Diagnosing and Caring for the Reading Difficulties of College Freshmen

One hundred forty-four subjects dichotomized as internal or external on the I-E scale were randomly assigned to one of three reinforcement conditions-no reinforcement, self-reinforcement, or external reinforcement-and one of three subject determination of the correct response conditions-0%, 50%, or 100%. Trials to criterion and errors to criterion on a complex verbal discrimination task were the dependent variables. The results demonstrated that self-reinforcement influenced learning to a greater degree than no reinforcement. Further, when subjects were allowed to determine 100% of the correct responses, the effects of self-reinforcement paralleled the effects of external reinforcement. When subjects determined 50% or 0% of the correct responses, the self-reinforcement and no reinforcement conditions did not differ in influencing overall rate of learning. Internals made significantly fewer errors than externals.     

Giving a Reason for Unfairness: Effects of a Rationale upon Australian Students' Performances Within an Implicit Reward Situation

Two experimental conditions (giving a rationale vs no-rationale for “unfair” rewards) were compared under an implicit reward paradigm in which “target” subjects received rewards directly and contingently for improvements on a simple motor skills task while “peer” subjects who were also performing the same task received no rewards. Data showed that there were significant reinforcement effects on the behavior of both target and peer subjects during the implicit reward situation when no rationale was given for the “unfair” application of rewards. However, when a rationale was given for the non-reward of the peer subjects, neither target nor peer subjects showed significant increases in responses from baseline. Implications for group reinforcement practices are discussed.     

The distracting effect of material reward: An alternative explanation for the superior performance of reward groups in probability learning

To determine whether the distraction effect associated with material rewards in discrimination learning can account for the superior performance of reward groups in probability learning, the performance of 144 school children (preschool, second, and fifth grades) on a two-choice successive discrimination task was compared under three reinforcement conditions (material reward, marker, and knowledge of results). The two events in the task had different frequencies of occurrence, as in probability learning, yet they appeared in a constant order to make 100% payoff possible. The subjects in the reward and marker groups learned the task more slowly, and the nonlearners among them used stereotyped alternation patterns to a greater degree than subjects in the knowledge-of-results condition. These findings suggest that a distracting effect of material reward is present in probability learning and may explain the superior performance of reward groups typically found in probability learning studies.     

Competition, cooperation, satisfaction, and the performance of complex tasks among air force cadets

Forty-eight U.S. Air Force Academy cadets were studied to examine the effects of individual attitudes and organizational reward structures on the performance of a complex, integrative task. An attitudinal survey was used to measure each subject’s preference for cooperative or competitive situations. Distinctly different group environments were created by giving four groups of six subjectscompetitive instructions and another four groupscooperative instructions. The performance criterion was the “sum” score across eight trials of a complex arcade-type computer game which required one subject to control horizontal movement and another to control vertical movement. Although neither attitude nor reward structure alone influenced performance, their interaction was found to be very significant; subjects performed poorly when the reward structure did not match their individual orientation. Implications for military and professional training programs are discussed.     

Maintenance and transfer of self-reinforcement functions

In order to examine conditions maintaining self-reinforcement functions, pigeons were trained to reward their own performances and then tested for adherence to work requirements under decreasing likelihood of punishment for undeserved self-reward. Contingent self-reinforcement was stably maintained given moderate to high probability that unmerited self-reward would incur punishing consequences. In successive reversals of treatment and test conditions, the amount of behavior performed for each self-reward covaried with self-reinforcement rate. A further experiment demonstrated that self-reinforcing practices, involving both performance and consummatory contingencies, transfer to new activities for which the animal had never been trained to reward himself contingently. Adherence to performance requirements was more stringent, however, than to limitations on amount of rcinforcers consumed from freely available provisions.     

I'm worth more than you! Effects of reward interdependence on performance,cohesion, emotion and effort during team competition

