May 22 Kohn Woolfolk_punished by Rewards

8/18/2019 May 22 Kohn Woolfolk_punished by Rewards

1/48

Aftcnvord copyright 199 9 by Alfic Kohn

Copyright 199 3 by Alfic Kohn

All rights rescrvcd

For information about permission to rcproducc selccrions from

this book , write to Permissions, Houghto n Mifflin Compa ny,

215 Park Avcnuc South, Ncw York, New York 1 0003.

Library of Congress Catalogingin-Publication Data

Kohn, Alfic.

Punished by rcwatds the trouble with gold stars, inccnrive

plans, A s, praise, and othe r bribcs I Altic Kohn.

p

crn

Inc ludcs b ib l i~gra~h ica lcfcrcnces and index.

ISBN 0-618-00181 -6

1. Rcwa rd (Psychology)

2. Motivatio n (1 ;ychology)

3. Behaviorism (Psychology)

I

T ~ t l c .

BFSOS.R48K65 1993

153.8 5-dc2O 93-21 897

CIP

punished

by

.

Rewards

TH T R O U B L E W I T H G O L D S TA RS ,

IN CE NT IV E PLANS , A S:, PRAISE,

A N D O T H E R B RIB ES

Alfie

Ko h n

1493)

W I T H A N E W A F T E R W O RD

BY T H E A U T H OR

H O U G H T O N M I F F L I N C O I \ I I ~ Z N Y

Bosto r N e w York


2/48

48

T H E C A S E A G A I N S T R E W A R D S

As one ps ychologi s t read the ava i l ab le re s ea rch , people who a re of

f er ed r e w a r d s t e n d t o

choose easier tasks, are less efficient in using the information available

to solve novel problems, and tend to be answer oriented and more

illogical in their problem-solving strategies. They seem to work harder

and produ ce m ore activity, but the activity is of a lower quality, contains

more errors, a nd is more stereotyped and less creative than the work of

compar able nonrewarded subjects working on the same problems."

n t h e n e x t

two

c h a p t e r s w e e x a m i n e w h y a ll t h i s i s t r u e .

T H E

T R O U B L E

WIT C A R R O T S :

Fo ur Reasons Rew ards Fail

It is be t t e r not to

mike

m e r i t

a m a t t e r

of r e w a r d

Lesr people conspire and conrend.

C O N F R O N T E D I T H

I R R E F U T A B L E E V I D E N C E t h a t p e o p l e

w h o a r e t r y i n g t o e a r n a r e w a r d e n d u p d o i n g a p o o r e r jo b o n m a n y

tas ks than people w ho a re not , re s ea rche rs a t f i r st could only s c ra t ch

the ir head: in puzz lement . few t en ta t ive ly s ugges t ed r i n one

cas e, t r i ed . o prove ha t t he pa radoxica l ef fec t of rewards mus t be

d u e t o t h e ( a c t t h a t t h e y d i s t r a c t p e o p l e f r o m t h e t a s k a t h a n d , '

Indeed , i t makes s ens e tha t t he t an t a l i z ing pros pec t of rece iv ing

s omething we l i ke might prevent

us

f r o m f o c u s in g o n w h a t w e a r e

doing anc . t he reby prevent us f rom doing i t wc l l . But s ubs equent

reserlrch h

S

s ho wn t ha t a l o t mo re i s involved than s imple d i s trnc t ion .

T h i n k i n g

ut

a r e w a r d , a s i t t u r n s o u t , i s w o r s e t h a n t h i n k i ng a b o i ~ t

s omethin g e l se equa l ly i r re l evant t o t he t a s k . z Evident ly rcwar tl s have

a pecul i ar l , de t r imen ta l e f fec t on th e qua l i t y of our pe r forman ce .

The re ar,e, bel ieve, five co re reason s for this fai lure, four of which

a re des c r ibed in the s ec t ions th a t fo l low, w i th the f i f t h occupying the

whole of t he next chapte r . ( Th e s econd ha l f of t he book wi l l p lay ou t

the impl i ca t ions of t hes e f ive poin t s i n t he workp lace , t he c l a s s room,

and the fami ly , and then d i s cus s a l t e rna t ives to t he us e of rewards . )

Not a l l o f t hes e reas ons pe r t a in t o t he re s u l t s of t he l abora to ry s tudies

d e s cr i b ed e a r l i e r ; s o m e a c c o u n t f o r t h e

detrimental

effects on achieve-

ment found in the rea l wor ld . In an y case , the problems des c r ibe a re

m o r e t h a n ex p l a na t i o ns f o r w h y ~ e o p l e on ' t pe r form as we l l when

they expec t t o be rewarded. T hey a re a l s o s e r ious indic tment s i n t he ir


3/48

W

I

1 n L L A b E A G A I N S T R E W A R D S

ow n r igh t , r a i s ing concer ns abou t the use o f r ew ar ds ' xyond w hat

they do to productivity. C ollectively they const itutc the central case

against pop behavior ism.

I

Rewards unish

gr ow ing numb er o f par ents , t eac l~er s , nd manage r s have come to

believe chat punishment, def ined as any ar tempt to change sorneone's

behavior by forcing him or her to undergo som ethi ng unpleasanr , is

bad news. Lat er in this book, I will defend the position rhat pun ishing

people should indeed be avoid ed wheneve r possible, borh for practical

and mo r al r easons . For now ,

I

w ant to addr ess r eader s w h o a l r eady

share this view, and who therefore try to use rewards instead.

In cer tain circles, i t has com e to be taken as revealed r rurh rhar we

ar e supposed to s top pun ish ing a nd cr it i ciz ing and

insread attempr to

"catch peo ple doing somethi ng r ight" and reward th em wirh pr ivileges

or p r a ise . I t i s near ly imposs ib le to open up a b ook o n manageme nt ,

o r scan an ar t i c le on r a is ing ch i ld ren , o r a t tend a seminar on teaching

withou t com ing across this counsel. The under lying assumption is

that there are exactly two alteratives: punitive responses or positive

reinforcement, s t icks or carrots, "slaps or sugar plums."J

When the choice is f ramed this way, of course, only n sndisc or a

simpleton would fail to pick the latter in each pair . Rewards are less

destructive than punishments, and the dif ference berween the two

becomes mor e impor tan t as the pun ishm ent In ques r ion becomes mor e

I

harsh. But th e dichotomy is a false one: our practical choices are

n o r

l imited to tw o versions of behavio r control. And th at is very good

news inde ed because despite the relative super ior ity of rewz~rds, he

differences between the tw o strategies are overshado wed by what they

shar e . The t r oub l ing t r u th i s tha t r ew ar ds and p r ln / sh r nen ts ar e t r ot

oppos i tes a t a ll ; they ar e tw o s ides o f the saw e co in . A ~ i d t is a coin

that does no t buy very much ,

In r espects majo r and minor , r ew ar ds an t1 pun ishments ar e f unda-

mentally similar . As Kurt Lewin, the founder of modcrn social psy-

chology, recognized, both are used when we &ant to elicit

:I

rype of

behavior which the natural f ield forces of thr momenr will not pro-

duce." ' More over , th e long-term use of either tactic descr ibes the very

same patte rn; eventually wc will need to raise the stakes and offer

mor e and mor e t r ea t s o r th r ea ten mor e and mor e sanct ions to get

peop le to con t inue ac t ing the w ay w e w an t .

Th e

Trouble w i t / C : l r r o t i

Underlying these two Iearures is an even morc criticnl fact: p i ~ ? i b l ~

rnent and reward proceed from basically the same psycliolo~icai

model, onc tha t conceives of motivatio n as norhing more rha:; . thc

manipu la t ion

of

behavior. This is not to say thnr behaviorists fail ro

distinguist between the y o ; n fact, Skinner argued fervently ngninsr

the use of punishmenr in most circumstances, Bur rhe rheory of Icarn-

ing and, ult imately, the view of wh at it is ro be

;I

hum an being are nor

signif icantly dif fe rent for som eon e who says

" D o

rhis and you'll get

that" and someone who says "Do rhis or here's whnr will I lnppcn ro

you."

The co r r espondence

is

no

less striking w11c11

wc

ri1r.n

f r o ~ u

Ilcory

ro

pr actice . A l though many people counrer pose rcw ; lr i l; ro p~ l ~~ ~s hm cn r s ,

it

is inreresring to observe rhat the rwo strategies ofren go hand

in

hand in the real world. In a study reporred in

199

elemenr,lry school

reachers f rom rhir reen S I ~ O O I S were observed careflllly over n period

of four months, I t turned our rh'ic the usc of

rewards

;ind punishmcnrs

in the cla ssroo nl were very h ighly corre lared ; the tr:ac.tiers w11o used

one were more , nor less, l ikely to use rhe other . ' survey of several

hundr ed mother s of kind ergar ten-a ge children revealed a significant

positive relar ionship between rhe f requent use of rewards and rhe

f re q ue n t u se o f p hy s ic a l ~ u n i s h r n e n r . ~r h er s r ui l ~e s ~ v cound rhat

even praise, the form o f reward usually viewed as the least objeit io~i -

nble, is oft en fav ored by peo ple w hos e sryle of dealing .wirh children 1s

c o n s p i c u o ~ ~ s l yontrolling or autocratic. ' These f indings don'r prove

anything abo ur the inherent nnrure of rewards, bur rhey do offer o n e

kind of answer to rhe question of how rewards

a n d

pun~shmcnr s r e

related.

Th e rti:,sr conipel ling asp ecr of rllat relarionsh: .p, rhoctgh, c.in be

succinctl; . descr ibed in rwo words: rewards punish. Those who dis-

pense reviards in order to avoid punishing people may nor have

thought

ut

[he punitive feat ures char are built into the process

of

rewarding. Tw o such features c ome ro mind. The f irst der ives f rom rhe

fact that c ewards are every bit as conrrolling as punishmenrs, even

if

they con:,ol b y seducriot i. ma de this argtlnlcnr ar som e length in

chapter

.

in rhe course o f identifying whnr mighr be seen 2s an

intrinsic; l l y offensive aspect o f rewards. Ph~lo sophic al objections

aside, th, ; :~gh,

f

reward recipienrs feel controlled, i t is l ik ei y t h ~ rhe

exper ienc will assume a punitive qualiry over the long run, even

though oilraining tile reward itself is usually plensurable.'

