Anthony Chow, Ph.D.
aschow@uncg.edu
Assistant Professor
Department of Library and Information Studies
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
-Christian Burris
Head of Serials Acquisitions, Wake Forest University
burriscj@wfu.edu
-Chase Baity
-David Rachlin
Overview
 Study Introduction
 Literature Review
 Research Method
 Findings
 Discussion and Recommendations
2 of 34
Introduction
UNCG New Faculty Grant
What impact will the use of positive reinforcement
have on patron behavior in returning library resources
on time?
2. Will the use of positive reinforcement lead to more
positive user perceptions of the library?
3. Will the use of positive reinforcement lead to higher
circulation of library resources per patron?
1.
3 of 34
Literature
 Some libraries are starting to rethink the use of fines as
there is a growing concern about its negative effect on
public perception and library patrons (Towsey, 2008)
 A recent study found that 41% of 12-17 year old youth
surveyed no longer visited the library because they owed
over due fines (Heeger, 2007).
 When amnesty programs are implemented that allow
creative ways for previous patrons to “exonerate”
themselves by reading to kids, donating to a good cause, or
use of an anonymous “fine” jar, they are often extremely
successful (Green, 2008; Heeger, 2007; US Fed News, 2005;
Ries-Taggart, 2004).
4 of 34
Reinforcement & Punishment
 From a behavioral psychology stand point, fines serve as both a punishment
(adverse stimulus intended to decrease undesirable behavior – returning books
late) and as negative reinforcement (threat of punishment is removed if library
resources are returned on time).
 Either way, ironically, the actual desired behavior of returning a library resource
on time is usually never rewarded or even acknowledged for that matter by the
library.
 Turning library resources in on time is expected and assumed; it is only when
something is overdue that patrons are contacted by the library.
 This situation is counterintuitive to several research grounded tenets about
human behavior and rewards and punishments – desired behaviors to be
strengthened and increase should be positively reinforced, undesirable
behaviors to be decreased should be punished, reinforcement in general is
stronger and more effective then punishment, and using them both (rewards to
increase desired behavior, punishments to reduce undesired behavior) is the
most powerful combination of all.
5 of 34
Reinforcement Theory
Apply Reinforcement
Withhold Reinforcement
Encourage
Behavior
Positive Reinforcement
 Extra attention
 Praise
 Money
Negative Reinforcement
 Remove punishment
Discourage
Behavior
Punishment
 Reprimands
 Ignore completely
 Criticism
Extinction
 Consistently ignore
 No pay raises
 “No nothing!”
 Carrot and the Stick
 Both stimulate the medial orbitofrontal cortex
 Carrot or stick? It’s the same…
6 of 30
Fines and Reinforcement Theory
Apply Reinforcement
Encourage
Behavior
Discourage
Behavior
Withhold Reinforcement
Positive Reinforcement
 Extra attention
 Praise
 Money
Return
Negative Reinforcement
 Remove punishment
Punishment
Return
 Reprimands
 Ignore completely
 Criticism
Extinction
 Consistently ignore
 No pay raises
 “No nothing!”
Return
 Carrot and the Stick
 Both stimulate the medial orbitofrontal cortex
 Carrot or stick? It’s the same…
7 of 30
Rewards and Avoiding punishment
are equals
 Avoiding or “dodging”
punishment is its own
reward
 In other words fear of
a fine and joy of “not
paying it” are equals:
1-1=0
8 of 34
Rationale for fines
 Get resources back on time
 Revenue generator
 “Teach” responsibility
9 of 34
Study Hypotheses
 H1: G1 and G2 will check out more items than G3
 H2: G1 and G2 will have less overdue items than G3
 H3: G1 and G2 will have less fines than G3
 H4: G1 and G2 will be more satisfied than G3
 H5: G1 will be most satisfied
 H6: G2 overall will have less overdue items and fines
10 of 34
Let’s empirically test it
Group
Resources
Checked
Out
Over Due
Instances
Over Due Satisfaction
Fines
Rating
1 – + only
2 – +/3 – - only
1. What impact will the use of positive reinforcement have on
patron behavior in returning library resources on time?
2. Will the use of positive reinforcement lead to more positive
user perceptions of the library?
3. Will the use of positive reinforcement lead to higher
circulation of library resources per patron?
11 of 34
Method
 85 university undergraduate students were randomly
sampled and stratified into new and returning student
groups:
Group
(1) + only
(2) +/(3) - only
TOTALS
Returning
#
15
14
12
41
%
18%
16%
14%
48%
New
#
16
14
14
44
TOTALS
%
19%
16%
16%
52%
#
31
28
26
85
%
36%
33%
31%
100%
12 of 34
Method (2)
 Randomly sampled through institutional research
 Group 1 – Rewards only
 If checked out and returned items on time with no over dues:




“Get out of jail free card”
“Thank you” email
Invitation to MVP reception
Extended one week checkout privileges
 Group 2 – Same as G1 along with traditional fines
 Group 3 – Control group (no change)
 Three data collection points of circulation history and fines
 Baseline – 10/09
 Set 2 – 12/09
 Set 3 – 2/10
13 of 34
Findings
Usage and Return Rates (Sept. – Dec. 2009)
Group
Returning
New
TOTALS Overdue % Overdue % Ontime
137
24
161
30
19%
81%
141
27
168
26
15%
85%
63
4
67
19
28%
73%
341
55
396
75
20%
80%
1 – + only
2 – +/3 – - only
TOTALS
14 of 34
Findings (2) – Resources and
Overdue Items
Group
Resources
Checked
out
Over Due
%
R
N
R
N
137
24
26
4
19%
141
27
21
5
63
4
16
3
341
55
63
12
Fines
R
N
Satisfaction
R
N
$172.00 $40.00
9.0
9.1
15%
$16.00
$6.75
9.0
7.7
28%
$51.00
$1.25
8.1
8.5
$239.00 $48.00
8.7
8.4
(1) + only
(2) +/-
(3) - only
TOTALS
15 of 34
Findings (3)
Group
Resources
Checked
out
H1: G1 and G2 will check out more items
than G3
Over Due
%
R
N
R
N
137
24
26
4
19%
141
27
21
5
63
4
16
3
341
55
63
12
Fines
R
N
Satisfaction
R
N
$172.00 $40.00
9.0
9.1
15%
$16.00
$6.75
9.0
7.7
28%
$51.00
$1.25
8.1
8.5
$239.00 $48.00
8.7
8.4
(1) + only
(2) +/-
(3) - only
TOTALS
16 of 34
Findings (4)
Group
Resources
Checked
out
H2: G1 and G2 will have less overdue items
than G3
Over Due
%
R
N
R
N
137
24
26
4
19%
141
27
21
5
63
4
16
3
341
55
63
12
Fines
R
N
Satisfaction
R
N
$172.00 $40.00
9.0
9.1
15%
$16.00
$6.75
9.0
7.7
28%
$51.00
$1.25
8.1
8.5
$239.00 $48.00
8.7
8.4
(1) + only
(2) +/-
(3) - only
TOTALS
17 of 34
Findings (5)
Group
Resources
Checked
out
H3: G1 and G2 will have less fines than G3
Over Due
%
R
N
R
N
137
24
26
4
19%
141
27
21
5
63
4
16
3
341
55
63
12
Fines
R
N
Satisfaction
R
N
$172.00 $40.00
9.0
9.1
15%
$16.00
$6.75
9.0
7.7
28%
$51.00
$1.25
8.1
8.5
$239.00 $48.00
8.7
8.4
(1) + only
(2) +/-
(3) - only
TOTALS
18 of 34
Findings (6)
Group
Resources
Checked
out
H4: G1 and G2 will be more satisfied than G3
Over Due
%
R
N
R
N
137
24
26
4
19%
141
27
21
5
63
4
16
3
341
55
63
12
Fines
R
N
Satisfaction
R
N
$172.00 $40.00
9.0
9.1
15%
$16.00
$6.75
9.0
7.7
28%
$51.00
$1.25
8.1
8.5
$239.00 $48.00
8.7
8.4
(1) + only
(2) +/-
(3) - only
TOTALS
19 of 34
Findings (7)
Group
Resources
Checked
out
H5: G1 will be most satisfied
Over Due
%
R
N
R
N
137
24
26
4
19%
141
27
21
5
63
4
16
3
341
55
63
12
Fines
R
N
Satisfaction
R
N
$172.00 $40.00
9.0
9.1
15%
$16.00
$6.75
9.0
7.7
28%
$51.00
$1.25
8.1
8.5
$239.00 $48.00
8.7
8.4
(1) + only
(2) +/-
(3) - only
TOTALS
20 of 34
Findings (8)
Group
Resources
Checked
out
H6: G2 overall will have less overdue items
and fines
Over Due
%
R
N
R
N
137
24
26
4
19%
141
27
21
5
63
4
16
3
341
55
63
12
Fines
R
N
Satisfaction
R
N
$172.00 $40.00
9.0
9.1
15%
$16.00
$6.75
9.0
7.7
28%
$51.00
$1.25
8.1
8.5
$239.00 $48.00
8.7
8.4
(1) + only
(2) +/-
(3) - only
TOTALS
21 of 34
Findings (9) – Participants believe rewards
would have impact….
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
22 of 34
Findings (10) – Reward
effectiveness?
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
23 of 34
Which is more effective?
24 of 34
Should libraries offer rewards?
25 of 34
Would rewards positively impact
perceptions of libraries?
26 of 34
What do librarians think?
 Good idea, hard to implement
 Noticed no impact of participating students
 No one used fine waiver certificates
27 of 34
Conclusions & Recommendations
 Study’s hypotheses were supported
 RQ1: What impact will the use of positive reinforcement
have on patron behavior in returning library resources on
time?
 Positive impact
 Patrons and Librarians agree a combination would be
more effective
 RQ2: Will the use of positive reinforcement lead to more
positive user perceptions of the library?
 Yes, overall satisfaction rating for G1 was statistically
significantly higher
28 of 34
Conclusions & Recommendations (2)
 RQ3: Will the use of positive reinforcement lead to higher
circulation of library resources per patron?
 Yes – G2 (6.0), G1 (5.2), and G3 (4.7)
29 of 34
Conclusions & Recommendations (3)
 Reinforcement only – higher satisfaction, more items, more
overdue and higher fines
 Reinforcement plus fines – less overdue, less fines, lower
satisfaction than reinforcement only
 Fine only – less items, more overdue, less satisfaction
30 of 34
Conclusions & Recommendations (4)
 Rewards were not very effective:
 Intrinsic more than extrinsic motivations for checking
out items
 MVP receptions were poorly attended
 Suggestions:
 “First dibs”
 Advisory board or online survey to help choose books
 Extended check-outs
 “Thanks” is nice
 Free raffles
31 of 34
Rewards and Avoiding punishment
are equals
 In other words fear
of a fine and joy of
“not paying it” are
equals:
1-1=0 (neutralizes)
 Adding a reward:
Reward
Overdue
fine
1 !!!
1-1+1=
Not
Paying it
Motivation to
RETURN is
stronger!!!
32 of 34
Thank You!!
 Anthony Chow – aschow@uncg.edu
 Christian Burris – burriscj@wfu.edu
33 of 34
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Green, E.R.(2008). The lighter side of the bookshelves: Should libraries fine for late books? Colorado Libraries
v. 34 no. 3 (2008) p. 62,
Heeger, P.B. (2007). Better Late Than Never. School Library Journal, 53(2), Retrieved January 26, 2009, from
Research Library database.
Oder, N. (2006). Philadelphia Backs Off Fine Policy. Library Journal, 131(3), 20-20.
Pew Internet & American Life Project (2004). New Report Finds Libraries Help Close Digital Divide but Struggle
to Sustain Public Access Computing Services. Retrieved on January 29th from
http://www.pewinternet.org/press_release.asp?r=74
Ries-Taggart, J.T. (2004). Columbus Metropolitan Library Allows Kids to Read Off Fines. Public
Libraries, 43(1), 16.
Rodney, M. J., Lance, K. C., and Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2003). The Impact of Michigan school librarians on
academic achievement: Kids who have libraries succeed. Lansing, MI: Library of Michigan.
Towsey, M. (2008, July). Abolish public library fines!. Library & Information Update, 7(7/8), 30-30.
US Fed News Service (2005). Library Fines Headed To Tsunami Relief. Retrieved January 26, 2009, from
Research Library database.
34 of 34