EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS

2003, 4 , 105 - 114

NUMBER 1 (SUMMER 2003) 105

Choice between individual and shared social

contingencies in children: An experimental
replication in a natural setting
Emilio Ribes-Iesta, Nora Rangel, Guadalupe Carbajal and Erandeni Pea
University of Guadalajara

A study evaluated in a natural setting the preference for individual versus social contingencies under
different social exchange conditions. Twelve children were distributed in six dyads. Children had to solve a
puzzle placed on the same table for each child in a dyad. In the experimental conditions each subject in every
dyad could also place pieces in the peers puzzle. Dyads were exposed to two sequences of experimental
conditions comprising competition, partial altruism, and total altruism. In all these conditions subjects could
choose to solve their puzzle individually instead of working additionally on the peers puzzle. Results show
that most subjects chose to solve the puzzle individually, even when they obtained less earnings.
Keywords: children, dyads, social interactions, competition, altruism

(children and young adults) seem to prefer individual contingencies (Ribes & Rangel, 2002).
Ribes and Rangel (2002) used an experimental situation with two synchronized computers,
one for each experimental subject. On each
computers screen, two identical puzzles were
presented, one corresponding to each subject.
Subjects could solve only their own puzzle or
they could place pieces into the peers puzzle.
Under competition, unavoidable cooperation, and
partial altruism contingencies, subjects could earn
more points by placing pieces in the peers puzzle
than by responding individually in their own
puzzle. Under the total altruism contingency they
obtained the same amount of points by responding either way. The results of this study showed
that children and young adults systematically chose
to solve their own puzzle instead of the peers
puzzle, in spite of the fact that they obtained less
earnings by doing so. These results were observed
when subjects worked in separate rooms and
when they worked in the same room, being allowed to continuously audit or track each others
performance and earnings (Schmitt, 2000).

Competition, cooperation and altruism are

social phenomena that have been extensively studied using operant conditioning procedures (Azrin
& Lindsley, 1956; Cohen & Lindsley, 1964; Hake
& Vukelich, 1972; Lindsley, 1966; Marwell &
Schmitt, 1975; Skinner, 1962; Weiner, 1977). Most
experimental situations have consisted of reinforcing the temporal coordination or sequencing
of repetitive, arbitrary responses such as pressing a button or a key or putting a stylus into a
hole. The literature shows that responding first
(competition), responding simultaneously or almost simultaneously with the peer (cooperation),
and give responses (altruism) can be increased
in frequency through reinforcement procedures
using points and actual earnings and consumables.
However, when a choice procedure that allows
to respond on an individual basis or under a
shared contingency is used, experimental subjects
Correspondence should be addressed to the first author:
Centro de Estudios e Investigaciones en Comportamiento, 12
de diciembre 204 (Col. Chapalita), 45040 Zapopan, Mxico.
Email: ribes@cencar.udg.mx
This research was supported by grant #32375-H from the
National Council of Science and Technology of Mexico.

105

106

Emilio Ribes-Iesta, Nora Rangel, Guadalupe Carbajal and Erandeni Pea

These initial findings suggest that when subjects can choose between individual and shared
contingencies, they prefer individual contingencies even when their earnings are lower than those
that could be obtained under a shared contingency. Thus, reinforcing the behavior of two individuals to cooperate, compete or be altruistic
might be insufficient to promote social behavior; social interaction is not necessarily an automatic result of contingencies that provide higher
earnings than those of independent individual
performance. To evaluate the independence of
individual and shared contingencies it is necessary to separately identify individual and social
responses as well as individual and social earnings; but traditional operant procedures do not
discriminate between individual and social responses and consequences. Hence, the findings
reported in the literature (Schmitt, 1998) might
well be an artifact of the type of responses being used and the functional restrictions imposed
by a non-choice situation that prevents individually-based contingency responding (Ribes, 2001).
However, one could argue, along the same
lines, that the results from the study by Ribes and
Rangel (2002) are an outcome of the environment provided by the computer-based interaction, even in the conditions where subjects could
interact directly which each other. To test the generality of our previous finding, we designed an
experiment with children that replicated the basic features of the study by Ribes and Rangel
(2002). The experiment involved a similar task
(puzzle solving) in a natural setting, and evaluated
choice between individual and shared contingencies (competition, partial altruism, and total altruism). If the children again chose the individual
contingency over the shared contingency, this
would support our assumption that social contingencies per se are insufficient to produce social
interactions when alternative individual contingencies are available.
Method
Subjects

Twelve 10 to 12 year old children enrolled in

a primary school volunteered to participate in this
experiment. The children, six girls and six boys,

received edibles they like (chosen from a menu

available before each session) for their participation. Each dyad comprised one girl and one boy
chosen at random, and the dyads were randomly
allocated to two groups.
Material

Twenty 50-pieces puzzles were used, as well

as a Sony Handicam videocamera (model CCDTR413), compact VHS videotapes, recording
sheets, colored labels, printed instructions and
copies of the puzzles drawings.
Experimental situation

Experimental sessions took place twice a day

in four successive days, in one room (6 x 3 m),
relatively isolated from noise and other distractors.
In the center of the room was a rectangular table
with two chairs located at each end. The video
camera was placed 1.5 m from the table facing
both chairs. At each end of the table a heap was
located with all the pieces of a same puzzle, along
with a copy of the puzzles drawing, colored labels to identify the pieces of each child, and a
sheet with instructions for each particular session.
During the first baseline session, each child solved
his/her puzzle in a separate room.
Procedure

Except in Phase A (see below), children in

each dyad sat facing each other at each end of
the table, a situation which allowed visual, physical and verbal contact. A different puzzle was
used in each session in order to prevent a learning and/or boredom effect, but in any session
the same puzzle was used for both children.
Two different sequences of exchange contingencies were analyzed. The experiment comprised five phases, one conducted as an individual
condition and the rest as social interaction conditions (Table 1). Phases A and B served as baseline
or control conditions to assess the subjects
puzzle-solving performance under individual,
non-shared contingencies.
In Phase A, each subject solved the puzzle in
a separate room and without receiving points.
Phase B was identical to Phase A, with the exception that both children had to solve their
puzzle at the same time in the same room. They

Shared Social Contingencies

were told that they could either leave the room

when they completed the puzzle or wait until the
peer to concluded his/her task.
The next three phases (C, D, E) involved individual and shared contingencies in which both
children could place pieces in any of the puzzles.
In Phase C, any correct response provided points
for the child placing the piece correctly in any of
the two puzzles. In Phase D, when a child placed
a piece correctly in his/her own puzzle, points
were awarded only to this child. But when a piece
was correctly placed in the peers puzzle points
were awarded to both children. In Phase E, when
a child placed a piece correctly in his/her own
puzzle, points were awarded only to this child,
but when a piece was correctly placed in the peers
puzzle points were awarded to the peer. Thus,
Phase C can be seen as involving choices between
individual behavior and competition, Phase D
between individual behavior and partial altruism,
and Phase E between individual behavior and
total altruism. In these three experimental phases,
the child who first completed his/her puzzle could
end the session by leaving the room or calling the
experimenter. Children were explicitly instructed
at the beginning of every session about the various contingencies and about how many points
they could obtain by placing pieces in their puzzle
or in the peers puzzle. When the session ended
the experimenter counted how many pieces each
child had correctly placed in each of the two
puzzles, and exchanged the points earned by each
child for edibles. Different kinds and amounts
of edibles were provided proportionally to the
number of points earned (the exchange values
of different candies were set up at 10, 15, 20, 30,
40 and 50 points). Children were informed about
the exchange ratios before the session began.
Sessions ended when both children completed
their puzzle or when the child who first completed his/her puzzle ended the session. Dyads 1
to 3 were exposed to the phases A,B,C,D,E, in
this order. Dyads 4 to 6 were exposed to the
inverse sequence of experimental contingencies:
A,B,E,D,C. Since two sessions were run every
day, a five-minute rest period was scheduled between sessions.
The following instructions were given in the
different baseline and experimental phases:

