‘Negative Reinforcement’ Articles

« Older Entries

Schools Can Learn a Better Way: Reverse Engineering the School Day

April 30th, 2012

1 Comment »

I am passionate about many things, not the least is what we could do in America’s classrooms. The thought occurred to me recently:  How long does it have to fail before someone realizes that the time for tweaking the current education system it over? By the government’s own figures, in 2007 only 29% of eighth graders were proficient in reading and 32% in math. Surprisingly over 90% of the teachers in high poverty schools were rated as “Highly Qualified.” So it must not be the teachers. To paraphrase Edwards Deming, the quality guru: If you put a good teacher in a bad system, the system will win every time. It is time to admit that the system is broken and time to start over.

Fundamental changes need to be made in the way we teach.  It is not about parents, the government or society as a whole. It is about fundamentally changing how children are taught.

That said, a news item about doing homework in class caught my attention this week. Salman Khan[i], who founded Kahn Academy in Mountain View, Ca. has flipped homework and class work by putting the lectures on the internet, as homework, and then doing what used to be homework in the classroom. As Mr. Kahn points out, he is not the first to advocate this. Individualized instruction has been around for decades but has been used only in small private schools or with students with disabilities because it has been very expensive. However, with the internet and the ability to record video, using at a minimum a cell phone, a practical way to have the time to individualize instruction is now available to every teacher willing to put in the time.

If the U.S. public schools adopted Kahn’s method, academic achievement would soar. It is well-known that lecture is an inefficient method of knowledge transfer.   Homework, unsupervised, has its problems as well in that it is difficult to tell how much of it was done by the parent, friend or sibling. Additionally, it is not the teacher’s favorite task. In spite of these problems, homework is still considerably more efficient than the lecture.  What Mr. Kahn has done is to minimize the drawbacks of each technique by reversing them for time and place. Students can watch the video at home, which most are more likely to do than read, and practice in the class room with expert individualized assistance.

Something that he could add that would increase learning even more is a behavioral technique called fluency. Fluency is defined as “automatic non-hesitant responding”—that means that the student knows the material so well that he doesn’t have to think about it. When asked, “What is 12 X 12?” the average adult doesn’t have to think about it but responds instantaneously, 144! Other benefits of fluency are that it produces rather permanent learning.  How long do you think you will know 12X12? When one is fluent, it increases endurance as responding requires less effort. It also increases creativity and resistance to distraction when problem solving. Developing fluency requires high rates of responding – many times more opportunities to practice than is available in the typical classroom.

Founded in 1980, Morningside Academy in Seattle has incorporated fluency into their methods of teaching and produced outstanding results. The results are so consistent that the school gives parents a money-back guarantee. In over 30 years less than one percent of parents have asked for their money back. In an 11 year study of academic achievement, Morningside students achieved a 2.5 years growth in reading, almost four years in language arts, and more than three years in math per school year. Two things that are noteworthy considering what the Kahn Academy has done are that Morningside students have no homework and take a report card home every day. Forty minutes of the classroom hour is spent in practice.

In an article titled, “The Shame of American Education,[ii]” written in 1984, B.F. Skinner stated “…one could teach what is now taught in American schools in half the time with half the effort.” To paraphrase Skinner further, the shame of American education was not that we knew then how to double the rates of learning in American schools in 1984 but that we had known how for over 20 years! That is still true 29 years later.

However, hope springs eternal. Just maybe with the impressive results produced at schools like the Kahn and Morningside academies, it might soon change. We must not go another 50 years before we utilize nationwide what has been known for so long about how to teach more effectively and efficiently. Effective methods are available supported by research that has been replicated many, many times. There are experts out there that we as a country continue to ignore. Not surprising most of them are not in traditional educational systems. Private schools are paving the way. Educators need to follow quickly as we have no time to waste!


[i] Look for him on TED.

[ii] Skinner, B.F., 1984, The Shame of American Education, The American Psychologist, 39 (September, 1984). Copyright by the American Psychological Association.

