Producing a change from competition to sharing: effects of large and adjusting response requirements.

Kohlenberg et al. (1976) asked high-school students to play a matching-to-sample game for points. Two students sat side-by-side and could either race to answer first or take turns.

The researchers quietly raised the number of correct matches needed to earn points. Sometimes the ratio stayed large and fixed. Other times it grew each time a student grabbed the answer first.

The team timed how long it took the pair to stop racing and start sharing turns.

When the ratio was big, students switched from competing to sharing faster. The larger the fixed ratio, the quicker the shift.

An adjusting ratio also helped, but the fixed large ratio worked best. Effort, not just feedback, drove the change.

García‐Leal et al. (2019) and Fortes et al. (2015) show the same effort lever in pigeons. García‐Leal found higher peck requirements lowered reinforcer value, while Inês saw the opposite—more pecks made birds wait longer for bigger rewards. The bird data seem to clash, but the tasks differ: one measured value drop, the other self-control.

Kohlenberg et al. (1976) joins these studies by showing that effort also changes social strategy. High effort nudged students away from costly competition, just as it nudged pigeons toward different choice patterns.

Paul (1983) used the same matching-to-sample layout and confirmed that ratio size itself can act like a cue, giving further reason to treat effort as a variable you program, not ignore.

You can turn down competition in your classroom by raising the work required to win solo. Set a high but reachable response count—like 15 math facts before a token—then let students discover that taking turns is easier. Watch the same principle when shaping delay tolerance: if the delay task feels heavy, the reinforcer may lose value, so balance effort and payoff.