Premium
SELF‐REINFORCEMENT 1
Author(s) -
Goldiamond Israel
Publication year - 1976
Publication title -
journal of applied behavior analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.1
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1938-3703
pISSN - 0021-8855
DOI - 10.1901/jaba.1976.9-509
Subject(s) - reinforcement , psychology , contingency , subject (documents) , contingency management , independence (probability theory) , token economy , social psychology , cognitive psychology , operant conditioning , self , developmental psychology , intervention (counseling) , computer science , epistemology , psychiatry , statistics , philosophy , mathematics , library science
Self‐reinforcement in operant situations generally refers to those arrangements in which the subject delivers to himself a consequence, contingent on his behavior. However, it is noted that the definition of all other types of reinforcement make its delivery contingent on the subject's behavior. What is actually at issue is the agent who defines whether or not the response required for reinforcement has been met. In self‐reinforcement, the subject himself defines this. In the laboratory, this requirement is machine‐defined; in school examinations, it is teacher‐defined; and in many clinical self‐control situations, it is also independently defined. A reinforcement contingency presupposes such independence, absent in self‐reinforcement. Implications for research and practice are discussed and alternative formulations are offered.