107

Phase A. You must try to solve a puzzle. Try

to place all the pieces. You have to watch carefully the drawing to your right, it is a picture of
the puzzle you have to solve. Also, you must stick
a label at the back of each piece you place. Good
luck!
Phase B. Two puzzles are placed on the table:
yours, in front of you, and your peers puzzle, in
front of him/her. You should try to solve only
your puzzle. You have to place all the pieces. As
in the previous game, at your right you have the
drawing of the puzzle you have to solve. You
must stick a label at the back of each piece you
place. When you complete your puzzle, you may
end the game for you and your peer, by calling
me and leaving the room. You may also wait for
your peer to end his/her own puzzle. Good
luck!
Phase C. Two puzzles are placed on the table:
yours, in front of you, and your peers puzzle, in
front of him/her. You and your peer may place
pieces in ANY of the two puzzles, yours and
his/hers. As in previous games, at your right you
have the drawing of the puzzles that you have to
solve. You must stick a label at the back of each
piece you place. I need this to identify which pieces
you placed in each puzzle and to compute how
many points you earned. For any piece you place
correctly in any puzzle, youll obtain 10 points.
The same will happen to your peer. When you
complete one of the two puzzles, you may end
the game for you and your peer by calling me
and leaving the room. You may also wait for
your peer to complete his/her puzzle, or you may
place pieces in his/her puzzle. The highest number of points that you may obtain in this session
is 1000: 500 if you place pieces only in your
puzzle, plus 500 if you place all the pieces in your
peers puzzle. When the game ends you can exchange your points for candies. You will get a
better prize with more points.
Phase D. Instructions were similar to those in
Phase C, but changes were introduced regarding
how to earn points: For any piece that you place
correctly in your puzzle, you and only you will
obtain 10 points. For any piece you place correctly in your peers puzzle, you and your peer
will obtain 10 points. Your peer will be able to
do the same. The highest number of points you

108

Emilio Ribes-Iesta, Nora Rangel, Guadalupe Carbajal and Erandeni Pea

can obtain is 1000, if you place pieces in your

peers puzzle and if he/she places pieces in your
puzzle.
Phase E. Instructions were similar to those in
Phase D, but changes were introduced regarding
how to earn points: For any piece that you place
correctly in your puzzle, you will obtain 10 points.
For any piece that you place correctly in your peers
puzzle, your peer will obtain 10 points. The same
holds for your peer. The highest number of
points you can obtain in this session is 500".
All sessions were videotaped in order to
record direct physical and verbal interactions between the children. Behavioral categories were
formulated from the inspection of the videos,

and transcription of the data was done by two

trained observers. Reliability of observational data
was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the total number of observations and
multiplying by 100. The obtained reliability coefficient was 87.5%.
Results
Figure 1 shows the performance of the six
dyads. The panels labelled local indicate the
number of correct placements in ones own
puzzle. The panels labelled remote indicate the
number of correct placements made in the peers
puzzle. The children showed few correct place-

Figure 1. Number of correct placements for each child in his/her own puzzle (local) or in the peers puzzle (remote). The
asterisks indicate that the child ended the session before his/her peer complement the corresponding puzzle. The subjects in
each dyad are denoted by a letter (a,b) after the dyad number (1...).

Shared Social Contingencies

ments in the peers puzzle, except for two dyads

(1 and 6). In Dyad 1 both children showed more
placements in the remote puzzle than in their own
puzzle during the competition contingency. In
Dyad 6, the highest number of placements was
done only by one child (S6a), also under conditions of competition. During baseline, 9 of the
12 children completed their puzzles; those children who did not complete it failed to do so in
almost all sessions. Starting from the second
baseline conditions, children in Dyads 4, 5 and 6
ended the session before the other peer completed the puzzle. In each dyad, the same child

109

(usually a boy, except in Dyad 5) always ended

the session.
Figure 2 shows the number of pieces each
child placed in each puzzle during or after solving his/her own puzzle. The children in Dyad 1
placed pieces in the peers puzzle both during
and after completing their own puzzle. In contrast, one child in Dyad 6 placed almost all the
pieces after completing her puzzle.
Figure 3 shows how many points each dyad
obtained. The dotted line indicates the number
of points that could be obtained if the children
responded optimally under shared contingencies.
During the total-altruism condition, five of the

Figure 2. Number of correct placements in the peers puzzle during and after the completion of ones own puzzle (local).

