In which area do individuals use behavior modification procedures on their own behaviors group of answer choices?

Behavior modification is defined as "the alteration of behavioral patterns through the use of such learning techniques as biofeedback and positive or negative reinforcement." More simply, you can modify your child's behavior with positive consequences and negative consequences. Behavior modification is based on the idea that good behavior should lead to positive consequences and bad behavior should lead to negative consequences.

This approach is often used to discipline kids with ADHD, autism, or oppositional defiant disorder. However, it can be effective for all kids.

Behavior modification involves positive punishment, negative punishment, positive reinforcement, and negative reinforcement.

Discipline strategies fall under positive or negative punishment. Positive punishment involves adding a consequence, while negative punishment involves taking something away.

Punishment is used to stop negative behaviors. And while it sounds confusing to refer to punishment as "positive," in operant conditioning, the term positive means adding. So a positive punishment involves adding a consequence that will deter the child from repeating the behavior.

Specific examples of positive punishment include:

Giving a child an extra chore as a consequence for lying when asked if they cleaned their room
Telling a child to write an apology letter after they hurt someone's feelings
Insisting a child do a sibling's chore after hurting their sibling

Spanking is also an example of positive punishment, but most experts agree that corporal punishment should not be used in behavior modification.

Negative punishment involves taking something away. Examples include taking away privileges or removing positive attention.

Specific examples of negative punishment include:

Reinforcement is a technique that encourages or discourages specific behavior. Like punishment, reinforcement can be positive or negative.

Positive reinforcement refers to giving a child something that reinforces good behavior. Discipline that relies mostly on positive reinforcement is usually very effective.

Specific examples of positive reinforcement include:

Saying, “Great job putting your dish away before I even asked you to!”
Allowing a child to earn time to play on their tablet because they completed their homework
Giving a teenager a later curfew because they got on the honor roll

Negative reinforcement is when a child is motivated to change their behavior because it will take away something unpleasant.

A child who stops a behavior because their parent yells at them is trying to get rid of the negative reinforcer (the yelling). Negative reinforcement should be used sparingly with kids as it is less effective than positive reinforcement.

Specific examples of negative reinforcement include:

A child has been getting into arguments with peers at the bus stop. The child's mother starts going to the bus stop with them every day. The child begins behaving so their mother won’t wait for the bus with them.
A teenager complains about school during the ride to school every morning. The child's father turns on talk radio loudly to drown him out. The next day the teenager doesn't complain about anything because they don't want to listen to talk radio.
Parents nag their child to do chores. The child does their chores to make the nagging stop.

You can't force a child to change their behavior but you can change the environment so they'll be more motivated to change. Behavior modification is about modifying the environment in a way that your child has more incentive to follow the rules.

Consistency is the key to making behavior modification effective. If you praise your child for doing their chores, use praise every time they do their chores until it becomes a habit. Then, you can gradually phase out your praise over time.
Negative consequences should also be consistent. If your child only gets sent to time-out once out of every five times they hit someone, your consequences won't be effective. Your child needs to go to time-out each and every time they do the unwanted behavior.
Adults need to be united. Behavior modification also works best when adults work together as a team. If teachers, daycare providers, and other caregivers use the same consequences and rewards, a child's behavior is likely to change even faster.

Keep in mind that behavior modification should be customized to your child's specific needs. The strategies that work well for one child might not work with another.

Verywell Family uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read our editorial process to learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.

Additional Reading

American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. Corporal punishment. Updated July 30, 2012.
American Academy of Pediatrics. Behavior therapy for children with ADHD. Updated January 9, 2017.

How do managers and organizations reduce undesirable employee behavior while reinforcing desirable behavior?

When the above principles and techniques are applied to the workplace, we generally see one of two approaches: behavior modification or behavioral self-management. Both approaches rest firmly on the principles of learning described above. Because both of these techniques have wide followings in corporations, we shall review them here. First, we look at the positive and negative sides of behavior modification.

Behavior modification is the use of operant conditioning principles to shape human behavior to conform to desired standards defined by superiors. In recent years, behavior modification has been applied in a wide variety of organizations. In most cases, positive results are claimed. There is interest in the technique as a management tool to improve performance and reduce costs.