One eilucation writer compares the tendency of reachers to

"blithely ?dminister

.

knee-jerk iolts of positive reinforcemenr" to


4/48

L ~ n A b E A G A I N S T R E W A R D S

the use of electr ic catt le prods,9 a comparison tha t may seem far-

fetched until we pause t o consider the ult imate pu rpose, of rewards

and ho w manipu la t ion i s exper ienced by those on the receiving end.

O r try a dif fe rent analogy: the qu estion is not wheth er m ore f lies can

be caugh t w i th honey than w i th v inegar, bu t w y the flies are being

caught in either case- and h ow this feels to the fly.

Tha t r ew ar ds pun ish i s no t due on ly to the f ac t tha t they ar e

con t r o l l ing . They a l so have tha t e f f ec t f o r a second , ;even mor e

s t r a igh t f o rw ar d , r eason: s ome peop le do no t ge t t he r ew ar ds they

were hopi ng to get, and th e effect of this is , in practice, ir idistinguish-

ab le fr om pun ishment . Man y manager s and teacher s make a po in t o f

w i thho ld ing o r w i thdr aw ing a r ew ar d

if

the ir char ges d o no t per f o rm

as instructed. The goody is dangled and then snatched away. In fact,

this is precisely what many behavior ists recommend doing. While

taking care to urge that children not be punished (by which is meant

mak ing someth ing bad ha ppen to th em) , they f r eely p r escribe the use

of " r esponse cos t s" ( by w hich i s mean t mak ing someth ing good no t

happen to them). ' Unfor tunately, those who haven' t been 'trained to

make such d i s t inc t ions migh t f a i l to under s tand th a t w hen somet l ling

des i r ab le has been taken aw a y they ar e no t supposed t o f eel pun ished.

A par en t t e l l s a chi ld tha t con t inued good behav io r w i l l be r ew ar ded

w i th a v i s i t to the c i r cus on Sunday . O n Satu r day , the ch i ld does

someth ing tha t annoys the par en t , w h ich p r omp ts a f ami l iar w ar n ing :

"Keep this up and you can forget the circus tomorrow." Can there be

any doub t th a t th i s th r ea t to r emove a r ew ard is functionally identical

to a th r ea t to employ a pun ishment?

But even w hen the per son w i th the pow er does no t de l iber ar rlv

w i thdr aw the r ew ar d hen meet ing a c lear se t o f cr it e r ia does

result in the payoff - t o f ten happe ns tha t some peop le w on ' t meet

these cr iter ia a nd therefore will no t get the reward. The mo re desirable

the r ew ar d , an d the mor e poss ib le i t once seemed to a t ta in , the mor e

demora lizing it will be to miss out . Given that there ar e disadvantages

to the use o f r ew ar ds even w hen peop le do manage to get them, and

to the use o f contests even for th e winners, " imagine the effects of

w or k ing f o r a r ew ar d and no t ge t t ing i t o r of compet ing and los ing " l0

Ther e ar e , i t w ou ld seem, on ly tw o w ays ar ound th i s p r oblem. The

f irst is to give a reward to pe ople regardless of whet her they fulfi l led

7

'Negative rcinforccmcnt is dif fcrcnt from cirhcr of thesc:

t

rncans +akil lp a bad

t h i n g nor h ap p en t o s om con c- t h a t i s, rem ov i n g som ct h i n g u n p l cas~ nl i . : ,Cor . t rary o

c o m m o n u s a ge , i t is t h us c lo s e r t o p o s it i v e r ci nf o rc c mc n r ( m a k i n g a g o o d ~ : ~ i n g , l i a ~ ~ e n

to somcon c) than it is to punishment .

The

Trouble

with arrots

8

the s ta ted ~ equ i r e men ts . hamp ions o f equ ity theory , w hose w ar cry

is "Everything m ust be earne d N o free lunches " f ind this horr ifying.

( In fact, a num ber of cr it icisms of rewarding children tha t have ap-

peared in . :he popular press over the last few years turn out to be

cr it icisms only of giving rewards too f requently or too easily.) have a

different sc-r t of object ion: a goody given unc onditionally is nor really

a reward 2t all . A reward, by def init ion, is

:I

desired object or everir

made conditional on having fulf i l led sonic cr iter ion: only

i f

you do

this will 1 ou get that. I f 1 promise to give you .I banana tomor r ow ,

that is not a reward. f I promise to give yo11 banana t omo rrow for

helping

me

ou t today, rhat is a reward nci ~f don'r give ir to y o u ,

y o u w i l l p ~ o b a b l yeel as

i f

you ar e being p i~n ishe d . o avo id hav ing

this happe n, must avoid giving you things on a coritingenr basis.

The on ly o ther a l ter nat ive i s no t to se t ou r a n y cr iter ia or promise

any rewards in advance. Instead, the person in charge co~lld resent

someth ing af ter the fact: "For having helped me o ut yesterday, here's

a banan a." As it happens , most studies have found that unexpected

rewards are much less destructive than the rewards people are told

abou t bef o r ehand and ar e del iber a te ly t r y ing r o c~ l~ ta in .ut apar t

f rom the practical problems of trying to keep people f rom expecting

anothe r rew ard to morrow, i t is no coincidence rhat the great major ity

of rewards re promised in advance. The whole point is to control

people's behavior , a nd the mo st effective way to do rhis is to descr ibe

what will be given to them

i f

they comply

-

r done to them i f rhey

don' t com ply. For this very rea son, the possibility of ending ilp with-

out the rew ard, which makes the process essentially punitive, is always

present. The stick is contained in the carrot.

The objection here is anything but academic. blost busir icsspeople

can rem emb er an instance wh en they, or their colleagues, werc expect-

ing a bon us , on ly to become demor al ized w hen r hey ended LI P, or

whatever reason, not getting

i t .

Parents readily tell stories of ex,~ctly

the snme thing happening when their children failed to get some

r ew ar d a t schoo l tha t they w er e coun t ing on . Mos t o f us ar c tan i~ l iar

with this phenomenon, but few of us have considered that it is not

merely widespre ad but ende mic to the use of rewards.

The n ew schoo l , w h ich exho r t s us to ca tch peop le do ing somcth ing

r ight and reward them for i t , is therefore not all that much of an

i r npr ovcm~.n t ver the o ld schoo l , w h ich had us ca tch ing people do ing

someth ing w r ong and th r ea ten ing to pun ish them i f they ever did

it

again . Wh ?t i s most ly tak ing p lace in bo th appr oaches IS rhat a lot of

p e op l e a r e , ~ e i n gaught. This is more than a play on words. W hat we

are talkinj; about is the exper ience of being

controlled

;~ nd ee ling


5/48


6/48

6

T H E C A S E A G A I N S T R E W A R D S

First, most competition creates anxiety of a type and level that

typically interferes with perform ance.16 Second, th ose w ho believe

they don't h ave a chance of winning are discouraged from making an

effort ; having been given no re ason to apply themselves except to

defeat their peers, and convinced that they cannot do so, these people

are almost by defini t ion demotivated."Third, accord ing to a series of

studies by psychologist Carole Ames, people tend to at tribute the

results

o

a contest , as contrasted w ith the results of noncompeti t ive

striving, t o fac tors beyond their control , such a s inna te abil ity or luck.

The result is a diminished sense of empowerment and less responsibil-

ity

for their future performance."

But competi t ion is only one variat ion o n the behaviorist theme thar

practically guarantees enmity. The othe r is the deplo ym ent of a collec:

\

rive reward, "If all of us stay on ou r very best behavior," intone s the

teacher (sp eak ing here in the first person even tho ugh the teacher's

own be havior is never at issue), "we wil l have an ice cream party at

the end

o

the day " An excited mu rmu r in the room soon fades with

the real izat ion that any tro ublema ker could spoil i t for everyone else.

This gamb it is one of the mo st t ransparently manipulat ive strategies

used by people in power. It cal ls forth a part icularly noxious so rt of

peer pressure rather than enc ouraging genuine concern abou t the well-

being of others.I9 And pity th e po or child w hose behavior is cited that

afternoon a s the reason that ' the party has been, I 'm sorry to say, boys

and girls, canceled." Will the ot her s resent the teacher for tem pting

and then d i sappoint ing them, o r fo r

set t ing them against one another?

O f course not . They wil l turn furiously on'rhe designated demon.

That , of course, is the whole idea: divide and conquer.

Collectivepunishm ent is widely seen as unfair, but collective reward

is not much better. What's more, neither collective nor artificially

scarce reward s are confined to elementary school . Man y corporat ions

explici tly ra nk employees against each other or hold ou t the possibi l-

i ty of an incentive based on a n entire department's performance. In

this set t ing there is no need to announc e who w as responsible for the

disappointing results last quarter. Someone will be found to take the

blame, irrespective of whether it is deserved. Furthermore, general

distrust and stress flourish in just such a system. At one company

where "the pay of all depen ds on everyone's efforts peer pressure

can be so high that the first two years

of

employment are cal led

purgatory."20

Several s tudies have examined the way we come to regard others

when their act ions determine whether we get a reward. When older

he

roublc :

< :~rrots

7

girls were promised a reward for tutoring younger girls (see page 441

they not only beca me less effective teachers but also "valucc the

younger child as a function of her utility in obtaining the desired

goal": if she wasn't learning fast enough, she came to be viewed

negatively.2' In a very differ erlt kind of e xperiment, merely calling the

attention of youn g adults to [ he possible rewards of bcing involved in

a roma ntic relationship (fo r exam ple, impressing one's friends) led

them to report less love for their partners than was expressed by

people wh o hadn't focused on those factor^.?^

The major point here is that whe ther or not people are offered a

direct incentive to wish each oth er ill, the very fact that they have been

led to see themselves as work ing o r learning in order to get sometliing

means th at they are n ot very likely to feel well disposed tow ard othe rs

and to p ut their heads together.lJ Some rcwnrd programs promote

competi t ion and inhibi t cooperat ion more t l ian 'brhers do. But to

whatever extent they have this effect, rhe result is ultimately likely to

be to the d etriment of quali ty.

So far I have been talking ab ou t the effects of rewa rds on relarionships

among people of comparable status. The other sort of relat ionship

affected I,y a reward is that between the person wh o gives it and the

one who gets it. Even in situations in which we have no objection to

'.:ct

>f

this unequal status, we need to understand w hat the process

of rewa rding does to the interac tion between giver and receiver. Some -

one whc, is raising or teaching children, for example, probably wants

to creat ,,a.caring alliance with ea ch child, to help him or her feel safe

enough to ask for help when problems develop. This is very possibly

the sing',: most fundamental requirement for helping a child to grow

up healthy a nd develop a set of good values. For academic reasons,

too, an adult must nurture just such a relat ionship with a student

if

there is to be any hope of th e student's adm itt ing mistakes freely and

accepting guidance. Th e sam e goal applies to the workplace, w here i t

is critical to establish a good working relationship characterized by

trust, open communication, and the willingness to ask for assistance.

This is precisely what rewards and punishments kill. I f your parent

or teacher o r manager is sittin g in judgment of wha t you

do , and

i f

that judgment will determine whethe r good things or bad things

happen to you, this cannot help but warp y our relat ionship with thar

person. You will not be working collaboratively in order to learn or

grow; you wil l be trying to get him or her to approve ofw hat you are

doing so you ca n get the goodies.

If

for example, "the principal basis


7/48

U

n c L n J L H I H I N b I l < t W t \ K D S .

T h e Trotrble

l u ~ t h arrots 5

for compe nsati on is the boss ' w him , the only real incer1rii.e is to stay

on his good side."14 A powerful inducement has been created to

conceal problems, to present yourself as inf initely competent, and to

spend your energies trying to impress (or f latter ) the person with

pow er. A t l eas t on e s tudy has conf i r med that peop le a r e less l ike ly to

ask f o r he lp w hen the per son to w hom they w ou ld no r mal ly tu r n

wields the c arrot s an d sticks. lS Needless to say,

if

p e o p l e d o n o t a s k

for help whe n they need it , perform ance suffers on vir tually an y kind

of task.

This result is som ewha t easier to see when the individual in charge

is per ce ived as a pun isher: the p ar en t w ho migh t send the ch i ld to her

r oom, the teache r w ho migh t w r i te a zer o in h i s book , the super v iso r

w ho migh t tu r n in a negat ive per f o r mance appr a i sa l . f you are the

per son w ho m igh t be pun ished , you ar e appr ox imate ly as g lad to see

that per son com ing as you ar e t o see a po l ice car in yo ur r ear v iew

mirror . (This is on e pr ice : pare nts pay for presenting themselves as

enforcers of "consequences" f or misbehavior .)

Wha t som e obser ver s have missed i s tha t r e la t ionsh ips ar e r up tu red

jus t as su r e ly w he n w e see the pow er f u l per son a s someone to be

p leased as w h en w e see h im o r he r as someone to be f ear ed . Wil l i am

G lasser has labor ed f o r a quar ter

of

a cen tu r y to t r ans f o r m schoo ls

in to p laces w her e s tuden ts ar e no t per petual ly pun ished an d made to

feel l ike failures. But he errs in suggesting that teachers can "reduce

the adver sar ia l a tmosphere" if they use "rewards instead of punish-

ment."26 Such a sh i f t w il l no t p r o duce a d i ff er en t a tmospher e ; a t l eas t,

i t will not be dif ferent in the ways t hat matter . Both rewards and

pun ishmen ts induce a behav io r pa t ter n w her eby w e t r y to impr ess and

cur ry f avor w i th the per son w ho ha nds them ou t . Wheth er w e ar e

look ing to secu r e a r ew ar d o r avo id a pun ishmen t i s a lmos t bes ide the

po int . E i ther w ay , w ha t w e don t have is the sor t of relationship that

i s def ined by genu ine concer n a nd th a t inv i tes us to take the ~ i s k f

being ope n an d vulnerable he sor t of rei . l_tiophip t l iat inspirer ,

people to do their best and cantri~i:makk~j;- ff~~_e.n~ ~krives.. ~

Just as the essentially controlling nature of rewards is rcosc easily

noticed by those who are being controlled, so the effects of rewards

on r e la t ionships ar e mos t r eadi ly seen by those:w ho mu s t dep i l ld on

o ther s to get w ha t thqy w an t . Th is i s w hy i t i s impor tan t gncc again

for someone w ho dispenses rewards to imaginatively put herselt in the

pos it ion o f w hoever i s dependen t on her , and t q ref lect on the kind of

r e la t ionsh ip tha t n ow ex is ts be tw een the tw o o t them ( and the conse-

quences to the oth er person of not hav ing a different kind of relation-

ship) .

t

is act of perspecrive taking is easier for someone w h o pin]is

both rolcs at once, sorneone who is responsill le for deciding what

happens to h i s subor d inates w h i le s imul taneous ly r e mnin~ng r the

rnrrcy of a super ior for his own re wards.

The presence or absence of rewards is , of course, only one factor

amon g many r hat af fec t the quality of our reiar ionships. But t is a

factor too of ten over looked in i ts tendency to cause f lattery to be

emphasized in place of trust a nd to create a fecling of being evaluated

rarher than su ppor ted. This, combin ed wirh irs impac t on the relation-

ships Among rhosc seeking the goodies, gocs 3 iong wny toward

exp la in ing how r ew ar ds o f ten r educe ach icvcn le~ l t .

ill

Rewards lg~zore

erisv~zs

Except for

the

places where their use has become h:~bitual, punish-

men ts and r ew ar ds ar e typ ical ly d r agged our w her somebody th inks

something is going wrong.

A

child is not behaving the way we wnnt; a

s tuden t

is

no t mot ivated to lear n ; w or ker s ar en ' t do ing good w or k

this is when we br ing in the reinforcem ents.

What makes behavioral inrervenr ions so ter r ibly appealing is how

little they de ma nd of the intervener . They c an be applied m ore or less

skillfully, of course, but even the most meticulous behavior niodif ier

gets off pretty easy for one simpl e reason: rewards o not require any

at ten t ion to the r easons tha t the t r oub le developed

in

the f irst place.

You don ' t h ave to a sk why the child is screaming, why rhe srudenr is

ignor ing his home work , why the emp loyee is doing an intl if ferenr job.

All you . ;ave to do is br ibe or threa ten rhat person into shaping up.

(Notice rhat rhis too descr ibes fundam enral similar ity between pun-

ishrnentb. an d rewards.)

A

mo:'ler in Virginia wrote ro rnc nor long ago to clinllenge my

criticisrr~of behavioral manipulation. I f 1 cannor eirher punish (or

allow cc r~seq uenc es) r reward (br ibe) my chilciren . . w h a t d o

I

d o

when rn~l lrnosr three year old

.

. . wanders out of her roorn again

:lnd a g n l l l at bedr ~rne? " he ask ed. Fair enough: let 11s consider three

possible \vays of dealing wirh a child wh o will nor sray

i r l

bed. Behav-

io r i s t ' ;~vor sconsequenccs": I f you're not back in that bed by the

time 1 collnr to three, you ng lady, you won' t be wnrching television f or

a w ee k ' Behav io r is t B f avor s r ew ar ds : I f you stay i n bed until

morning for the next three niglits , honey, I l l buy vou that teddy bear

you wanred."


8/48

but the nonbehavior ist wond ers h ow an yone c ould 1)resLrme to

pr opose a so lu t ion w i thou t know ing w y t h e c hi ld k e e p s p o p p ~ n g u t

of bed. Wit h very l i t tle effor t we can ir i&ine several possible reasons

for this behavior . May be she's be ing put to bed to o ear ly and simply

isn' t s leepy yet. Maybe she feels depr ived of 'quie t t ime wiih her

par en ts , an d the even ing o f f er s the bes t oppor tun i ty f o r her to cudd le

or ta lk w i th them. Maybe she 's s t i l l w ound up ' f r om w hat happened a

few hou rs ear lier an d needs to rehearse and clar ify the day's events to

t r y to make sense o f w hat happened . Maybe ther e ar e mons ter s under

her bed. O r maybe she can jus t he ar peop le ta lk ing in the l iving r oom.

( Is ther e any one too o ld to r emembe r how al l the exci temen t seemed

to s tar t a f ter w e w er e pu t to be d?)

The po in t i s w e don 't ye t k no w w hat 's r ea l ly go i ng on . Bu t the

behavior ists ' soluti ons don' t

r quir

us to know. Echoing a beer com-

mercial o f th e la te 1980s , the i r c r edo seems to be "Why ask w hy?"

Tha t pos tu r e helps to exp la in the popu lar i ty o f the r ew ar d- and- pun-

ishmcnt mod el nd also i ts ineffectiveness over the long run. Each

of the possible explanations fo r why this gir l doesn' t s tay in bed at

night wou ld see m to call for a dif ferent solution. (This is one reason it

is d i ff icul t to g ive a s imple rep ly to peop le w h o dema nd to know w hat

"the alternative" is to using rewards .) Rewards are no t actually solu-

tions at all; they are gimmicks, shor tcuts, quick f ixes that mask pro b-

lems and ign ore reasons. They never look below the surface. '

Fr om o ne per spect ive, th i s so r t o cr it icism is not new. I t was offered

decades ago by Fr eud ians , w ho ar gued tha t behav io r a l ther apy in

effect addressed only the symptoms of deeper problems. I t was said

that the under ly in g emotional i s sues w ou ld f o r ce the i r w ay up again

in the f o r m of a new symptom. Bu t o ne doesn ' t have to be a psychoan-

a lyst to see w ha t i s defic ien t abo u t the behav ior a l appr oac h . I t is n o t

necessar y to a t t r ibu te o ur ac t ions to unconscious w ishes and f ear s o r

repressed childhood events to recognize that merely controlling an

individual's beha vior with br ibes o r threats misses mos t of what is

going on.

'Things arc happe ning bcncath thc surface cvcn whcn we thi nk rhc reason for a

bchavior is straightforward. A child cats candy aftcr bcing told not to do so, and wc

assume thc motivc i s obvious: candy tastes good. Bur perhaps thcrc is mo rr rha, mcers

thc cyc hcrc. Di d lunch at school not fill him up ) Is his blood sugar low; Ar.c othcr,

hca lth i crsnacks unavai lab l e? s he rcach i ng f~r som cth i n~f orb i ddc ns

a

w 4 r 'i pr cs s-

ing anger about something clsc) Evcn whcn wc arc sure that nothing c~lmpl i2~rcds

going on and thc causc of thc objcctionablc bchavior is rcally as obvious a ii t sccrrs, we

ncvcrthclcss nccd to addr~sr~thatausc somchow rather t h a j ~ ust trying 1 0 chaq;c thc

bchavior.

