You are on page 1of 16

Overview of Reinforcement Theory

Behaviorist B.F. Skinner derived the Reinforcement Theory, one of the oldest theories of motivation
as a way to explain behavior and why we do what we do. The theory may also be known as
Behaviorism or Operant Conditioning (which is still commonly taught in psychology today). The
theory states that "an individuals behavior is a function of its consequences." (Management Study
Guide 2013). Behaviorism evolved out of frustration with the introspective techniques of humanism
and psychoanalysis; some researchers were dissatisfied with the lack of directly observable
phenomena that could be measured and experimented with. In their opinion, it would make the
discipline of Psychology more "scientific" and on par with the core sciences.These researchers turned
to exploring only the behaviors that could be observed and measured, and away from the mysterious
workings of the mind (Funder, 2010). The science of psychology that is often associated with
current era may be considered inadmissible to those that follow Skinners beliefs. As psychology has
frequently been associated with the human mind and the evolution of cognitive awareness, Skinner
looked to move in a different direction. By applying his thoughts on adjusting motivation through
various stimuli, industries such as business, government, education, prisons, and mental institutions
can gain a broader understanding of human behavior. "In understanding why any organism behaves
the way it does, Skinner saw no place for dwelling on a persons intentions or goals (Banaji,
2011). For him, it was outward behavior and its environment that mattered. His most important
contribution to psychological science was the concept of reinforcement, formalized in his principles
of operant conditioning (in contrast to Ivan Pavlovs principles of classical conditioning, which along
with J.B. Watsons extreme environmentalism strongly influenced his own thinking).
Reinforcement theory has been used in many areas of study including animal training, raising
children, and motivating employees in the workplace. Reinforcement theories focus on observable
behavior rather than personal states, like needs theories do. Reinforcement theory focuses on the
environmental factors that contribute to shaping behavior. Simply put, reinforcement theory claims
that stimuli are used to shape behaviors. There are four primary approaches to reinforcement
theory: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, extinction, and punishment, which will
be covered in a later paragraph.
Reinforcement theory, which is a form of operant conditioning, includes several components. By
analyzing its steps, the Law of Effect and the possible approaches to achieve desired results ensure
that we understand the value of the theory through its application within the workplace.Types of
Reinforcement
According to Huitt & Hummel (1997), four methods are employed in operant conditioning: positive
reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment. The table
below is derived from the table created by Huitt & Hummel (1997).

Operant Conditioning
PICTURE
Positive and Negative Reinforcement
Reinforcement theory provides two methods of increasing desirable behaviors. One is positive
reinforcement and the other is negative reinforcement.
To avoid any confusion we can think of positive as a plus sign (+) and negative as minus sign (-). In
other words:

Positive Reinforcement: Give (+) what individuals like when they have performed the desired
behavior (Griggs, 2009).

Negative Reinforcement: Remove (-) what individuals do not like when they have performed the
desired behavior (Griggs, 2009).
PICTURE
In the case of negative reinforcement, it is important to remember that negative does not mean "bad",
just the removal of an unpleasant stimulus. Positive and negative have similar connotations in the
application of punishment.

Operant Conditioning and Mental Illness


B.F. Skinner's Operant Conditioning is used in the daily life of many individuals who have autism and
other illnesses. Behavioral therapies include many specific approaches to assist individuals in
changing behaviors. An important part of operant conditioning and positive reinforcement is doing the
same tasks in a repetitive manner to get the same favorable response. In many cases, autistic
individuals enjoy being on a set schedule, one in which they can expect. While some cannot verbally
express their excitement, the routine is important and results in positive behavior in many cases. Some
schedules may include eating meals, visiting a location, using the restroom or seeing the same people
at the same time daily. Positive Reinforcement is used to assist autistic individuals in learning new
behaviors as well.
Positive Reinforcement
Positive reinforcement is, Any pleasant or desirable consequence that follows a response and
increases the probability that the response will be repeated" (Wood, Wood, & Boyd, 2005.).