ObjectivesTo examine the effects of reward structures on the performance of a motor task. To evaluate the effects of reward interdependence on performance, cohesion, emotion, and effort during intergroup (team) competition.DesignAn experimental design was used to compare the effects of reward interdependence (no, low, high) on performance of a strength and endurance task.MethodParticipants (N = 111) performed a 3-min handgrip task as a member of a team of four under three reward interdependence conditions (no; low, with an even split of prize money; high, with an uneven split of prize money) in head-to-head competitions against another team. Task performance was assessed using the cumulative force production total. Task-related cohesion, enjoyment, anxiety and effort were measured using self-report scales.ResultsPerformance was better with rewards than no reward, and better with high than low reward interdependence. Team cohesion was highest with low reward interdependence. Effort was greater with rewards than no reward. Anxiety and enjoyment did not vary among the reward conditions. Mediation analyses indicated that increased cohesion mediated improvements in performance from no reward to low reward interdependence conditions, and increased effort mediated improvements in performance from no reward to both low and high reward interdependence conditions.ConclusionPerformance of a simple physical task in team competition was facilitated by rewards, with optimal performance associated with unequal rewards (i.e., performance-related pay). The benefits of performing with rewards compared to no rewards were explained by increased cohesion and effort. Social interdependence theory can help explain performance of simple motor tasks during team-based competitions. The findings have implications for the pay structures adopted by sports teams.     

SELF-REINFORCEMENT EFFECTS: AN ARTIFACT OF SOCIAL STANDARD SETTING?

Two studies were conducted to identify mechanisms responsible for observed "self-reinforcement" effects. In Experiment 1, using a studying task, self-reinforcement procedures did not work when they were private (i.e., when others are not aware of the goals or contingencies), but did work when they were public. Self-delivery of consequences added nothing to the effectiveness of the procedure. The data suggested that public goal setting was the critical element in the procedure's effectiveness. In Experiment 2, an applied extension, goal setting alone was effective in modifying over a long time period studying behaviors of people with significant studying difficulties, but only when the goals were known to others. Overall, the two experiments make more plausible the view that self-reinforcement procedures work by setting a socially available standard against which performance can be evaluated. The procedure itself functions as a discriminative stimulus for stringent or lenient social contingencies. The application of this mechanism to other problems of applied significance is briefly discussed.     

Task constraints mask great apes' ability to solve the trap-table task

Researchers have investigated animals' causal knowledge with a task requiring subjects to use a tool to bring a reward within reach whilst avoiding a trap. Previous studies have suggested limitations in the ability of several species to avoid traps in tubes or tables. However, certain features may have inflated task difficulty. We tested 20 chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), 7 orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), 5 bonobos (Pan paniscus), and 5 gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) in the trap-table--a task in which subjects have to pull one of two rakes prepositioned behind two rewards on a flat surface. One of the rewards is in front of a trap into which it will fall. We investigated the effect of trap type, tool type, the number of available tools, and reinforcement regime on performance. We replicated previous findings showing that apes failed to choose the correct rake above chance. However, when they could instead choose where to insert a single tool, around 80% of the apes solved the trap-table task in the first trial, revealing an important effect of task constraints on their performance.     

Increasing and decreasing intrinsic interest with contingent rewards: A test of cognitive evaluation theory

The study examined Deci's (Deci, E. L. Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press, 1975) hypotheses regarding the effects of contingent rewards on intrinsic task interest. Seventy-two male university students worked on a series of puzzles and were given either a high value reward ($1.50) or a low value reward ($.45). The money was given either contingent upon the simple execution of the task (task-contingent), contingent upon the ostensible attainment of a performance criterion level (criterion-contingent), or noncontingent and unexpected (control). Compared to the high payment control subjects, subjects who received the task-contingent high reward rated the task as less interesting, while subjects who received the criterion-contingent high reward rated it as more interesting. Also, subjects expressed less interest in the task after receiving the high task-contingent reward than the low task-contingent reward, but indicated greater interest after receiving the high criterion-contingent reward than the low criterion-contingent reward. It was concluded that substantial support was obtained for Deci's (1975) cognitive evaluation theory.     

Self-reinforcement: An assessment of external influences

Two experiments were carried out in which low- and high-demand characteristics of self-reward were assessed in a multiple-baseline design across subjects. In the first experiment, arithmetic performance of four children was systematically assessed under no-reinforcement, self-reward/low-demand and self-reward/high-demand phases. In the second experiment, the performance of four children on a less meaningful task was assessed under the same conditions employed in Experiment 1. Results indicated that performance rates were relatively stable during the no-reinforcement phase but that these rates dropped markedly during the self-reward/low-demand phase for all eight subjects. Further, increased rates of performance were achieved under the self-reward/high-demand phase for all subjects. Results are discussed in terms of the assessment of the self-reinforcement procedure, current definitions of self-reinforcement, and the need to view self-reinforcement as existing on a continuum of external demand characteristics.This project was supported in whole by a faculty research grant awarded to the first author and completed while the second author was a visiting associate professor at Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic.     

The effects of hippocampal lesions on learning, memory, and reward expectancies

The hippocampus appears to be critical for the formation of certain types of memories. Hippocampal-lesioned animals fail to exhibit some spatial, contextual, and relational associations. After aspiration lesions of the hippocampus and/or cortex, male rats were allowed to recover for three weeks before being trained on a matching-to-position task. The matching-to-position task was altered to influence the type of cognitive strategies a subject would use to solve the task. The main behavioral manipulation was the reinforcement contingency assignment: Use of a differential outcomes procedure (DOP) or a nondifferential outcomes procedure (NOP). The DOP involves correlating each to-be-remembered event with a distinct reward condition via Pavlovian trace conditioning, whereas the NOP results in random reward contingency. We found that hippocampal lesions did retard learning the matching rule, regardless of the reinforcement contingency assignment. However, when delay intervals were added to the task memory performance of subjects with hippocampal lesions was dramatically impaired--if subjects were not trained with the DOP. When subjects were trained with the DOP, the hippocampal lesion had a marginal effect on delayed memory performance. These findings demonstrate two important points regarding lesions of the hippocampus: (1) hippocampal lesions have a minimal effect on the on the ability of rats to use reward information to solve a delayed discrimination task; (2) rats with hippocampal lesions have the ability to learn about reward information using Pavlovian trace conditioning procedures.     

Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: The myth continues

A major concern in psychology and education is that rewards decrease intrinsic motivation to perform activities. Over the past 30 years, more than 100 experimental studies have been conducted on this topic. In 1994, Cameron and Pierce conducted a meta-analysis of this literature and concluded that negative effects of reward were limited and could be easily prevented in applied settings. A more recent meta-analysis of the literature by Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999) shows pervasive negative effects of reward. The purpose of the present article is to resolve differences in previous meta-analytic findings and to provide a meta-analysis of rewards and intrinsic motivation that permits tests of competing theoretical explanations. Our results suggest that in general, rewards are not harmful to motivation to perform a task. Rewards given for low-interest tasks enhance free-choice intrinsic motivation. On high-interest tasks, verbal rewards produce positive effects on free-choice motivation and self-reported task interest. Negative effects are found on high-interest tasks when the rewards are tangible, expected (offered beforehand), and loosely tied to level of performance. When rewards are linked to level of performance, measures of intrinsic motivation increase or do not differ from a nonrewarded control group. Overall, the pattern of results indicates that reward contingencies do not have pervasive negative effects on intrinsic motivation. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are addressed.     

Mice optimize timed decisions about probabilistic outcomes under deadlines

Optimal performance in temporal decisions requires the integration of timing uncertainty with environmental statistics such as probability or cost functions. Reward maximization under response deadlines constitutes one of the most stringent examples of these problems. The current study investigated whether and how mice can optimize their timing behavior in a complex experimental setting under a response deadline in which reward maximization required the integration of timing uncertainty with a geometrically increasing probability/decreasing cost function. Mice optimized their performance under seconds-long response deadlines when the underlying function was reward probability but approached this level of performance when the underlying function was reward cost, only under the assumption of logarithmically scaled subjective costs. The same subjects were then tested in a timed response inhibition task characterized by response rules that conflicted with the initial task, not responding earlier than a schedule as opposed to not missing the deadline. Irrespective of original test groups, mice optimized the timing of their inhibitory control in the second experiment. These results provide strong support for the ubiquity of optimal temporal risk assessment in mice.     

Effects of reward on delayed reaction time task performance of hyperactive children

This experiment was designed to investigate the effects of continuous, partial, and noncontingent schedules of reward, as well as the withdrawal of rewards, on the performance of hyperactive and normal control children on a delayed reaction time task. Although noncontingent reward resulted in faster reaction times for control subjects, performance of hyperactives deteriorated under noncontingent reward and improved when it was withdrawn. Also, reaction times of controls during extinction remained superior to baseline, whereas performance of hyperactives returned to baseline level. It was suggested that these and other findings reviewed point to an unusual sensitivity to rewards in hyperactive children.     