, rc~ lils

Let 's say that a student repeatedly comes

ro

cl; jb 1.1tc

or

il.l.). .

while the teache r is talking. Such be havior niiglir s ignal :h:~[ the

student 113s given up on the subjecr matrer nfrer Ilavinl; s:rt~gg ef

unsu cces sf~lly ro understa nd the assignmenrs erhaps for :acK

of adequa te study skills , perh aps because of how the teacher prescnts

the materi .11, perhaps for som c othe r reason. 1V l1~tever he renl prob-

lem is, i t remains unsolved f our interven r~on consists of pronlis-

ing a reward for an improvement in pur icr~~:ll iry nd arrenrivcness

( o r t h r e a x n i n g a p u n i s h m e n t i there is n o ~r npr ovemenr ) .Mor e-

over , this reward will not be delivered

i f

r h c suudenr docsn'r show

s ~ ~ f f i c i c n tr ogr ess , in w hich case r he en r ir c c x i ~~ c~ bes likcly to le;~d

to f u r ther a l ienat ion , an ever, mor z negar;vc scI i - ~~n ; lgc ,

~ d

spiral

of defeat.

The sam e goes f o r adu l t s a t w or k , r egarc l less i ~ he kinti of work

r hey do . sudden deter io r a t ion in per f o r mance i r eq \~enr ly urns our

to be due to probl ems at ho me. A chronic record of rnediocre perfor-

mance, meanw hile, may indi cate, a mo ng many or l-~cl. ossibil it ies, rhar

there is some thing wro ng with the job itself or wirh an organizar ionnl

structure that holds employees responsible for rhings thar rhey are

powerless to control. Turning the workplace into n game show ("Tell

our employ ees abou t the f abu lo us pr izes w e have f o r them i f their

p r oduct iv i ty impr oves . . ) does exac tly norhing to solve these under-

ly ing p r ob lems and b r ing a bou t mean ingfu l change. O f ten

i r

rakes no

great psychological sophisticar ion to identify what 1s golng on nly

a will ingness to do some thin g other than da ngle a goody in f ront of

people.

Take another example, this one f rom the pages of public policy.

Some polit icians, noting that poor teenagers of ten give up on high

school, have resor ted to rewarding them wirh additional public nssis-

tance payments if they attend classes regular ly, punishing them by

cutting rheir benef its

i f

t h ey d r o p o u t , a n d

sometimes

even

thre tening

to stop t he che cks to their pare nts in order to gen erate suf ticient family

pressure to get the teenagers back in school. Apart f rom concerns

f

abou t the fa irness of these

tactic^,^'

whar inreresrs mc is rhe failure ro

consider the under lying reasons thar someone, par ticular ly in the

inner cit) , might decide not t o continue a r tending school. Rar ller rhan

addressing the strucrural causes of pover ty or the lack of perceived

relevance of wha r rhe curr icu lum has ro offer , the inclinar ion is simply

to manipi. l late people's beha vior with a carrot or st ick. I ' the money is

needed

dispe rate ly enou gh, rhe manipulation may succeed in increas-

ing schot( atte ndan ce for a while. i t will , of course, do norhing abour

the dcepc;: issu es.


9/48

L

1 H E C A S E A G A I N S T

R E W A R E S

Some people use rewards because they are impatient for results ,

however f leeting or superf icial: their attention is focused on the bot-

tom line and they don' t par ticular ly care about "deep er issues." But

others are guided by the view that these issues actually rnake no

difference. T he core of behav ior ism, on which s om e decisions to use

behavioral strategies are based, is that huma n beings are no more tha n

w hat they do . Change w ha t they do and you have deal t w i th the

problem. O ne writer concisely descr ibes behavior ism as the "confu-

s io n of i n n e r m o t iv e s w i t h t he i r o u t w a r d e x p r e s ~ i o n . " ~ ~ut my point

is not just that the psychological theory is inadequate; i t is that the

practice is unproductive. I f we do no t address the ult ima te cause of a

p r ob lem, t he p r ob lem w i l l no t g e t so lved.

This is not t o say that peop le w ho resor t to incentives a' re necessar ily

so dull or insensitive that they will fail to see or ca re about oth er

f ac to r s . t eacher w h o b r and ishes a g rade book ( on the theor y tha t an

appet i te for As or a fear of F's is "motivating") may . neverthele ss

realize tha t a stud ent is .fail ing because of an abusive hom e environ-

men t , and m ay even endeavor to do someth ing ab ou t th is . My pur -

pose , ther ef o r e , is no t t o gener a l ize abou t the k ind o f peop le w h o use

rewards but to examine the implications of the strategy itself . In

pr inciple, behavioral intervention s exclude f rom consideration th e

factors that may matter most. In practice, behavioral interventions

d is t r ac t those w ho use them f r om at tend ing to such f ac to r s . Th is g ives

u s o n e m o r e e x p la n a t i on f o r w h y t r y i ng t o m o ti v a te ~ e o p l ey reward-

ing them is no t a very useful strategy.

I V

Rewards Discourage Risk taking

Rew ar ds ca n somet imes incr ease the p r obab i l ir y t ha t w e w i l l ac t the

w ay some one w an ts us to ac t . Bu t they do someth ing e l se a t the same

t ime that m any o f us f ai l to r ecognize: they change the w ay w e engage

in a given behavior.29To star t with, when we are dr iven by rewards,

our f ocus is typ ica l ly mor e n ar r o w than w hen no r ew ar ds ar e in -

volved; we ar e less l ikely to notice or rememb er things that aren ' t

immedia te ly r e levant to w hat w e ar e do ing .

Say you are han ded a pile of index cards, each of which has a

different word pr inted on it . Each card also happens to be a dif ferent

color. You ar e told that you will wi n a pr ize for successfully memoriz-

ing all of the words, and you set to work learning them. Later , af ter

reciting as many a s you can remember , you are unexpectedly asked to

try to recall the color of the card that corresponds to each ivord.

Chances are you will not do near ly as well or1 this task as someone

who wa s given the identical in structio ns but wasn' t promised a pr ize."'

This is an ex ample of wh at rese archers call " incidental iearr?;ng," a

type of performance that rew3rds invar~ably ntler ininc. But the rea:

son this happens is even mo e important than the eff tct ~ t s c l f .T h c

underlying pr inciple can be summarized this way: when rue ore iuork-

ing {or reword, we do exactly wha t is necessary to get it and no

more. N ot onl y are we less ap t to notice per ipheral features of the

.

task,

u r

in

performin g it we are also less l ikely to take chance s, play

with possibili t ies, follow hunches that might n ot pay off . Risks are to

be

avoided

whenever possible because the objective is not to engage in

an open- znded encoun ter w i th ideas ;

it

is simply

t

gc:t the goody. One

group

1

researchers explained that when we are motivated by re-

w ar ds , " f ea tu r es such as and s~mpl ic i ty r e des i r able ,

since tk, : pr imary focus associated with this or ier itation is to get

through the ta sk expediently in order to reach :he desired goal.""

Another psychologist was more succinct: rewartls ,

h e

said, are the

" e n e m ir s of e x p l ~ r a t i o n . " ' ~

This t ioesn ' t m ean th at we can' t get people to rake some kinds of

r isks by holdi ng ou t the possibili ty of a reward i they are successful.

The spor ts section and the business section of the newspaper are full

of activ~t ies n which people gam ble money in the hopes of making

more. But notice how n arrow this sor t of r isk- taking is . First , barnblers

try to maxim ize their winnin gs by m inimizing the r isks: this is why

they stu dy horses or stocks carefully before betting on them. The more

they ar e conce r ned abou t the p ayback , the mor e cer ta in ty they seek

even within a n qctivity that, by def init ion, cannot provide absolute

certainty, , ,Second, 'gamblers ar e engaged in do ing som eth ing w her e the

nature (an d sometimes even th e precise exten t) of the r isks has been

clear ly laid out. They are n ot involved in challenging rhe bounds of an

activity by ap proa chin g it f rom a ne w direction. By playing the odd s,

they a r e , par adox ical ly , do in g someth ing qu i te s t r a igh t f o r w ar d .

By cont rast , the far mo re meaningful kind of r isk- taking entailed by

explor in g new possibili t ies is precisely what ~ eo pl tl re unlikely to do

when they are trying to obtain a rewa rd. Far more comm on in most

activit ies is an or ientation of unref lective expedience - tI?e very op -

posite of wha t creativity requires.

Ter esa A mabi le , w ho specia lizes in th i s tnp~ c, sks

L S

to picture a

rat in the behavior ist ' s maze trying to f ind its way to the cheese. The

rat does not stop to weigh the advantages of trying another route,


10/48

star ting off on a path where the cheddar smell is less pronounced in

the hope of f inding a clever shor tc ut. No, i t just ru ns tow ard where i t

thinks i ts breakfast waits , as fast as i ts t iny legs can take i t . " T h e

safest , surest , and fastest way out of the maze [ is] the well-worn

pathway, the uncreative route," say s Amabile. "The mo re single-mind-

edly an externa l goal is pursu ed, the less l ikely that creative

possibilit ies will be explored." Th e narrow focus induced by rewards

is similar ly worr isome, she adds, since being open to "the secmingly

ir relevant aspects [o f a task] m ight be precisely wh at is required for

creativity."" Incidental learning may turn out to be integral.

But what if creativity is built into the process?

f

people will do

whatever is required to obtain a rewa rd, won' t they thin k creatively

i f

that 's w ha t i t take s to get i t? Alas, i t' s not that easy, as Barry Schwa rtz

discovered. Using reinforcements, he tr ied unsuccessfully to get pi-

geons to peck in a sequence tha t w as d i f f er en t f r om thei r peck ing

pattern in the preceding session. Eventually, he concluded that i t was

poss ib le to p r odu ce var ia t ion , bu t on ly in the f o r m of r andom r e-

sponses. Th e diff iculty of trying to operantly c ondi tion genuinely

novel behav io r , he ar gued , i s no t due to the f ac t tha t p igeons ar en ' t

very sma rt. I t is inherent in the natu re of reinforcement. We have to be

able to specify a set of character istics shared by cer tain behaviors so

that w e c an o f f er a r ew ar d w he n they ( and on ly they) appcar . Ru t th i s

i s imposs ib le to d o w hen w hat w e ar e look ing f o r i s someth ing new. '4

Schw ar tz then sw i tched to human sub jec t s and mor e compl ica ted

tasks ( see pag e

44).

