Here's an interesting question: can making something that most people refuse to do, that might be "good" for them, interesting or fun encourage behavioral change? Rather than lecturing you to eat your vegetables, could turning the situation around and making it fun or rewarding encourage you to do things that are good for yourself, or your community, or the planet?
Of course this is the carrot and sticks argument. I can sternly warn you to do what's good, or right, in my opinion and threaten you with punishment. In this regard I am using coercion to force you to adapt your behavior to what I wish, or what I believe is correct. Your reactions are self-evident. You unwillingly adopt the behavior when observed, but probably revert to old behaviors when not observed, and attempt to subvert the system whenever possible.
However, if I can change your thoughts or behaviors by engaging you in something rewarding or fun, you have made a conscious choice without threats. You are more likely to repeat that behavior and retain that behavior over time, and model that behavior for others. So, if this model is so much better, why isn't a carrots model used more frequently? I don't yet know, but I'm forming some opinions.
A new Volkswagen initiative sparked my interest in this topic. You can see it at The Fun Theory, a new website that supports a program to encourage people to modify their behavior through fun and rewards, rather than sticks and threats. My favorite is a set of steps that mimic piano keys and allow people who use the steps rather than an escalator to play a tune.
What if your health insurer placed stickers on apples and other fresh fruits and vegetables. If you purchased one of these at the supermarket you could enter a contest to win an award for healty eating. It would seem any behavioral change we might desire could be influenced through fun, amusement and games or rewards. Imagine a trash can that returns a ticket to a lottery each time you place trash in the can. There'd be little to no litter if people had an incentive to clean up their own litter, much less an incentive to pick up the litter of others.
This kind of thinking is important because we face an array of demographic and societal challenges, in addition to all the challenges in the business world. New thinking and new methods to encourage the best behavior and modify behaviors over time is welcome, and I think can be rapidly implemented.
The problem with these reward systems is that it is an extrinsic reward for something, and thus when that reward isn't offered we don't value the intrinsic goodness of the action.
The musical stairways are an easy example - if they have an out of order sign, people won't take them because the reward is the fun of playing the music instead of the benefit of being healthy.
Reward really not any different from punish - you're just moving the scale up. Depriving of reward is exactly the same as giving a punishment.
Say a child gets a sticker when they eat their vegetables as a reward. Then one day, the child doesn't eat their vegetables and doesn't get a reward. Is this any different from always giving a sticker to a child everyday, and then one day when they don't eat their vegetables punishing them by not giving them the sticker?
Research has basically shown that rewards work no better than punishment. For some good reading on this, check out "Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason" by Alfie Kohn - he cites the research that I can't remember off hand.
Posted by: BarrettJ | October 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM