B.F. Skinner wrote multiple times that the physiological research that will occur on the brain will be instrumental when combined with the behavior research that the Behavior Analyst conducted. As such, I have become quite a fan of the Frontal Cortex blog by Jonah Lehrer. Often Mr. Lehrer’s post can be applied to behaviorism by the readers. However, sometimes he inserts implications or references which directly impact behavior. Some research he wrote about in his recent blog post, “Will I?” falls under this category.
From the Frontal Cortex:
Scientists have recognized the importance of intrinsic motivation for decades. In the 1970s, Mark Lepper, David Greene and Richard Nisbett conducted a classic study on preschoolers who liked to draw. They divided the kids into three groups. The first group of kids was told that they’d get a reward – a nice blue ribbon with their name on it – if they continued to draw. The second group wasn’t told about the rewards but was given a blue ribbon after drawing. (This was the “unexpected reward” condition.) Finally, the third group was the “no award” condition. They weren’t even told about the blue ribbons.
After two weeks of reinforcement, the scientists observed the preschoolers during a typical period of free play. Here’s where the results get interesting: The kids in the “no award’ and “unexpected award” conditions kept on drawing with the same enthusiasm as before. Their behavior was unchanged. In contrast, the preschoolers in the “award” group now showed much less interest in the activity. Instead of drawing, they played with blocks, or took a nap, or went outside. The reason was that their intrinsic motivation to draw had been contaminated by blue ribbons; the extrinsic reward had diminished the pleasure of playing with crayons and paper. (Daniel Pink, in his excellent book Drive)
The assertion above that the preschoolers were intrinsically motivated is wrong from a behavioral analysis perspective. There is no such thing as intrinsic motivation and usually when this is communicated, the real meaning is that the contingency is unknown or un-observable.
So, with the confession that I am making countless assumptions since the study is not in front of me and this is purely an exercise in theoretical thinking, we can say that the first set of children were aware of the reinforcer – the blue ribbon. Because they knew about it doesn’t make it any less reinforcing and presumably they colored and received their ribbon. With that behavior complete and having received the reinforcer, they were free to play other games and move on. An analogy may be that a hungry person eats. Once they are no longer hungry, they stop eating. A critic might argue that when hunger returns, this person would eat again. To which I would say, if the child found need for another blue ribbon they would color again – assuming the rules set out by the teachers allowed for more than one ribbon.
The second group who did not know about the ribbon ahead of time, but received it anyway were getting a variable schedule of reinforcement. After completion of the task, coloring, they received the ribbon. This is a very strong model of reinforcement and usually leads to an increased likely hood of behavior. However, if after a sustained period of behavior with no additional reinforcement, this group would be more likely to end up like the first group, off playing in free play. To continue the analogy from above, this is the fisherman. He doesn’t always catch a fish, but when he does, he eats. However, if after a prolonged period of no fish, he would conclude there were no more fish in the pond and quit fishing.
The last group were outside the control of the blue ribbon. However, this does not mean that they were outside the control of reinforcement. Their reinforcement was coming from natural contingencies. It is entirely possible that one of the other students commented favorably on their drawing, that one of their parents put it on the fridge, or simply that the act of drawing next to other students who were also drawing was pleasurable. This could be akin to the hunter who is not hungry, but who fishes or hunts to feed others. He would receive praise and thanks from feeding others and the feelings that accompany that type of reinforcement.
It is also very important to note that just because the first group chose to play in free play, doesn’t mean they weren’t likely to draw when alone, at home or when necessary. If they received enough other reinforcement from drawing besides the blue ribbon, they would continue to draw.
What I find very interesting is the kids who knew exactly what the reinforcer was and achieving it were free to pursue other contingencies. While those who did not know and pursued natural contingencies put them more under the control of these contingencies. In this sense, is the argument, proposed by Daniel Pink and many others, that intrinsic motivation is some how more beneficial to the child? It certainly is less “free.” In fact, Lehrer even calls it “free play” in his recount of the study.
Do you ever find you have todo items on your task lists that just seem to linger. No matter how long they stay on the list and how motivated you are to work, you just can’t seem to get around to them?