110

Emilio Ribes-Iesta, Nora Rangel, Guadalupe Carbajal and Erandeni Pea

six dyads obtained as many points as possible. In

the other phases, under competition and partial
altruism conditions, children always obtained less
points than what was possible. Most of the time
children worked on their own puzzle.
Figure 4 shows the average session duration
(in minutes) across successive sessions. Excepting
one dyad (2), whose session time tended to decrease, the session duration varied unsystematically
within a range of 15 to 45 minutes.
Figure 5 shows the total number of direct
physical and verbal interactions for each group
of children in Phases 2 to 5. Explaining the task
(ET) and other non-relevant (O) behaviors were
the most frequent categories. Other categories that
also occurred but at a lower frequency were
complaining (C), helping (H), talking softly (TS)
and in occasions yelling (Y), verbal aggression
(VA), asking for help (AH), intrusion (I), referring to rules (RR) and defending the game (DG).
Physical aggression (PA), threatening (T) and accusing (A) practically did not occur.

Discussion
The results of this experiment confirm previous findings by Ribes and Rangel (2002) that
when offered choices between individual and
shared contingencies, children and young adults
often prefer individual, non-social contingencies,
even when the payoff for doing so is lower than
for responding under shared contingencies. The
replication of this effect suggests that when individual responding (in the local puzzle) and social
responding (in the remote puzzle) are independent, subjects tend to respond on an individual
basis even when they obtain lesser benefits or
earnings. This effect was described as interpersonal risk-avoidance by Marwell and Schmitt
(1975), who attributed it to the anticipation of
negative effects from taking earnings from the
peer. In our experiments, however, individual and
social responses were clearly distinguished both
in location and by contingency prescriptions. In
contrast to customary experimental preparations
using buttons, knobs and similar operanda

Figure 3. Number of points obtained by each child. Dotted lines indicate the maximum number of points that could be
obtained individually under each contingency.

Shared Social Contingencies

(Schmitt, 1998), we used a meaningful task, a

puzzle that changed every session and that allowed
for the intrusion of each subject into the others
task to compete, cooperate or be altruistic
(among other possibilities). Perhaps the typical
findings on competition, cooperation and altruism with operant preparations result from the
simplicity and repetitiveness of the response being used, and its confounding with coordination
and sequencing effects that differ from actual
social interactions (as Marwell and Schmitt ,1975,
themselves documented in relation to Cohens
[1962] and Lindsleys [1966] experimental settings).

Figure 4. Average session length (in minutes).

111

In our experiments, preferring individual contingencies while shared contingencies are available has been shown to occur under unavoidable cooperation, partial altruism, total altruism,
and competition, both with children and young
adults. Furthermore, the exposure of experimental subjects to sequences of conditions that might
have facilitated responding in the remote puzzle
did not produce any increase in shared responding. In the study by Ribes and Rangel (2002), subjects first exposed to an unavoidable cooperative condition responded most of the time in
their own puzzle in later conditions that included
altruistic and competitive contingencies. In the
present experiment, children did not change their
preference for the individual contingencies after
being exposed to a partial-altruism condition in
which, by switching to the remote puzzle, they
could obtain twice as many points as by placing
the same number of pieces in their own puzzle.
Actually, when responding in the peers puzzle
was observed, it occurred under a competition
contingency prior to the exposure to partial altruism (Dyad 1 in Phase 3).
This experiment was designed to evaluate if
the computer-based situation used by Ribes and
Rangel (2002) had interfered with the occurrence
of the social interactions that usually take place in
a natural setting (in which individuals deal with
actual instead of virtual objects). The results of
this experiment suggest the opposite. Children
did not prefer to work on the peers puzzle any
more than in the previous experiment in which
they solved puzzles on the screens of two synchronized computers. The consistency of this
effect is confirmed by the fact that in the experiment by Ribes and Rangel (2002), no differences
were observed as to whether the children solved
their puzzles in the same room or in separate
rooms.
In a related, natural-setting study by Camacho
(2000), each child of a dyad was given 50% of
the pieces of his/her own puzzle and 50% of
the pieces of the peer puzzle, so that the children
had to ask or take from their the pieces needed
to complete their own puzzle. In the cooperation condition, both children had to complete
their puzzles to obtain a reward. In the competition condition, the first child completing his or