Positive reinforcement uses the reward system. The reward system is a collection of brain structures
which attempt to regulate and control behavior by inducing pleasurable effects. The rewards in the
workplace include, but are not limited to: monetary bonuses, promotions, praise, paid holiday leave,
and attention. In educational settings the rewards can include: food, verbal praise, or a preferred item
(such as a toy or a break on a swing). Giving rewards may not result in the desired effect or behavior.
The reward must stimulate the person to produce the desired behavior. This means that the reinforcer
should be highly motivating to the individual. For example, in the workplace a paycheck or a bonus is
a highly motivating factor for many people.

4
B.F. Skinner introduced people to positive reinforcement by conducting experiments on animals, most
notably his rat experiment. Skinner designed a box with a lever inside that released food when
pressed. He placed a hungry rat into the box to see if the rat could figure out how to get to the food.
When the rat was first placed into the box, it fumbled around until it inadvertently hit the lever and the
food was produced. Through several trials, the rat learned to go straight for the lever to produce the
food when it was hungry. Therefore, B.F. Skinner tested positive reinforcement, and concluded it does
produce desired behaviors (McLeod, 2007).

Negative Reinforcement

Negative reinforcement is a, "psychological reinforcement by the removal of an unpleasant stimulus


when a desired response occurs" (Negative Reinforcement, n.d.).

Negative reinforcement uses the reward system. A person is rewarded for desired behavior by having
something unpleasant removed. This removal is the reward. For example, in the workplace a person
may find it undesirable to be monitored closely. If a person is doing their job to the held standard,

they may not be monitored as closely anymore. This removal of the monitoring is the reward for
consistently doing their job well. Another example of negative reinforcement could be a new
employee at a fast food chain having to clean the public bathrooms as part of their job as a new hire.
By performing this well and other tasks, eventually this unpleasant task could be removed as a way to
keep this person interested and motivated to do well as they advance in job title and pay raise.
B.F. Skinner used the rat to demonstrate positive reinforcement, but he also utilized the same test to
prove negative reinforcement. Skinner placed an electric current inside the box. The electric current
was an unpleasant stimulus for the rat. The rat inadvertently hit the lever and learned that this turned
the electric current off. Through several trials, the rat learned that if it went straight to the lever, it
would turn off the current (McLeod, 2007).
Positive Punishment
The type of punishment most people are familiar with is positive punishment. Positive punishment is
easier for people to identify because it is common in society. It is usually called punishment or
punishment by application (D. Hockenbury & S. Hockenbury, 2010). Positive punishment occurs
when a stimulus is presented following an undesired behavior and subsequent occurrences of the
undesired behavior are reduced or eliminated (Cheney & Pierce, 2004). Using the example of a chatty
co-worker, the employee could be orally reprimanded for spending too much time conversing with coworkers. It is important to realize that even though consequences such as suspension, demotions, etc.
induce dislike, they do not qualify as punishments unless they lessen or eliminate the undesired
behavior.
Positive punishment is effective in eliminating undesired behaviors but it does have limitations.
Positive punishment has been found to be more effective when the stimulus is added immediately
following the undesired behavior as opposed to applying delayed stimulus. Another factor is
consistent application of a stimulus following an undesired behavior, this is more effective than
occasional application of a stimulus (Cheney & Pierce, 2004). The greatest drawback is that positive
punishment fails to teach desirable behaviors. Furthermore, positive punishment can produce
undesirable emotional reactions such as passivity, fear, anxiety, or hostility (Skinner, 1974; as cited in
Cheney & Pierce, 2004).
Punishment is seen as more acceptable than positive reinforcement because "people believe they are
free to choose to behave in responsible ways to avoid punishment." (Maag, 2001). Our societal values
of independence, and a tendency to view the world in terms of being punished for bad or immoral
behavior tend to predispose us to treat inappropriate behaviors with punishment, rather than focusing
on the value of positive reinforcement for doing the right thing.
Extinction

Extinction, on the other hand, involves withholding the pleasing stimulus that is maintaining the
unwanted behavior each time the behavior occurs. This happens until the behavior gradually
decreases to zero or the desired level (M. Sundel & S. Sundel, 2005). Using the above example of the
disruptive employee, his supervisor instructs his co-workers to ignore his non work-related comments
and not respond to them. The response from his co-workers is the pleasing stimulus maintaining his
behavior. Without it, the employee no longer chats about non work-related business and becomes
more productive as a result. It is important to remember that extinction is not permanent and that the
behavior may return after the extinction process is complete, a process calledspontaneous
recovery (Coon, 2006).
Skinner found that non-reinforcement of behavior to achieve extinction is much less effective than
reinforcement of behavior that is continuous. This is due to the fact that any intermittent
reinforcement of the unwanted behavior can lead to reoccurrence. "This is why many of our student's
undesirable behaviors are so difficult to stop. We might be able to resist a child's nagging most of the
time, but if we yield every once in a while, the child will persist with it." (Crain, 2004) Often times,
behavior not modified is behavior accepted.
Extinction may decrease the frequency of desirable behavior as well. If good behavior is consistently
ignored, it may cease, just as in the elimination of undesirable behavior (Tosi, Mero & Rizzo, 2001).
For example, an employee regularly stays late at work to assist the next shift in catching up after a
very busy day. No praise or thanks is ever given to the employee by her co-workers or supervisor, so
eventually, she leaves work on time and stops assisting the next shift. Ignoring her good behavior
caused its extinction. Tosi et al. (2001) note that, because good behavior may also be eliminated,
"Managers should be sensitive to the wide array of possibilities of extinction in the workplace" (p.
143).
Negative Punishment
Negative punishment involves removing a pleasing stimulus other than the one maintaining the
behavior in order to decrease the frequency of the behavior. Normally, the behavior decreases
immediately (M. Sundel & S. Sundel, 2005). An example of negative punishment might be an office
worker who disrupts his co-workers by constantly chatting about non work-related subjects. His coworkers usually respond to him and are polite, which is the pleasing stimulus maintaining his
disruptive behavior. His supervisor informs him that, if he remains disruptive, he will not receive his
yearly pay raise. Another form of negative punishment could be the removal of his desk from his coworkers and placement in a more isolated area. The removal of the pay raise and the loss of the prime
location in the office space are the negative punishment in his example because they are pleasing
stimuli, but not the one directly maintaining his behavior (M. Sundel & S. Sundel, 2005). According

to D. Hockenbury and S. Hockenbury (2010), negative punishment may also be referred to


as punishment by removal.
The following clip from the movie Office Space demonstrates an example of negative punishment.
Guidelines to ensure effective workplace punishment:

Act swiftly: The closer the disciplinary action is to the actual offense, the more likely it is that the
employee will associate the punishment with the offense or unwanted behavior and not the dispenser
of the punishment (Robbins, Odendaal, & Roodt, 2009).

Be

consistent: Punishment

must

be

doled

out

consistently

between

employees

and

also within individuals. If an employee is punished for lateness, he or she must be punished for each
late occurrence thereafter. If punishments are not consistent, rules will lose impact, there may be a
decline in morale, and employees may question the competence of the dispenser of the punishment. It
is reasonable, however, to consider any mitigating factors in each punishment situation, such as past
history and performance. Punishment may be adjusted in those situations, provided the rationale is
made abundantly clear to all concerned (Robbins et al., 2009).

Suggest alternative behaviors: It is important to clearly explain the reasons for the punishment and
offer the employee alternative good behaviors. Disciplining an employee for an undesirable behavior
only makes clear to him or her, what not to do. Suggesting alternatives will educate the employee on
what is the preferred behavior and make it more likely that the behavior will be changed to one that is
more desirable (Robbins et al., 2009).

Utilize the five to one rule: According to Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer and Vohs (2001),
because bad interactions are more powerful emotionally than good interactions, it is important to
balance the good and bad by more frequently using positive reinforcement rather than punishment. A
good ratio is five enjoyable interactions to one disagreeable interaction (Baumeister et al., 2001).

Punish in private and praise in public: Private punishment is more likely to be seen as
constructive, and public punishment is more likely to cause embarrassment and negative effects if
done in front of one's peers (Hellriegel & Slocum Jr., 2007).

Punish and Reward. Desirable behaviors should be rewarded and undesirable behaviors should be
punished (Redmond, 2010).
Ramifications of Ineffective and Inappropriate Punishment
When punishing, it is imperative to use caution in following the rules to apply punishment
effectively. The following are five dangers of punishment (Funder, 2007).

Punishment stirs emotion: The punisher may actually derive a great deal of excitement and
satisfaction, thereby fueling further aggressive behaviors. In many instances, punishers can become

completely blind without realizing the severity of their error in losing self-control, thereby turning the
punishment into abuse. Conversely, high levels of fear, hate, desire to escape and self-contempt can
arise in the punished, all causing humiliation, discomfort and pain. Many times because of this, the
punished fails to learn any lesson at all from the punishment because of their need to escape and the
pain involved with the specific punishing behavior.

Punishing consistently is challenging: Applying punishments effectively can be a very difficult task
because the mood of the punisher changes with every circumstance, thereby leaving the possibility for
inconsistency with punishments. Inconsistency is one of the main reasons why punishment can prove
to be very ineffective. The same type of punishments must be adhered to on all counts. To punish
one person one way and another differently will produce unproductive results, particularly in work
settings.

Judging the level of severity is a difficult task: Perceptions of a person being punished can be vastly
different than the person actually doing the punishing. For example, being reprimanded by your boss
can be a very humiliating experience beyond what they could possibly know. Issues such as
psychological distress and the breaking down of confidence levels can create ill feelings,
misunderstandings and, even worse, a desire for revenge.

Punishment can be an education in power: Specifically with children, but also in work settings,
punishments can cause less powerful people to want to strive to become "powerful" by observing the
example they are shown in receiving punishments. For example, abused children oftentimes grow up
and play out their parents same abusive behavior (Hemenway, Solnick, & Carter, 1994; Widom,
1989). In a work environment, an angered employee may attempt a mutiny on their boss to drive
them out of their position.

Punishment can produce a need for concealment: Particularly in an office setting where the boss
utilizes punishment frequently, employees tends to withdraw, keep silent and avoid effective
communication between each other due to the need of avoiding the conflict of punishment. This
causes the boss to lose sight of the dynamics of his employees and office and alienates employee from
feeling safe to work and express themselves to the best of their ability.
Funder (2007) notes that rewards can have the opposite effect. A good worker will always seek to
impress the boss by presenting at every opportunity their positive actions, for which the boss
reciprocates. Through this communication he finds himself more in tune with the inner workings of
his office. This behavior is to be noted in children as well. A child who expects reward will
consistently attempt to impress their parents with their good behaviors, whereas a child who is
constantly under attack and living in fear of punishment will attempt to sever communication as much
as possible with the punisher. In the words of Funder, "punishment works great if you apply correctly
-- but to apply it correctly, it helps to be a genius and a saint (Funder, 2007, p.494)."

Schedules of Reinforcement
A schedule of reinforcement determines when and how often reinforcement of a behavior is
given. Schedules of reinforcement play an important role in the learning process of operant
conditioning since the speed and strength of the response can be significantly impacted by when and
how often a behavior is reinforced (Van Wagner, 2010b). Two types of reinforcement schedules are:
continuous reinforcement and intermittent reinforcement.
Continuous reinforcement is when a desired behavior is reinforced each and every time it is
displayed. This type of reinforcement schedule should be used during the initial stages of learning in
order to create a strong association between the behavior and the response (Van Wagner,
2010b). Continuous reinforcement will not generate enduring changes in behavior, once the rewards
are withdrawn, the desired behavior will become extinct. A good example of continuous behavior is
the process of using a vending machine. For example, a soda machine will give a soda every time you
feed it money. Every so often you may not receive the soda and you are likely to try only a few more
times. The likelihood that you will continuously keep adding money when not receiving any reward
is extremely low so this behavior is often stopped very quickly (Durell, 2000).

Intermittent reinforcement is when a desired behavior is reinforced only occasionally when it is


displayed. In this type of reinforcement schedule behaviors are obtained more gradually; however,
the behaviors are more enduring (defying extinction). Intermittent schedules are based either on time
(interval schedules) or frequency (ratio schedules) (Huitt & Hummel, 1997). Ratio reinforcement is
the reinforcement of a desired behavior after a number of occurrences; while, interval reinforcement is
the reinforcement of a desired behavior after a period of time. Consequently, four types of
intermittent reinforcement schedules exist: fixed interval schedules, variable interval schedules, fixed
ratio schedules and variable ratio schedules.
Fixed Interval Schedules: A reinforcement of appropriate behavior that is delivered after a specified
interval of time has elapsed (Smith, 2010). Heffner offers an appropriate example of an employee
performance review for a raise every year and not in between (Heffner, 2001). However as the
reinforcement is delivered only after a specified amount of time has passed this reinforcement type of
schedule tends to produce a scalloping effect between intervals as displayed in the figure example
below (Huitt & Hummel, 1997).

Only directly before the interval time has elapsed is the desired behavior displayed so as to look
good when the performance review comes around (Heffner, 2001). After the review, a dramatic dropoff of behavior immediately after reinforcement occurs (Huitt & Hummel, 1997). The fixed interval
schedule is a form of continuous schedule and works well for punishment or learning a new behavior
(Heffner, 2001).
Variable Interval Schedules: This is a reinforcement of appropriate behavior that is delivered after
an average interval of time has elapsed (Smith, 2010). Once the behavior has been reinforced, a new
interval of time, either shorter or longer, is specified with the sum total of interval times equaling the
average (Huitt & Hummel, 1997). This is best expressed in the example of a corporate random drug
testing policy. The power of variable reinforcement lies in the fact that individuals do not know
exactly when it is coming. The policy may dictate that a random drug screening will be conducted
every 3 months or so, however because it is random the screening may happen sooner at 2 months or
later at 4 months with the average interval time equaling around 3 months. Because of the variable
nature of this schedule the scalloping effect between intervals is reduced (Huitt & Hummel, 1997).

As shown in the figure above the variable interval schedule tends to consistently produce more
appropriate behaviors (Heffner, 2001). This schedule of reinforcement is best used when fading out a
fixed interval schedule or reinforcing already established behaviors (Smith, 2010).

Fixed Ratio Schedules: A reinforcement of a desired behavior occurs only after a specified number
of actions have been performed (ex. Factory employees who are paid on piecework or a fixed piece
rate for every piece produced or performance-related pay). Because the fixed ratio schedule is
methodical, it produces a high, steady rate of response. The fixed ratio schedule is also a form of
continuous schedule and works well for punishment or learning a new behavior (Heffner, 2001).

Variable Ratio Schedules: A reinforcement of a desired behavior occurs after a variable number of
actions have been performed (ex. Employees who contribute to a lottery pot, a various number of
tickets will win a various amount of money, which is put back into the pot for the next week). The
number of behaviors required to obtain the reward changes. The variable rate schedules tend to be
more effective than fixed ratio schedules because they generate a higher rate of response and resist
extinction (Redmond, 2010).

The chart below is a recording of response rates of the four reinforcement schedules (Huitt &
Hummel, 1997). The rates of responses are recorded on a device created by Skinner, called the ).

A chart demonstrating the different response rate of the four simple schedules of reinforcement,
each hatch mark designates a reinforcer being given (Huitt & Hummel, 1997).

Strengths and Weaknesses of Reinforcement Theory


Strengths

Provides clues to motivation. Unlike Needs Theory of motivation which focused on internal needs,
Reinforcement Theory is based on external conditions. Within the workplace, organizational
management theorists look to the environment to explain and control people's behavior. Because of
this, it may be easier to motivate a group of workers through external factors such as pay raise,
promotion, etc. (Operant Conditioning, 2006).

Keeps employees involved. Installing a schedule of reinforcement, such as a variable interval


schedule will keep employees on their toes. The employee does not know exactly when a test or
performance review is coming, so they cannot afford to work poorly on a given task (Redmond,
2010).

Easily applied in organization. Reinforcement Theory deals with learned behaviors, therefore it is
easy to apply to organizational management. Upon joining a company, workers deal with certain
stimuli, responses, and their consequences. Because the behaviors are rewarded or punished, it can be
easy to encourage or change workers' responses by manipulating the stimuli (Operant Conditioning,
2006).

Impressive research support. Reinforcement Theory has had substantial research done in the
workplace. This research has shown impressive results due to its focus on observable behaviors.
Research has been able to empirically prove that Reinforcement works (PSU WC, L3, p. 9).
Weaknesses

Disregards internal motivation.

The reinforcement theory only considers behavior and

consequences without considering processes of internal motivation or individual differences


(Redmond, 2010).

Difficult to identify rewards/punishments. One main weakness in dealing with Reinforcement


Theory is the difficulty to identify rewards or punishments (Booth-Butterfield, 1996). Each human
being is different and unique, and Reinforcement Theory has to take this into account. A reward that
works for one person may not work for someone else. For example, one person may be lacking selfconfidence, so higher praise from a manager may act as a reward. If only a raise in pay were the
reward in this situation, the lack of self-confidence would still be evident and an increase in
productivity would not be present.

Hard to apply to complicated forms of behavior. It is not equally reliable in all situations. Using it
to impact behaviors involved in complicated task work can be problematic. It is easier to reinforce
behavior that applies to a simple task because positive and negative behaviors are easier to keep track
of and modify (Redmond, 2010).

Imposes on freewill. The control and manipulation of rewards in order to change behavior is
considered unethical by some (Redmond, 2010).

Effectivity often expires. Even when an acceptable reward or punishment is met, they often become
less meaningful over time (Booth-Butterfield, 1996). The reward of praise seen above, for instance,
becomes much less desirable after the person receives a boost in self-confidence. Now, the manager
may

have

to

move

on

to

another

reward

to

keep

the

motivation

fresh.

Can be complicated. The punishment aspect of Reinforcement Theory can be difficult to apply
well. According to Booth-Butterfield (1996), for punishment to be effective, a few guidelines may be
required:
1. The punishment should be immediate.

2. The punishment should be intense.


3. The punishment should be unavoidable.
4. The punishment should be consistent
In addition, artificial reinforcers often have the effect of reducing the individuals feeling of selfdetermination; and this is likely to reduce motivation to engage in similar activities in the future
(Glasser, 1990).
Findings and conclusions of behaviorism, to a large extent, are based on research with animals.
Thorndike used cats, Pavlov used dogs, and Skinner - pigeons and rats. Many aspects that are
important to human beings, such as problem-solving and thinking process, are not addressed by
behaviorism. The emphasis is on the environmental stimuli that modify behavior, not on any internal
factors that may be present.(Funder, 2010)
Despite the initial success that behaviorism enjoyed, some researchers believed that it ignored many
important psychological phenomena. One of the first ones was German Psychologist Wolfgang
Kohler. Kohler believed that animals, specifically chimpanzees, developed insight regarding their
situation, thereby developing an understanding regarding their condition. The emphasis here was the
immediacy at which the chimpanzees applied their response, as opposed to a more gradual learned
behavior. This indicated a comprehension and understanding of stimuli and consequences resulting in
immediate responses (Kohler, 1925; Gleitman, 1995). Kohler's research on insight applied to
behaviorism would eventually lead to the beginnings of social learning theory, as well as some
cognitive research (Funder, 2007).
The last guideline - the punishment should be consistent - may be the most important. If the
punishment is not consistent, the employee will not associate his or her error with the punishment.
When there is consistency, the employee will try to avoid the punishment by fixing their error and
proceeding in the fashion the manager would like.

Application of Reinforcement Theory in the Workplace


When describing his principles of behavior modification, Skinner simply states, Behavior is
determined by its consequences.
Top managers agree that there are numerous issues that can be helped using applied psychology
techniques in the working environment (Dowling, 1973). In Conversation with Skinner (1973), He
mentions that it is important to identify the desired consequence, which will elicit the desired
behavioral response. Ever since Skinner first published his findings in 1969, reinforcement theory has
been widely studied and implemented in the industrial setting to decrease the frequency of undesired

behavior and increase the frequency of desired behavior. These studies of applied reinforcement
theory have proven that the principles of behavior modification can help management with issues
ranging from reducing absenteeism and tardiness (Gamboa & Pedalino, 1974), to increasing
production in their employees (Nelson, Raj & Rao, 2006).
There are many theories that can be used to assist management in employee motivation; the one that
applies to Reinforcement Theory is called the Behavior Modification Model.
The Behavior Modification Model for Reinforcement Theory (2006) consists of the following four
steps:

Specifying

the

desired

behavior

as

objectively

as

possible.

A good manager is a good leader and a good leader is goal oriented. Informing employees of the
specific goal in mind, making sure they understand it and keeping them focused on the goal is key to
the process.

Measuring

the

current

incidence

of

desired

behavior.

Before a consequence can be enacted, a manager must keep track of each employee's productivity and
quality of work. Once this baseline is recorded and behaviors are identified, then the reinforcement
can begin. With the baseline recorded, it is easier to observe the benefits of using the Behavioral
Modification Model.

Providing

behavioral

consequences

that

reinforce

desired

behavior.

This step involves reinforcing individuals for desired outcomes and providing consequences for
undesired outcomes. For example, individuals that are working above the status quo may get a
reward for their hard work and those that are below par will see this and be motivated to work harder.

Determining the effectiveness of the program by systematically assessing behavioral change.


It is important to observe the effectiveness of the applied reinforcement, to determine if reinforcement
has been used ineffectively and possibly shed light on a better strategy for next time.
For example, ABC Manufacturing Company found they employed a large number of mothers with
small children. When their children got sick the mothers were naturally absent from work. This was
affecting productivity within the company. Rather than taking disciplinary action against these
employees, the company sought out a solution to the problem and asked the mothers what could be
done to avoid this situation in the future. The logical solution was to provide a day care for the
employees' children. The company assessed the cost effectiveness and decided to give it a try. As a
result, within a few months of the implementation of this daycare program, absenteeism decreased
dramatically and there was a noticeable increase in productivity.

Gitman and McDaniel (2009) provide an excellent example of how reinforcement may be used in the
workplace. According to them, hospitals, for a long time, have been offering surgeons the coveted
option of scheduling their elective surgeries in the middle of the week, leaving them time to teach,
attend conferences, and take long weekends. This scheduling system is advantageous for the surgeons
but problematic for the hospitals due to operating room overcrowding and consequent surgery delays
(Gitman & McDaniel, 2009).
A hospital in Springfield, Missouri decided to remedy this scheduling issue by spreading its elective
surgeries out over five days, rather than two. To convince their surgeons to adopt the new schedule
and give up the old one and its many perks, the hospital used reinforcement techniques (Gitman &
McDaniel, 2009). Surgeons, who ten percent of the time arrived more than ten minutes late, were
fined a part of the price of their surgery (Gitman & McDaniel, 2009).The fines went into a pool which
rewarded those surgeons who were on time the most. As a result of this program, late surgeries
dropped from 16 percent to less than one percent over a span of two years (Gitman & McDaniel,
2009).
In this program, the fine for late surgeries would be considered negative punishment because
something desirable (money) was removed (negative) in order to decrease the unwanted behavior
(punishment). The monetary reward for being on time the most would be considered positive
reinforcement because something desirable (money) was added (positive) in order to increase the
desirable behavior (reinforcement).
Another example of reinforcement theory in action is the story of Snowfly, a new company that
designs, implements and administers workforce incentive programs. Snowfly's approach to employee
motivation follows reinforcement theory and involves four themes: immediate recognition, relevant
incentive rewards, accountability, and positive reinforcement (Kadlub, 2009). Andy Orr, president of
Press One, signed on to use Snowfly for his call center whose clients include USA Today and the
New York Times. Andy implemented Snowfly because it aligned with his call-center metrics and
offered a way to keep "service levels right in front of our agents (Kadlub, 2009). Program
participants are informed of specific goals they need to achieve and desired behaviors they need to
demonstrate. When employees successfully meet their goals, participant accounts are credited with
points or game tokens. The 170 call center employees can make an additional $0.20 to $2 an hour as a
result of playing Snowflys games (Kadlub, 2009). The size or type of award the player wins is left up
to chance, much like playing the slots in Las Vegas. Since implementing Snowflys incentive
program, Press One has seen a 60% reduction in employee turnover (Kadlub, 2009).
Unfortunately the applied reinforcement theory of positive punishment or simply punishment (D.
Hockenbury & S. Hockenbury, 2010) has been put into effect much more often than has other forms
of reinforcement (Waird, 1972). To reduce undesirable behaviors it seems almost natural to deliver a

punishment rather than offer a reward. This idea to quickly punish to reduce undesirable behavior
could conceivably date back to ones childhood, when students were sent to detention for being
disruptive or failing to turn homework on time. However, Waird (1972) offers the notion When we
consistently use punishment to improve performance, it often becomes a reward. That reward is the
fact that you are not being punished for not behaving in the undesirable manner. However the
behavior that is being reinforced is reducing undesired behavior instead of actually trying to increase
desirable behavior (Waird, 1972). To increase desirable behavior, and ultimately performance in the
working environment, Waird (1972) suggests the implementation of positive reinforcement as it as
directly orientated to desired results.

You might also like