Effects Of Reward And Punishment On Student Motivation

Chapter 1
The Problem and Its Background

Introduction
Rewards can serve as effective incentivesif the person is interested in the reward. (Marshall, Marvin) The prospect
of receiving something worthwhile for an effort one has exerted causes a person to work even harder towards that
certain goal. Some students find that the grades they receive are enough of a reward, some students however do not
agree.
Rewards can also serve as wonderful acknowledgementsways of congratulating merit and demonstrating
appreciation. Student of the week is an examples of such acknowledgements. But notice that these are awarded after
the behaviornot as bribes beforehand. As opposed to using rewards as incentives and acknowledgements, giving
rewards for expected standards of behavior is counterproductive. It is also based on the outmoded idea that all
behavior is modified thorough external approaches, similar to the techniques used to train animals. Internal
approachessuch as self-talkhave no place in this mindset.
Marshall believed that it is a myth when it is said that rewards motivate young people to be responsible. He said that
rewards do not help. The bribe, or reward, becomes the focus not the desired change. He argues that regardless of
how much we may think that rewards lead toward internalizing the desired behavior of acting responsibly, there is no
evidence that this ever occurs. In contrast, there is much research to suggest that an "external locus of control"
(external motivation) does not transition to an "internal locus of control" (internal motivation).
Students learn most of their behaviors by associating them with consequences. These consequences, especially when
repeated over time, can lead to a behavior pattern. (Robb, 2003) Pleasant consequences (rewards) are usually more
effective behavior modifiers than unpleasant consequences (punishment). It is not only the type of reward, but also
how it is used that determines how effective it will be. Rewards can...
Professional Sports: Rewarding and Punishing the Same Behavior?
Random drug testing represents the variable-interval type of reinforcement schedule. This type of
reinforcement schedule is unpredictable and therefore may occur without warning or announcement. The
variable-internal type of reinforcement schedule typically has a higher success rate in comparison to the
fixed-interval type of reinforcement schedule. The fixed-internal schedule operates on uniform time
intervals that are equally spaced out and known before-hand. Because there is a strong correlation
between performance and reward, the variable-interval schedules produce a higher response rate. In this
case, the baseball players are more alert to the possibility of the drug-testing because of the uncertainty
involved. A stronger chance exists of them getting caught when they do not know when the tests are going
to occur. If the drug-testing policy was on a fixed-interval, they would know when to expect the testing
and may take necessary precautions to eliminate testing positive.

This particular case exemplifies a situation where behaviors are rewarded my management but are
ultimately detrimental to the organization as a whole. These baseball players are using any means
necessary to increase their performance level. The increased performance level is most desired by
management as that quality elevates the teams standing over their competition and increases their profit.
The question of the negative overall impact on the team comes into play when it is realized that these
players are using steroids to achieve this end result. Ultimately, they are discrediting the entire team and
losing the trust and loyalty of their fans. As a manager, I would avoid the situation by reinforcing the
principles in which the game was founded upon. Any violators who knowingly and willfully participated in
any act that was harmful to the image and standing of the team would be subject to disciplinary action.

In this situation, it seems that everyone involved has something more to gain than to lose, by allowing
these baseball players to violate the drug policy. As detailed in the case study, there are additional
revenues from increased game attendance, sports merchandise, increased popularity etc. There seems to
be a greater incentive for these players to heighten the performance levels than there is punishment for
them to get caught. I am not a great fan of baseball, but I am a strong believer in playing fair and ethical
behavior. If these managers feel that punishment is the best method to relieve this situation, I think it
would worthwhile to look into who should be getting punished. I recall in elementary school, when one of
the students did something wrong the entire class would get punished. So the next time that teacher said.
Class, be quiet, all the students would tell each other to be quiet. If the entire team is benefiting from
better performance, than no one should be throwing their hands in the air and bowing their heads saying,
It wasnt me, it was him or Well, I didnt do it. I would obviously punish the teammate in violation but
I would also punish the other teammates and their supervisors. I would encourage it to be a collective
effort amongst them where they can all be praised or all share in the blame. Studies have shown that
positive and negative reinforcement are both powerful tools in shaping behaviors. Positive reinforcement
is more effective because it rewards performance-enhancing behaviors whereas negative reinforcement
methods such as punishment only produce a faster short-term result. With punishment, undesired
behaviors are only suppressed and not changed permanently. Other side effects of punishment include
lower morale and feelings of resentment.

My personal opinion is no, it is never acceptable to allow unethical behaviors under any circumstance.
Ethics is the foundation of morality and the fact that the word potentially is used to describe unethical
behavior doesnt seem appropriate. I feel that a person instinctively knows when a behavior is unethical.
Sometimes when faced with a judgment call, it is difficult to consider all the components that can be
affected by a managers questionable decision making. Ultimately, it is better to have a clear conscience
and a clean reputation to work with than a tarnished employment record and company history.

The article Drug Bust Reveal Athletes Secret Steroid by Jonathan Knight describes the current situation
being facing the chemists and drug testers on the side of agencies like the USADA and International
Olympic Committee. They are discovering underground chemists creating formulas for muscle-building
steroids that will go undetectable by the current drug testing regimen that these athletes undergo.
Beginning with an anonymous tip-off of an undetectable anabolic steroid that athletes are using to build
muscle, serious concern is building amongst these officials to take action against this activity. Ultimately,
it seems that drug-testing labs are constantly drawn into a game of catch-up trying to keep up with the
developments and creating tests to recognize them all. It seems to me that enough demand exists in these
professional sports to constantly improve their performance. A piece of the article that struck me was the
idea that with everyone being in peak condition, the marginal benefit provided by these performance
enhancers, can mean the difference between winning and losing. When I think about these athletes train
their entire lives for the competitions, so it is that unbelievable they are so willing to do whatever it takes
to be at the top?
Professional Sports: Rewarding and Punishing the Same Behavior?
The type of reinforcement schedules that random drug testing represent is the variable interval type. This
type of schedule is done randomly and unexpected. It is typically effective because athletes are unaware of
when these tests will be taken place. Therefore, athletes are unprepared. This is unlike a fixed variable
reinforcement schedule. Athletes have a fixed time of when the tests will be scheduled so they can prepare
and make sure their systems are clean before the test takes place.

An example of a behavior in a typical organization that supervisors reward but may actually be
detrimental to others or to the organization as a whole is baseball players taking steroids. When baseball
players take steroids to enhance their performance abilities, they are misleading their managers and their
fans. Initially, it may be rewarding because everyone involved gains from the profitability, i.e. revenue
from increased game attendance, sports merchandise, increased popularity and success. But in the end,
when it is discovered that the baseball player achieved recognition with the aid of steroids he destroys the
teams reputation and the loyalty the fans had for the team. As a manager, in order to avoid this quandary,
if I was made aware of someone using steroids, I would do a random drug testing as soon as possible
instead having the whole team suffer for that one insubordinate team player.

If I was the commissioner of baseball, there are several steps that I would take to try to reduce the use of
steroids in baseball. First of all, I would reinforce to all the athletes that if someone is caught using
steroids they will be thrown off the team. Second, I would continue to do random drug testing.
Punishment is not likely to be the most effective deterrent. This will only cause athletes to stop playing
and taking steroids for a certain period of time. But it will not teach them that they should not use it again.

No, it is not ever okay to allow potentially unethical behaviors, which on the surface may benefit
organizations to persist. For example, if a baseball player is taking steroids, doing exceptionally well on
the team and if the team is aware he is taking steroids, even though the team will not do well without this
player they should ban that player from the team. It is the right thing to do. Even though the player is
causing harm to the team, the player is causing even more harm to himself. If the player does get caught
doing steroids, it may be publicized and it will give the fans a bad perception of the team.

I found this article on steroids very interesting. It talked about a secret steroid which drug testers
discovered later after the steroid was used by many athletes. No one knows who made this steroid (THG).
Secret steroids are one of the sports physicians biggest fears. Everyday more and more athletes are
taking steroids and when a steroid cannot be detected this causes problems. Luckily, the drug testers were
able to develop a test that can detect this steroid. Athletes believe they can get away by either not taking
steroids months before a testing or just using a steroid that cannot be detected but there are new
developments everyday for steroids. I believe that this is not the only secret steroid used among athletes
but if an athlete is using a non detectable steroid I recommend they stop before they get caught.
What type of reinforcement schedule does random drug testing represent? Is this type of schedule
typically effective or ineffective?
Random drug testing is considered as variable interval schedule. Basically, random drug testing is not
announced thus making it difficult for the players to predict when the drug testing will be conducted.
In my point of view, I find random drug testing effective for it is unannounced thus the players have
limited or no time at all for preparation. Lets put it this way, if I were the player and I know that the
drug test will occur today, of course I will not take steroids today or even a week before for I know the
fact that it will turn positive in the test. Variable interval schedule will only be effective if implemented
properly by keeping it as confidential as possible, and in addition they may also use other
reinforcement schedule like conducting drug test in different periods for the same person for I
believed that once they already undergo a test their mentality is that it will no longer be conducted
again thus there is a high possibility that after conducting the test thats the time they will take
steroids.
2. What are some examples of behaviors in typical organizations that supervisors reward but they
may actually be detrimental to others or to the organization as a whole? As a manager, what might
you do to try to avoid this quandary?
There are some instances where unintentionally rewards are given but it results to detrimental of an
individual or the organization. As mentioned in the case, players are rewarded if they perform well in
the game thus if you were the player you will find means of how to do well in the game. Players can
undergo extensive training but there is also a high possibility that they may find other alternatives like
taking steroids for example.

REINFORCEMENT THEORY

Ads by Google
Change management process - Research-based, holistic model for managing
the people side of change - www.change-management.com
Knowing your Personality - Most detailed Personality Assessment on the
Internet - www.personalitybook.com
Huna is NOT a Religion - Huna is NOT a Philosophy The Huna Prayer is NOT
a prayer, SO - www.hunafor.com
Saybrook Graduate School - Earn your MA or PhD at a distance Humanistic
Psychology & Org Systems - www.saybrook.edu

Reinforcement theory is the process of shaping behavior by controlling the
consequences of the behavior. In reinforcement theory a combination of rewards
and/or punishments is used to reinforce desired behavior or extinguish
unwanted behavior. Any behavior that elicits a consequence is called operant
behavior,because the individual operates on his or her environment.
Reinforcement theory concentrates on the relationship between the operant
behavior and the associated consequences, and is sometimes referred to as
operant conditioning.
BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT
OF REINFORCEMENT THEORY
Behavioral theories of learning and motivation focus on the effect that the
consequences of past behavior have on future behavior. This is in contrast to
classical conditioning, which focuses on responses that are triggered by stimuli in
an almost automatic fashion. Reinforcement theory suggests that individuals can
choose from several responses to a given stimulus, and that individuals will
generally select the response that has been associated with positive outcomes in
the past. E.L. Thorndike articulated this idea in 1911, in what has come to be
known as the law of effect. The law of effect basically states that, all other things
being equal, responses to stimuli that are followed by satisfaction will be
strengthened, but responses that are followed by discomfort will be weakened.
B.F. Skinner was a key contributor to the development of modern ideas about
reinforcement theory. Skinner argued that the internal needs and drives of
individuals can be ignored because people learn to exhibit certain behaviors
based on what happens to them as a result of their behavior. This school of
thought has been termed the behaviorist, or radical behaviorist, school.
REINFORCEMENT, PUNISHMENT,
AND EXTINCTION
The most important principle of reinforcement theory is, of course,
reinforcement. Generally speaking, there are two types of reinforcement: positive
and negative. Positive reinforcement results when the occurrence of a valued
behavioral consequence has the effect of strengthening the probability of the
behavior being repeated. The specific behavioral consequence is called a
reinforcer. An example of positive reinforcement might be a salesperson that
exerts extra effort to meet a sales quota (behavior) and is then rewarded with a
bonus (positive reinforcer). The administration of the positive reinforcer should
make it more likely that the salesperson will continue to exert the necessary effort
in the future.
Negative reinforcement results when an undesirable behavioral consequence is
withheld, with the effect of strengthening the probability of the behavior being
repeated. Negative reinforcement is often confused with punishment, but they
are not the same. Punishment attempts to decrease the probability of specific
behaviors; negative reinforcement attempts to increase desired behavior. Thus,
both positive and negative reinforcement have the effect of increasing the
probability that a particular behavior will be learned and repeated. An example of
negative reinforcement might be a salesperson that exerts effort to increase sales
in his or her sales territory (behavior), which is followed by a decision not to
reassign the salesperson to an undesirable sales route (negative reinforcer). The
administration of the negative reinforcer should make it more likely that the
salesperson will continue to exert the necessary effort in the future.
As mentioned above, punishment attempts to decrease the probability of specific
behaviors being exhibited. Punishment is the administration of an undesirable
behavioral consequence in order to reduce the occurrence of the unwanted
behavior. Punishment is one of the more commonly used reinforcement-theory
strategies, but many learning experts suggest that it should be used only if
positive and negative reinforcement cannot be used or have previously failed,
because of the potentially negative side effects of punishment. An example of
punishment might be demoting an employee who does not meet performance
goals or suspending an employee without pay for violating work rules.
Extinction is similar to punishment in that its purpose is to reduce unwanted
behavior. The process of extinction begins when a valued behavioral consequence
is withheld in order to decrease the probability that a learned behavior will
continue. Over time, this is likely to result in the ceasing of that behavior.
Extinction may alternately serve to reduce a wanted behavior, such as when a
positive reinforcer is no longer offered when a desirable behavior occurs. For
example, if an employee is continually praised for the promptness in which he
completes his work for several months, but receives no praise in subsequent
months for such behavior, his desirable behaviors may diminish. Thus, to avoid
unwanted extinction, managers may have to continue to offer positive behavioral
consequences.
SCHEDULES OF REINFORCEMENT
The timing of the behavioral consequences that follow a given behavior is called
the reinforcement schedule. Basically, there are two broad types of reinforcement
schedules: continuous and intermittent. If a behavior is reinforced each time it
occurs, it is called continuous reinforcement. Research suggests that continuous
reinforcement is the fastest way to establish new behaviors or to eliminate
undesired behaviors. However, this type of reinforcement is generally not
practical in an organizational setting. Therefore, intermittent schedules are
usually employed. Intermittent reinforcement means that each instance of a
desired behavior is not reinforced. There are at least four types of intermittent
reinforcement schedules: fixed interval, fixed ratio, variable interval, and variable
ratio.
Fixed interval schedules of reinforcement occur when desired behaviors are
reinforced after set periods of time. The simplest example of a fixed interval
schedule is a weekly paycheck. A fixed interval schedule of reinforcement does
not appear to be a particularly strong way to elicit desired behavior, and behavior
learned in this way may be subject to rapid extinction. The fixed ratio schedule of
reinforcement applies the reinforcer after a set number of occurrences of the
desired behaviors. One organizational example of this schedule is a sales
commission based on number of units sold. Like the fixed interval schedule, the
fixed ratio schedule may not produce consistent, long-lasting, behavioral change.
Variable interval reinforcement schedules are employed when desired behaviors
are reinforced after varying periods of time. Examples of variable interval
schedules would be special recognition for successful performance and
promotions to higher-level positions. This reinforcement schedule appears to
elicit desired behavioral change that is resistant to extinction.
Finally, the variable ratio reinforcement schedule applies the reinforcer after a
number of desired behaviors have occurred, with the number changing from
situation to situation. The most common example of this reinforcement schedule
is the slot machine in a casino, in which a different and unknown number of
desired behaviors (i.e., feeding a quarter into the machine) is required before the
reward (i.e., a jackpot) is realized. Organizational examples of variable ratio
schedules are bonuses or special awards that are applied after varying numbers of
desired behaviors occur. Variable ratio schedules appear to produce desired
behavioral change that is consistent and very resistant to extinction.
REINFORCEMENT THEORY APPLIED
TO ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS
Probably the best-known application of the principles of reinforcement theory to
organizational settings is called behavioral modification, or behavioral
contingency management. Typically, a behavioral modification program consists
of four steps:
1. Specifying the desired behavior as objectively as possible.
2. Measuring the current incidence of desired behavior.
3. Providing behavioral consequences that reinforce desired behavior.
4. Determining the effectiveness of the program by systematically assessing
behavioral change.
Reinforcement theory is an important explanation of how people learn behavior.
It is often applied to organizational settings in the context of a behavioral
modification program. Although the assumptions of reinforcement theory are
often criticized, its principles continue to offer important insights into individual
learning and motivation.


Read more: Reinforcement Theory - examples, school, type, Reinforcement,
punishment, and
extinction http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Pr-
Sa/Reinforcement-Theory.html#ixzz1SLva7I5P