The effects of a cooperation contingency on behavior in a continuous three-person environment.
A single rule that ties access to group cooperation quickly boosts social interaction and joint activity.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers set up a three-person game in a lab. The group had to work together to open a shared activity area.
They flipped the rule on and off four times. This let them see if the cooperation rule really drove the change.
What they found
When the rule was on, the trio talked more and used the shared space. When it was off, those behaviors dropped.
Each flip showed the same pattern, so the rule, not luck, caused the lift.
How this fits with other research
Little et al. (2015) later grouped 50 classroom studies and found huge drops in problem behavior when teachers used group contingencies. Their meta-analysis includes this 1976 lab test.
Hirsch et al. (2016) moved the same idea to elementary PE. They saw higher engagement when the whole class had to meet one goal, echoing the 1976 trio result.
Schmitt (1976) published the same year and showed people pick cooperation when it pays only a little better. Together, the two 1976 studies prove that tiny payoff shifts can flip social choice.
Why it matters
You can spark cooperation fast by making one reinforcer depend on the whole group. Try a simple rule: everyone must show a calm body before the Lego corner opens. Watch peers prompt each other so they all get the payoff.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick a preferred area or item and post a sign: 'Everyone must ___ before this opens.' Start the session, then remove the rule and watch the data flip.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Five groups of three subjects resided for 10 or 15 days within a continuously programmed environment. Subjects followed a programmatic arrangement of required and optional private and social activities that determined the individual and group baseline behaviors into which experimental operations were introduced and withdrawn. A cooperation condition was in effect when all three subjects were required to select simultaneous access to a group area before it became available for use. A noncooperation condition was in effect when access to a group area could be selected by individual subjects, without regard to the other subjects' selections. For all groups, the effects of these two conditions on individual and group behaviors were investigated in reversal designs where several successive days occurred under each condition. Groups 1, 4, and 5 had the noncooperation condition interposed between cooperation conditions. Groups 2 and 3 had the cooperation condition interposed between noncooperation conditions. Durations of triadic activities, per cent of time in triadic activities, intercom use, and intersubject program synchronization were greater during cooperation conditions than during noncooperation conditions. These data show that a cooperation contingency within the behavioral program affected both social behavior and the collateral individual behavior necessary to execute the cooperation response.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1976 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1976.25-293