Contingent Incentive Value in Human Operant Performance

Contingent Magnitude of Reward in a Human Operant IRT >15-S-LH Schedule

“…Despite the limited practice, there was evidence that contingent reinforcer value was able to influence performance. Lippman (2000) also had relied upon a relatively short session without repeated testing and found strong behavioral effects from schedules in which magnitude of reward was contingent upon specific features of performance. Because the present contingencies were considerably more difficult and seem more subtle than general differences in response frequency, the current findings provide rather clear testimony to the effectiveness of contingent incentive value for influencing performance.…”

“…And despite inconsistent findings for reward magnitude effects in animal studies, it appears that those effects are most stable in within-subject studies and particularly when reward magnitude is response contingent (Bonem & Crossman, 1988). Lippman (2000) demonstrated that contingent incentive value was effective in modifying human operant performance in a laboratory setting. In keeping with Lippman (1973), incentive value was operationalized as magnitude of reward (number of points earned).…”

“…With the contingent incentive schedule, one feature of behavior determines delivery of reinforcers whereas a second performance attribute governs reward magnitude each time a reinforcer is to be presented. It was argued, with examples provided, that this type of arrangement allows for a more faithful representation of most of the contingencies that affect humans in the real world (Lippman, 1977(Lippman, , 2000. As a further example, consider a mother eager to foster academic productivity in her young child.…”

“…As Lippman (2000) suggested , however, in many nonlaboratory and "natural" circumstances, the major feature for promoting behavior change is found in the contingency for value, with the behavior requirements for occurrence being of secondary importance. It was also declared that variable reinforcer values can be more informative than simpler presence vs. absence of a reinforcer, and thus should be expected to provide more effective feedback to performers about their behavior.…”

“…It was also declared that variable reinforcer values can be more informative than simpler presence vs. absence of a reinforcer, and thus should be expected to provide more effective feedback to performers about their behavior. Lippman (2000) tested a variety of contingencies such as positive and negative correlated reward (Logan, 1966) plus more complex relationships between reinforcer value and performance, as superimposed upon a fixedinterval schedule for occurrence. Those studies demonstrated, as did the human correlated reward studies by Buskist, Oliveira-Castro, and Bennett (1988), that the magnitude contingencies promoted appropriate performance changes.…”