Effects of competitive reward distribution on auditing and competitive responding.
Proportional pay-offs keep humans competing longer and checking their progress more than winner-take-all.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Adults without disabilities played a simple computer game for money.
Two pay-off rules were tested: proportional (every point earns cash) and winner-take-all (only the top scorer gets paid).
The game let players check the scoreboard at any time to see if they were ahead or behind.
What they found
People kept competing longer when each point turned into money.
With winner-take-all, many gave up early once they fell behind.
Players looked at the scoreboard most when the info could still change their next move.
How this fits with other research
Carmichael et al. (1999) saw the same lab: reward rate, not extra rules, steered choice.
Wilkinson et al. (1998) showed humans track overall density; Schmitt (2000) adds that density split across players also matters.
Grosch et al. (1981) found response rates rise with scheduled payoff ramps; here the ramp is social—your share grows with every response.
Why it matters
Token economies often use winner-take-all boards. This study says you will get more work and less quitting if points always convert to small pay-offs. Try giving every learner a tiny payout per point while still posting the leaderboard. You should see longer persistence and more self-monitoring of scores.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Switch your leaderboard class from "top scorer wins" to "each point = one penny" and watch who keeps working.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This study allowed subjects to audit each other's responding during a series of competitive contests. Six pairs of female college students competed in 3-min contests in which the competitive response was a knob pull. A sum of money was divided using a proportional distribution or a 100%/0% reward distribution. In the proportional distribution, a subject's proportion of the sum was her proportion of the total number of responses. Also, in every contest either subject could make a response that would end the contest prematurely and give both subjects the same amount: a sum equal to 33% of the competitive total. Each subject could press either or both of two audit buttons that displayed her own and the other's response total for 10 s. Results replicated earlier findings in showing the superiority of the proportional distribution in total number of competitive responses made. No subject audited continuously, and only 1 audited most of the time. Most audits were interpersonal, including both own and other's scores. Auditing typically was more frequent in 100%/0% contests in which subjects were more likely to stop the contest when they were far behind. Winners were more likely to audit than were losers. Competitive response rates increased when the differences revealed by audits were small and decreased when they were large. Overall audit patterns were consistent with the view that feedback as "news" is more often sought when it can lead to improved outcomes.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2000 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2000.74-115