More on the contrast effect

I found a definition of "behavioral contrast" which I wanted to try and make sense of, because it seems critical to understanding the repercussions of rewards systems:

Behavioral contrast has been defined as an inverse relationship between rates of responding in one setting and the conditions of reinforcement in another setting (McSweeney & Weatherly, 1998). Many varieties of contrast have been reported in the empirical literature. Contrast can be classified into two primary categories; positive and negative contrast. Positive contrast is an increase in the rate of responding in one setting as a result of a decrease in reinforcement... in another setting. Negative contrast is a decrease in the rate of responding in one setting as a result of an increase in reinforcement in another setting.

As I understand it, the "rate of responding" means how often a target behavior occurs. If you're using positive reinforcement, i.e. rewards of some sort, you're trying to increase a desirable behavior. In this case, a higher response rate means your rewards system is succeeding.

Negative contrast basically means that while a rewards scheme may be successful in one setting, there are unfortunate side effects in other settings. Specifically, the good behavior you've been trying to encourage becomes less common if rewards are increased in other settings. It's all relative, I guess: if payment for good behavior goes up in one environment, it makes other rewards systems that much less attractive or motivating.

Positive contrast means that your "response rate" goes up, or in other words you start having more success at encouraging good behavior, if the rewards start to dry up in other settings. Again, it's all relative: if other rewards are reduced, your own rewards look that much better.

Consider what happens if you send your well-behaved child to a classroom where the teacher happens to use elaborate rewards: tokens to be turned in for small toys, stickers, special honors, lavish praise, and all manner of privileges to be bestowed or revoked. This child is offered a bribe in most instances where a request is made. Time for a math test: the highest scorer gets to wear the Math Genius pin for a day. Remember to raise your hand before speaking: each time you don't you lose one of the magnets off your desk (magnets that can be turned in at the end of the week for little plastic baubles). Keep your desks clean: Cleanest desk gets to line up first for recess. Do your homework: each week without any late assignments earns you an hour's free time on Friday afternoon.

After a few weeks of this, suppose you ask your child to set the table. Can (s)he be blamed for thinking "And what do I get if I do?" It's not simply a matter of greed or laziness or selfishness. They are learning at school that behavior occurs not within a social contract but rather within an economic contract. If they are paid for the least little thing while in the classroom, are they not then entitled to some compensation when Mom or Dad asks them to contribute work?

Conversely, consider a teacher who begins a new school year determined not to resort to rewards and punishments. Suppose that in that part of town, disobedience from kids is not tolerated, and parents typically keep their kids in check with strict rules, spankings, behavior charts, candy used as bribes, and a hundred and one other methods of manipulation. (I do think there are parts of the country and demographic groups where parents are more apt to use behaviorism.)

The kids in that classroom will be expecting an authority figure who cements their position of power by setting the rules, distributing incentives, and doling out consequences. They won't be used to having an adult appeal to their reason or point out shared goals, of having requests explained and having infractions dealt with as "teachable moments". Parents who are fond of time outs and gold stars will not respect the teacher either and will feel that their child is suffering from a lack of discipline and the resulting disorder in the classroom. I still feel such a teacher could succeed, but the first part of the year might be a trial. At every request, a sizeable segment of the class would be thinking "And what do I get if I do?" or "What happens if I don't?" It is particularly ironic that parents might blame the teacher, when their own Skinnerian methods made their kids so difficult to work with.

To sum up: even if a parent doesn't use behaviorism, they can suffer its ill "contrast" effects if it's used liberally in school. Likewise, schoolteachers facing poorly behaved students may be suffering the contrast effects of the authoritarian parenting which is currently making a cultural resurgence.