H e f ound t hat r ew ar ds somet imes seemed to e l ic i t

a "stereotypic" or repetit ive appro ac h to doing things. After all , "once

one f inds some r esponse pat ter n tha t w or ks r e l iab ly [:o secure a

reward] , i t is pointless, even foolish, to deviate f ro m it." ' Unfor tu-

nate ly, Schw ar tz f ound , w hen w e ar e r ew ar ded f o r w ha t w e ar e do ing ,

we are less l ikely to be f lexible and innovative in the way we solve

probIems -even very dif ferent problems hat com e along later .

Why? "Rein f o r cement encour ages the r epet i tion o f w hat has w or ked

in the pas t , in par t because the a im o f the ac t iv ity i s no t to p r oduce

someth ing l ike a gener a l p r inc ip le o r a r u le , bu t t o p r oduce ano ther

r e i n f ~ r c e r . " ~ ~

To be a goo d sc ien ti s t , behav io ra l o r o ther w ise , one has to expect

and even welcome some negative results . I t is only by comparing

even ts tha t l ead to a cer ta in ou tcom e w i th those tha t don ' t l ead to i t

tha t w e c an f igu r e ou t w ha t i s go ing on and w hy . Bu t , as Schw ar tz

observes, people working for rewards don' t want to r isk negative

r esu l ts ; they w an t to succeed as o f ten and as qu ick ly as poss ible . Th is ,

he Troltble

wit

arrots 6

of course, has Important implications nor only for how we train

physicists but also how we set up organizntions 2nd clnssrooms in

w hich w e w an t to enc our age peop le to th lnk sys tcmnt icn l y abou t

any th ing .

I t is not entirely accurate, thougl~,o sny [hnt when we are wo rking

for rewards we just want

f

1st and irequelit success. T h e trrltll I S even

w or se than tha t . O ur ob jec t ive IS nor r r al ly to succeed , ~ the task nr

a11 ( in the sense of doing it well) ; it is to s i ~ cc e e d t o b r 3 i n l n ~ r h <

r ew ar d . f i t w er e some how poss ib le to ob ta in ~t w i t h o u t f i n ~ s h ~ n gile

-.

ass ignment , w e w ould a bando n the task In a n~inute. ur t Lewin snld

as much in the 1 930s ; tw o rcsearchers conf ir incd this cffcct ernpin-

cally in th e 1980s.""

I f w e d o usually complete the task , it S on iy l~c- cn i~seolng so is .I

prerequisite for getting the goody. But even wlicrl ihls is true, we will,

given a choice, select the easiest possible ~ ns k. t lrnst ten studies have

foun d just that, with pres choole rs working lor toys, older children

w or k ing f o r g r ades , and a du l t s w or k ing f o r m o n e y all trying to avoid

a n y th i n g ~ h a l l e n g i n g . ' ~ur thermore, research indicates that

( 1 )

the

b igger the r ew ar d , the eas ier the task tha t p e o ~ ~ lehoose;'O ( 2 ) w hen

the rewards stop, those who received them enr lier continue to prefer

to d o as l i t t le as possible;*l an d (3 ) easier tasks are selected not only in

s i tua t icns w her e r ew ar ds ar e o f f er ed bu t by peop lc w i \o ar e , as

general , .ulc, more reward oriented."

The l ,asic proposition here makes logical sense. I you have been

promisl:d a reward, you co me to see the task as something that stands

betw ee you and i t . The easier that job is , the faster you can be done

w ith it ~ n dick up your prize.4' It's logical, all right, but the practical

impl ica t ions ar e s tagger ing . O ur w or kp laces and c lass r ooms , sa tu -

r a ted i r: pop behav io ri sm as they ar e , have the eff ect o f d i sc our a g in~

people irom takin g r isks, think ing creatively, and chalicn;;i lg them-

selves.

Consider the popular program that offers f rce pizza to children for

r ead ing a cer ta in number o f books . I f you were a participant in this

p r ogr am, w ha t so r t o f books w ou ld you be l ike ly to sc lec t? Pr obab ly

shor t, s imple ones. And wh at would be the l ikely effect of tl l is prefer-

'By contrasr, from thc pcrspcctivc ot the ~ndlvi dual oling our tlie rewards, rhc

ulrimatc goal of behavior modification should always be ro gct [he maximum bchav~or

tor the minim um rcinlorccment, as two advocates o l oken cconomics pur

II.

The vcry

essencc of rewarding pcoplc, thcn, scts the reward giver and rccip~ent o worktng

a t

cross-purposcs nothcr way lo think about

11s

cllecrs on rel3rionsh1ps.


11/48

HL

A > ~

G A I N S T R E W A R D S '

ence on your reading ski l ls and y our a t t i tu ie tow ard b ooks> The

answer is distressingly obvious.

f

we want children to read more, to

read carefully, and to care abou t reading, then offering th em bribes

edible or o the rwise s exac tly the wrong way to go about i t.

Likewise, in getting student s to con centrate on t he grade s they will

receive for successfully completin g an assignm ent, we may manage to

get them to d o it. But what sort of tasks will they come to prefer as a

result? Every time a teacher rem'inds the class wh at a n assign ment is

"worth" (no t in terms of its meaning , of course, but in terms of how

many points toward a grade it represents) , every time a parent asks a

child wha t he "got" on a paper ( ra t he r than wha t he got f rom the ac t

of writing it) , an im portant lesson is being taugh t. Th e lesso~r s that

school is not a bo ut playing with ide as or taking intellectual r isks; it is

about doing what is necessary, and only what is necessary, to snag a

be t te r le t te r or number . Mos t s tud ents wi ll quickly accommoda t e us ,

choosing " to d o tha t which wi l l maximize the grade and no t a t -

tempt[ing] tasks in which they might fail, even though they would

choose to challeng e themselves to a greater degree under o ther circum-

stance^."^

The la s t pa r t of tha t quota t ion is c r i t ica l . f i t has e scaped our not ice

up unt il now t ha t r ewards -grades, of course , being only one exam-

ple ave these unh appy effects, this may be because we assume that

people natura lly avoid challenging themselves, th at it is "human na-

ture" to be lazy. The evidence shows tha t

if

anything deserves to be

called natural, : t is the tendency to seek optimal challenge,to struggle

tg-ma ke s ense

of

th x u l d , t o f o o l a r o ~ n d . A d . m L a m i l i a r deas

Huma n be ings a re inc lined to push themse lves to succeed a t something

(modera te ly) d i f f i~ ul t . '~ s a ru le , we re t rea t f rom doin g so and take

the easy way ou t only when something e lse inre rvenes omething

like rewards. If people all around us generally pick the easy task,

it

may be because rewards are all aroun d us too.

Just as it is possible for a behaviorally oriented teacher to think

about the deeper reasons for a student's actions, so it is conctivable

tha t someon e promised a reward could choose to take r isks ,and work

on challenging tasks. Theoretically, for that matter , almost an} psy-

chological effect can be ov ercome by someoAe wh o is ?ffic.ently

determined. But for this to happe n, on e must swim ,upstrean . atwm pt-

ing to transcend the mindset that rewards, by their very nature, tend

to induce. Mo st people prodde d by the promise of a reward will

approach tasks in the manner described here.

f

tha t o r ienta t ion dis-

turbs us, then urging people to "be creative" or "go t he extra mile" is

npr to e .ir less effective hnn taking n l ic~r l iook n t our usc

of

rewards

to get people to perforrn.

"Do this and you'll get that" makes

people

focus on the

" thnt , "

not

t h e " t h i ~ . " ' ~rompting employees to th ink nbour how much w~ li e in

their pay errvelopes, or stud ents to worry nbour what will be

on

their

report cards, is abo ut the last sSrat egywe ought to use i we ca re about

creativity. W e can summ arize chis discussion a s follows: Do re~uards

motivat e people? A6solutely Th ey rnotivatc?people to get rewords


12/48

ehaviouual

Views

of Learning

vmku Wbat Would You Do

UNDERSTANDING LEARNING

2 4

Lcarning: A k f i n i r i o n I Learning Is No t Always W hat It Sccms

EARLY EXPLANATIONS

OF

LEARNING: CONTIGUITY AND

CLASSICA L CONDITIONING 207

Pavlov s Dilcmma and D iscorcry: Classical C onditioning

Gcncralizarion, Discrimination, an d Extinco on

OPERANT CONDITIONING: TRYING NEW RESPONSES

208

-The Work of Thom dikc and Skinncr Typcs of Conscqucnccs

Rcinforc emcnr Schcdulcs Summ arizing rbc Effccts of Rcinforc cmcnt

Schcdulcs Antcccdcnrs an d Bchaviour Changc

APPLIED BEHAVIOUR ANALYSIS 216

Mcrho ds for Encouraging Fkhaviours

I

Coping with Undcsirablc

kh nour

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY

225

Elcmcnts of Social Cognitive Thcory Learning by Obscrving Orhers

.

-

Elcmcntr of Obnrvacional Lcarning Fa no rs Tha t Influ-ncc

Obx iva i io iu l Lurn ingTObxrva t iona l Lcarn ing k T c : :ing

SE LF- RE GU TIO N AND COGNrTIVE BEHAVIOUR MOC

kTION

3

Sel f -Managmcnt I

Cognitive

Bchaviour Modification anS

Sclf-lnsrmction

PROBLEMSAND ISSUES 236

Ethical

Issucs

I Crit icisms of kha vio ura l Mcthods

Summu? cy T m Chcck Your Undrrstanding I Wcblinks

Tuacbers

G s e b m k :

Wbat W ould

hy

Do?

Woolfolk,

A. E.,

Winne, P.

H.. P ew N. E. 2000).

Behavioural views of learning. In

Educational Psychology

(pp.

190-224 . New York, NY: Prentice Hall.


13/48

C H A F E R

Bchavioural Vtcwr of earning

M zat Tlrould

YouDo

You were hired in Janu ary to tak e ovcrt hc class of a tcachcr w ho rnovcd a w ay

Thi s is a great school. If you do well, you might be in linc for a full-time open-

ing ncxt fall. As you are introduced around thc school, you gct a nurnbcr of

sympathctic looks and many-too rn any -o ff cr s of hclp: 'Lcr

rnc kno w if can do anything for you."

As you walk toward your classroom, you bcgin to un-

dcrstand why so many tcachers volunteered their hclp You

hcar the screaming whcn you arc still halfway down thc hall.

