Effects of baseline self-reinforcement behavior and training level on posttraining self-reinforcement behavior.

The effects of a monetary incentive on the accuracy of post-training self-reinforcement behavior.

“…Early experimental findings tended to be consistent with the stated predictions (Kanfer & Duerfeldt, 1967;. Results from later investigations (Kozma & Easterbrook, 1974;Marston, 1969) have demonstrated that SR baserate may be as important a variable as training level for predicting post-training SB behavior. Data of this type have led Kanfer to abandon a simple conditioning interpretation of SB acquisition (Karoly& Kanfer, 1974).…”

“…Males with baseline SR scores between 0 and 7, and females with scores between 0 and 5 were labeled LB subjects, while males and females obtaining baseline SR scores between 15 and 20 were labeled RB subjects. Classification ranges were taken from the Kozma and Easterbrook (1974) study, in which it was found that these cut-off scores placed subjects into approximate upper and lower thirds of the distribution. In the current investigation HB and LB subjects of each sex made up approximately the upper and lower 34% of their respective baseline SR score distribution.…”

“…While the Kozma & Easterbrook (1974) study gives a clear demonstration of the importance of SB baserate in assessing the effects of training on post-training SB rate, its real significance may well lie in showing that high baseline (HB), medium baseline (MB), and low baseline (LB) subjects have different strategies for taking SBS. In the post-training phase, HB subjects continued to reinforce themselves after virtually every response with an apparent disregard of whether or not their responses were correct, MB subjects, on the other hand, tended to reinforce themselves primarily following correct choices, LB subjects showed the lower SB rate of MB subjects after incorrect choices, but had a significantly lower SB rate following correct choices than either HB or MB subjects.…”

“…They have used three experimental procedures (directed learning, vicarious learning, and temptation paradigms) to investigate the effects of a host of variables on SR rate. The list includes prior learning (Kanfer, Bradley, & Marston, 1962), baserate (Kozma & Easterbrook, 1974), age (Kanfer, 1968), prior success and failure experiences (Bandura & Whalen, 1966), modelling (Bandura & Kupers, 1964), and mood (Masters & Santrock, 1973). A comprehensive review of paradigms and research problems, and findings is provided by Bartol & Duerfeldt (1970) and Masters & Mokros (1974), respectively.…”

“…The current problem derives primarily from work by Kanfer and his colleagues, and from issues raised by the findings of Kozma and Easterbrook (1974). Kanfer and his co-workers have come to view SR as a form of self-control.…”