Another Look at Contrast in Multiple Schedules

Williams, Ben

doi:10.1901/jeab.1983.39-345

Cited by 192 publications

(184 citation statements)

References 127 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

163

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If the children then spend less time drawing than do children not previously rewarded for drawing, the result may be due to satiation (Bandura, 1986;Dickinson, 1989). Satiation would dissipate with a sufficiently long interval following reinforced performance.Another relevant effect that could be mistaken for a decrement in intrinsic interest involves "negative contrast" (Dunham, 1968;Williams, 1983). A sudden diminution in either the frequency or the quantity of reward from an expected level produces an aversive emotional reaction (Daly, 1969a(Daly, , 1969b and a temporary lower level of performance than before the reward was introduced.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth?

Eisenberger¹,

Cameron²

1996

American Psychologist

719

544

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on seemingly overwhelming empirical evidence of the decremental effects of reward on intrinsic task interest and creativity, the use of reward to alter human behavior has been challenged in literature reviews, textbooks, and the popular media. An analysis of a quarter century of research on intrinsic task interest and creativity revealed, however, that (a) detrimental effects of reward occur under highly restricted, easily avoidable conditions," (b) mechanisms of instrumental and classical conditioning are basic for understanding incremental and decremental effects of reward on task motivation; and (c) positive effects of reward on generalized creativity are easily attainable using procedures derived from behavior theory.O bservers of American culture have long noted a I strong emphasis on individualistic values, including taking responsibility for one's own actions, pursuing personal interests, and exploring one's creative potential (e.g., Badia, 1990;Huber, 1971; Tocqueville, 1840Tocqueville, /1990. Consistent with the common presumption that individuals function most effectively and happily when they are guiding their own behavior (see Geller, 1982;Hogan, 1975), an increasingly dominant view has developed over the past quarter century contending that the strengthening of performance by reward (reinforcement) causes the unpleasant experience of being controlled by others and reduces task interest and creativity. Based on seemingly overwhelming empirical evidence of such effects, the value of using reward to alter human behavior has been challenged in literature reviews, textbooks, and the popular media. Conventional ViewThe following sentiments are characteristic of a diverse and growing literature claiming that reward inherently reduces task interest and creativity. According to an article published in the American Psychologist, "reinforcement has two effects. First, predictably, it gains control of [an] activity, increasing its frequency. Second .... when reinforcement is later withdrawn, people engage in the activity even less than they did before reinforcement was introduced" (Schwartz, 1990, p. 10). A widely cited literature review that appeared in the premier social psychology journal, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, concluded the following: Individuals who have been provided rewards "seem to work harder and produce more activity, but the activity is of a lower quality, contains more errors, and is more stereotyped and less creative than the work of comparable nonrewarded subjects working on the same problems" (Condry, 1977, pp. 471-472).The categorical assertion that rewards lessen task interest and creativity has profound practical implications. Increasingly, one hears and reads about how the use of reward systems in educational settings, hospitals, the workplace, and other institutions may do more harm than good. Articles and books written for laypeople and practitioners in education and business warn of the danger of behavior modification programs and incentive systems when...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth?

Eisenberger¹,

Cameron²

1996

American Psychologist

719

544

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Williams found very different kinds of contrast in the two A components of the ABA schedule. In the first A component, Williams found a generally higher level of responding that was maintained over training sessions (see also Williams, 1983). In the second A component, however, he found a higher level of responding primarily at the start of the component, an effect known as local contrast, but the level of responding was not maintained over training sessions (see also, Cleary, 1992).…”

Section: Behavioral Contrastmentioning

confidence: 98%

Animals prefer reinforcement that follows greater effort: Justification of effort or within-trial contrast?

