CONTINGENCY MANAGEMENT and MOTIVATION
L. E. Homme and D. T. Tosti
Westinghouse Electric Corporation Research Laboratories
Behavioral Technology Department, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Originally published in the NSPI Journal 1963
There is a growing technology concerning the application of the laws of behavior. In the
application of the laws of behavior to practical affairs, the most important factor is motivation. Although
motivation is widely held to be a complex phenomenon—many books have been written explaining how
complicated it is—the practical problem of motivation is reduced to this simple question: What
reinforcers are available? With control of reinforcing events, one can produce a motivated organism,
that is, an organism which will respond under the circumstances specified. Without such control, only the
accidental contingencies of the environment operate. While psychologists agree that a reinforcing event
is necessary to increase or maintain response strength, it is only when we ask, ' What is the nature
of reinforcement?" that we encounter disagreement. Because of the overwhelming importance of
reinforcers, existing motivational constructs must be examined to see whether they can be of help in
finding reinforcers.
SOME EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EFFECTS OF
REINFORCEMENT
Perhaps the most popular approach to theory building is to lean heavily on intervening variables.
One such explanation of reinforcement offers the use of the drive construct; reinforcement is
explained in terms of drive reduction. In drive reduction theory, reinforcement is said to reduce drive
stimuli, to reduce or satisfy a need. Although this explanation has been widely applied, it has not
been wholly satisfactory, both for theoretical and practical considerations. The drive theorists claim that
most human behavior is controlled by secondary drives, but, in these pronouncements, they have not
always specified the antecedent conditions, and thus their intervening variable is reduced to a mere
renaming explanation of behavior. Even as a classification system, the drive construct has not
been especially useful in determining effective reinforcing events in normal human behavior. Drive
constructs have proven worthless in the application of the laws of behavior, except, of course, to
comfort the explainer by permitting him to name a new drive whenever he discovers a new reinforcer.
Two other explanations of reinforcement have gained attention. One of these states that
reinforcement is a change in simulation; the other maintains that reinforcement is the opportunity to emit
a high probability response. In operant responding, some behavior leads to a reinforcing event. It has
generally been overlooked that this event consists of two independently observable occurrences, the
introduction of a food pellet and the subsequent eating of it. Traditionally, emphasis has been placed
on the reinforcing stimulus, the presentation of the pellet. It may be, however, equally as important to
emphasize the reinforcing response.
In an important series of papers beginning in 1959, (Premack, D., 1959, 1961, 1963, 1963, 1963)
has been saying, and finding evidence in support, that there is no need to invoke a drive concept in
explaining why water, say, functions as a reinforcer. If water functions as a reinforcer, it does so
simply because the experimenter has arranged matters (by deprivation) so that drinking has a
higher probability than the response to be strengthened. As further support for this formulation, he has
shown that, under appropriate conditions, drinking can be reinforced by the opportunity to run. In
Premack's experiments, it is the reinforcing response which is emphasized, not the reinforcing stimulus.
Extending this conceptualization, it may be possible to predispose a human S so that, momentarily at
least, a given behavior is at a higher probability than one we are attempting to strengthen.
In the case of an experimental animal, the same response, eating, for example, continues to be a
high probability behavior throughout the experiment. In the case of the non-experimental animal or
the non-deprived human, on the contrary, behavior probabilities vary from moment to moment.
What is a high probability behavior at one moment will get executed and instantly become a low
probability behavior the next. Moreover, it may remain a tow probability behavior for a long interval.
For example, when the pet cat awakens, eating and whatever preceded eating on prior occasions are
high probability behaviors. Once eating has occurred, its probability is near zero, and getting out of
the house may now be a high probability behavior. Once out, this, of course, is a near zero
probability response, and sometime later getting in is a high probability behavior, and so it goes.
Similarly, with a human, smoking may be a high probability behavior at one instant. A minute or two
later, it may have a probability close to zero. "Getting a glass of water" may be an extremely high
probability behavior at one instant; after drinking it may be close to zero, and so on.
When we think of a reinforcer, we are inclined to think of something with rather stable
properties. Food for a food-deprived organism, water for a water-deprived organism, evokes the
same behavior from one reinforcement to the next. Premack's analysis of what the sufficient
properties of a reinforcing response are, however, imposes no such constraints. If we take the
Premack data seriously, we will not ask, "What is the reinforcer for this session?" We will ask,
rather, "What is the reinforcer at this instant in time?”
The notion of a reinforcing response has led to the discovery of many "new" reinforcers. It is
difficult to classify` all these as being high probability behaviors because they may not be
emitted more than once in any session. The term "reinforcing responses" is useful to designate
these behaviors.
