Does the Good Behavior Game evoke negative peer pressure? Analyses in primary and secondary classrooms

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a classroom management system that employs an interdependent group contingency, whereby students work as a team to win the game. Although previous anecdotal data have suggested that this arrangement may promote prosocial behavior, teachers may have concerns about its fairness and potential to evoke negative peer interactions (especially toward students who break the rules). We evaluated disruptive behaviors and social interactions during the GBG in a secondary classroom for students with emotional and behavioral disorders, as well as in a primary classroom for students with mild developmental disabilities. Results indicate that the GBG reduced disruptive behaviors; further, negative peer interactions decreased and positive interactions increased when the game was being played. Social validity results indicate that the majority of students thought the interdependent group contingency was fair.     

Does Cooperation in the Laboratory Reflect the Operation of a Broad Trait?

The Dictator Game, a face valid measure of altruism, and the Trust Game, a face valid measure of trust and trustworthiness, are among the most widely used behavioural measures in human cooperation research. Researchers have observed considerable covariation among these and other economic games, leading them to assert that there exists a general human propensity to cooperate that varies in strength across individuals and manifests itself across a variety of social settings. To formalize this hypothesis, we created an S‐1 bifactor model using 276 participants' Dictator Game and Trust Game decisions. The general factor had significant, moderate associations with self‐reported and peer‐reported altruism, trust, and trustworthiness. Thus, the positive covariation among economic games is not reducible to the games' shared situational features. Two hundred participants returned for a second session. The general factor based on Dictator Game and Trust Game decisions from this session did not significantly predict self‐reported and peer‐reported cooperation, suggesting that experience with economic games causes them to measure different traits from those that are reflected in self‐assessments and peer‐assessments of cooperativeness. © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology     

Education for all: The Good Inclusion Game

The term “education for all” in the context of inclusive schooling describes the aim that children with identified special/additional needs are fully included in education together with their typically developing peers. However, this is easier said than done as there are few easy‐to‐use methods that teachers can use while at the same time teaching the approbate curriculum to children with a full range of different abilities. The Good Inclusion Game (GIG) is a group contingency‐based tool to create inclusive classrooms that utilizes principles of the applied branch of the science of behavior analysis (applied behavior analysis) and can be used across settings and academic subjects. The GIG was evaluated across nine classrooms including 93 boys and girls aged between 9 and 15 years of age, including 20 children with identified special educational needs. Findings show that the GIG reliably led to a significant increase of inclusive curriculum‐focused activities with the collateral effect of decreasing disruptive behaviors for all children. Findings are discussed in the context of inclusive schooling and evidence‐based education.     

Survey and behavioral measurements of interpersonal trust

Although many studies treat trust as a situational construct, individual differences can be used to study and predict trusting behavior. We report two studies, the first showing the psychometric properties of a new trust inventory (the Propensity to Trust Survey or PTS), the second study validating this inventory using the standard economic task, the Investment Game. The first study utilized online survey data (N > 8000) to show that the PTS scales were reliable and measured broad constructs related to Big Five personality domains. Trust was related to extraversion and negative neuroticism, and trustworthiness was related to agreeableness and conscientiousness. The second study (N = 90) validated the PTS trust scale as a predictor of behavior in the Investment Game. These findings are evidence that trust and trustworthiness are compound personality traits, and that PTS scales are preferable to general Big Five measures for predicting trusting behavior.     

The role of strategies in deciding advantageously in ambiguous and risky situations

In decision situations of everyday life, the potential positive or negative consequences of a decision are often specified and the associated probabilities are known or they are principally calculable ("decisions under risk"). On the basis of correlations reported in patient studies, it has been recently proposed that decisions under risk involve strategic components, i.e. calculation of the risk, as well as emotional processes, i.e. processing feedback from previous decisions. However, the potential impact of calculative strategies on decision-making under risk has not been investigated systematically, so far. In the current study, we examined 42 healthy subjects (21 females) with the Game of Dice Task measuring decisions under risk, and a questionnaire assessing strategy application in items comparable to the choices in the Game of Dice Task. In addition, the subjects performed the Iowa Gambling Task, examining decision-making under ambiguity, and a neuropsychological test battery focusing on executive functions. Results indicate that deciding advantageously in a decision-making task with explicit and stable rules is linked to applying calculative strategies. In contrast, individuals who decide intuitively prefer risky or disadvantageous choices in the Game of Dice Task. Applying calculative strategies was correlated with executive functions but not with performance on the Iowa Gambling Task. The results support the view that calculative processes and strategies may improve decision-making under explicit risk conditions.     

