Schmitt, D. R. (1998).
Effects of reward distribution and performance feedback on competitive responding.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
69, 263-273.
To implement competitive contingencies, one must select a
distribution of unequal rewards and a schedule of feedback for
competitors regarding one another's performance. This study
investigated three bases for distributing rewards and two
performance feedback conditions. Pairs of college students
competed over a series of 2-min contests in which the competitive
response was a knob pull. A sum of money was divided using a
proportional distribution or one of two fixed reward
distributions. In the proportional distribution, a subject's
proportion of the sum was his or her proportion of the total
number of responses. The two fixed distributions were divisions
of 100%/0% or 67%/33%. Also, in every contest either subject
could make a response that would end the contest prematurely and
give both subjects the same amount - a sum equal to 33% of the
competitive total. In the two feedback conditions, cumulative
responses by each subject were either shown to both subjects
during the contest or were not shown. The proportional
distribution was clearly superior to either of the fixed
distributions in number of responses produced across contests.
The proportional distribution with feedback produced the largest
number of competitive responses, and the 100%/0% distribution
without feedback produced the smallest number. Differences among
distributions typically emerged only during later blocks of
contests. Fixed distributions of rewards often produced
decelerating rates of responding, with losing competitors ending
the contests before they were completed. Response- rate decreases
were greatest for pairs in which the 2 subjects differed most in
their response rates and proportion of wins. The presence of
feedback had a small effect, increasing responding for some pairs
in the 100%/0% distribution. Performance patterns were
interpreted in terms of the consequences arranged for the
individual participants by the reward distributions and
differences in performance between competitors.
Key words: competition, reinforcement contingencies, reward
distributions, performance feedback, knob pull, college students