Individual Consequences Versus Different Shared Consequences Contingent on the Performance of Low‐Achieving Group Members¹

Abstract

The effects of four reinforcement conditions (individual consequence, group‐shared consequence, and two different proportions of individual and group‐shared consequence) on (a) peer tutoring, (b) arithmetic performance, (c) studying, (d) nonstudying, and (e) disruptive behavior were measured employing 60 experimental and 34 comparison children from three fifth‐grade classes in an inner‐city school. The 100% shared consequence consistently produced the highest incidence of peer tutoring as well as the greatcst increment in the number of correct problems, both within and between periods. As the proportion of shared consequences decreased, the number of problems worked correctly decreased. Concurrently, the incidence in peer tutoring decreased as the proportion of shared consequences decreased. All consequences maintained high rates of studying behaviors and low rates of nonstudying and disruptive behaviors. The results of this study suggest that shared consequences may be useful in creating cooperative work patterns and increasing arithmetic performance in classroom settings.

Classroom Reward Structure: An Analytical and Practical Review

“…All of the reward structures produced greater achievement than the no-contingency condition, but only the low-performer contingency was associated with greater performance than was the individual contingency. Wodarski, Hamblin, and Buckholdt (1973) replicated the finding of achievement differences between a low-performer group contingency and an individual contingency.…”

Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Conditions on Children’s Problem-solving Performance

“…The superior performance of cooperative groups does not seem to be due to the medium and low ability students benefiting from the work of high ability students, although there is some previous evidence that this would be so (Laughlin, 1978;Wodarski, et al, 1973; DeVries & Mescon, Note 1). The results indicate that when the high ability students do not know the correct answer, the cooperative discussion provides new insights into the most effective strategy to be used and the correct answers.…”

“…There is also evidence that high ability individuals perform at the same level regardless of whether they are in a cooperative, competitive, or individualistic condition (Laughlin, 1978;Wodarski, Hamblin, Buckholdt, & Ferritor, 1973; DeVries & Mescon, Note 1). This means that any superiority in performance found in the previous studies may be due to medium and low ability students benefiting from their interaction with high ability students in the cooperative condition; with students in the competitive and individualistic conditions being deprived of such stimulation.…”

Instructional Goal Structure: Cooperative, Competitive, or Individualistic

“…There is evidence that more peer tutoring is found in cooperatively structured situations (DeVries & Edwards, 1972a;Hamblin, Buckholdt, Ferritor, Kozloff, & Blackwell, 1971;Witte, 1972;Wodarski, et al, 1973). Deutsch (1949a) found more behavior directed toward helping the group improve its functioning under cooperative conditions.…”

“…There is evidence that more studying and helping behavior and less non-studying and disruptive behavior occurs in cooperative reward structures than in individualistic reward structures (Wodarski et al, 1973).…”