Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T07:39:10.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Direct and Implicit Non-contingent Rewards on Children's Performance of a Fine Motor Skills Task

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

Christopher F. Sharpley
Christopher F. Sharpley*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Education, Monash University
*
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton Vic 3168
Get access

Abstract

The effects of non-contingent rewards administered both directly and implicitly for a fine motor skills task were investigated under a time-series design. Data were collected from all members of a typical class, with the teacher acting as experimenter to enhance generalizability. Results indicated that non-contingent rewards possessed neutral consequential effects, thus challenging data from some previous studies which have methodological limitations. The ineffectiveness of non-contingent rewards as reinforcers is discussed, with several suggestions made for future research to investigate the issue of previous reward history and its effect upon the non-contingent reward condition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , December 1987 , pp. 14 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1971). Vicarious and self-reinforcement processes. In Glasser, R. (ed.), The nature of reinforcement (pp. 228–278). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Deitz, S. M., & Repp, A. C. (1974). Differentially reinforcing low rates of misbehavior with normal elementary school children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 622.Google Scholar
Glass, G. V., Willson, V. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1975). Design and analysis of time-series experiments. Boulder, Colorado: Colorado Associated University Press.Google Scholar
Gottman, J. M. (1981). Time-series analysis. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, R. V., Lund, D., & Jackson, D. (1968). Effects of teacher attention on study behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 1–12.Google Scholar
Hibbs, D. A. (1974). Problems of statistical estimation and causal inference in time-series regression models. In Costner, H. L. (ed.), Sociological methodology, 1973–74 (pp. 252–308). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Hopkins, B. L., Schutte, R. C., & Garton, K. L. (1971). The effects of access to a playroom on the rate and quality of printing and writing of first and second grade students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 77–87.Google Scholar
Jones, R. R., Weinrott, M., & Vaught, R. S. (1978). Effects of serial dependency on the agreement between visual and statistical inference. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 277–283.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. (1980). Behavior modification in applied settings (2nd edn). Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. (1981). Vicarious reinforcement and punishment processes in the classroom. In Strain, P. (ed.), The utilization of classroom peers as behavior change agents, (pp. 129–153). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Marholin, D., McInnes, E. T., & Heads, T. B. (1974). Effects of two free-time reinforcement procedures on academic performance in a class of behavior problem children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 872–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ollendick, T. H., Dailey, D., & Shapiro, E. S. (1983). Vicarious reinforcement: Expected and unexpected effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 485–491.Google Scholar
Ollendick, T. H., & Shapiro, E. S. (1984). An examination of vicarious reinforcement processes in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 78–91.Google Scholar
Ollendick, T. H., Shapiro, E. S., & Barrett, R. P. (1982). Effects of vicarious reinforcement in normal and severely disturbed children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psycholgoy, 50, 63–70.Google Scholar
Sharpley, C. F. (1982a). The effects of age, group-size and classroom homogeneity upon the extinctive properties of implicit reward conditions. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 28, 301–314.Google Scholar
Sharpley, C. F. (1982b). Elimination of vicarious reinforcement effects within an implicit reward situation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 611–617.Google Scholar
Sharpley, C. F. (1984). Implicit rewards as rein-forcers and extinguishers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharpley, C. F.Single subject research, in Keeves, J. P. (ed.), Educational research methodology, measurement and evaluation: An international handbook. Oxford: Pergamon Press (in press).Google Scholar
Sharpley, C. F., & Sharpley, A. M. (1981). Contingent vs noncontingent rewards in the classroom: A review of the literature. Journal of School Psychology, 19, 250–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar