The effects of performance feedback, social and monetary incentive upon human lever pressing rate

Performance under Competitive and Self-Competitive Fixed-Interval Schedules of Reinforcement

“…Gordon et al (1955) observed that participants in a self-competition condition responded at slightly higher rates than participants in either a competition condition or a work-alone condition, and Rudow and Hautaluoma (1975) observed that response rates during competition and self-competition were not significantly different from one another. However, Swingle et al (1966) noted considerable variability in response rates under self-competitive contingencies. Several participants in their study showed high response rates under self-competition, whereas others responded at significantly lower rates.…”

“…Similarly, Rudow and Hautaluoma (1975) found that participants who completed math problems under competitive and selfcompetitive conditions completed more problems than participants who responded under noncompetitive conditions. Swingle, Coady, and Moors (1966) had participants lever-press for points under various competitive and self-competitive conditions. They observed that competition and selfcompetition did not produce significantly different response rates; self-competition, however, produced considerably more response variability than competition.…”

“…For one, researchers who have studied self-competition have examined the products of self-competitive behavior (e.g., number of nails placed into a board) but not the self-competitive behavior itself (e.g., Gordon et al, 1955). Moreover, when researchers have measured self-competitive behavior (e.g., rate of responding), conventional between-groups analyses have blurred individual aspects of responding (e.g., Swingle et al, 1966), which may shed light on various aspects of self-competitive behavior.…”

The effects of small monetary incentive upon human lever pressing rates

“…Several experimenters have reported results which suggest a brief decrease in response rate following reinforcement with human Ss (Helmstadter & Ellis, 1952;Bruning, 1964;Ryan & Moffitt, 1965;Swingle, Coady, & Moors, 1966).…”

Motivational properties of performance feedback

“…Earlier studies (Swingle, Coady, & Moors, 1966;Swingle & Moors, 1967) indicate that in a lever-pressing situation, with only performance feedback and no material incentive, at least two distinct c1asses of performers are apparent: those who persistently increase their level of performance and those who stabilize at a relatively low level of performance. Fast responders appear to respond to the self-competitive aspects of the situation and are continually attempting to better their previous performance record.…”