Consequences, Culture "Change", Motivation, Negative Reinforcement, Performance, Positive Reinforcement, Results

Has the Daily Deal Lost Touch?

April 25th, 2012

1 Comment »

Guest Post by Bart Sevin, Ph.D.

It would go against logic to think that companies wouldn’t consider the customer first, especially today. Yet, I was surprised to read in a recent Fast Company article, Do Groupon and LivingSocial Do More Harm than Good? that despite taking in close to $3 billion in 2011, these daily deal providers seem to be declining after their meteoric rise.

While the concept seems simple, spend $20 to receive $40 to use in Restaurant A for example, why is it that there has been such significant decline?  One of the reasons many deal providers are losing money is the attrition of merchants who advertise via deal providers. The idea is that businesses can expand their customer bases quickly by reaching the masses via daily deal websites and email distribution lists with discounts that get new customers in the door, even though merchants typically lose money on the initial deal offering. Merchants of course accept the initial loss with the hope that once customers come into contact with their products and services, they will become repeat customers who continue to frequent their businesses, paying full retail prices after the deal is used. In most cases, that isn’t happening.

When new customers fail to turn into repeat customers, where does the accountability lie, with the deal providers or the merchants? Since it rarely helps to assign blame and point fingers, maybe it’s more helpful to ask, what can be done differently to increase the probability that customers will return for the same or new products and services after their initial experience?

Behavioral science offers a useful conceptual framework for understanding why this problem is occurring and what to do about it. Using the ABC model, in which the B stands for behavior, it tells us that there are two things that influence behavior, namely antecedents and consequences represented by the A and the C in the model. We know antecedents come before and prompt or trigger behavior, and that consequences, both positive and negative, follow behavior and determine whether it is strengthened or weakened over time (i.e., whether it’s repeated or it stops). So when customers purchase deal coupons, the deals themselves are antecedents for customers that prompt them to go try a merchant’s products or services maybe for the first time, and the deals do this well by reducing the costs associated with patronage. The experience the customer has when they interface with merchants is the consequence that determines whether customers will repeat the behavior of buying goods and services again or whether they leave and never return. The customer experience provided by the merchants, then, is where the rubber meets the road.

In the examples provided in the article of merchants who have and have not had success with deal providers, the ones who provided the best customer experiences got the most repeat business, and in turn returned to offer more deals through the providers. The ones who provided poor (i.e., negative) customer experiences generated little to no repeat business and in turn blamed the deal providers, and didn’t advertise with them again.  It is more than likely that the problem some merchants have in getting repeat business from customers is not exclusive to customers buying daily deals. But, if the customer experience is substandard, repeat business isn’t likely to be obtained regardless of how the customers were initially connected to the merchants.

With that said, what can merchants and providers do differently to develop a better return on their investments? Merchants can begin by asking some important questions such as, What do I want (new) customers to do and say when they walk in the door with (or without) deal coupons? One objective might be to get customers to ask questions about other goods and services and state what their current needs are. If so, merchants can ask, What can we do and say to prompt and reinforce these types of behaviors from customers?

If deal providers want repeat business from merchants, they should ask questions like, What do we want merchants to do and say when they advertise a deal with us? Objectives might be for merchants to first state a goal of how many deals they want sold and then acknowledge meeting or exceeding the goals. Providers might also state goals that report back on the amount of repeat business generated through daily deal advertising. Providers can then further ask, What can we say and do to help increase the likelihood of merchants’ success in these areas? Providers might consider offering recommendations and then following up with merchants.

In my research for this post, I spoke with a representative from RapidBuyr, a B2B daily deal provider specializing in providing companies with access to higher dollar services and products. He offered data-based guidance on the types of deals merchants are likely to sell. He also asked about the types of products and services we offered, and what kind of experience potential customers were likely to have if they purchased a deal. RapidBuyr representatives make a practice of circling back with merchants to follow up on the outcomes from advertising deals. In my opinion this deal provider is doing it well.

