Generalized self-control of delay and effort.

Eisenberger, Robert; Adornetto, Michael

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.1020

Cited by 107 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results from the descending conditions suggest that extensive experience with high effort to obtain reinforcers in a self-control paradigm meliorates or removes the increase in self-control caused by increased response force. This suggestion seems inconsistent with the results from previous research in which experience with response ef- fort increased self-control (Eisenberger & Adornetto, 1986;Eisenberger et al, 1985;Eisenberger et al, 1989). However, in that prior research, different experimental paradigms were used to expose the subjects to high-effort responding and to assess self-control, which was not the case in the present research.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

“…Generalized exposure to high response effort has also been found to increase subjects' subsequent choices of a larger reinforcer that requires more effort to obtain over a smaller reinforcer that requires less effort to obtain (Eisenberger & Adornetto, 1986;Eisenberger, Mitchell, & Masterson, 1985;Eisenberger, Weier, Masterson, & Theis, 1989). However, the effects of response effort on subjects' choices of larger, more delayed reinforcers rather than smaller, less delayed reinforcers are not entirely understood.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…For example, self-control can be increased by using precommitment procedures; subjects can make a precommitment response that prevents them from later choosing the smaller, less delayed reinforcer over the larger, more delayed reinforcer (Ainslie, 1974;Rachlin & Green, 1972). As another example, self-control can be increased by exposing the subject to delayed reinforcers prior to self-control testing (Eisenberger & Adornetto, 1986;Eisenberger, Masterson, & Lowman, 1982;Logue & Mazur, 1981;Logue, Rodriguez, Pefia-Correal, & Mauro, 1984;. Further, when subjects can change their choices during the delay to the larger reinforcer, prior exposure to delayed reinforcers can increase a subject's tendency to maintain its self-control choice, as well as its tendency to make an initial selfcontrol choice (Logue & Pefia-Correal, 1984).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of response effort on self-control in rats

Chelonis

Logue

Sheehy

et al. 1998

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Five rats served as subjects in an experiment that examined the effect of increasing response effort on self-control (choice of a larger, more delayed reinforcer over a smaller, less delayed reinforcer). The rats made significantly more self-control choices as the force required to respond on each lever increased from 0.1 to 0.8 N. As the force required to press the levers increased to 1 N and then began to decrease, some of the rats stopped responding. For those rats that continued to respond, self-control tended to decrease. The results suggest that increasing the required response force can increase selfcontrol choices, as long as the required response force is low enough that some responding occurs.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of response effort on self-control in rats

Chelonis

Logue

Sheehy

et al. 1998

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Increasing the degree of required performance involving one or more tasks has been shown to raise the subsequent vigor and persistence of various other activities, including rats' leverpressing and runway traversal ; depressed patients' card sorting (Eisenberger, Heerdt, Hamdi, Zimet, & Bruckmeir, 1979); learning-disabled and typical preadolescent students' handwriting, drawing, and mathematics performance (Eisenberger & Adornetto, 1986;Eisenberger, Heerdt, et al, 1979); and college students' manipulatory behavior (Nation, Cooney, & Gartrell, 1979;Pittenger & Pavlik, 1988), perceptual identifications (Eisenberger & Leonard, 1980), essay writing (e.g., Eisenberger, Masterson, & McDermitt, 1982), anagram solving (Boyagian & Nation, 1981), and resistance to cheating (Eisenberger & Shank, 1985). Lengthened training has been shown to produce quite durable effects with both rats (Eisenberger, Weier, Masterson, & Theis, 1989) and humans (Eisenberger, Mitchell, McDermitt, & Masterson, 1984).…”

Section: Learned Industriousness: Incremental Effects Of Reward On Crmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth?

Eisenberger¹,

Cameron²

1996

American Psychologist

Self Cite

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

“…the support of their supervisor(s) and the support of their coworkers (Tucker et al, 2008). Inherently, a supervisor is an agent of the company (Eisenberger et al, 1986). Therefore, the support of the supervisor can be interpreted a representative of the company's support.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety supports on employee safety voice

Herachwati¹,

Sulistiawan²,

Alfirdaus³

et al. 2018

Problems and Perspectives in Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research aims to assess the influence of supervisor and colleague support on employee safety voice based on the social exchange theory and the effect of employee safety voice on employees' satisfaction towards the organization. The data were collected from 302 bus drivers in Java, Indonesia. The data were then processed using a multiple regression analysis technique. The results indicate that supervisors have a significant negative effect on the action of voicing safety concerns by employees, while coworkers do not have any significant effect in relation to employees voicing their safety concerns. Furthermore, employee safety voice has also been found to have a significant negative effect on employee satisfaction towards their company.

show abstract

Generalized self-control of delay and effort.

Cited by 107 publications

References 64 publications

Effects of response effort on self-control in rats

Effects of response effort on self-control in rats

Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth?

Safety supports on employee safety voice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About