112

Emilio Ribes-Iesta, Nora Rangel, Guadalupe Carbajal and Erandeni Pea

her own puzzle obtained the reward. In this study,

children showed physical violence and snatching
of pieces during competition, and donation of
pieces during cooperation, especially when the
children were not exposed to both conditions.
In our experiment, physical aggression and other
coercive behaviors practically did not occur. Two
factors may account for these differences. First,
earnings in our experiment were not shared and
children could choose to solve their puzzle on an
individual basis. Second, children were not forced
or required to exchange pieces with their peers in
order to solve their puzzle. On the contrary, they
were allowed and instructed to intrude their peer's
puzzle without having to exchange pieces. These
results suggest that the occurrence of coercive
and reciprocity behaviors during social interac-

tions may occur only when subjects have no other

choice than to interact for shared consequences.
Summing up, the results of this study support previous findings showing that when children have a choice between individual and shared
contingencies, they prefer individual contingencies. This choice also reduces direct physical and
verbal contacts between the children, especially
coercive and reciprocity interactions. These findings may be the systematic outcome of two features of our experimental preparation: a) it involves actual choices between individual and
shared contingencies, and b) it does not prescribe
shared responses or shared consequences, since
even in the shared contingency situation responses
and earnings are individually specified. Further
research should explore the social interactions
promoted by the choice between individual and

Figure 5. Number of accumulated verbal and physical responses during each baseline and experimental condition for both
groups of dyads.

Shared Social Contingencies

shared contingencies when responses and/or

consequences are prescribed as individual or
shared requirements.
References
Azrin, N.H., & Lindsley, O.R. (1956). The reinforcement of cooperation between children.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 100102.
Camacho, E. (2000). Anlisis experimental del
intercambio social de diadas de nios en
condiciones de cooperacin y competencia.
Master in Science Thesis. University of
Guadalajara.
Cohen, D.J. (1962). Justin and his peers: An experimental analysis of a childs social world.
Child Development, 33, 697-717.
Cohen, D.J., & Lindsley, O.R. (1964). Catalysis
of controlled leadership in cooperation by
human simulation. Journal of Child Psychological
Psychiatry, 5, 119-137.
Hake, D.F., & Vukelich, R. (1972). A classification and review of cooperation procedures.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
18, 333-343.
Lindsley, O.R. (1966). Experimental analysis of
cooperation and competition. In T. Verhave
(Ed.), The Experimental Analysis of Behavior (pp.

113

470-501). New York: Appleton Century

Crofts.
Marwell, G., & Schmitt, D.R. (1975). Cooperation:
An experimental analysis. New York: Academic
Press.
Ribes, E. (2001). Functional dimensions of social behavior: Theoretical considerations and
some preliminary data. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 27, 285-306.
Ribes, E., & Rangel, N. (2002). A comparison of
choice between individual and shared social
contingencies in children and young adults. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 3, 61-73.
Schmitt, D.R. (1998). Social behavior. In K.A.
Lattal & M. Perone (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior (pp. 471505). New York: Plenum Press.
Schmitt, D.R. (2000). Effects of competitive reward distribution on auditing and competitive responding. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 74, 115-125.
Skinner, B.F. (1962). Two synthetic social relations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 5, 531-533.
Weiner, H. (1977). An operant analysis of human
altruistic responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 515-528.

114

Emilio Ribes-Iesta, Nora Rangel, Guadalupe Carbajal and Erandeni Pea