Asking these types of questions and offering guidance on strategies likely to help merchants reach their objectives are the types of provider behaviors that are likely to help merchants generate repeat business from advertising daily deals, which in turn will help providers get repeat business from merchants. Whether deal provider companies last over the long term remains to be seen, but it seems that a shift from providers simply advertising any and all merchant deals, to providers partnering together with merchants on strategies and providing ongoing support to identify what worked and what can be improved will be critical to the long-term success of the daily deal industry.

Behavior 101, feedback, Motivation, Negative Reinforcement, Positive Reinforcement, Results

Science Made Simple

April 23rd, 2012

No Comments »

Watch this! It is a fun video but she is dead on. She presents scientific facts about reinforcement in a clever and very understandable way.  It is worth the time.

Behavior 101, Consequences, Motivation, Negative Reinforcement, Positive Reinforcement

Don’t Fear Change

February 1st, 2012

No Comments »

BRI022

I hope you find comfort in my latest Talent Management blog post where I explain why we shouldn’t fear change. In this post, I also debunk the myths that surround it and discuss ways you can achieve meaningful change in yourself and in others.

U73J86UXP4NZ

Culture "Change", Leadership, Negative Reinforcement, Performance, Positive Reinforcement, Technology

New Year’s Resolutions: Beware!

January 3rd, 2012

2 Comments »

MH900438914The origin of New Year’s Resolutions can be linked to pre-Christian times in Rome, thousands of years ago.  So every year about this time, I ask audiences where I speak how many made New Year’s Resolutions.  What I have noticed is that fewer and fewer have gone through the ritual.  Does that mean that fewer people are interested in carrying on this ancient tradition?  I think not.  In fact, it’s been reported that more than half of those that proclaim resolutions fail at realizing them. The reality is that most people who make resolutions don’t keep them – many don’t keep them even for a day.

The primary mistake people make in making resolutions is that they think that changing some personal behavior or habit is simply a matter of will power or “making up your mind.”  It is as if people who fail don’t grunt enough, don’t have enough resolve (how do you get more of that?), are not really serious (How can you increase your “really seriousness?).

The real mistake lies in not planning or managing consequences well.  It is easy to resolve to quit drinking, lose weight, start exercising, etc. but it is harder to plan consequences that you will actually be able to self-administer to get the behavior change you seek.  Therefore, the resolution is nothing more than a goal, and goals aren’t reached by grunting, wishing or talking; they are reached when you have consequences that support the behavior change.

Here are some practical suggestions to help you be successful should you want to carry on the New Year’s Resolution tradition.

  1. Plan consequences for behavior change. Allow yourself to do things that you like contingent on a certain accomplishment. In other words, if you resolve to do some project in your house, commit to getting it done before you sit down to watch your favorite TV program.
  2. Set very small sub-goals. The more, the better.  If weight loss is a target, set a goal of no more than one pound a week.  The trick is to set a goal that you are almost sure to reach.  Less than a pound is ok if you can reliably measure it on your scales.  Smoke one cigarette less per day; walk around the block.  No goal can be too small at the beginning.
  3. Post a graph of your progress at home or in the office where everyone can see it.  Set the parameters so that progress is easy to see.  Tell family and co-workers what you are doing.  Use social media to show results.  Put the graph on Facebook, Twitter, etc. The more people who see your progress will reinforce you for it and in return you will be more motivated to keep at it.
  4. Celebrate every success (every goal accomplishment), no matter how small.  Reward yourself.  Publicize your small accomplishments.  “I am one step closer to finishing that big report.”
  5. In addition to rewards that cost money (buying something for yourself, dinner at a fancy restaurant, a movie, some new software for your computer, an iPad, etc.) think of rewards that have a low cost or have no financial cost.  Use the “IF I do X, then I will do Y” contingency.  Or, “when I do X, then I will do Y.”  If your resolution is to clean the attic, basement or garage, simply say, “When I put something in the trash, I will watch T.V, answer my email, play a computer game or go to McDonalds for breakfast.”  You will be surprised how quickly you finish the task with this simple start as long as you maintain the contingency “When…then.”

By the way don’t do it in reverse which most people are tempted to do, that is, “I will work in the attic after I come home from McDonalds.”  I call that bribery since it reinforces the wrong behavior.  You get the reward for promising to do the behavior, not for actually doing it.  Not a good plan.

Most failures to reach personal or work goals result from poor goal setting and from failure to plan positive reinforcers for success.  If you start the New Year with small goals and a multitude of reinforcement, 2012 may be your best year yet!

Behavior 101, Consequences, feedback, Goals, Motivation, Negative Reinforcement, Performance, Positive Reinforcement, Results

There they go again: National ban on texting while driving

December 27th, 2011

No Comments »

textingThere is no question that if no one used cell phones while driving, lives would be saved but so would not eating while driving or drinking a Coke or looking at GPS or talking to a passenger or solving disputes between children in the back seat or daydreaming or…(fill in the blank). It is a fact of life that distractions on the road are increasing and all of them increase the likelihood of an accident.

I believe that everyone who drives should keep his/her eyes on the road at all times and not attend to anything in or out of the car that would distract him or her. However, it ain’t going to happen. (Even in space the astronauts looked out the window.)

Cell phones are addictive in that they provide the user with a rate of reinforcement that is higher than almost anything else in the car. Therefore they are clearly the most dangerous. If we have just eaten we will not be likely to eat or drink in the car but if we have just talked to a friend while at the restaurant, it does not reduce the probability that we will not talk on the cell phone when we get back in the car. It may even increase it because we may remember something to tell the friend that we forgot when talking in the restaurant.

Employees at ADI responded to the NTSB’s recent national plea to ban cell phone use by making a pledge to stop using the phone while driving. It is a worthy goal. Only a week later, and none has been able to stop. They all said they are doing better but no one has stopped. Is it possible to develop a habit of driving without using a cell phone? It is, but it will take time, probably many weeks, even though they are not doing it under threat of getting a ticket or losing their license. It is a volunteer activity.

Why is it that the Department of Transportation only thinks of punishing those who do something wrong or dangerous as a way to stop the behavior? The first reason is that they want to give the public the impression that they are awake at the switch. The press release about “banning all cell phones” gives the appearance of taking the problem serious. Second, the statement by the chairman, Deborah Hersman that “We’re not here to win a popularity contest” makes it sound even more serious. Tough talk is often rewarded by the press and the public. Such speeches are make-work, “full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” In spite of appearing to be the right thing, they are the wrong thing to do for at least three reasons:

First, fining or even taking a license is a negative but uncertain consequence. No one using a cell phone thinks that s/he will get caught. When an uncertain negative consequence comes face to face with the positive immediate consequence of talking to someone about a problem, a girlfriend or boyfriend, an appointment, a dinner date, etc., the positive immediate consequence will win every time.

Second, the behavior of avoiding getting caught makes the use of the cell phone even more dangerous.

Third, how many times does the Department of Transportation have to come out with knee-jerk reactions and solutions with little evidence that they understand anything about human behavior until the public completely ignores their “warnings?” Think about compliance to speed limit signs.

I am bothered by drivers on the phone like everyone else. If a car is moving slowly in traffic or moving erratically, it angers me to see on passing that they are on the cellphone. However, I don’t want a legal or governmental solution since I know it won’t work. I also know that if a legal solution is advanced, it will never be repealed even though it doesn’t work.

I believe, as I have said before, that because of the positive immediate consequences provided by cell phone use, the only solution is a technological one. Make cell phones so that they will not work as long as the phone is moving. The sooner we come to that realization and put resources and time on that solution and less on pronouncements that won’t work, the sooner we will begin saving lives.

Behavior 101, Consequences, Negative Reinforcement, Technology

Improving Post-Accident Behavior

December 12th, 2011

No Comments »

Predictability is one word you could use to describe an organizations reaction after an accident. It is quite common for organizations to jump to some kind of response after an incident or accident has occurred.  But do they always do the right thing?  In the latest video blog, Dr. Judy Agnew examines what typically occurs in the aftermath of an accident and why organizations should turn instead to more proactive measures of safety to better avoid the potential for future problems.




See also: BBS Basics Instructor Start-Up Package and BBS Orientation Booklet

Behavior Based Safety, Consequences, Leadership, Negative Reinforcement, Videos

Why Some Managers Fail at Getting Effective and Efficient Performance

December 7th, 2011

1 Comment »

 MH900399109To succeed in business today, everything must constantly be scrutinized. As such, leaders and managers are forced to evaluate and reevaluate performance; specifically the performance of their people and its impact on the company’s bottom line. For some, their role is rewarding and the path forward is clear. For others, they are left wondering how to get direct reports to deliver the performance needed to achieve necessary business outcomes.

Effective performance is not something that only lucky managers can achieve from their employees. It’s also not something you’re born with. For those who find themselves challenged to get desired performance from direct reports, it’s likely they have fallen victim to some common traps. Here are two traps that failing managers can fall into:  

Using ineffective management practices: In management, just because something doesn’t work doesn’t mean managers won’t continue to use it. So many practices have been institutionalized through the years that it’s no wonder managers think nothing of adopting them. Ranking is one such practice whose intention is to drive motivation to be the best but in reality it devalues the performance of all those who aren’t at the top. What managers don’t understand is that, among other things, it creates internal competition and doesn’t motivate the ones on the bottom to improve or those at the top to reach higher. Unfortunately, it often creates enmity between those ranked higher and those rated lower. The reality is that if you aren’t at the top, or close to it, this process becomes demotivating as they realize they will never be able to perform better than those above them. 

Another common, and unintentional practice, is when managers use the ‘you did a good job but’ approach when providing feedback or attempting to correct poor performance. When managers provide reinforcement for the things employees did right but then end it on a note of what more they can improve, employees forget the good and focus only on what they did wrong. If this is done often, employees hate to hear the good because they know some criticism is likely to follow. They also begin to suspect that the only reason you say something good is to set them up for bad news.

A frequent mistake in correcting behavior is to “sandwich” the problem behavior between two compliments. Managers are often taught that saying something positive before mentioning the problem makes the employee more responsive to the negative and by ending with a positive it protects the person’s ego. What it does, in fact, is to dilute the message at best and provide positive reinforcement for the problem behavior at worst. Break this bad management practice. It may make you feel better about the correcting but has a very unreliable impact on the performer.

These methods even if done with the best of intentions are demotivating and usually result in employees doing only what they are required to do.

Unintentionally rewarding negative behavior: When managers don’t understand positive reinforcement as a scientific concept many problems usually occur in an effort to build a positive culture. For example, the worst advice you could ever give or get is: Always be positive! While it sounds good and many people strive to eliminate negativism from their relationships, we know that if you are positive at the wrong time, you will get more of the wrong behavior. Behavior that you want more of needs positive reinforcement; Behavior that you don’t want, does not.

A question to ask that will help you avoid rewarding negative behavior is, “What does the person want?” If bad behavior gets him what he wants, you can count on the fact that he will do it more often. For example, I have heard people say that “All he wants to do is argue.” If that is true, then arguing with him will only increase argumentative behavior. Positive reinforcement is a powerful interpersonal tool. Use it well and it will result in healthy, productive relationships. Use it poorly and it will make you and those you work with miserable, unhappy and unproductive. 

To create a productive and happy work group, you must:

  1. Know the reinforcers of those who work with you – everyone is different
  2. Establish yourself as a positive reinforcer – pair yourself with the delivery of meaningful reinforcers
  3. Reinforce incremental improvement – the smaller, the better
  4. Don’t stop – continue as long as you want performance

Behavior 101, Consequences, feedback, Negative Reinforcement, Positive Reinforcement

Performance Management Isn’t What You Think

November 25th, 2011

No Comments »

R+ logo croppedYou may not want to miss my latest Talent Management Blog where I challenge readers on their definition of Performance Management and recommend that we rename Performance Appraisals to something that more clearly encompasses its original intent. Click over to find out what I think it ought to be called.

Also, don’t miss this month’s special report on Performance Management where you can read more from me and other leaders in the strategic HR arena.

Behavior 101, feedback, Goals, Leadership, Motivation, Negative Reinforcement, Performance Appraisal

Just do it!

October 26th, 2011

No Comments »

Guest post by Christina Simms

CB055359Understanding why we procrastinate and how to beat it.

Having trouble whittling down your To-Do list? Do you find yourself saying (albeit with confidence) “I’ll get to that tomorrow.”? You aren’t alone. Procrastination seems to be the one thing you can almost always count on people getting done. But why do we seem to keep putting off for tomorrow what we could do today?

Every week I go through the same routine. I make a to-do list with the good intention of crossing everything off. I do the easiest, quickest things first; mark them off with a wonderful feeling of satisfaction and typically leave the more complex, challenging to-do’s for tomorrow. Before I know it, two weeks have passed and my list is that much longer.

People procrastinate on all sorts of things. We put off taking out the trash, mowing the lawn, doing our taxes, mailing Christmas cards. Most of the time, we find ourselves avoiding tasks because something about doing them is tedious, unpleasant, time consuming, or in some way negative. The science of behavior, specifically behavior analysis, provides not only the answers to ‘why’ but also how we can overcome our own procrastination.

The science of behavior tells us that it is consequences that determine whether or not we will do something again in the future. If you receive a negative consequence as a result of something you did (ie. a behavior) then you are less likely to do that behavior again in the future.  Alternatively, if there are positive consequences associated with something you have done, then you are more likely to repeat that behavior in the future.

Many years ago, Aubrey developed a tool to examine consequences called the PIC/NIC Analysis®. Again, the science tells us that consequences can be positive or negative, immediate or future, and certain or uncertain. The most powerful consequences are the positive/immediate/certain and negative/immediate/certain ones. In this age of instant gratification, procrastination has become even more prevalent. Lots of things are competing for our attention and the ones that win are the PICs because, frankly, they are more reinforcing to us. College students turn to Facebook instead of starting their 20 page papers, kids spend hours hooked on video games instead of cleaning their rooms, and 9-5 workers choose catching up on their favorite TV shows over an evening work-out.

This may sound like common sense, but if we all understood so well how behavior works, we wouldn’t be in danger of becoming Procrastination Nation. I turned to Dr. Aubrey Daniels for some wise advice about how to beat procrastination and get things done.

It is tempting to start by picking the low hanging fruit, but Dr. Daniels warns against this common practice. Instead, he suggests an alternative method to working through your To-do list. Start by making a list of everything you need to do. Next, rank the items from most desirable to least desirable. Now comes the hard part— start at the bottom of the list! If you can get yourself to do the worst half of the list first, finishing the other half will be a breeze. Dr. Daniels also recommends using the Premack Principle. Tell yourself “when I do this (undesirable task), then I can do that” (something fun and enjoyable). Of course the key to both of these solutions is to practice self-control, something that may take time to improve. Changing your habits can be hard to do, so start small and don’t forget to reward yourself as you begin to notice changes in how you approach your projects at work or chores around the house.

For more on the Premack Principle and PIC/NIC Analysis® read Performance Management: Changing Behavior that Drives Organizational Effectiveness

Ask Aubrey, Consequences, Goals, Motivation, Negative Reinforcement, Performance, Positive Reinforcement, Results

« Older Entries