The effects of instructions, incentive, and feedback on a community problem: dormitory noise.
Clear rules, public feedback, and shared rewards can turn down group noise without tokens or fines.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers tested a four-part package on dorm noise. They gave clear rules, showed quiet behavior, posted daily feedback, and let students earn group rewards.
The study ran in a university residence hall with typical students. A changing-criterion design set quieter noise targets each week.
What they found
Noise dropped on every floor while the package was in place. Students also said the halls felt calmer and friendlier.
How this fits with other research
Chinnappan et al. (2020) later used the same rules-plus-feedback logic in teen classrooms. They cut problem behavior to under 10% of intervals without any prizes, showing the core ingredients still work decades later.
Striefel et al. (1974) had already proven that feedback alone can curb disruption and even boost peer liking. W et al. added modeling and group reinforcement, building on that bare-bones feedback effect.
Hake et al. (1972) ran a token system in a hospital school. Both studies used group contingencies in residential settings, but the 1972 program leaned on tokens and cost while the 1976 package relied on social rewards and clear instructions.
Why it matters
You can copy the whole package or just parts. Try posting a simple noise chart in the common area, review it nightly, and tie meeting the goal to a preferred group activity. No tokens needed—clarity, visual feedback, and shared praise do the heavy lifting.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Post a daily noise chart, set a group goal, and let peers earn a fun activity when the bar stays green.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A reinforcement system utilizing instructions, modelling, feedback, and group reinforcement was employed in an attempt to reduce disruptive noise on three university residence halls. A fourth hall received the same treatment program without the reinforcement component. Noise scores were determined by recording the number of discrete noise occurrences over a criterion decibel level. On all four residential floors, noise scores during treatment conditions were lower than initial and final baseline levels. Additionally, periods of noise reduction corresponded to the changing criterion multiple-baseline and reversal designs utilized. Pre- and posttreatment questionnaire responses from the three reinforcement floors paralleled changes in objective noise data. At posttreatment, residents reported less noise disturbance of study and sleep and more control over the noise situation and floor problems in general. These results indicated that a comprehensive behavior-modification treatment package was effective in reducing disruptive noise in university residence halls. Difficulties in data collection and anomalies in the data are discussed. Future directions for field-based behavior-modification research are outlined.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1976 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1976.9-445