Reitman D
Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge 70803, USA.
J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 1998 Jun;29(2):101-13. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7916(98)00011-1.
In recent years, a number of researchers and social critics have cautioned against the widespread application of behavioral interventions on the grounds that the philosophy of behaviorism is fundamentally manipulative and damaging to creative and intrinsically motivated behavior. Most central to their arguments are concerns about the harmful effects of "extrinsic" rewards. Though concerns about the allegedly harmful effects of "rewards" on intrinsically motivated actions may have been partially allayed by a recent meta-analysis, proponents of the view that intrinsic interest is eroded by the delivery of contingent rewards will likely continue to attest to the dangers of operant conditioning and its application to human behavior. The present manuscript addresses the content of claims about the harmful effects of extrinsic rewards. While consideration is given to the existing behavior therapy literature and its treatment of "natural" versus "arbitrary" rewards, some surprising convergences between the views of self-determination theorists and behavioral practitioners are noted.
近年来,一些研究人员和社会评论家告诫不要广泛应用行为干预措施,理由是行为主义哲学从根本上具有操纵性,会损害创造性和内在动机驱动的行为。他们论点的核心是对“外在”奖励有害影响的担忧。尽管最近的一项元分析可能部分缓解了对“奖励”对内在动机行为的所谓有害影响的担忧,但认为偶然奖励会侵蚀内在兴趣的观点的支持者可能会继续证明操作性条件反射及其应用于人类行为的危险性。本手稿探讨了关于外在奖励有害影响的主张的内容。在考虑现有行为治疗文献及其对“自然”与“任意”奖励的处理时,注意到了自我决定理论家和行为从业者观点之间一些惊人的趋同之处。