Because of its emphasis on shaping behavior, it is more appropriate to think of behavior modification as a technique for motivating employees rather than as a theory of work motivation. It does not attempt to provide a comprehensive model of the various personal and job-related variables that contribute to motivation. Instead, its managerial thrust is how to motivate, and it is probably this emphasis that has led to its current popularity among some managers. Even so, we should be cautioned against the unquestioned acceptance of any technique until we understand the assumptions underlying the model. If the underlying assumptions of a model appear to be uncertain or inappropriate in a particular situation or organization, its use is clearly questionable.

There is a saying in Japan that “the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.” This means that in corporate Japan employees are supposed to act together and move in unison. Individuality is not encouraged. Although Japanese companies use many techniques to train their employees to work hard and overcome adversity as a group, one rather notable approach that is used by many companies is known as Hell Camp.

The purpose of Hell Camp is to develop employees so they can “concentrate under difficulty.” Representing something of a blend of Outward Bound and assertiveness training, Hell Camp is designed to toughen employees by putting them through numerous humiliating exercises (e.g., making them shout their company song outside the local train station). If they pass each exercise (for example, if they shout loud enough and with sufficient emotion), they are allowed to remove one of several “badges of shame.” Criteria for removing a badge are left vague, so, in essence, the program uses a variable-ratio reinforcement system. The employee never quite knows when the trainer will say she has succeeded; therefore, the most likely level of performance that will result in the removal of shame badges is that at the higher end of the spectrum of performance. If the employee succeeds during the week-long program in removing all of the badges and shows her sincerity and commitment, she graduates. If not, she must repeat the program.

Far from the trust-building exercises and fun runs of modern corporate retreats, Japan’s executive Hell Camps were run with the discipline and intensity of military basic training. The goal was to whip into shape underperforming middle-management types, as well as give them the assertiveness the Japanese felt they lacked in dealing with Western competitors.

It is estimated that over 50,000 Japanese managers have gone through the program. Companies like it because they see it as a way to keep managers from getting soft. As one executive notes, “Companies have been getting very soft, very weak in their way of demanding excellence.” It is thought that the harassment received during Hell Camp and the reinforcement following satisfactory task accomplishment instill character, and Japanese companies show no sign of losing interest in the program.

Sources: Richarz, Allan, “ The Intense Corporate ‘Hell Camps’ of 1980s Japan,” Atlas Obscura, May 30, 2017, https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/hell-camp-japan-80s; Phallon, R., “Hell Camp,” Forbes, June 18, 1984; Neill, Michael and Lustig, David, “ A 13-Day Japanese Boot Camp Shows U.S. Executives How to Succeed in Business Through Suffering,” People, May 30, 1988, https://people.com/archive/a-13-day-japanese-boot-camp-shows-u-s-executives-how-to-succeed-in-business-through-suffering-vol-29-no-21/.

The foundation of behavior modification as a technique of management rests on three ideas.16 First, advocates of behavior modification believe that individuals are basically passive and reactive (instead of proactive). They tend to respond to stimuli in their environment rather than assuming personal responsibility in initiating behavior. This assertion is in direct contrast to cognitive theories of motivation (such as expectancy/valence theory), which hold that individuals make conscious decisions about their present and future behaviors and take an active role in shaping their environment.

Second, advocates of behavior modification focus on observable and measurable behavior instead of on unobservable needs, attitudes, goals, or motivational levels. In contrast, cognitive theories focus on both observable and unobservable factors as they relate to motivation. Social learning theory, in particular, argues that individuals can change their behavior simply by observing others and noticing the punishments or rewards that the observed behaviors produce.

Third, behavior modification stresses that permanent changes can be brought about only as a result of reinforcement. Behaviors that are positively reinforced will be repeated (that is, learned), whereas behaviors not so reinforced will diminish (according to the law of effect, discussed earlier).

If behavior modification techniques are to work, their application must be well-designed and systematically applied. Systematic attempts to implement these programs typically go through five phases (see Exhibit 4.8).

