SAVE | EMAIL | PRINT | MOST POPULAR | RSS  | |
The Science Behind Incentives: Means to An End
April 24, 2009
Understanding the differences between primary and secondary reinforcers
By Dr. Josh Klapow
What incentivizes you? Is it money? If so, how much? Maybe it’s not money but time off work. Maybe it’s a Hawaiian vacation (that works for me).
Different incentives work for different people, and senior-level incentive planners have to motivate a large number of employees. But is there a universal incentive—something that works in motivating everyone?
In the search for the most universal incentive, money often seems like the good choice. Everyone likes money. Money motivates. Money is universally appreciated. But from a behavioral science perspective, money, as an incentive, or “reinforcer,” is considered a secondary reinforcer rather than a primary reinforcer. The distinction is important and has implications for incentive programs.
A secondary reinforcer is a neutral stimulus that becomes a reinforcer due to its association with another reinforcer (usually a primary reinforcer). Examples of secondary reinforcers include verbal praise, tokens at Chuck E. Cheese (I have two young children) and money.
In contrast, primary reinforcers are those to which we are “hardwired”: food, water, air and sex are a few examples. Obviously, we can’t provide primary reinforcers as incentives. (“Nice work this performance period, have some air.”) But the important point is that secondary reinforcers are not inherently reinforcing; they only become incentives if they are associated with something inherently reinforcing.
So back to the universality of money. Money is a secondary reinforcer for most of us, since it is associated with things that are meaningful. Money itself has no inherently reinforcing properties. Give a two-year-old a $1 bill, a $5 bill or a $20 dollar bill, and the most likely response is it is dropped on the floor, torn into shreds or chewed. Then, give the child a talking Elmo doll (retails around $26), and the most likely response is laughter and smiles.
Money is meaningful because it serves as a bridge to reinforcers. And now we have the problem: Cash rewards can be limited by demographics. Twenty-five dollars may be enough for an individual whose household income is $20,000 to purchase something meaningful, but it is likely not enough for an individual whose household income is $200,000. Gift cards pose a potentially greater problem. A gift card is a secondary reinforcer in that it represents a cash value. Yet it also designates the type of reinforcer an individual may choose.
What does all of this mean? Incentive programs only work if the incentives are meaningful to the incentivized. If the incentives are not deemed meaningful, your program fails instantly. Money and gift cards are potentially powerful reinforcers, but they are subject to the limitations of being secondary reinforcers. In the case of gift cards, they work only if they allow purchases of meaningful items.
Think about the two-year-old child one last time. Twenty-six dollars have no inherent meaning. (Neither does a gift card for the purchase of broccoli and cauliflower.) An Elmo doll is a good guess, but it is only a guess. Only the child knows what is reinforcing. Therefore, the more your participants have control over what their incentives will be, the more likely they are to find the incentives rewarding.
Joshua Klapow, Ph.D. is an associate professor in the Department of Health Care Organization and Policy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health. He is also the author of Living SMART: 5 Essential Skills to Change Your Health Habits Forever. For questions or comments visit www.drjoshk.com or e-mail him at jklapow@uab.edu.
|
|
| SAVE | EMAIL | PRINT | MOST POPULAR | RSS | |
|
 |
advertisement |
|
|
RSS