In the study, some researchers initiated a weight control program, in which they gathered 23 volunteers and placed them in a small office.“Work site” was used as environment settings tentatively for the first time, and the rationale behind it is that researchers expected office colleagues to be more important than total strangers, and thus created a more powerful influence. The subjects were divided into 2 groups: Money group and Social group. The subjects in Social Group simply weighed in every Friday, while subjects in the other group had to make out a check of 2 dollars additionally. At the end of the program, an averaged weight loss of 9 pounds achieved in the money group while it was 3.7 pounds for the other group.
What differed this weight control program from others were that the researchers not only employed a habitual environment (an office) for both groups of people, but also subtract money from the experimental group (Money group). As Abrahms and Allens have proved that the use of money deducting would typically change subjects’ eating behaviors. Therefore, for the Money group, the subjects were weighed every Friday. In the meantime, they were made to write checks dated to Fridays during the research period. The numbers on the checks started at 2, and increased 2 dollars week by week until 10 dollars, then decreased till zero which happened in the last week of the program time. Here, money worked as a stimulus of positive punishment, which meant as the amount of the money increased, subjects would achieve a greater success in weight loss. Meanwhile, the researchers also supposed the weight loss would decrease as the amount of deducting money decreased. On the other hand, as R.D. Colvin talked about the subjects were not self-conscious about their weight changes posted on charts in the article, it’s simply the social connections motivated them to lose weight. In the control group, (Social group), the subjects just meet once a week, but their weight changes were posted on charts right away. In other words, the weight changes showing to the public used positive reinforcement to suggest the subjects that they need to increase any losing-weight behaviors. For most of the subjects, the action of posting weight changes worked as a positive punishment.
At the conclusion, the researchers mapped out goals and actual achievements of two groups of participants respectively, and compared the results. The research results showed that all the subjects in the Money group were able to reach their goals except one person failed to do so for two weeks, while in the Social group only 2 participants were able to complete their goals. It is conclusive proved that work site is a feasible setting in weight changes programs, and it seemed that positive punishment had a strong influence on the subjects because the subjects felt like losing money.
In a follow-up observation, the weights of participants in money group returned to near pre-program weights. The researchers argued that this was because positive punishment tended to lost its efficacy faster than positive reinforcement. Thus, as the subjects were losing less money than before, their motivation decreased. Moreover, although results of social group appeared as weak right after the program ended, the participants actually continued losing weight in a longer observation. Besides, the subjects who lost weight efficiently in the first week managed to lose more both during and after the program.
Works Cited
Abrahms, J.L., &Allen,G.J. Comparative effectiveness of situational programming, financial pay-offs and group pressure in weight reduction. Behavior Therapy, 1974, 5, 391-400
No comments:
Post a Comment