Exhibit 4.8 Steps in Implementing a Behavior Modification Program (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license)

Establishing Clear Behavioral Criteria. First, management attempts to define and clearly specify the behavioral aspects of acceptable performance. Management must be able to designate what constitutes acceptable behavior in terms that employees can understand, and this specification must be in objective, measurable terms. Examples of behavioral criteria include good attendance, promptness in arriving for work, and completing tasks on schedule. Sometimes it is difficult to determine suitable objective indicators of successful performance. For instance, as a training director of a major airline asked, “How do you quantify what a flight attendant does?” Even so, there are many situations and work behaviors that do lend themselves to clear specification.

Conducting a Performance Audit. Once acceptable behavioral criteria have been specified, a performance audit can be done. Because management is concerned about the extent to which employees are successfully meeting the behavioral criteria, the audit is aimed at pinpointing trouble spots where desired behaviors are not being carried out. For instance, a review of attendance records of various department may reveal a department in which absenteeism or tardiness is unusually high. Action can then be taken to focus on the problem area. In short, the performance audit aims to identify discrepancies between what management sees as desired or acceptable behavior and actual behavior.

Setting Specific Behavioral Goals. Third, specific behavioral goals must be set for each employee. Failure to specify concrete behavioral goals is a primary reason for the failure of many behavior modification programs. Examples of such goals are decreasing absenteeism or tardiness, reducing product defects on an assembly line, and meeting production schedules. The goals should be both realistic (that is, reasonably achievable by the employees) and acceptable to the employee. Otherwise, the goals lack relevance, and resulting effort will diminish.

Evaluating Results. Next, employees and supervisors keep track of the employee’s performance record as compared to the preset behavioral criteria and goals. Discrepancies are noted and discussed. For example, the record could provide employees with continuous feedback concerning the extent to which they are on target in meeting their defect reduction goals.

Administering Feedback and Rewards. Finally, on the basis of the assessment of the employee’s performance record, the supervisor administers feedback and, where warranted, praise. For example, praise could strengthen the employees’ efforts to reduce defects (positive reinforcement). The withholding of praise for defect levels deemed less than adequate or below established goals could cause employees to stop behavior that was contributing to defects or work harder to reduce defects (extinction).

Central to this phase of the process is the notion of shaping. Shaping is the process of improving performance incrementally, step by step. Suppose that an employee is absent 30 percent of the time during one month. To improve attendance, we would set a goal of being absent only 5 percent of the time. After implementing the above procedure, we find that absenteeism falls to 20 percent in the second month. Although this is not at goal level, it is clearly an improvement and, as such, is rewarded. The next month, absenteeism falls to 15 percent, and, again, we reward the incremental improvement. Hence, by this incremental approach, the employee gets ever closer to the desired level of behavior. In other words, we have “shaped” her behavior.

There are many ways to see how the principles of behavior modification can be applied in organizational settings. Perhaps one of the best examples can be found in a classic study carried out by Luthans and Kreitner.17 These researchers carried out a field experiment in a medium-sized light manufacturing plant. Two separate groups of supervisors were used in the study. In one group (the experimental group—see Appendix A), the supervisors were trained in the techniques of behavior modification. This program was called “behavioral contingency management,” or BCM. Included here were ten 90-minute lectures conducted over 10 weeks on behavioral change strategies. The second group of supervisors (the control group) received no such training. Following this, the trained supervisors were asked to implement what they had learned among their groups; obviously, the control group supervisors were given no such instructions.

After 10 weeks, group performance was examined for all groups. Two types of data were collected. First, the researchers were interested in any possible behavioral changes among the various workers in the experimental groups (compared to the control groups) as a result of the behavior modification efforts. Significantly, the following changes were noted for these groups in areas that were targeted for change: (1) the frequency of complaints among group members declined, (2) the scrap rates declined, (3) group quality indicators increased, and (4) the frequency of individual performance problems declined. No such changes were recorded for the control groups not exposed to behavior modification. The second measure taken focused on the overall performance rates for the various groups. This was calculated as a measure of direct labor effectiveness for each group. Again, overall group performance—that is, labor effectiveness ratings—improved significantly in the experimental groups but remained unchanged in the control groups. This can be seen in Exhibit 4.9. The researchers concluded that the introduction of the behavioral modification program led to substantive improvements in factory performance.

Exhibit 4.9 Intergroup Comparison of Performance using BCM (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license)