Effects of the difference between self and coactor scores upon the audit responses that allow access to these scores.
Tied scores make people check their progress most, so keep peer comparisons neck-and-neck.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Hursh et al. (1974) asked adults to press a button that showed their own score and a partner’s score.
The gap between the two scores changed across sessions.
Researchers counted how often people checked the scores under each gap size.
What they found
People pressed the audit button most when the two scores were tied.
Small gaps still got plenty of looks.
Big gaps cut checking almost in half.
How this fits with other research
Harris et al. (1978) saw a similar social pull: observers changed their data sheets after they heard praise on tape.
Both studies warn that extra social cues can bend human recording even in a lab.
Couto et al. (2023) later showed that cooperative groups outperform lone workers, backing the idea that peer cues can drive behavior.
Katz et al. (2003) proved the same rule in pigeons—social cues only work if they are linked to clear reinforcement.
Why it matters
If you post client graphs where peers can see them, keep the displayed scores close.
Tight races keep learners looking, which can strengthen the value of feedback itself.
Avoid big public gaps that may cut attention or even spark avoidance.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Set student graphs so the top and bottom scores stay within one or two points for a week and count how often they look.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
An audit response allows access to an existing score from a subject's own performance (self audit) or from his coactor's performance (coactor audit). A previous study found that social stimuli (coactor present) increased audits relative to a non-social (no coactor) condition. The increase, designated a social-stimulus effect, was found to be due more to the coactor's score than to his mere presence. This finding suggested that the difference between self and coactor scores might affect the size of the social-stimulus effect. In the present study, six pairs of human subjects matched-to-sample for points that were exchangeable for money. During a session, matching-to-sample problems were distributed so that a subject's score was ahead, behind, or about even with his coactor's score. The even condition produced the largest social-stimulus effects, i.e., the most audits that could not be attributed to non-social variables such as time or number of problems. The even condition may have produced the largest social-stimulus effects because it was the only condition where the major social reinforcer (being ahead) could be both present or absent and, consequently, the even condition was the only one where audits had a discriminative function with respect to the presence of the major social reinforcer.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1974 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1974.22-61