"Givc it back, it's

MINE "

"N o way--come and get it " "I hate you." A crash-

ing sound follows as a tablc full of books hits the floor. Th e first day is a night-

marc. Evidently the prcvious tcachcr had no rnanagcrncnt systcrn-no order.

Scvcral students walk around the room whilc you arc taking ro thc class,

in

rcrrupr you whcn you arc working with agrou p, torrncnt t hcclass goldfrsh, and

open thcir lunches (or othcr students') for a sclf-dctcrmincd .mid-morning

snack. Ot hc n listcn, but ask a million qucstions off the topic. Simply taking roll

and introducing the first activity takes an hour. You cnd thc first day cxha ustcd

and discouragcd, losing your voice and your paticncc.

Ho w would you abproach the situation?

Which problcm bchaviours would you tacklc first?

Would givingrcwards or administering punishrncnts bc uscful in thi s siru-

a t ion? Why o r why no t?

U n d e r s t a n d i n g L e a r n i n g

Wh cn wc hcar thc word 'Icarning," most of us think of studying and school.

We think about

subjects

or skills we intcnd to master, such as algcbra, French

chemistry, or karatc. But lcamin g is not iirnitcd to school. We lcarn cvcry day

of o ur Livcs. Babics lcarn t o kick thci r lcgs to makc the rnobilc abo vc thcir cri bs

move, tcenagers lcarn the lyrics to all thcir favouritc songs , middlc-aged pcoplc

lcarn to changc thcir diet an d exercise pancrns, an d cvcry fcw years wc all lcarn

t o find a new nyle of dress attractive whcn the old stylcs (thc styles wc once

. . . ....

bvcdtgmnrroffzshion.--Thisa n c x m p lc - s h ~ w s at l ca rn in g i s no t a lwa y s

i n t e n a d We don't try ro like new stylcs and d is like o ld; i t just x c m o h a p

pcn th at way. We don't int cnd to bccornc ncrvous wh cn wc see thc d ent in fill

a syringe with N ov oa in or when we step onto a stage, yet many of us do. SO

w h a t

is t is

powerful ph enomen on callcd learning?

Learning

A Definition

In

the

broadest sensc

= c m i n g

ccurs when cxpcricncc causes a rclativcly pcr-

mancnt changc in an xiividual 's knowlcdgc or bchaviour Th c changc may be

dclibcr au o r unintentional, fo r bener or for worse. To qualify as Icarning. this

Lurning

Proccss through

change must bc brought about by cxp cr ic nc eb y thc intcracnon of a person

which cxpcr im cc u u x ~erma-

wiLh

is

o r h ~ rnvironment. Cfunges simply caused by maturation. such as

ncnt change in knowlcdgc or

growing taller Or turning gray, do not q ua li b

is

learning. Temporary changes

bchaviour

resulting fr om illness, fatigue, or hungcr are also otcludcd from a gencral def-

inition of learning. person who has gone without food for tw o days docs not


14/48

lcarn to bc hung rt; and a pcrsan who is l l docs not learn to run more slowly.

Of coursc, lcarning ~izys ;az ii: how we respond to hung cr or illness.

Ou r definition

specifies

ihat rhc changcs resulting from lcarning arc in the

individual's knowledge or bchaviour. Whilc most psychologists would agrce

with thi s statcrnent, ;ome tcnd to crnphasizc the chan gc in knowledg e, other s

the changc in behaviour.

Cognitive

psychologists, who focus on changcs in

knowlcdgc, bclicvc Icarning is an intcrnal mcntal activiry that cannot bc ob-

scrvcd dirccrly. As you will scc in thc ncxr chaptcr, cognirivc psychologists

studying lcarning arc intcrcstcd in unobscrvablc mental acrivitics such as think-

ing, remcmbcring, and solving problems (Sc hw anz Rcisbcrg, 1991).

Th c psychologists discusscd in this chaptcr, on thc ot hcr h and , favour bc-

havioural

learning

thcorics. Thc bchavioural vicw gencrally assumcs that rhc

outcomc of lcaming is changc in bchaviour and cmphasizcs thc cffccrs of cx-

tcrnal cvcnts on th c individual..Sornc carly bchaviourists likc j

B.

Watson took

thc radical position that bccausc thinking, intcnrions, a nd othcr intcm al rncn-

tal cv cnts could not be scen or studicd rigorously and

scientifically,

thcse "mcn-

talisms," as hc callcd thcm, should nor cvcn bc includcd in an

explanation

of

learning. Bcforc wc look in dcpth at bchavioural

explanations

of Icarning, let's

stcp into an actual classroom and notc the possiblc rcsuits of Icarning.

Learning Is ot Always W hat I t

Seems

Elizabcth was bcginning hcr first day of solo tcaching. Ahcr wceks of work-

ing with hcr coopcrating tcachcr in a gradc cight social studics class, shc was

rcady t o rakc ovcr. As she movcd from behind thc dcsk to thc f r m t of thc

room, she saw anothcr adult approach the classroom door. It was Dr. Ross,

hc r

supervisor

fr om thc univcrsiry. Elizabeth's ncck an d facial rri ~s cl cs ud-

dcnly bccamc vcry tcnsc and her hands trcmblcd.

'I'vc stopp cd by to obscrvc your [caching," Dr. Ross said. "Th is will bc

my firs t of six visits. I rricd to rcach you lasr night to tcll you."

Elizabcth tricd to hidc hcr rcacrion, but hcr hands trcmblcd as she gath-

crcd thc notcs for thc Icsson.

"Lct's Stan today with a kind of gamc. I will say sornc words, thcn wan t

you t o tcll rnc thc first words you can think of. Don't bothcr to raisc your

hands. Just say the words out loud, and I will write them on the board. Don't

all speak at oncc, though. Wait until somconc clsc has finishcd to say your

word. Okay, hcrc is rhc first word: M ttk ."

' R c d . & ~ e r , ~ ~ L o u i si ~ . . ~ . ~ . R c b cl l i . o n , ~ c.nswcrs.camc vcry quickly.

.

. . . .

and Elizabeth was rclicvcd to sce that the stude nts undcr stood thc game.

'All right, vcry good," she said. "N ow t ry anoth er onc: Batochc."

"Du ck Lake." "Fish Crcek." 'John A Macd onald. " "Big Mac." "Sir

Ro nald McDonald " With this last answer, a rippl e of laught er moved acros s

the room.

"Ronald McDonald?" Elizabeth sighed drcarnily. "Gct serious" Then she

laugh ed too. Soon all the students wcrc laughi ng. 'Okay, scn lc down," EIiza-

. .

bct h said. 'Thcsc ideas arc gcnin g a lin lc off basc "

'Off basc?

Baseball,"

shouted thc boy wh o had first mcntioncd Ronald

McDonald. He stood up and sta ncd throwing balls of papcr to a friend in the

back of th e room , simulating the stylc of Rog er CIcmcns.

c h a v i o d

L u r n i n g

Thcorics

"Expos." 'NO, the Blue Jays."

"The

SkyDomc." 'Hot dogs." 'Popcorn.

Explanations of lcarning that

"Hamburgers."

"Ronald McDonald." Thc rcsponscs now came too fast fo r

focus on cncrnal cvcnrs as thc

Elizabcth to stop them. For some reason, the R onald McD onald line got an

u u r c o f

changes

in obscrvablc

cvcn biggcr laugh the second time around, an d Elizabeth sudden ly realized she

bchaviom..

had lost the class.


15/48

CHAPTER

6

B c h a v ~ o u r a l

VI WS

Laming

Ncw Phoro

6-2

to

comc

6 - 2

1 1 5 %

A r e ~ h m e x p mi mces i n yo ur

' learning history that have

m a d e y o u a n r i o u r a b o u r s p e a k -

i ng i n p ub l i c o r t a k i ng t e s t s?

H o w mi g hi b eha v io ura l p ri n-

c i p a ls o f l ea rni ng he l p ro

a

p la in t h e d w e l o p m m r o f th e s e

o nr i e t i e s?

Contiguity Associarion of two

cvcnts bcuusc

of

rcpeatcd pair-

ing

Srimulur Evcnt that activates

bchaviour

Raponrc Obscrvablc rcacrion to

a stimulus.

"0ka); sincc you know s o much ab out thc Rcbcllion, closc your books and

rzk:

2 ;:

a p a ,

Elizabeth said, obviously angry. Shc passcd out thc workshcct

aha shc had planned as a coope rative , cpc n-b ook projcct. "You hav c

20

min-

utes to finish this tcst "

"You didn't tcll us wc wcr c having a rcst " "This isn't fair " "L'c havcn'r

cvcn covcrcd this stuff yct " I did-i't d o anyrhing wrong " Thcrc wcrc moans

and disgustcd looks, cvcn from the most mcllow studcnrs. "I'm rcporring you

ro thc principal; it's a violar ion of stu dcn ts' righrs "

Th is last comr ncnt hit hard..Th c class had just finishcd discussing huma n

rights as prcparation for this unit on th c Rcbcllion. As shc lisrcncd ro the

protests

Elizabcth fclr tcrriblc. How was shc going t o gradc thcsc "tcsts"? Thc

firsr scction of thc workshcct involvcd facts about cvcnts lcading up to rhc

Northwest Rcbcllion, and thc sccond scction askcd studc nts to crcarc a ncws-

sv lc program in rcnicwing or dinary pcoplc touched

by

thc war.

"All right, all righr, it won't bc a rcsr. But you d o havc ro complcre this

workshcct for a gradc.

I

was gbing to Ict you work togcrhcr, bur your bchav-

iour this morning tclls mc that you arc not rcady for group work. I f you can

cornplctc thc first scction of thc shcct working quicrly and

seriously,

you may

work togcthcr on thc sccond scction." Eiizabcth kn cw rhar hcr srudcnts woul d

likc to work togcthcr o n writing thc script for the ncws in tcn icw program.

It appcars, on thc surfacc at Icast, that vcry linlc lcarning of any sort was

taking placc in Elizabeth's classroom. In fact, Elizabeth had somc go od idcas;

but shc also madc somc misrakcs in hcr application of lcarning principlcs. Wc

will rctu rn to this cpisodc latcr in thc chaptcr to anal yic various aspccrs of what

took placc. To gct us s tan cd, fou r cvcnts can bc singlcd out, cach possibly rc-

larcd to a diffcrcnt lcarning proccss.