Zentall¹

2013

CCBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Justification of effort by humans is a form of reducing cognitive dissonance by enhancing the value of rewards when they are more difficult to obtain. Presumably, assigning greater value to rewards provides justification for the greater effort needed to obtain them. We have found such effects in adult humans and children with a highly controlled laboratory task. More importantly, under various conditions we have found similar effects in pigeons, animals not typically thought to need to justify their behavior to themselves or others. To account for these results, we have proposed a mechanism based on within-trial contrast between the end of the effort and the reinforcement (or the signal for reinforcement) that follows. This model predicts that any relatively aversive event can serve to enhance the value of the reward that follows it, simply through the contrast between those two events. In support of this general model, we have found this effect in pigeons when the prior event consists of: (a) more rather than less effort (pecking), (b) a long rather than a short delay, and (c) the absence of food rather than food. We also show that within-trial contrast can occur in the absence of relative delay reduction theory. Contrast of this kind may also play a role in other social psychological phenomena that have been interpreted in terms of cognitive dissonance. Keywords: cognitive dissonance, justification of effort, contrast, delay reduction When humans behave in a way that is inconsistent with the way they think they should behave, they will often try to justify their behavior by altering their beliefs. The theory on which this behavior is based is known as cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957). Evidence for the attempt to reduce cognitive dissonance comes from the classic study by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) who found that subjects, who were given a small reward for agreeing to tell a prospective subject that a boring task was interesting, then rated the task more interesting than subjects who were given a large reward. Presumably, those given a small reward could not

show abstract

“…A number of accounts of behavioral contrast have been proposed (Williams, 1983). For example, Hinson and Staddon (1978) proposed that response competition in the poorer component of the discrimination is responsible for increased responding in the unchanged component.…”

Section: Functional Properties Of the Successive And Simultaneous Dismentioning

confidence: 99%

Simultaneous discrimination learning: Stimulus interactions

Zentall

Clement

2001

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stimulus Similarity EffectsThe degree of physical similarity between the S1 and the S during the acquisition of a discrimination has played an important role in theories of discrimination learning (see, e.g., Lawrence, 1955;Logan, 1966;Spence, 1937). By making certain assumptions-(1) that the excitatory strength of the S1 is greater than the inhibitory strength of the S ; (2) that the shape of the generalization gradient is concave downward; and (3) that the net effect can be represented by the algebraic summation of the two (i.e., excitation minus inhibition)-Spence was able to 311Copyright 2001 Psychonomic Society, Inc.Preparation of this article was supported by Grants MH55118 and MH59194 from the National Institute of Mental Health to T.R.Z. We thank Lou M. Sherburne, Brigette R. Dorrance, Janice E. Weaver, Daren H. Kaiser, and Andrea M. Lonon for their contribution to the research described here and William Timberlake for his encouragement to prepare this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to T. R. Zentall, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506 (e-mail: zentall@pop.uky.edu). Simultaneous discrimination learning:Stimulus interactions THOMAS R. ZENTALL and TRICIA S. CLEMENT University of Kentucky, Lexington, KentuckyAlthough considerable attention has been given to interactions between events serving as the positive (S1) and negative (S ) stimuli in successive discriminations, there has been little study of similar interactions in simultaneous discriminations. We propose that in a simultaneous discrimination, given what is typically relatively little experience with the consequences of responding to the S , some of the value of the S1 transfers to the S with which it was paired. Furthermore, the mechanisms responsible for this transfer of value appear to be the higher order Pavlovian association between the S and the S1, as well as within-event associations between them. Although in typical simultaneous discriminations, negative value does not appear to transfer from the S to the S1, when adequate experience is provided with the S , contrast typically develops, reducing the value of the S (negative contrast) and enhancing the value of the S1 (positive contrast). This model of stimulus interactions has implications not only for simple simultaneous discrimination learning, but also for research using combinations of discriminations (e.g., transitive inference in animals and humans). This model may also have implications for a number of human social psychological phenomena.

show abstract

Another Look at Contrast in Multiple Schedules

Cited by 192 publications

References 127 publications

Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth?

Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth?

Animals prefer reinforcement that follows greater effort: Justification of effort or within-trial contrast?

Simultaneous discrimination learning: Stimulus interactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About