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

Abstract

The current investigation evaluated the effects of a monetary incentive on the accuracy of students' post-training self-reinforcement (SR) behavior. Subjects classified as high or low self-reinforcers during a baseline phase were randomly assigned to one of two criterion groups and trained to a 40% or an 80% criterion on a four choice discrimination task. Immediately after training half the subjects in each baseline X training group received incentive instructions. Subjects' self-reinforcement behavior was assessed during a post-training phase, and a rating scale evaluating subjects' confidence in the accuracy of their choice during the post-training phase was given to all subjects after the experiment. The higher training level was associated with a higher SR accuracy, while high baserate was associated with a greater SR frequency and more indiscriminate SR behavior. Incentive did not improve SR accuracy. Confidence ratings of females were related to training level, baseline grouping, and incentive, while in males the ratings were related to training level and baseline grouping.Reprint requests should be sent to A.

Levels of self and external influence in self-reward

“…Peskay and Masters (l97l) found that first grade children who self-administered washers performed no differently than those who self-administered pennies. Similarly, Kozma and Kerwin (1975) found that the incentive of gaining 250 for every deserved self-reward and losing 250 for every undeserved self-reward had no effect on the ac curacy of self-reward of university students. Kanfer (I966) studied preschoolers, and found that candy rewards yielded no greater rule violation than did a reinforcement system using simple point rewards, Kanfer (1970) suggested that participants do not seem to inappropriately self-administer excess self-rewards at higher incentive levels, as might be expected, because of life-long conditioning in which we have learned to exercise caution when the stakes are high.…”

“…Rewards used in the above studies have included washers and pennies (Peskay & Masters, 1971), quarters (Kozma & Kerwin, 1975)> and signal lights (Marston & Kanfer,I963)• Poker chips, redeemable for unidentified prizes have also been used (Liebert & Allen, 1967). However, Liebert and Ora (I968) used rewards ranging from a 10(5 pencil to a small camera worth $12.^5» which were redeem able by tokens, and found that increasing the incentive led to greater rule violation and incorrect applications of self-reward.…”

Levels of self and external influence in self-reward

“…Liebert and Ora (I968) have cast come serious doubt on the sim plicity of the above results. Rewards used in the above studies have included washers and pennies (Peskay & Masters, 1971), quarters (Kozma & Kerwin, 1975)> and signal lights (Marston & Kanfer, I963)• Poker chips, redeemable for unidentified prizes have also been used (Liebert & Allen, 1967). However, Liebert and Ora (I968) used rewards ranging from a 10(5 pencil to a small camera worth $12.^5» which were redeem able by tokens, and found that increasing the incentive led to greater rule violation and incorrect applications of self-reward.…”