pmc logo image
Logo of jeabehavJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Web SiteSubscriber LoginJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis Web SiteSubscription InformationInformation for AuthorsJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Web SiteJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Web Site

Formats:

J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 January; 19(1): 3–16.
doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-3.
PMCID: PMC1334046
Analysis of the control exerted by a complex cooperation procedure1
D. F. Hake and Ron Vukelich
1This research was supported by grants from the Illinois Department of Mental Health and NIMH Grant 17981 to the Behavior Research Laboratory, and by a Title 1 Grant to the Special Education Department at Anna State Hospital. Special thanks are due Mrs. Carol Shepard, supervisor of the Special Education Department, and the teachers of the Special Education Department for their generous cooperation. The authors are also indebted to Dr. Harris Rubin, Mr. Sheldon Kaplan, and Mr. Dennis Olvera who provided valuable assistance in the preparation of the manuscript. Reprints may be obtained from D. F. Hake, Behavior Research Laboratory, Anna State Hospital, Anna, Illinois 62906.
Abstract
The study examined the effects of the availability of a non-cooperative response on cooperative responding when cooperation did not have to result in an equal distribution of work or reinforcers. Also, an attempt was made to determine if the cooperative responding was under the control of the cooperation procedure. Pairs of institutionalized retardates were tested in full view of each other. For each subject, reinforcers (money) were contingent upon responses on each of two panels: (1) a matching panel for working matching-to-sample problems, and (2) a sample panel for producing the sample stimulus. The matching panels of the two subjects were 6 m apart, but a subject's sample panel could be placed at different distances from his matching panel. For each subject, either his own or his partner's sample panel could be nearest his matching panel such that less walking was required to reach one sample panel than the other. Subjects could work either individually, by producing their own sample stimulus, or cooperatively, by producing the sample stimulus for their partner. Subjects selected whichever solution involved the least amount of walking. The importance of testing for control by the cooperation procedure was indicated by the findings that cooperative-like responses were not always under the control of the cooperation procedure.
Full text
Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (1.8M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Boren JJ. An experimental social relation between two monkeys. J Exp Anal Behav. 1966 Nov;9(6):691–700. [PubMed]
  • Hake DF, Vukelich R. A classification and review of cooperation procedures. J Exp Anal Behav. 1972 Sep;18(2):333–343. [PubMed]
  • Hollis JH. Communication within dyads of severely retarded children. Am J Ment Defic. 1966 Mar;70(5):729–744. [PubMed]
  • Schmitt DR, Marwell G. Stimulus control in the experimental study of cooperation. J Exp Anal Behav. 1968 Sep;11(5):571–574. [PubMed]
  • SIDOWSKI JB. Reward and punishment in a minimal social situation. J Exp Psychol. 1957 Nov;54(5):318–326. [PubMed]
  • SIDOWSKI JB, WYCKOFF B, TABORY L. The influence of reinforcement and punishment in a minimal social situation. J Abnorm Psychol. 1956 Jan;52(1):115–119. [PubMed]
  • Vogler RE. Possibility of artifact in studies of cooperation. Psychol Rep. 1968 Aug;23(1):9–10. [PubMed]