« Taking the Easy Road | Main | From Academic Research to Evidence-Based Management: A Step in the Right Direction »

05/22/2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thanks, Laura. Always loved that short clip of monkey business. Lots of research has firmly establised the clear links between anticipation and hedonic reactions, particularly that certaintly undercuts the reinforcement effect while the frequency of feedback enhances it. If you increase the CERTAINTY of the reward beyond the 50% level, you also decrease the pleasure of anticipating the reward. All research on both humans and animals (including Skinner’s) proves that variable incentive intervals are far more effective than fixed predictable schedules. And positive consequences tend to have less of an impact on behavior than negatives.

Just finishing the third of Daniel Arierly’s three books, it is a constant source of bafflement to me that most total reward professionals don’t tailor their programs to conform to the state of the art in behavioral economics. Imitating customary practices won’t necessarily produce the most positive results, although staying in the middle of the crowd might keep you “average.”

Keep pushing for improvement!

Thanks, Laura. Always loved that short clip of monkey business. Lots of research has firmly establised the clear links between anticipation and hedonic reactions, particularly that certaintly undercuts the reinforcement effect while the frequency of feedback enhances it. If you increase the CERTAINTY of the reward beyond the 50% level, you also decrease the pleasure of anticipating the reward. All test results on both humans and animals (including Skinner’s) proves that variable incentive intervals are far more effective than fixed predictable schedules. And positive consequences tend to have less of an impact on behavior than negatives.

Just finishing the third of Daniel Arierly’s three books, it is a constant source of bafflement to me that most total reward professionals don’t tailor their programs to conform to the state of the art in behavioral economics. Imitating customary practices won’t necessarily produce the most positive results, although staying in the middle of the crowd might keep you “average.”

Keep pushing for improvement!

Thanks, Laura. Always loved that short clip of monkey business. Lots of research has firmly establised the clear links between anticipation and hedonic reactions, particularly confirming that CERTAINTY undercuts the reinforcement effect while the frequency of feedback enhances it. If you increase the CERTAINTY of the reward beyond the 50% level, you also decrease the pleasure of anticipating the reward.

All test results on both humans and animals (including Skinner’s) prove that variable incentive intervals are far more effective than fixed predictable schedules. And positive consequences tend to have less of an impact on behavior than negatives.

Just finishing the third of Daniel Ariely’s three books, it is a constant source of bafflement to me that most total reward professionals don’t tailor their programs to conform to the state of the art in behavioral economics. Imitating customary practices won’t necessarily produce the most positive results, although staying in the middle of the crowd might keep you “average.”

Keep pushing for improvement!

I saw Dan Pink RT this on Twitter and had to share with my comp friends as well.

Your takeaway feels a bit like a leap. How is that you connect dopamine to motivation?

Thanks, Laura. Always loved that short clip of monkey business. Lots of research has firmly establised the clear links between anticipation and hedonic reactions, particularly confirming that CERTAINTY undercuts the reinforcement effect while the frequency of feedback enhances it. If you increase the CERTAINTY of the reward beyond the 50% level, tests show that you also decrease the pleasure (measured both by dopamine levels and surveyed responses) of anticipating the reward.

All test results on both humans and animals (including Skinner’s) prove that variable incentive intervals are far more effective than fixed predictable schedules. And positive consequences tend to have less of an impact on behavior than negatives.

Just finishing the third of Daniel Ariely’s three books, it is a constant source of bafflement to me that most total reward professionals don’t tailor their programs to conform to the state of the art in behavioral economics. Imitating customary practices won’t necessarily produce the most positive results, although staying in the middle of the crowd might keep you “average.”

Keep pushing for improvement!

Thanks, Laura. Always loved that short clip of monkey business, done many years ago. Lots of research has firmly established the clear links between anticipation and hedonic reactions, particularly confirming that CERTAINTY undercuts the reinforcement effect while the frequency of feedback enhances it. If you increase the CERTAINTY of the reward beyond the 50% level, tests show that you also decrease the pleasure (measured both by dopamine levels and surveyed responses) of anticipating the reward.

All test results on both humans and animals (including Skinner’s) prove that variable incentive intervals are far more effective than fixed predictable schedules. The video also illustrates how positive consequences tend to have less of an impact on behavior than negatives.

Just finishing the third of Daniel Ariely’s three books, it is a constant source of bafflement to me that most total reward professionals don’t tailor their programs to conform to the state of the art in behavioral economics. Imitating customary practices won’t necessarily produce the most positive results, although staying in the middle of the crowd might keep you “average.”

Keep pushing for improvement!

Thanks, Laura. Always loved that short clip of monkey business, done many years ago. Lots of research has firmly established the clear links between anticipation and hedonic reactions, particularly confirming that CERTAINTY undercuts the reinforcement effect while the frequency of feedback enhances it. If you increase the CERTAINTY of the reward beyond the 50% level, tests show that you also decrease the pleasure (measured both by dopamine levels and surveyed responses) of anticipating the reward.

All test results on both humans and animals (including Skinner’s) prove that variable incentive intervals are far more effective than fixed predictable schedules. The video also illustrates how positive consequences tend to have less of an impact on behavior than negatives.

Just finishing the third of Daniel Ariely’s three books, it is a constant source of bafflement to me that most total reward professionals don’t tailor their programs to conform to the state of the art in behavioral economics. Imitating customary practices won’t necessarily produce the most positive results, although staying in the middle of the crowd might keep you “average.”

Keep pushing for improvement!

Look up "Dopamine and Motivation." Laura's citation is both correct and relevant, as is the old monkey biz video.

@Joe: Great question. I don't - it's actually connected to the feeling of pleasure received. In other words, you get more pleasure (as measured by dopamine levels) from anticipating a reward than actually getting it.

Comment from my cafe colleague Jim Brennan:

Thanks, Laura. Always loved that short clip of monkey business, done many years ago. Lots of research has firmly established the clear links between anticipation and hedonic reactions, particularly confirming that CERTAINTY undercuts the reinforcement effect while the frequency of feedback enhances it. If you increase the CERTAINTY of the reward beyond the 50% level, tests show that you also decrease the pleasure (measured both by dopamine levels and surveyed responses) of anticipating the reward.
All test results on both humans and animals (including Skinner’s) prove that variable incentive intervals are far more effective than fixed predictable schedules. The video also illustrates how positive consequences tend to have less of an impact on behavior than negatives.

Just finishing the third of Daniel Ariely’s three books, it is a constant source of bafflement to me that most total reward professionals don’t tailor their programs to conform to the state of the art in behavioral economics. Imitating customary practices won’t necessarily produce the most positive results, although staying in the middle of the crowd might keep you “average.”

Keep pushing for improvement!

Thanks for commenting, @Jim!

The comments to this entry are closed.