Analysis of the control exerted by a complex cooperation procedure.
Cooperative-looking moves can be faked by effort-saving habits—always probe which stimulus actually controls the choice.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Pomerleau et al. (1973) set up a matching-to-sample game that required two adults with intellectual disability to work together.
Each person had to pick cards in a set order so both could get tokens.
The team could choose a long path or a short path to the tokens.
What they found
Both players quickly picked the short, easy path even when it broke the cooperation rule.
Their choices looked cooperative, but the real control was effort, not the social rule.
The study calls this an inconclusive result because the cooperation contingency never truly drove the behavior.
How this fits with other research
Schmitt (1984) wrote the next chapter. That paper lists exact levers you can pull—audit rate, face-to-face contact, reinforcer size—to make cooperation really control behavior.
Alonso-Álvarez et al. (2018) used the same matching-to-sample tool and showed that simpler stimulus relations can mimic higher-order rules. Together the two papers warn: check what cue actually drives the pick.
Farrant et al. (1998) added a ‘none’ button and saw equivalence collapse. Their finding mirrors F et al.: give an easy out and people take it, hiding the intended contingency.
Why it matters
Before you call a response ‘cooperative,’ probe for true stimulus control. Run a test trial where the easy path no longer pays off. If the team keeps picking the short route, you know effort, not cooperation, is in charge. Then redesign: add partner eye contact, shared reinforcers, or visible scoreboards as Schmitt (1984) suggests. This keeps your social-skills program honest and saves you from reinforcing the wrong contingency.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Insert probe trials where the easy route fails and watch if the cooperative pattern survives—if not, retrain with partner eye contact and shared reinforcers.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The study examined the effects of the availability of a non-cooperative response on cooperative responding when cooperation did not have to result in an equal distribution of work or reinforcers. Also, an attempt was made to determine if the cooperative responding was under the control of the cooperation procedure. Pairs of institutionalized retardates were tested in full view of each other. For each subject, reinforcers (money) were contingent upon responses on each of two panels: (1) a matching panel for working matching-to-sample problems, and (2) a sample panel for producing the sample stimulus. The matching panels of the two subjects were 6 m apart, but a subject's sample panel could be placed at different distances from his matching panel. For each subject, either his own or his partner's sample panel could be nearest his matching panel such that less walking was required to reach one sample panel than the other. Subjects could work either individually, by producing their own sample stimulus, or cooperatively, by producing the sample stimulus for their partner. Subjects selected whichever solution involved the least amount of walking. The importance of testing for control by the cooperation procedure was indicated by the findings that cooperative-like responses were not always under the control of the cooperation procedure.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1973 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1973.19-3