Progressing from programmatic to discovery research: A case example with the overjustification effect

Henry S. Roane, Wayne W. Fisher, Erin M. McDonough

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Scientific research progresses along planned (programmatic research) and unplanned (discovery research) paths. In the current investigation, we attempted to conduct a single-case evaluation of the overjustification effect (i.e., programmatic research). Results of the initial analysis were contrary to the overjustification hypothesis in that removal of the reward contingency produced an increase in responding. Based on this unexpected finding, we conducted subsequent analyses to further evaluate the mechanisms underlying these results (i.e., discovery research). Results of the additional analyses suggested that the reward contingency functioned as punishment (because the participant preferred the task to the rewards) and that withdrawal of the contingency produced punishment contrast.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)35-46
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of applied behavior analysis
Volume36
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2003

Fingerprint

Reward
contingency
reward
Research
Punishment
penalty
withdrawal
Contingency
evaluation
Evaluation

Keywords

  • Autism
  • Behavioral contrast
  • Discovery research
  • Overjustification
  • Punishment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Philosophy
  • Applied Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Progressing from programmatic to discovery research : A case example with the overjustification effect. / Roane, Henry S.; Fisher, Wayne W.; McDonough, Erin M.

In: Journal of applied behavior analysis, Vol. 36, No. 1, 01.01.2003, p. 35-46.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fb204f6242634316a7c576e40c8db981,
title = "Progressing from programmatic to discovery research: A case example with the overjustification effect",
abstract = "Scientific research progresses along planned (programmatic research) and unplanned (discovery research) paths. In the current investigation, we attempted to conduct a single-case evaluation of the overjustification effect (i.e., programmatic research). Results of the initial analysis were contrary to the overjustification hypothesis in that removal of the reward contingency produced an increase in responding. Based on this unexpected finding, we conducted subsequent analyses to further evaluate the mechanisms underlying these results (i.e., discovery research). Results of the additional analyses suggested that the reward contingency functioned as punishment (because the participant preferred the task to the rewards) and that withdrawal of the contingency produced punishment contrast.",
keywords = "Autism, Behavioral contrast, Discovery research, Overjustification, Punishment",
author = "Roane, {Henry S.} and Fisher, {Wayne W.} and McDonough, {Erin M.}",
year = "2003",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1901/jaba.2003.36-35",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "35--46",
journal = "Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis",
issn = "0021-8855",
publisher = "Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Progressing from programmatic to discovery research

T2 - A case example with the overjustification effect

AU - Roane, Henry S.

AU - Fisher, Wayne W.

AU - McDonough, Erin M.

PY - 2003/1/1

Y1 - 2003/1/1

N2 - Scientific research progresses along planned (programmatic research) and unplanned (discovery research) paths. In the current investigation, we attempted to conduct a single-case evaluation of the overjustification effect (i.e., programmatic research). Results of the initial analysis were contrary to the overjustification hypothesis in that removal of the reward contingency produced an increase in responding. Based on this unexpected finding, we conducted subsequent analyses to further evaluate the mechanisms underlying these results (i.e., discovery research). Results of the additional analyses suggested that the reward contingency functioned as punishment (because the participant preferred the task to the rewards) and that withdrawal of the contingency produced punishment contrast.

AB - Scientific research progresses along planned (programmatic research) and unplanned (discovery research) paths. In the current investigation, we attempted to conduct a single-case evaluation of the overjustification effect (i.e., programmatic research). Results of the initial analysis were contrary to the overjustification hypothesis in that removal of the reward contingency produced an increase in responding. Based on this unexpected finding, we conducted subsequent analyses to further evaluate the mechanisms underlying these results (i.e., discovery research). Results of the additional analyses suggested that the reward contingency functioned as punishment (because the participant preferred the task to the rewards) and that withdrawal of the contingency produced punishment contrast.

KW - Autism

KW - Behavioral contrast

KW - Discovery research

KW - Overjustification

KW - Punishment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0042662636&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0042662636&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-35

DO - 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-35

M3 - Article

C2 - 12723865

AN - SCOPUS:0042662636

VL - 36

SP - 35

EP - 46

JO - Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

JF - Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

SN - 0021-8855

IS - 1

ER -