In a recent experiment with nursery school children, high probability behaviors were used to
reinforce lower probability behaviors (Homme, L. E., C. deBaca ,P., Devine, J. V., Stein horst, R.,
and Rickert, E. J., 1963). It is doubtful that a drive reduction position would have led us to suspect that
having the opportunity to run down the hall could be classified as a reinforcing event. Notice that in
the case of their reinforcing event there is no clearly identifiable reinforcing stimulus, unless it is
the verbal instruction, "Run down the hall." Nevertheless, when he made the behavior of running
down the hall contingent upon the emission of counting, we could, and did, shape counting behavior.
This example illustrates the advantage of speaking of a reinforcing event, a concept which
includes both the reinforcing response and the discriminative stimulus which sets it off.
Factors Involved in the Management of Contingencies
The application of contingency management has been much more straightforward than might
be expected. One simply takes notice of which behaviors are reinforcing responses, then permits this
behavior to occur only after behavior one wishes to reinforce. Interestingly enough, there is very
little problem in finding things which may act as reinforcing responses. The difficulty in everyday
manipulation involves the arrangement of the appropriate contingencies, that is, arranging these behaviors so that the reinforcing response occurs immediately after the behavior one wishes to
reinforce. There is also some difficulty, when one is learning to manage motivation, in taking
advantage of the high probability behaviors that do exist
For example, suppose a student is scribbling, and looking-at-up the-blackboard is the response
desired. Notice that here is a very clear-cut case of two behaviors: one of high probability
(scribbling) and one of low probability (looking-at-the-black- board). If a plan can be devised to make
the scribbling depend upon having looked at the blackboard, then the problem is solved. With most
children, a verbal instruction like this will do: "Look at the blackboard while I write a word; then scribble
some more."
The rule for this example can be summarized in this way: Notice what behavior is at a high probability
at the moment, then instruct S (the student) that he can execute more of it if he will do a small
amount of lower probability behavior first.
Humans signal in a variety of ways when certain behaviors may be reinforcing ones. When
eating ice cream is such a behavior, a child may signal this by saying, "I want an ice cream cone,"
may run for the freezer, or do whatever produced the opportunity to engage in ice cream eating the
last time. Another signal of a reinforcing behavior, as Premack points out, is its frequency. As a matter
of fact, S may give this signal often enough and intensely enough for it to be distinctly annoying. The
adaptive thing to do is to use, rather than be annoyed by, high probability behaviors. Use them to
reinforce other behaviors of lower probability in need of strengthening.
For example. A child is seated at the dinner table. Dinner is served. The other members of the
family are eating. The child, however, does not eat. She plays with her shoes. The usual way to
solve this problem is obvious: 'Stop playing with your shoes! Eat your dinner!" The other way is to
notice that "playing with shoes" is a high frequency behavior and eating is a low one. When the
problem is viewed this way, the contingency manager says, "Eat one bite of potatoes, then play with
your shoes some more." It may be startling to spectators, but the latter method works. Instead of
having an emotional scene with both parent and child upset, the manager has a child cooperating in
a game-like atmosphere. What stimulus set off the playing-with-shoes operant in the first place ? It is
impossible to say, but it does not matter. If this higher frequency operant follows a lower frequency
one, the latter will get strengthened.
Reinforcing Events
As was previously stated, there are two discriminable divisions of the reinforcing event. Under certain
conditions, the reinforcing stimulus is the most appropriate consideration, while under others, it is the
reinforcing response, without reference to any stimulus conditions, which is the most useful. In
practical situations, members of the first class are: compliments, verbal encouragements, thanks, gold
stars, good grades, movies, and so on. It is true that such events are not without response components
of viewing or hearing, but it is primarily the stimulus attributes which make them easy to identify.
Other reinforcing events can best be characterized by their response characteristics and little
emphasis need be placed on the stimulus properties. In every repertoire, there are apparently hundreds
of such responses which may fit this class. With such a large supply of reinforcers to draw from, control
over behavior should not only be precise but relatively effortless.
Difficulties in the Control of Behavior
It is a strange fact of life that often control of behavior is not effortless. Parents, teachers, and
others have tremendous struggles in attempting to control behavior. Children have screaming
tantrums in supermarkets, refuse to eat at mealtime, won't go to bed at bedtime, hate school, won't
learn, and so forth. Not all children, certainly not all the time--but some children, some of the time.
Usually unwanted behaviors are kept suppressed by punishment, but like most suppressed behaviors,
they pop up occasionally. Often enough to be troublesome.
If it is not the lack of reinforcers which makes behavioral control difficult, one might reason, it must be
the lack of knowledge of the principles of behavioral control. If one attempts to verify this, he will find
that this, too, is incorrect. If given a test on the principles of behavior so far discussed, most people
would score very high. It is not a lack of reinforcers or a lack of knowledge about how to use them. The
difficulty can be primarily traced to a failure to systematically apply what is known. It is not only that
reinforcement principles are not systematically applied, they are, if applied at all, only sporadically
applied.