First, Elizabcrh's hands trcrnblcd wh cn hcr collcgc su pc ni so r cntcrcd C

room. Sccond, thc studcnts wcrc ab c to associarc the phrascs R e d R i v m and

L w s Riel wirh rhc word MCtis. Third, onc studcnt continued to disrupt thc

class with inappropriarc rcsponscs. And fou nh, ah cr Elizabcrh laughcd ar a stu-

dent comrncnt, thc class joincd in hcr laughrcr T hc fou r lcarning proccsscs rcp-

rcscntcd arc classical conditioning. contiguity, opcrant conditi oning, and ob-

scrvarional Icarning.

In

thc following pagcs wc will cxaminc thcsc four kinds

of Icarning. staning wirh contiguiry.

E a r l y

Explanations of Learning:

Contiguity and -Classical.Conditioning

On c of the carlicst explanations of lcarning camc from Aristotlc

(384-322

B.c. .

H C said that w c rcrncrnbcr things togcthcr (1) whcn thcy arc similar,

( 2 )

whcn

they contrast, and

(3)

whcn thcy arc contiguous Thi s last principlc is thc most

important, bccausc it is included in all explanations of

le rning by

a s s o c i a r i a

The principlc of contiguity states that whcncvcr two or morc scnsations occur

togcthcr oftcn cnough, they will bccornc

associated.

Latcr, whcn only onc of

thcsc scnsations (a stimulus) occurs, the other will bc rcmcmbcrcd too (a rc-

spons e) (Rachlin, 1991).

Some rcsults of contiguous lcaming wcrc cvidcnt in Elizabeth's class. When

she said 'Mitis," studen ts associated the words 'Rcd Rivcr"

an d

'Louis Ricl."

They had heard thcsc wor ds togcther many timcs in a movie show n thc day be-

fore. Other la m in g processes

m y

also

be

involved when stude nts learn these

phrases, but contiguity is a f act or Contiguity also plays a major rolc in anothe r

lcaming proccss bcst kn own as

clarcicol

conditioning.


16/48

E a r l y

Explanations of L am ing : Conriguiry and Class ica l Conditioning

Pavlov s D ilemm a and Discovery:

Classical Conditioning

Classical conditioning foc;scs on thc lcarning of inv olun-

t a ry

cmotional or physiological rcsponscs such as Scar, in-

c rcascd hcanbca t , s a l iva t~on , o r swearing, which arc

somctimcs callcd rcspondcnts bccausc rhcy arc auromatic

rcsponscs to stirnull. Through thc proccss of classical con-

di t ioning, humans and animals can bc t ra ined to rcact in-

voluntar i ly t o a s t imulus that

previously

h a d n o c f f c c t - o r

-cry diffcrcnt cffcci--on them. The stimulus comcs to

C l a ss i ca l C o n d i t i o n i n g

How docs a ncuual stimulus bccornc

a

condirioncd stimulus

Discrirninatc bcrwccn gcncralizarion and

discrimination.

el ici t or bring f on h, thc rcsponsc automatical ly .

Akcr scvcral painful visits ro thc dcntist,

Classical conditionin g was discovcrcd by Ivan Pavlov, a

you fccl your heart rarc incrcasc whcn you

Rus sian physiolog ist, in thc 19 20s . In his labo rator y, Pavlov sir down in thc dcntist's chair ro havc your

was plagucd by a scrics of sctbacks

in

his cxpcrimcnts on

tccth clcancd. Analyzc this situarion in

thc digcstivc systcm of dogs. Hc w as trying to dctcrrninc

tcrrns of classical conditionin g.

how long it took a dog to sccrctc digcstivc juiccs ah cr it had

bccn fed, but thc intervals of timc kcpt changing. At first,

thc dogs salivatcd

in

thc cxpcctcd manncr whilc thcy wcrc bcing fcd. Thcn thc

dogs bcgan ro salivatc as soon as thcy saw thc food. Finally, they salivatcd as

soon as thcy saw thc scicntist cntcr the room . Th c whitc coats of thc cxpcri-

rncntcrs and thc sound of thcir footstcps all e/iciled salivation. Pavlov dccidcd

to m akc a dctour from his or iginal cxperimcnts and cxaminc thcsc uncxpcctcd

intcrfcrcnccs in his work.

In

onc of his first cxpcrimcnts, Pavlov bcgan by sounding a tuning fork

and rccording a dog's rcsponsc. As cxpcctcd, thcrc was no salivaticn . At this

point , thc sound of thc tuning fork was a ncu aal s t imulus bccausc i t brought

forth no sal ivat ion. Thcn Pavlov fcd thc dog. Th c rcsponsc was sal ivat ion. Th c

food was an uncondit ioncd s t imulus (US) bccausc no prior training or 'con-

di t ioning" was nccdcd to establish the-natural conncct ion bctwecn food and

sal ivat ion. T hc sal ivat ion was an uncondit ioncd rcsponsc

UR),

gain bccausc

it occu rrcd automatically-no conditionin g rcquircd.

Using thcsc thrcc clcrncnu-thc food, the salivation, and thc tuning fork-

Pavlov dcrnonstratcd that a dog could bc condirioncd to salivatc afrcr hcaring

the t unin g fork. Hc d id this by conti guou s pairing of thc so.und with food. At

thc bcgim ing of thc cxpcrimcnt , hc sounded thc fork and thcn quickly fcd thc

dog. Ahc r Pavlov rcpcatcd this scvcral times, thc dog bcgan to salivatc ahc r

hcaring thc so und b ut bcforc rccciving thc food. N ow thc sound had bccomc

condit ioncd s t imulus a)har could bring f on h sal ivat ion by i twlf . h c e-

sponsc of sal ivat ing afrcr the tonc w as now a condirioncd rcsponsc

CR).

Classical Condirioning Associa-

tion of auromatic rcsponscs with

ncw stimuli.

Rcrpond cnu Rcsponscs (gcncr,

ally automatic or involuntary)

clicircd by spccific stimuli.

N cu nd Sdmulus Stimulus not

connccrcd to a rcsponsc.

Uncondidoncd Stimulus (US)

Srimulus that auromarically

produccs an cmotional or phys-

iological rcsponsc.

Uncondidoncd Rcrponre UR)

Naturally occurring cmouonal or

physidogical rcsponsc.

Condidoncd Stimulus CS) tim-

ulus that cvokcs an cmotional or

Generalization, Discrimination, and E xtinction

Pavlov's w or k also idcntificd thr ee othe r proccsscs in classical conditionin g: gm

cralizntion ducriminotion a n d extinction. Aftcr the dogs lcarncd to salivate in

rcsponsc to hcaring o nc particular soun d, thcy would also salivatc ahc r hcaring

sLnilar roncs that wcrc slightly higher or lowcr This proccss

s

caUcd g c n d -

na tio n because the conditioncd rcsponsc of salivating gcncralizcd o r cxcurrcd in

the presence of similar stimuli. Pavlov cou ld also reach thc do gs disuimination-

to respond to one tonc but nor ro others that are s imilar-by making surc that

food always foUowcd only one tone, not any othcrs . Exdn aio n occurs whcn a

condi ioned sdm ulu s (a part icula r tone) is prcsentcd repeated ly but s nor fol-

lowed by the unconditio ned stim ulus (foo d). Th e conditioncd response (salivat-

ing) gradually fades aw ay a nd f inal ly is 'cxringuishcd"-ir disappcars altog ethe r

physiological rcsponsc ahcr con-

ditionin~.

Conditioned Rcrponse CR)

Lcarncd rcsponsc to a previously

ncutral stimulus.

~cn c&c ibn Responding in

thc u m c way to similar stimuli.

Diicrimination Responding dif-

fcrently to similar, but not idcnti-

cal stimuli.

Exdncdon Gradual

disappear-

ance of a lcarncd rcsponsc.


17/48

. .

CHAPTrR 6

Bchavioural VICWSf Lcarning

Pavlov 's f~r~dingsnd rhosc of othcr rcscarchcrs who havc srudicd classical

conditioning havc implica tions for tcachcrs. It is possiblc tha t ma ny of ou r crno-

rioiial ieaitions

o

various s i tuat ions arc lcarncd in p a n thro ugh classical con-

dtioning. For cxarnple,

Elizabeth's

trembling hands whcn she saw hcr collcgc

supemisor might

bc

traccd to prcvious unpleasant cxpcrienccs. Pcrhaps shc had

bccn crnbarrasscd during pa n evaluations of hcr pcrforrnancc, a nd n o w just rhc

thought of bcing obscrvcd clicirs a pounding hc an an d swcaty palms. Rcrncrnbcr

that crnotions and anirudcs as wcll as facts and idcas arc lcarncd in classrooms.

This crnotional lcarning can s~rnct irncsntcrfcrc with academic Icarning. Pro-

ccdurcs bascd o n classical co nditi onin g also can bc uscd to help pcoplc I ca n rnorc

adaprivc crnotional rcsponscs, as the Guidclincs on pagc xxx suggcst.

O p e r a n t C on ditio nin g:

Trying Ne w Responses

So far wc havc conccnrratcd o n thc autom atic condit ioning of involuntary rc-

sponscs such as salivation and fcar. Clcarly, not all human lcarning is so auro-

matic and uninrcntional. Mo st bchaviours arc not eli ited by srimuli, thcy arc

m i n e d or voluntarily cnactcd. Pcoplc aaiv cly 'opcratc" on rhcir cnvironmcnt

to product differcnr kinds of conscqucnccs. Thcsc dclibcratc actions arc callcd

opcrantr. Thc lcarning proccss involvcd in opcrant bchaviour is callcd opcrant

condir ioning bccausc wc Icarn t o bchavc in ccnain ways as w c opcrarc on thc

cnvironmcnt .

.>

Associate positive, plcarant cvcnts with lcarning tasks.

