Self-reinforcement effects: An artifact of social standard setting?
Public goal statements drive behavior change; self-given rewards add nothing.
01Research in Context
What this study did
College students studied for a test. The researchers compared three setups: saying the study goal out loud to others, giving themselves candy when they hit the goal, or both.
Each student tried all three setups in a rotation. The team counted minutes studied and quiz scores.
What they found
Just stating the goal in front of others boosted study time and quiz marks. Adding self-given candy or keeping the goal private did nothing extra.
In plain words, the public promise carried the punch; the self-reward was filler.
How this fits with other research
Goldiamond (1976) warned that self-reinforcement is shaky theory because the same person sets and pays the reward. C et al. now show the warning was useful: the reward part really didn’t matter.
Burack et al. (2004) taught kids to track reinforcement schedules through modeling. Their social demonstration worked; C et al. add that a simple public statement can create the same social push for adults.
Together the papers say: get the social contingency right, then skip the token jar.
Why it matters
You can drop the candy, stickers, or points from self-management plans. Have the learner state the target aloud to you or peers and check back later. This one move often gives the boost you want with zero setup cost.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Ask your learner to tell you their study goal out loud before the session starts.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Two studies were conducted to identify mechanisms responsible for observed "self-reinforcement" effects. In Experiment 1, using a studying task, self-reinforcement procedures did not work when they were private (i.e., when others are not aware of the goals or contingencies), but did work when they were public. Self-delivery of consequences added nothing to the effectiveness of the procedure. The data suggested that public goal setting was the critical element in the procedure's effectiveness. In Experiment 2, an applied extension, goal setting alone was effective in modifying over a long time period studying behaviors of people with significant studying difficulties, but only when the goals were known to others. Overall, the two experiments make more plausible the view that self-reinforcement procedures work by setting a socially available standard against which performance can be evaluated. The procedure itself functions as a discriminative stimulus for stringent or lenient social contingencies. The application of this mechanism to other problems of applied significance is briefly discussed.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1985 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1985.18-201