The Role of Strategy in Mixed-Gender Group Interactions: A Study of the Television Show “The Weakest Link”

This paper studies mixed-gender group interactions in a strategic game where group members are sequentially eliminated till a single winner takes all. Study 1 tests the hypothesis that female contestants are retained till final rounds where they are eliminated. Using observational data from the US television show The Weakest Link (20 shows), results show that females are finalists but not winners. In a laboratory study (Study 2, 67 Berkeley undergraduates), we show that this effect is attenuated when winnings are shared among finalists (versus one winner takes all) due to the reduction in competitive pressures in the context. This research was supported in part by the Junior Faculty Research Grant awarded by the University of California at Berkeley to the second author.     

Asymmetric dominance and phantom decoy effects in games

In individual choices between alternatives x and y, the availability of a third alternative z, judged inferior to x but not to y, tends to increase preferences for x. Two experiments investigated corresponding strategic asymmetric dominance effects in games. In Experiment 1, 72 players chose strategies in six symmetric 3 × 3 games, each having one strategy dominating just one other, or in reduced 2 × 2 games constructed by deleting the dominated strategies. Asymmetrically dominated strategies, even when unavailable (phantom decoy), increased choices of the strategies that dominated them and bolstered decision confidence. In Experiment 2, 81 participants played 12 similar but asymmetric games with or without dominated strategies, and similar asymmetric dominance, phantom decoy, and confidence effects were found.     

A Comparison of Study Session Formats on Attendance and Quiz Performance in a College Course

We compared two formats for optional study sessions offered to students in a research methods course. Study sessions alternated between a game format (e.g., Behavioral Jeopardy) and a student-directed question and answer format, presented in counterbalanced order across different sections of the same course. The results of the alternating treatments design in Study 1 indicated that, despite improvements in quiz performance relative to baseline, there were no consistent differences between the two formats on attendance at the study sessions or on weekly quiz performance. Similar results were obtained in a systematic replication (Study 2) in which opportunities to respond to game questions were equated across study sessions.     

Many Concepts and Two Logics of Algorithmic Reduction

Within the program of finding axiomatizations for various parts of computability logic, it was proven earlier that the logic of interactive Turing reduction is exactly the implicative fragment of Heyting’s intuitionistic calculus. That sort of reduction permits unlimited reusage of the computational resource represented by the antecedent. An at least equally basic and natural sort of algorithmic reduction, however, is the one that does not allow such reusage. The present article shows that turning the logic of the first sort of reduction into the logic of the second sort of reduction takes nothing more than just deleting the contraction rule from its Gentzen-style axiomatization. The first (Turing) sort of interactive reduction is also shown to come in three natural versions. While those three versions are very different from each other, their logical behaviors (in isolation) turn out to be indistinguishable, with that common behavior being precisely captured by implicative intuitionistic logic. Among the other contributions of the present article is an informal introduction of a series of new — finite and bounded — versions of recurrence operations and the associated reduction operations. Presented by Robert Goldblatt     

SHARING THE WEALTH: FACTORS INFLUENCING RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN THE SHARING GAME

Students chose between two allocation options, one that gave the allocator more and another participant still more (the “optimal” choice) and one which gave the allocator less and the other participant still less (the “competitive” choice). In a within‐subjects design, students' behavior patterns were significantly correlated across the two rounds of decision‐making; however, students allocated more optimally when the allocation involved real rather than hypothetical money, suggesting that both motivational context and individuals' personality and/or experience influence preference patterns. The nature of the putative other participant did not affect the allocation: students allocated in a comparable fashion whether the other participant was said to be male, female, or a computer.