Isn’t it sad that in this topsy-turvy life our behaviour is punished more often than it is rewarded? Here is a terrible admission: I often park for a short time on double yellow lines (never in disabled spaces, promise), risking a fine rather than parking where I should, in the multi-storey car park my council have carefully provided. I have an excuse, of course. The “proper” parking place is not near where I want to be and costs money each time I go there. By contrast, the double yellow lines are close to where I want to be and I get a parking fine only about once every three years. Frankly, it would be more expensive and less convenient to do the right thing.
All is not lost. I have thought of a way to cure my anti-social behaviour. I need to be rewarded for parking in the “proper” place more often than I am punished for parking in the “wrong” place.
Research shows (always be wary of these two words) that there are only four ways to modify people’s behaviour: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, punishment and extinction. That’s it. There is nothing else, unless you start using combinations. The first two increase a type of behaviour and the last two decrease it. This is why I think my parking in the “proper” place should be reinforced and my parking in the “wrong” place should be punished.
Now, I realise this is absurd. Either the council would have to pay me to park in the “proper” place (imagine parking wardens shelling out money) or fine me more often (much more often) for parking in the “wrong” place.
The simple fact is that it is administratively far more convenient to catch people doing things wrong and punish them than to catch people doing things right and reward them. Yet rewarded behaviour is far more robust than punished behaviour. Punishment tends to suppress the behaviour in question, but it eagerly resurfaces as soon as the punishment ceases or the punisher’s back is turned.
Actually, intermittent reinforcement (ie, not every time, but often enough to be encouraging) is even better than constant reinforcement. Gambling thrives on intermittent reinforcement. There would be no gamblers if a) they won every time or b) they never won.
So, the answer is intermittently to reward people far more often than you punish them. The late Quentin Crisp asked: “Who would you be if there was neither praise nor blame?” I have always thought this a profound question – so profound that I have no answer, except that I am sure I wouldn’t be the same person.