L J @ P ~ n ~ i p l @ . ~ ~ ~ ~

~~~ ~~

.

.....-.-;,.

' of Classical

. . - . 1

Emphasize grou p compctirion and coopcrarion ovcr individual cornpetidon.

C o d i t i o n i n g

.

Ma ny s md cnu havc ncgarivc crnorional rcsponscs t o individual compctirion

that may gcncralizc to othcr Icarning.

2.

hla kc division drills fun y having studcnu dccidc how to dividc rchcshmcnts

cqually, thcn lcrring rhcm car rhc rcsults.

3

Makc volunrary reading

appealing by

crcat ing a com fom blc rcading corncr

with pillows, colourful display s of

books

and rcading props such as

puppets

.

{scc M or ro w Wcinsrcin, 1986 fo r rnorc idcas).

.

peranu Voluntary (and gcn-

crally goal-dirccrcd) bchaviours

cmincd

by

a pc non or an ani-

maL .

O p m ~ t onditioning Lcarning

in which vo luntary bchaviour is

strcngrhcncd or wcakcncd by

conscqucnccs or anrcccdcnrr

Help s md cn ts to risk a n x i ~ t y - ~ r o d u c i ~ ~iruadons voluntar i ly

a n d s u ~ c s s f u l l y .

Lamplrr

1.

Assign a shy studcnt thc rcsponsibiliry of [caching two othcr stud cnts how

to disrributc marcrials for map srudy.

2. Dcvisc small srcps tow ard largcr goal. For cxamplc.'givc ung radcd prac-

dcc tcsrs daily, and th cn wcckly, to smd cnn w ho tcn d to 'frcczc" in rcsr sir-

uarions.

3.

If a studcnt is afraid of spcaking in front of thc class, Ict rhc studcnt rcad a

rcport to

a

small group whilc scared, thcn rcad it whilc standing, rhcn give

the rcport from notcs instcad of rcading it verbatim. Ncxt, movc In stages

toward having thc sm dcnt give a report to thc wholc class.

H c l p s t u d e n ts r c c o g n l e d i ff cr c nc c s

nd

s imil &t ic s a mo n g s h a t i o n s SO they

c n discriminate and gcncral izc

appropriately.


18/48

Opcranr Condirion~ng: ving Ncx. Rcspon sn

Examples

1 .

E x p l a ; ~har r is ap;;opriaic o avoid suangcrs who offcr gifts or ridcs bur

saic ro acccp: favours irorn adults whcn parcnrs arc prcscnr.

2 Assurc srudcnrs who arc anxious abour taking collcgc cntrancc cxarns thar

chis rcsr is 11kc all rhc orhcr achicvcrncnt rcsts rhcy havc t akcn.

. l -heW o r k of T h o r n d i k e a n d S k i n n e r

Edward Thorndikc and B. F Skinncr both playcd major rolcs in dcvcloping

knowlcdgc of opcrant conditioning. Thorndikc s (1913) arly work involvcd cats

h a t hc placcd in problcm boxcs. To cscapc from thc bo x and rcach food our-

sidc, thc cars had t o pull our a bolt or pcrform sornc o thcr task; rhcy had to act

on thcir cn vironm cnt. During thc frcnzicd movcmcnrs th at followcd rhc closing

of h c box , thc cars cvcntually madc thc corrcct rnovcrncnt to cscapc, usually by

accidcn t. Ah cr rcpcaring thc proccss scvcral timcs, thc cats lcarncd to rnakc thc

corrccr rcsponsc alrnosr immcdiatcly. Thomdikc dccidcd, on the basis of thcsc

cxperirncnts, thar onc imponant law of lcarning was thc law of cffca: Any act

that produc cs a satisfying cffccr in a givcn situation will tend to bc rcpcarcd

in

that situation. Becausc pull in^ out a bolt produccd satisfaction (acccss to food).

cats rc peatcd thar movcrncnt whcn rhcy fbund rhcrnsclvcs in thc box again.

Thorndjkc thus cstablishcd thc basis for opcrant conditioning, but thc pcr-

so n gcncrally thou ght to bc rcsponsiblc for dcvcloping thc concept is B. F Skin-

ncr ( 1953 ). Skinncr bcgan wi th thc bclicf that thc principlcs of clrssical condi-

tioning ac count for only a small ponion of lcarncd bchaviours. Many huma n

behaviours arc

operants,

not rcspondcnts. Classical conditioning dcscribcs only

ho w cxisting bchaviours might bc paircd with ncw srimuli; it d, x s not explain

how ncw oDcrant bchaviours arc acouircd.

Bchaviour, likc rcsponsc or action,

is

simply a word for what a pcrson

docs in a particular situation. Conceptually, wc may think of a bchaviour as

sandwiched

bctwc cn tw o sets of cnvi;onmcnral influcnccs: thosc rhat prcccdc

it (its antcccdcnts) and thosc that follow it (its conscqucnccs) (Skinncr, 1950).

T h i s relationship

can bc shown vcry simply as antcccdcnt-bchaviour-consc-

quc ncc , or A-B-C. As bchavr our unfolds, a given conscqucn cc bccomcs an

antcccdcnt for thc n c n ABC scqucncc. Rcscarch in opcrant condit ioning

s h o w s tha t o p c ~ a n ~ ~ c h a v ~ o u r ~ a n ~ b clrcrcd by changc s thcantcccdcnts,

thc conscqucnccs, or both. Early wor k focuscd on conscqucnccs, often using

ra t s or p igeons as subjects.

Types of Consequences

According to thc bchavioural view, consequences dctcrrninc to a grcat cxccnt

whcthcr a person will rcpcat thc bchaviour that Icd to the conscqucnces. Thc

rypc a nd timing of conscqucnccs can strengthen or wcakcn bchaviours. WC

will

look f i rst at conscqucnccsthat nrcngrhcn bchaviour

Reinforcement.

Whilc rcinforccmcnt is commonly understood to mcan

reward,

t hi s t c m has a particular mcanin g in psychology.

A

rciaforccr is any

conscq uence tha t strengrhens the bchaviour it follows. So, by dcfiiition, rein-

forced

behaviours inncase

n

frequency or duration . Whenever you see a be-

hav iour pcnisting o r increasing over timc, yo u can assurnc thc conscqucnccs

of that behaviour arc reinforcers for thc individual involved. The reinforcc-

mcnt process can c diagrammcd as follows:

B. F

Skinner s work on operant

conditioning changed the way

w think about conscqucnres

and learning.

Anrcccdcnrs Evcnrs rhar prcccdc

an anion.

Conscqucnccs E ~ c n u

har

arc

brought about by an aaion.

Rcinforcuncnt Usc of CONC

qucnccr to rtrcngrhcn bchaviou~

Rcinforca Any cvcnt t h a t fol-

lows a bchaviour and in cr ca ~r

thc chanccs that thc bchaviour

will occur again.


19/48

CH FTER

6

E khav~oural

V ~ c w r

L a m i n g

Positive Rcinforcemmt Sucngrh-

cning bchaviour by presenting

desired stimulus a h n th

behaviouz

Negative Reinforcemmt

Sncngrhcning bchaviour

by

rc-

moving an avcniv c srimulur.

Avenive Irritating or unpleasant.

Pu nis hm at Proccss that weak-

ens or supprcrses bchaviou~

Sehaviour

--

Rchforccr t Srrcngrhcncd or ;cared bchaviour

We can be fairiy ccn ain thar foo d will be a rcinforc:. for a hu~.;ry ani ma l,

but wha t abou t peop le? It may nor bc clcar why an cvcnt ans as a rcinforccr for

anindividual, but thc rc arc many rhcorics about why rcinforccmcnr works. For

cxamplc, some psychologists suggest that rcinforccrs satisfy needs, whilc othcr

psychologists bclicvc thar rcinforccrs rcducc tension or stimulate a pan of rhc

brain (Rachlin, 19 91 ). Whcrhcr the conscqucnccs of any an io n arc rcinforcing

dcpcnds on thc individual's pcrccption of thc cvcnt and thc mcaning it holds for

hcr or him. For cxarnplc, studcnts who rcpcarcdly gcr thcmsclvcs scnr ro rhc prin-

cipal's office for misbchav ing may bc indicating rhat wmc thing about this con-

scqucncc.is reinforcing for th cm. cvcn i it docsn'r sccm rcvarding ro you.

Rcinforccrs arc thosc conscqucnccs rhar strcngrhcn rhc associated bchav-

iour ( S k i ~ c r , 953, 1989). Thcrc arc two 1)-pcs of rcinforccmcnt . The f i rst ,

callcd posirivc rcinforccrncnt, occ urs whcn rhc bchav iour produces a new srim-

ulus. Examples includc a pcck on thc rcd kcy producing food for a pigcon,

wcaring a ncw outfit producingmany complimcnrs, or falling out of your chair

producing chccrs an d laughrcr from classmates.

Noricc thar positivc rcinforccmcnt can occur cvcn whcn thc bchaviour

bcing rcinforccd (falling ou t of a chair) is not posirivc from thc reacher's

point of vicw. n fan, positivc reinforcement of inappropriatc bchaviours CK

curs unintentionally in many classrooms. Tcachcrs inadvcncntly hclp maintain

problcm bchaviours by rcinforcing thcrn. For cxarnple, Elizabcrh may havc un-'

inrcnrionally rcinforccd problem bchaviour in hcr class by laughing whcn the

boy answ crcd, Ron ald McDonald. Thc problcrn bchaviour may havc pcr-

sisrcd for othcr reasons, but the ccnscqucncc of Elizabcth's laughter could

havc played a rolc.

When h e consequence th at srrcngthcns a bchaviour is rhc appeJronce (ad-

ditio n) of ncw stimulu s, the situation is dcfincd as posirivc rcinforc cmcnt . In

contrast, when thc conscqucncc that srrcngthcns a bchaviour is thc

disappear-

ance (subtrac tion) of a stimulus, thc proccss is callcd ncgativc rci nf or cc mc n~f

a p anicular action lcads to stopping, avoiding, or escaping an avcrsivc situation.

rhc action is likely to be rcpcatcd in a similar siruadon. A common cxarnplc is

the car scatbclt buucr. As soon as you anach your sc ar bc l~hc i rr i tat ing bu uc r

stops. You are likely to rcpcat this anion in thc fururc bccausc thc bchaviour

madc an avcrsivc stimulus diuppcar Considcr studcnu who conrinually 'gct

sick right bcfor c a tcst and arc sent t o rhc nursc's officc. Thc bch avio ur al-

lows thc nud cnts t o sca pc av cn ii i situations-tcsa--so gcning 'sick is bcing

maintained, in pan, through ncgativc rcinforccmcnt. It is ncgativc bccausc thc

stimulus (the tcst) disappean; it is reinforcement bccausc thc bchaviour that

caused thc stim ulu s to disappear (gcrdng sick ) incrcascs or rcp caa. It is also

possiblc that classical conditioning pl

May 22 Kohn Woolfolk_punished by Rewards

Documents

Transcript of May 22 Kohn Woolfolk_punished by Rewards