From Bill Powers (971127.0941 MST)]
Bruce Abbott (971127.0950 EST)--
For your part, you have been assuming a fact not in evidence about my
position on the matter. You would have me taking the position that
incentives attract people as a powerful magnet attracts an iron bar,
irresistibly pulled by a force outside themselves. Is this your view of my
position, of do I have you wrong?
I think that is the view of most of us of the position you've described.
Outside the realms of insider jargon, most of us would assume the
dictionary definition of incentive: "something that incites to action." And
"incite" comes out this way: 'to urge on; stimulate or prompt to action."
These definitions clearly come from a tradition in which it is believed
that things or events outside a person act upon the person to produce
action. Of course the magnet you cite exerts a pull on the person rather
than a push, but the underlying model is the same.
The PCT model would imply quite a different explanation. The person who
offers an "incentive" is offering an opportunity for someone to obtain
something that is desired by using the means now made available. At the
same time, the offerer of the incentive is making a deal with those who
accept the offer: If you give me what I want to get, I will give you what
you want to get. This "deal" doesn't have to be explicitly announced;
whether made explicit or not, each party to the deal gets what is desired
by doing what satisfies the other party's desire. Needless to say, this
"deal" is actually consummated by the offerer only with those people who
want what is offered and are willing to do what is asked. With respect to
all others, the offer falls on deaf ears, and doesn't work.
You will recognize, I hope, that this analysis of incentive constitutes a
scientifically valid proposition, although not cast in any special
scientific language. This analysis is based on interactions between
autonomous control systems, so use of a misleading term like incentive is
to be avoided.
You ask whether this isn't a proof that incentive "works." This depends on
what you mean by "working." If I offer the incentive of $1 to anyone who
will lick my shoes, it is possible that some people will take me up on my
offer and lick my shoes, after which I will have to pay them $1 (or renege
on my offer). But suppose I publicize this offer so that 100,000 people
read and hear about it, and that of that 100,000, 100 show up at the
ceremony where they find me standing in a pigpen, and of that 100, 1
actually licks my shoes and gets $1. You appear to be saying that I can
point to that one person and say "See? Incentives work!"
Coincidentally, Mary came across a newspaper story about a police
department that held a raffle apparently imitating the incident you cite.
An offer was made to all 16 and 17 year olds in the community: they could
pay $20 to participate in the "laying on of hands" process, with the last
one still touching the Bronco to receive it. One 17-year-old girl
registered and showed up; she touched the Bronco and it was hers for $20.
This incentive was accompanied by a relatively modest cost, the $20
registration fee, but that's only a matter of degree -- taking advantage of
an incentive always involves some sort of cost.
When you ask whether incentives work, you have to consider all the data,
not just the positive instances. And to define working, you have to specify
the context. Does an incentive work for the person who fails to win the
contest? Obviously not. Does it work for the person who paid for an
advertising campaign and got one taker? Again, obviously not. Working has
to be judged in terms of the goal of the person who offered the incentive,
as well as on the basis of the number of times it might have worked in
comparison with the number of cases in which it did work. One can hardly
claim that an incentive works when in 999 cases of a thousand (as in the
mail-order industry) it fails to produce any action.
It seems to me that we have had exactly this discussion about the word
"reinforcement."
Best,
Bill P.