Abstract
It was suggested that “real world” contingencies for humans make both incentive value and delivery of reinforcers response contingent in order to induce behavior change. It was proposed that a number of specialized contingencies fall under the general rubric of contingent incentive value. The main purpose of the present studies was to demonstrate the efficacy of such contingencies within the human operant laboratory context, in some cases with expanded versions of correlated reward where there was not a simple monotonic correspondence between responding and reward magnitude and in others where novel contingencies were tested. Generally, the results showed that contingent incentive value was effective in producing rapid and appropriate changes in performance. It was suggested that these special schedules may allow the laboratory to provide a more valid or faithful representation of contingencies in the “real world.”
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- EISENBERGER, R. (1992). Learned industriousness. Psychological Review, 99, 248–267.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- HENDRY, D. R. (1962). The effect of correlated amount of reward on performance on a fixed-interval schedule of reinforcement. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 55, 387–391.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- HENDRY, D. R, & VAN-TOLLER, C. (1964). Performance on a fixed-ration schedule with correlated amount of reward. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7, 207–209.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- LAVERY, J. J. (1962). Retention of simple motor skills as a function of type of knowledge of results. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 16, 231–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- LINDSLEY, O. R. (1962). A behavioral measure of television viewing. Journal of Advertising Research, 2, 2–12.Google Scholar
- LIPPMAN, L. G. (1973). Contingent magnitude of reward in human fixed-interval performance. Proceedings, 81st Annual Convention, APA, 8, 867–868. (Summary)Google Scholar
- LIPPMAN, L. G. (1977). Approximating “real-world” contingencies in the human operant laboratory. Journal of Biological Psychology, 19, 11–19.Google Scholar
- LOGAN, F. A. (1966). Continuously negatively correlated amount of reward. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 62, 31–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- LOVITT, T. C, & ESVELDT, K. A. (1970). The relative effects on math performance of simple- versus multiple-ratio schedules: A case study. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 261–270.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- ROVEE, C. K., & ROVEE, D. T. (1969). Conjugate reinforcement of infant exploratory behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 8, 33–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- SELIGMAN, M. E. P. (1970). On the generality of the laws of learning. Psychological Review, 77, 406–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- WEINER, H. (1962). Some effects of response cost upon human operant behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 201–208.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar