The Effect on the Behavior of Children, as Reflected in the Iq Scores, When Reinforced After Each Correct Response

Abstract

This experiment studied the effect on intelligence test scores of a probable reinforcer given for correct responses. Eleven pairs of 5-to 7-yr-old children were matched on the basis of a strong liking of candy, no physical problems associated with eating it, parent permission to receive and eat the candy, age, sex, and a revised Stanford-Binet Scale Form L IQ score. The control group was given the revised Stanford-Binet Scale Form M, as prescribed in the test manual. The experimental group was also given Form M according to the manual, except M&M candy was given for each plus or correct response. There was an appreciable, statistically significant difference between the resulting IQ test scores of the two groups.Several studies have sought to determine the effect various rewards have on children's intelligence test scores. Hurlock (1924Hurlock ( , 1925 studied the effects of praise and blame in three early experiments. In the first two, she used the National Group Intelligence Tests. In the first experiment, she divided third-, fifth-, and eighthgrade children into groups by age, sex, race, and intelligence, and on a test-retest design, over a one-week span, studied the effects of praise and blame. After the first testing, one group was praised for its test scores, and a second group was reproved for its test scores. The second experiment was a followup of the first and in both she found no difference between the effects of praise and blame, yet both were more effective than practice alone.Benton (1936) Klugman (1944) also studied the effects of the promise of two presumed reinforcers on IQ scores. He made use of alternate forms of the Stanford Binet, 1937 revision. His subjects were 72 children from grades 2 to 7. Praise and money were the reinforcers given if the children did better on the second testing. Although he found no significant difference overall between the two reinforcers, scores of the Negro children were substantially raised when tested with money as compared to praise, and scores of the white children were raised more by praise than were the scores of the Negroes.The effects of reinforcement on the IQ scores of 480 second and third graders divided into three groups (middle-class white, lower-class white, and lower-class Negro) were studied by Tiber and Kennedy ( 1963 (FALL 1972)

Peer Tutoring With or Without Home‐based Reinforcement, for Reading Remediation

“…Supplementary readers were also made available for each student. Calibration with SRA material was accomplished using the Fry readability formula (Fry, 1968 Overall change in reading ability was assessed using the oral reading and the comprehension subscales of the Spache Diagnostic Reading Scale (Spache, 1963) Kelly, 1972;Clingman & Fowler, 1975Edlund, 1972;O'Connor & Weiss, 1974 Throughout the study daily reading performance was assessed using the total number of lines read; the number of lines read correctly on first reading; the total of lines correct after the second reading; the number of comprehension questions answered correctly; and the number of comprehension questions answered incorrectly.…”

Fostering and Measuring Skills Interventions That Improve Character and Cognition

“…33 See Ayllon and Kelly (1972); Borghans, Meijers, and ter Weel (2008); Breuning and Zella (1978); Clingman and Fowler (1976);Edlund (1972); Holt and Hobbs (1979) ;Larson, Saccuzzo, and Brown (1994);Segal (2008). This evidence is summarized in and Almlund et al (2011).…”

The Effects of Different Reinforcement Conditions on the Test Performance of Multihandicapped Deaf Children1

“…Recent studies (Ayllon and Kelly, 1972;Edlund, 1972) (Ayllon and Kelly, 1972;Hurlock, 1925) have demonstrated that delayed-reinforcement procedures may improve test performance, present findings suggest that the control exercised by this procedure may be weak and ineffective, compared to that of an immediate reinforcement procedure. Present observations also call for an explicit and precise description of reinforcement procedures when used in psycho-educational test situations.…”

“…Studies designed to identify motivational variables that may increase test performance have used a variety of subjects, tests, and incentives. Most investigators (Ayllon and Kelly, 1972;Bergan, McManis, and Melchert, 1971;Edlund, 1972;Hurlock, 1925;Zigler and Butterfield, 1968) have reported that when responses are reinforced or when subjects were prevented from making many errors, test performance was higher than previous performance (and/or the performance of control subjects) under standard conditions. In contrast, Benton (1936) and Zubin (1932), and Tiber and Kennedy (1964) observed no significant difference in performance between subjects tested under standard conditions and those tested under reinforcement conditions.…”

“…Instead, most studies focused on the effects of particular types of reinforcers, such as praise (Bergen, et al, 1971;Hurlock, 1925;Roth and McManis, 1972;Tiber and Kennedy, 1964), tokens (Ayllon and Kelly, 1972), verbal reproof (Hurlock, 1925;Tiber and Kennedy, 1964), and candy (Edlund, 1972;Tiber and Kennedy, 1964) on test performance. In some of the studies (Bergan et al, 1971;Edlund, 1972;Roth and McManis, 1972), subjects received reinforcement immediately after every correct response. In others (Ayllon and Kelly, 1972;Hurlock, 1925;Tiber and Kennedy, 1964), subjects received reinforcement after every subtest or test was completed; in other investigations (Benton, 1936;Maller and Zubin, 1932) …”