Four experiments (ns = 40, 20, 46, 40) comparing the absolute and relative interpretations of the incentive magnitude effect utterly failed to show the effect with normal, community-dwelling, adult female Ss. Money was the incentive commodity used in both card-sorting and digit-symbol tasks, and it was paid both to the individual S and to S's women's club, and it was paid on both a per-task and per-unit-of-accomplishment basis. The limitations of both the incentive magnitude effect and of the methodology of these experiments are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlankH. D.MongeR. H.Effects of awareness of alternative incentive magnitude and shifts in magnitude on card sorting. Psychological Reports, 1970, 27, 119–125.
2.
BruningJ. L.Effects of magnitude of reward and percentage of reinforcement on a lever movement response. Child Development, 1964, 35, 281–285.
3.
HelsonH.Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.
4.
HullC. L.Essentials of behavior. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1951.
5.
RossiA. M.SolomonP.Button-pressing for a time-off reward during sensory deprivation: III. Effects of varied time-off rewards. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1964, 18, 794–796.
6.
SarasonI. G.PalolaE. G.The relationship of test and general anxiety, difficulty of task, and experimental instructions to performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1960, 59, 185–191.
7.
WechslerD.The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1958.
8.
WinerB. J.Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.
