No abstract

The effect of contingent tangible and social reinforcement on academic performance was investigated in an experimental classroom of 25 selected underachieving students. Measures were taken of both teacher and child behavior during a baseline and two experimental treatment periods. During Treatment I, a point system with tangible backup reinforcers was combined with contingent social reinforcers dispensed by the teaching staff to assess the effects on three measures of academic performance (i.e., per cent of time at work, work output per minute, and accuracy). During Treatment II, the contingencies for the tangible reinforcers were terminated while social reinforcement was continued to see if the positive effects of Treatment I on academic performance would persist. The results show that with combined tangible and social reinforcers, students' work time, rate of output per hour, and accuracy in all activities substantially increased. After termination of the tangible reinforcers, the students maintained their high rates of ouput per hour and accuracy for the remaining period of the study while the total amount of time at work returned to the baseline level.

No abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.An experiment based on a two-by-two-by-two factorial design was conducted to test hypotheses involving the relationship of three supervisory styles to aggressive feelings and actions of subordinates. Low and high variations of close, punitive, and supportive supervision were compared for their independent and combined effects on the dependent variables. In contrast to earlier work where interaction and consensus about the leader was allowed, it was found that when subjects worked independently without discussion of the leader's style, that punitive supervision controlled four to five times as much variance in aggressive feelings as did the close style (20%o vs. 5%; 15%o vs. 3%o). The supportive style produced significant reductions in aggres--sive feelings acting independently but had its most powerful positive effects when paired with close and punitive styles. When combined with punitive and close leadership, singly and in tandem, the supportive style produced significant drops (up to 34 percentage points with punitivity and up to 16 points with the close style) in the explained variance on aggressive feelings toward the supervisor. The close style produced a significant drop in productivity and punitive supervision achieved a slight increase in output. The supportive style independently produced a nearly significant drop in output but had its most interesting effects acting in combination with the close and punitive styles.Several general research reviews (Vroom, 1964;Likert, 1961;Dubin, et al., 1965) amply demonstrate the multitude of situational and psychological factors which act in varied combinations to determine worker performance. The relative power of leadership style alone, in determining the performance of subordinates and their related feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the leader, has been shown to vary considerably from situation to situation.

No abstract