Self-reinforcement.
Self-reinforcement isn’t real—always use an outside agent to deliver rewards in self-control programs.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The author asked a simple question. Can a person really reinforce their own behavior?
He looked at the definition of reinforcement. One agent must deliver a consequence after another agent's response.
When the same person sets the rule and gives the reward, the contingency breaks down. The paper calls this a logical flaw in self-reinforcement.
What they found
Self-reinforcement is not true reinforcement. The learner cannot be both rule-maker and reward-giver.
Any behavior change seen in self-control programs likely comes from other variables. These include public goal-setting or social praise.
How this fits with other research
Billings et al. (1985) tested the claim nine years later. College students studied more when they told others their goals. Private self-rewards added nothing. This extends the 1976 warning into real data.
Houston et al. (1987) looked at self-stimulatory behavior. They argued that sensory feedback can act as automatic reinforcement. This seems to clash with the 1976 paper. The difference is that automatic reinforcement is not chosen or arranged by the learner. It just happens.
Cerutti et al. (2004) showed a boy’s body movements were driven by the visual feedback he created. Again, no external agent set the rule. This supports the idea that automatic consequences can maintain behavior, but it does not rescue the idea of deliberate self-reinforcement.
Why it matters
When you design self-management programs, keep the contingency agent separate from the learner. Have a teacher, parent, or app deliver the points. State goals aloud to the class or family. Skip the private token jar—it looks like self-reinforcement, but it’s the public commitment doing the work.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Replace private token systems with public goal statements and external delivery of points.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Self-reinforcement in operant situations generally refers to those arrangements in which the subject delivers to himself a consequence, contingent on his behavior. However, it is noted that the definition of all other types of reinforcement make its delivery contingent on the subject's behavior. What is actually at issue is the agent who defines whether or not the response required for reinforcement has been met. In self-reinforcement, the subject himself defines this. In the laboratory, this requirement is machine-defined; in school examinations, it is teacher-defined; and in many clinical self-control situations, it is also independently defined. A reinforcement contingency presupposes such independence, absent in self-reinforcement. Implications for research and practice are discussed and alternative formulations are offered.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1976 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1976.9-509