Task Incentives,Type A Behavior Pattern,and Verbal Problem Solving Performance1

A laboratory experiment was conducted to investigate the interaction between task incentives and the Type A behavior pattern in determining performance during a task of verbal problem solving. The results indicated that Type A subjects responded more quickly and more frequently than their Type B counterparts. In addition, evidence suggested that a situational characteristic–whether instructions offered a monetary reward or served as an evaluative stressor–affected subjects differently depending on their behavior pattern classification. These findings suggest that Pattern A behavior occurs as a response to challenges signifying the potential for reward as well as a threat of failure. Implications for future research emphasize the need to investigate the characteristics of the situation and the task, as well as the individual.     

Preference for Different Sequences of Increasing or Decreasing Rewards

Preference for different increasing (or decreasing) sequences of rewards has been found to depend both on the magnitude of increase or decrease from step-to-step in the sequence and on the rate of change with which rewards increase or decrease. This experiment examined the effects on preference of different magnitudes and rates of change of reward. Using rewards for actual task performance, four increasing and four decreasing sequences were studied, each consisting of 24 rewards of varying magnitude. Sequences differed according to four possible models of rate change: linear, exponential, logarithmic, and step function. Preferences for given reward sequences obtained prior to extensive task and reward experience (decision utility) were not closely related to preferences after such experience (predicted utility). In the increasing reward sequences, subjects preferred the step sequence (with its single large increase at the end) prior to experience, but after experience they preferred the exponential, linear, and logarithmic sequences which entailed continuous reward-to-reward improvement throughout the sequence. In the decreasing sequences, subjects were less definite in their preferences. Prior to experience they most preferred the logarithmic sequence with its decelerating decline in magnitude of rewards, while after experience they least preferred the step function, with its huge loss at the end of the sequence.     

Setting Generalization during Self-Reinforcement with Educationally Handicapped Children

Eight educationally handicapped boys ranging in age form 10 to 11 years old and described as the worst behavior problems in their class participated in a series of single-subject studies carried out in their self-contained classrooms. Three served as target subjects, using self-reinforcement procedures to increase their sustained on-task behavior in a treatment setting; five served as generalization subjects. Data were collected in three settings within the self-contained classroom; an early morning treatment setting, a late morning generalization setting, and an afternoon generalization setting. The three target subjects averaged a 51% increase over their baseline median levels of sustained on-task behavior in the treatment setting. They averaged 84% and 96% generalization to the late morning and afternoon generalization settings, respectively. These results demonstrate that self-reinforcement can produce setting generalization of treatment effects in the absence of prior externally determined reinforcement. Evidence for subject and subject-setting generalization was also obtained.     

A test of the self-perception explanation of the effects of rewards on intrinsic interest

An experiment was conducted to test the proposition that rewards undermine or enhance intrinsic interest in a task to the extent that individuals interpret their behavior as being motivated by the reward. It was predicted that when subjects were denied the opportunity to develop and confirm this attribution, rewards would not produce an undermining effect, but rather would enhance dispositions and behavior. Subjects were recruited to evaluate a new sugar-free soft drink. Two levels of incentives (reward-no reward), two levels of examination (opportunity-no opportunity), and three levels of outcome (good-neutral-poor) were employed. The results support the prediction that an incentive's effect depends on the examination opportunity. In the examination condition, rewarded subjects attributed their behavior more to external factors than did unrewarded subjects, but gave more negative product evaluations only after tasting it. In the no examination condition, there were no differences in the attributions made by rewarded and unrewarded subjects, and rewarded subjects were more positively disposed toward the product both before and after tasting it. These results are explained as a consequence of two properties of rewards, enhancement through reinforcement and undermining through discounting, and of hypothesis-testing processes.     

Eating for pleasure or profit: the effect of incentives on children's enjoyment of vegetables

Parents commonly use rewards to encourage children to eat healthfully, but this practice remains controversial because rewards are suspected of undermining children's intrinsic motivation. A cluster-randomized trial examined children's acceptance of a disliked vegetable over 12 daily taste exposures. These exposures were paired with a tangible reward, a social reward, or no reward, and the findings were compared with the results from a no-treatment control condition. Liking and intake of the vegetable were assessed in a free-choice consumption task at preintervention, postintervention, 1 month after intervention, and 3 months after intervention. Liking increased more in the three intervention conditions than in the control condition, and there were no significant differences between the intervention conditions. These effects were maintained at follow-up. Children in both reward conditions increased consumption, and these effects were maintained for 3 months; however, the effects of exposure with no reward became nonsignificant by 3 months. These results indicate that external rewards do not necessarily produce negative effects and may be useful in promoting healthful eating.