstract
In four experiments, dyad members made noncompetitive responses for a mutual reinforcer. Satisfying reinforcement requirements delivered a single reinforcer (points) to both subjects as a team. The purpose of this research was two-fold: First, to discover the degree to which individual behavior is sensitive to team-like contingencies, and second, to ask how the social context itself can modulate the effects of team-like contingencies on individual behavior. Variables manipulated included fixed-ratio size, conjunctive reinforcement, reinforcer magnitude, and social context. Results showed that (1) individual subjects responded consistently in an alternating all-or-none pattern at lower FR values, (2) experimental contingencies embedded within the FR schedule exerted powerful control over individual responding, (3) changes in the reinforcer magnitude also radically altered how each subject responded, and (4) changing the social context to not allow subjects to converse did not significantly alter subjects’ behavior. These results suggest that team-like contingencies can control individual patterns of behavior and that particular social aspects of the environment do not necessarily mediate individual behavior in such situations.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BARON, A., PERONE, M., & GALIZIO, M. (1991a). Analyzing the reinforcement process at the human level: Can application and behavioristic interpretation replace laboratory research? The Behavior Analyst, 14, 95–106.
BARON, A., PERONE, M., & GALIZIO, M. (1991b). The experimental analysis of human behavior: Indispensable, ancillary, or irrelevant? The Behavior Analyst, 14, 145–156.
BRANCH, M. N. (1991). On the difficulty of studying “basic” behavioral processes in humans. The Behavior Analyst, 14, 107–110.
BUSKIST, W., BARRY, A., MORGAN, D., & ROSSI, M. (1984). Competitive fixed-interval performance in humans: Role of “orienting” responses. The Psychological Record, 34, 241–257.
BUSKIST, W., & MORGAN, D. (1987). Competitive fixed-interval performance in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 145–158.
BUSKIST, W., & MORGAN, D. (1988). Method and theory in the study of human competition. In G. Davey & C. Cullen (Eds.), Human operant conditioning and behavior modification, Chichester, England: Wiley.
BUSKIST, W., NEWLAND, M. C, & SHERBURNE, T. (1991). Continuity and context. The Behavior Analyst, 14, 111–116.
BUSKIST, W., OLIVEIRA-CASTRO, J., & BENNETT, R. H. (1988). Some effects of response-correlated increases in reinforcer magnitude on human behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 87–94.
DEUTSCH, M., & KRAUSS, R. M. (1962). Studies of interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 4, 52–76.
DINSMOOR, J. A. (1991). The respective roles of human and nonhuman subjects in behavioral research. The Behavior Analyst, 14, 117–122.
FERSTER, C. B., & SKINNER, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
GALIZIO, M., & BUSKIST, W. (1988). Laboratory lore and research practices in the experimental analysis of human behavior: Selecting reinforcers and arranging contingencies. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 65–69.
HAKE, D. F., OLVERA, D., & BELL, J. C. (1975). Switching from competition to sharing or cooperation at large response requirements: Competition requires more responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 24, 343–354.
HAKE, D. F., & VUKELICH, R. (1972). A classification and review of cooperation procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 18, 333–343.
LUCE, R. D., & RAIFFA, H. (1957). Games and decisions. New York: Wiley.
OLVERA, D., & HAKE, D. F. (1976). Producing a change from competition to sharing. Effects of large and adjusting response requirements. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 26, 321–333.
PALMER, D. C, & DONAHOE, J. W. (1991). Shared premises, different conclusions. The Behavior Analyst, 14, 123–128.
PIERCE, W. D., & EPLING, W. F. (1991). Can operant research with animals rescue the science of human behavior? The Behavior Analyst, 14, 129–132.
SCHMITT, D. R., & MARWELL, G. (1971). Taking and the disruption of cooperation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 412–415.
SHULL, R. L, & LAWRENCE, P. S. (1991). Preparations and principles. The Behavior Analyst, 14, 133–138.
SKINNER, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
WANCHISEN, B. A., & TATHAM, T A. (1991). Behavioral history: A promising challenge in explaining and controlling human operant behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 14, 139–144.
WEINSTEIN, A. G., & HOLZBACH, R. L. (1972). Effects of financial inducements on performance under two task structures. Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 7, 217–218.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Authorship was determined alphabetically.
We are grateful to Tom Critchfield, Chris Newland, David Rider, and Michael Layng for their useful criticisms of earlier drafts of this paper and to Cheryl Blank for her assistance in data preparation.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Buskist, W., Degrandpre, R.J. Schedule-Controlled Responding of Two Persons Under a Single Schedule of Reinforcement. Psychol Rec 45, 183–205 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395928
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395928