Father, for example, returning home after a hard day at the office, seems to expect that the laws of
behavior can be suspended for a time while he catches his breath. Mother, busy with her work,
seems to feel the same way. For the time being, at least, she thinks she is too busy to pay att ention to
those psychological laws and wants them suspended until she has more time.
The likelihood of doing this—suspending the laws of behavior temporarily—is roughly the same as
suspending the laws of gravity. The laws work all the time. One may not notice them or do anything
but struggle with them, but they are working. A behavior which doesn't get followed by a reinforcer
will decrease in probability whether things are planned that way or not. Whenever a low strength
behavior gets followed by a reinforcer, it will increase in strength, whether the contingency is
deliberately arranged or not.
There is a choice, then. Either one manages the contingencies or they get managed by
accident. Either way, there will be contingencies, and they will have their effect. That is a sobering
thought—that these laws of behavior, which we have to assume are as powerful as any other laws of
nature, are usually ignored and left to chance. A visitor from an- other planet who knew about the
laws of behavior would probably assume that this leaving contingencies to chance might result in a
great deal of improper behavior and even mental illness.
The Mismanagement of Contingencies
Several unusual reinforcers have been under discussion, such as playing with shoes. There are more
conventional rein-forcers with which almost everyone is familiar, such as giving attention to a child or
rewarding him with candy. When these conventional reinforcements are used, more often than not
they get administered exactly at the wrong time. Sometimes it is nearly impossible not to reinforce at
the wrong time.
For example, suppose a child is playing quietly in a roomful of adults. His play is constructive,
and he is bothering no one. Nobody pays attention to him. But let him "act up." Suddenly he is the
center of attention. This is incredibly bad behavioral engineering, but very difficult to avoid. It is
difficult in the sense that it is difficult to remember to reinforce while desirable behavior is occurring,
before the undesirable behavior occurs.
It is an interesting intellectual exercise to specify how one would go about it if he deliberately set out to
shape up some misbehavior. How would one arrange matters, for example, so he would end up with
a child who is motivated to whine loud and persistently ?
The behavior wanted is whining. Therefore, one ought to wait until a little whining occurred, then
reinforce. For the reinforcer, attention alone will do. If one wants to administer a better-than-average
reinforcer, he would make the attention emotional. Scream at the child, "Will you stop that whining!!"
This will more than likely constitute a better reinforcer than most. If that is too much trouble and one still
wants whining strongly reinforced, something else can be found to add to attention. Ice cream, soda pop,
candy, or the opportunity to engage in some high probability behavior ought to do it. Notice that the rule
about reinforcing a first approximation has been obeyed. Any sort of whine will do for the first trial. Even
an inadequate whine will do at first. Next time reinforcement will be withheld until the whining gets a
little louder. The time after that the whining must be still louder before it is reinforced. One can
anticipate in this hypothetical example that whining will soon be loud and strong. I, further, not every
response has been reinforced—only occasional ones. This means that whining will be extremely
difficult to get rid of. Another way of saying this is that the response will be very persistent. There
you have it. Through the reinforcement of successive approximations, you have shaped up,
theoretically, a strong, persistent whining response. Theoretically ?
Implications
Considerations of the management of motivation through the use of reinforcing responses not only
has practical implications, as we've discussed here, it also has theoretical implications. Just as the
concept of operant behavior eliminated the need for specifying an eliciting stimulus for every
response, so the concept of the reinforcing response eliminates the need for specifying a
reinforcing stimulus for every reinforcing event, while emphasizing the need for the precise control of
contingencies between two responses.
REFERENCES
Homme, L. E., C. deBaca, P., Devine, J. V., Steinhorst, R., and Rickert, E. J. Use of the Premack
principle in controlling the behavior of nursery school children. J. exp. Anal. Beha y., 1963,
4, 544.
Premack, D. Toward empirical behavior laws: I. positive reinforcement. Psyl. Rev., 1959, 66,
219-233.
Premack, D. Predicting instrumental performance from the independent rate of the contingent
response. J. exp. Psychol., 1961, 61, 163-171.
Premack, D. Rate differential reinforcement in monkey manipulation. J. exp. Anal. Behav, 1963,
6, 81-89.
Premack, D. Prediction of the comparative reinforcement values of running and drinking. Science,
1963, 139, 10621063.
Premack, D. Running as both a positive and negative reinforcer. Science, 1963, 142, 1087-1088.
Paper presented at the Third National Convention of the National Society for Programmed
Instruction, Philadelphia, _May 1962