Effects of reinforcement on children's academic behavior as a function of self-determined and externally imposed contingencies.
Letting students set their own academic goals works, but you must pop back in to keep the goal from slipping.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team ran a classroom experiment. Kids got tokens for correct math problems. One group picked their own passing score. The other group got a teacher-set score.
Both groups traded tokens for prizes. The researchers then watched what happened when no adult stood nearby.
What they found
Children who set their own goals kept working just as hard as the teacher-rule group—at first.
When the teacher stepped away, the self-set kids quietly lowered their targets. Their output stayed high, but their personal bar slid down.
How this fits with other research
Macdonald et al. (1973) ran a similar 1973 classroom test. They saw the same big picture: self-management keeps kids on task after prizes stop.
Billings et al. (1985) later showed the real power is saying the goal out loud, not giving yourself candy. That study used college students, but the pattern matches—public pledge drives the change.
Goldiamond (1976) warned that “self-reinforcement” breaks the rule that someone else must control the reward. The 1973 data answer: the tokens still came from the teacher, so the contingency stayed outside the child.
Why it matters
Let learners pick their daily goal. It builds buy-in without hurting accuracy. Just post the goal where everyone can see it, and circle back soon—kids will ease up if they think no one is tracking. A quick check-in keeps the standard honest.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Have each student write their math-goal number on a sticky note, post it on the wall, and check it again before lunch.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This experiment was designed to compare the effects of contingent reinforcement under conditions of self-determined and externally imposed performance standards. A major purpose was to examine the maintenance of self-imposed performance standards over time. Children in one contingent reinforcement condition self-determined their academic performance standards. The same performance standards were externally imposed upon children in a second contingent reinforcement condition who were yoked to subjects in the first condition. Children in a no-reinforcement control condition performed in the absence of external reward. Behavioral productivity of the self-determination condition was greater than that of the no-reinforcement condition. Further, no attenuation of the efficacy of contingent reinforcement occurred when performance standards were self-determined rather than externally imposed. Over six sessions, children became progressively more lenient in their self-imposed performance demands in the absence of social surveillance.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1973 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1973.6-241