Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interpersonal and Group Contingencies

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Perspectives on Behavior Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Responding by individuals in groups has been a prominent interest of the field of psychology. Experimental analyses of human behavior have provided some unique findings of the role that the environment, including both social and nonsocial stimuli, may have on individual responding. Cooperative and competitive contingencies, previously evaluated in animal and human operant research, provide unique insight into applied interventions, in particular group contingencies. The current manuscript attempts to bridge these two literatures to foster the development of more effective technologies and lines of experimental or translational research that may better inform interventions in the applied realm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, L. D., & Iwata, B. A. (1980). Reinforcing exercise maintenance. Behavior Modification, 4, 337–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 70(9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azrin, N. H., & Lindsley, O. (1956). The reinforcement of cooperation between children. Abnormal & Social Psychology, 52(1), 100–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, A., & Galizio, M. (1983). Instructional control of human operant behavior. The Psychological Record, 33, 495–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, A., & Littman, R. (1961). Studies of individual and paired interactional problem-solving behavior of rats: II. Solitary and social controls. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 64, 129–209.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1969.2-119.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, W. M. (2017). Understanding behaviorism. Malden, MA: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Berkovits, S. M., Sturmey, P., & Alvero, A. M. (2012). Effects of individual and group contingency interventions on attendance in adolescent part-time employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 32, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2012.676495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boren, J. J. (1966). An experimental social relation between two monkeys. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 9(6), 691–700. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1966.9-691.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cariveau, T., & Kodak, T. (2017). Programming a randomized dependent group contingency and common stimuli to promote durable behavior change. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.352.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dallery, J., Meredith, S., & Glenn, I. M. (2008). A deposit contract method to deliver abstinence reinforcement for cigarette smoking. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 609–615. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2008.41-609.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P. K., & Blankenship, C. J. (1996). Group-oriented contingencies: Applications for community rehabilitation programs. Vocational Evaluation & Work Adjustment Bulletin, 29, 114–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dube, W. V., MacDonald, R. P. F., Mansfield, R. C., Holcomb, W. L., & Ahearn, W. H. (2004). Toward a behavioral analysis of joint attention. The Behavior Analyst, 27, 197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, C. R., Blair, K. S., & George, H. P. (2016). An evaluation of group contingency interventions: The role of teacher preference. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(1), 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., et al. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological bulletin, 137, 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, A., McKenna, J. W., Bunuan, R. L., Muething, C. S., & Vega, R. (2014). Effects of the good behavior game on challenging behaviors in school settings. Review of Educational Research, 84, 546–571. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314536781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galizio, M. (1979). Contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior: Instructional control of human loss avoidance. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31(1), 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, M., Stockbauer, J. W., & McAuliffe, T. G. (1977). Intergroup and intragroup competition and cooperation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(1), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)90015-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gresham, F. M., & Gresham, G. N. (1982). Interdependent, dependent, and independent group contingencies for controlling disruptive behavior. The Journal of Special Education, 16, 101-110.

  • Grott, R., & Neuringer, A. (1974). Group behavior of rats under schedules of reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22(2), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1974.22-311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hake, D. F., Donaldson, & Hyten, C. T. (1983). Analysis of discriminative control by social behavioral stimuli. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 39(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1983.39-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hake, D. F., & Laws, D. R. (1967). Social facilitation of responses during a stimulus paired with electric shock. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 387–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hake, D. F., & Vukelich, R. (1972). A classification and review of cooperation procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 16, 333–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hake, D. F., & Vukelich, R. (1973). Analysis of the control exerted by a complex cooperation procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 19(1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hake, D. F., Vukelich, R., & Kaplan, S. J. (1973). Audit responses: Responses maintained by access to existing self or cofactor score during non-social, parallel work, and cooperation procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 19(3), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1973.19-409.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hake, D. F., Vukelich, R., & Olvera, D. (1975). The measurement of sharing and cooperation as equity effects and some relationships between them. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 23(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1975.23-63.

  • Hamad, C. D., Cooper, D., & Semb, G. (1977). Resource recovery: Use of a group contingency to increase paper recycling in an elementary school. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 768–772. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.6.768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology & Penology, 1, 69–97.

  • Harris, V. W., & Sherman, J. A. (1973). Use and analysis of the “good behavior game” to reduce disruptive classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6(3), 405–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, R. O., Musti-Rao, S., Hughes, C., Berry, L., & McGuire, S. (2009). Applying a randomized interdependent group contingency component to classwide peer tutoring for multiplication fact fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 300–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-009-9093-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, L. A. (1976). The use of group contingencies for behavioral control: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 628–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heering, P. W., & Wilder, D. A. (2006). The use of dependent group contingencies to increase on-task behavior in two general education classrooms. Education & Treatment of Children, 29, 459–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hineline, P. N. (1980). The language of behavior analysis: Its community, its functions, and its limitations. Behaviorism, 8, 67–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependent. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsley, O. R. (1966). Experimental analysis of cooperation and competition. In T. Verhave (Ed.), The experimental analysis of behavior (pp. 470-501). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

  • Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, S. G., Akin-Little, A., & O’Neill, K. (2015). Group contingency interventions with children, 1980–2010: A meta-analysis. Behavior Modification, 39, 322–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445514554393.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacLin, O. H., Dixon, M. R., Daugherty, D., & Small, S. L. (2007). Using a computer simulation of three slot machines to investigate a gambler’s preference among varying densities of near-miss alternatives. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 237–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maggin, D. M., Johnson, A. H., Chafouleas, S. M., Ruberto, L. M., & Berggren, M. (2012). A systematic evidence review of school-based group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 625–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.06.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marwell, G., & Schmitt, D. R. (1975). Cooperation: An experimental analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marwell, G., Schmitt, D. R., & Bøyesen, B. (1973). Pacifist strategy and cooperation under interpersonal risk. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 28(1), 12–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, B. A. (1977). Magnitude of score differences produced within sessions in a cooperative exchange procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27(2), 331–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, B. A. (1979). Effects of fixed and alternated payoff inequity on dyadic competition. The Psychological Record, 29, 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, B. A., & Shimoff, E. (1979). Expansion of exchange: Monitoring trust levels in ongoing exchange relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 23(3), 538–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meredith, S. E., Grabinski, M. J., & Dallery, J. (2011). Internet-based group contingency management to promote abstinence from cigarette smoking: A feasibility study. Drug Alcohol Depend, 118(1), 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mundy, P., & Crowson, M. (1997). Joint attention and early social communication: Implications for research on intervention with autism. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 27, 653–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okun, M. A., & Di Vesta, F. J. (1975). Cooperation and competition. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 31(4), 615–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, T. L., & Hake, D. F. (1983). Fast acquisition of cooperation and trust: A two-stage view of trusting behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40(2), 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. R. (1976). Some conditions affecting the choice to cooperate or compete. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 25(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1976.25-165.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. R. (1981). Performance under cooperation or competition. American Behavioral Scientist, 24(5), 649–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276428102400505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. R. (1984). Interpersonal relations: Cooperation and competition. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42(3), 377–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. R. (1986). Competition: Some behavioral issues. The Behavior Analyst, 9(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391927.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. R. (1987). Interpersonal contingencies: Performance differences and cost-effectiveness. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 48(2), 221–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. R. (1995). The experimental study of social behavior: The past and the future. Experimental Analysis of Human Behavior Bulletin, 13, 8–11.

  • Schmitt, D. R. (1998a). Effects of reward distribution and performance feedback on competitive responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 69, 263–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. R. (1998b). Effects of consequences of advice on patterns of rule control and rule choice. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 70, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. R. (2000). Effects of competitive reward distribution on auditing and competitive responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 74(1), 115–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. R., & Marwell, G. (1968). Stimulus control in the experimental study of cooperation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 11(5), 571–574. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1968.11-571.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. R., & Marwell, G. (1970). Reward and punishment as influence techniques for the achievement of cooperation under inequity. Human Relations, 23(1), 37-45.

  • Schmitt, D. R., & Marwell, G. (1971a). Taking and the disruption of cooperation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 405–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. R., & Marwell, G. (1971b). Avoidance of risk as a determinant of cooperation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 16, 367–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. R., & Marwell, G. (1972). Withdrawal and reward reallocation as responses to inequity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8(3), 207–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimoff, E., & Matthews, B. A. (1975). Unequal reinforcer magnitudes and relative preference for cooperation in the dyad. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 24, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1975.24-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1962). Two “synthetic social relations.” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 531–533.

  • Slavin, R. E., Wodarski, J. S., & Blackburn, B. L. (1981). A group contingency for electricity conservation in master-metered apartments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 357–363. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1981.14-357.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tingstrom, D. H., Sterling-Turner, H. E., & Wilczynski, S. M. (2006). The good behavior game: 1969–2002. Behavior Modification, 30, 225–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445503261165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Todorov, T. (2009). Imperfect garden: The legacy of humanism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vukelich, R., & Hake, D. F. (1974). Effects of the difference between self and cofactor scores upon the audit responses that allow access to these scores. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22(1), 61–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of North Carolina Wilmington, Tom Cariveau, 601 South College Road, Wilmington, NC, 28403, USA

    Tom Cariveau

  2. Marcus Autism Center, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Colin S. Muething

  3. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Colin S. Muething

  4. The May Institute, Randolph, MA, USA

    Whitney Trapp

Authors
  1. Tom Cariveau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Colin S. Muething
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Whitney Trapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Cariveau.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The authors thank Tom Critchfield for recommending the current topic and feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript. We also thank the reviewers for their thorough yet encouraging comments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cariveau, T., Muething, C.S. & Trapp, W. Interpersonal and Group Contingencies. Perspect Behav Sci 43, 115–135 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-020-00245-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-020-00245-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation