In This Thread I Continue My Discussion Of Reinforcement

In this Thread I Continue My Discussion Of Reinforcement Theory By Pre

In this thread I continue my discussion of reinforcement theory by presenting the idea of contingency which refers to the relationship between a behavior and a reinforcer. If you can get a goodie (a reinforcer) without engaging in a prerequisite behavior, then that reinforcer is said to be noncontingent. If the only way you can get a reinforcer is to do a particular behavior, that reinforcer is said to be contingent on that behavior. For example, in the average company an increase in benefits will not increase performance because benefits are provided to everyone, regardless of performance. Improved benefits are given whether or not performance increases.

They are noncontingent. To say hard work pays off implies that there is a reinforcement contingency between hard work and pay and/or promotions. Many people will tell you that if there is a contingency between work and pay, it is a loose one. A behavioral contingency can be seen as follows: "You can get ______ if and only if you _______."

In the following article we discuss the idea of contingency in the context of helping. Von Bergen, C. W., & Bressler, M. S. (2020). Be Careful When Helping Others: The Long-Term Effects on Recipients of Sustained Aid and Assistance. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 20(5), 10-29.

Paper For Above instruction

Reinforcement theory, rooted in behaviorism, posits that behavior is influenced and shaped by its consequences. One significant aspect of reinforcement theory is the concept of contingency, which refers to the relationship between a behavior and a reinforcer. Understanding this relationship is vital for organizations and individuals aiming to modify behavior effectively. Contingency determines whether a reinforcer is simply available or actively dependent on certain behaviors, thereby affecting motivation and behavioral outcomes.

Contingency measures the dependency of reinforcement on specific actions. When a reinforcer is noncontingent, it is administered independently of the individual's behavior; it is freely given without regard to performance or effort. For example, many organizations provide benefits to all employees regardless of individual performance. Such benefits are noncontingent because they are not tied to specific behaviors, such as increased productivity or quality of work. This approach can foster a general sense of well-being but may lack the motivation to enhance specific behaviors.

Conversely, contingent reinforcement occurs only when a specific behavior is performed. This form of reinforcement links actions to consequences, establishing a clear association that encourages the desired behavior. For instance, performance-based bonuses or promotions exemplify contingent reinforcers, as they are awarded only when particular performance criteria are met. This contingency reinforces the behavior, increasing the likelihood of its occurrence in the future, which is especially effective in organizational settings aiming to enhance productivity and motivation.

The classic example of contingent versus noncontingent reinforcement underscores their implications for motivation. Noncontingent rewards, such as universal benefits, may improve baseline morale but are less effective in driving specific behavioral changes. In contrast, contingent rewards directly influence individual actions, fostering goal-directed behavior. As such, organizations seeking to motivate employees to perform better should establish clear contingencies—"You can get ______ if and only if you _______,"—that specify the behaviors required to obtain desired reinforcers.

Understanding the dynamics of contingency extends beyond the workplace and into social and organizational help contexts. For example, in aid and assistance scenarios, the nature of contingency can significantly influence long-term recipient outcomes. The article by Von Bergen and Bressler (2020) explores these dynamics, highlighting that sustained aid without contingent requirements may foster dependence rather than independence. This underscores the importance of designing assistance programs that incorporate meaningful contingencies, encouraging recipients to develop self-sufficiency rather than reliance on continuous aid.

In summary, the concept of contingency in reinforcement theory emphasizes that for behavior modification to be effective, reinforcers must be tied to specific actions. Noncontingent reinforcement, while useful for maintaining general morale, often fails to promote targeted behavioral change. Conversely, contingent reinforcement creates a direct link between behavior and consequence, facilitating more precise and sustainable behavioral modifications. Recognizing and applying appropriate contingencies are essential for effective management, education, therapy, and social interventions, ensuring that reinforcement leads to meaningful and lasting behavioral improvements.

References

• Von Bergen, C. W., & Bressler, M. S. (2020). Be Careful When Helping Others: The Long-Term Effects on Recipients of Sustained Aid and Assistance. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 20(5), 10-29.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.
• Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan.
• Pittman, R. (2001). Reinforcement contingencies and their applications. Behavior Analyst, 24(3), 387-399.
• Reinforcement Theory. (n.d.). In W. L. M. (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: An Evidence-Based Approach. SAGE Publications.
• Geller, E. S. (1990). Motivating behavior in organizations: The psychology of reinforcement and productivity. Praeger Publishers.
• Kohn, A. (1993). Why incentive plans cannot work. Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 54-60.
• Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2015). Justice, Trust, and Trustworthiness: A Longitudinal Perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(7), 982-1002.
• Baum, W. M. (2017). Understanding behaviorism: Science, behavior, and culture. John Wiley & Sons.
• Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. Appleton-Century-Crofts.