{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/9846"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/9846","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"The Timing and Magnitude of Monetary Reward: Testing Hypotheses from Expectancy vs. Reciprocity Theory","abstract":"Social psychologists have noted that compliance strategies based on the social norm of reciprocity can be an effective tool for changing behavior (e.g., Cialdini, 2001). In contrast to expectancy-based behavior-change strategies, which offer a reward after a behavior is completed (post-behavior reward); reciprocity-based strategies present the reward first in the form of a gift (pre-behavior reward). Although there are no explicit contingencies attached to the gift, a sense of obligation to reciprocate may be a powerful motivator to comply with the request. It was hypothesized that pre-behavior rewards would be more effective than post-behavior rewards at low magnitudes of reward, and that both strategies would be effective at higher levels. This study examined effects of the timing and magnitude ($1 vs. $10) of a cash reward on compliance with a request to use a specially designed thank-you card recognizing prosocial and proenvironmental behavior. The hypotheses were not supported. The highest rate of compliance occurred in the post-behavior $10 condition, where 35.5% of participants complied, followed by post-behavior $1 (18.8%), pre-behavior $1 (12.9%) and pre-behavior $10 (8.8%). Pairwise comparisons revealed compliance in the $10 post-behavior condition was significantly higher than the rate of compliance in the $1 and $10 pre-behavior conditions, Chi-Square (1, n = 62) = 4.31, p < .05 and Chi-Square (1, n = 65) = 6.82, p < .01 respectively. The lack of evidence for the effectiveness of pre-behavior reward strategy is discussed and contrasted with previous findings.","abstract_html":"Social psychologists have noted that compliance strategies based on the social norm of reciprocity can be an effective tool for changing behavior (e.g., Cialdini, 2001). In contrast to expectancy-based behavior-change strategies, which offer a reward after a behavior is completed (post-behavior reward); reciprocity-based strategies present the reward first in the form of a gift (pre-behavior reward). Although there are no explicit contingencies attached to the gift, a sense of obligation to reciprocate may be a powerful motivator to comply with the request. It was hypothesized that pre-behavior rewards would be more effective than post-behavior rewards at low magnitudes of reward, and that both strategies would be effective at higher levels. This study examined effects of the timing and magnitude ($1 vs. $10) of a cash reward on compliance with a request to use a specially designed thank-you card recognizing prosocial and proenvironmental behavior. The hypotheses were not supported. The highest rate of compliance occurred in the post-behavior $10 condition, where 35.5% of participants complied, followed by post-behavior $1 (18.8%), pre-behavior $1 (12.9%) and pre-behavior $10 (8.8%). Pairwise comparisons revealed compliance in the $10 post-behavior condition was significantly higher than the rate of compliance in the $1 and $10 pre-behavior conditions, Chi-Square (1, n = 62) = 4.31, p &lt; .05 and Chi-Square (1, n = 65) = 6.82, p &lt; .01 respectively. The lack of evidence for the effectiveness of pre-behavior reward strategy is discussed and contrasted with previous findings.","abstract_has_math":true,"creators":["Lehman, Philip Kent"],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Master of Science","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":"Psychology","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":["Geller, E. Scott"],"committee_members":["Winett, Richard A.","Axsom, Danny K."],"year":2003,"date_issued":"2003-09-26","date_published":"2003-09-26","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:18:46Z","subjects":["Expectancy","Reward","Reciprocity","Reward Timing"],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-11132003-193736"],"render_values":[{"text":"etd-11132003-193736","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/9846","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeechair","label":"Committee Chair","values":["Geller, E. Scott"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Winett, Richard A.","Axsom, Danny K."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Lehman, Philip Kent"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2011-08-06T15:58:26Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2011-08-06T15:58:26Z","2004-11-18"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2003-09-26"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Expectancy","Reward","Reciprocity","Reward Timing"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-11132003-193736"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/9846"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Social psychologists have noted that compliance strategies based on the social norm of reciprocity can be an effective tool for changing behavior (e.g., Cialdini, 2001). In contrast to expectancy-based behavior-change strategies, which offer a reward after a behavior is completed (post-behavior reward); reciprocity-based strategies present the reward first in the form of a gift (pre-behavior reward). Although there are no explicit contingencies attached to the gift, a sense of obligation to reciprocate may be a powerful motivator to comply with the request. It was hypothesized that pre-behavior rewards would be more effective than post-behavior rewards at low magnitudes of reward, and that both strategies would be effective at higher levels. This study examined effects of the timing and magnitude ($1 vs. $10) of a cash reward on compliance with a request to use a specially designed thank-you card recognizing prosocial and proenvironmental behavior. The hypotheses were not supported. The highest rate of compliance occurred in the post-behavior $10 condition, where 35.5% of participants complied, followed by post-behavior $1 (18.8%), pre-behavior $1 (12.9%) and pre-behavior $10 (8.8%). Pairwise comparisons revealed compliance in the $10 post-behavior condition was significantly higher than the rate of compliance in the $1 and $10 pre-behavior conditions, Chi-Square (1, n = 62) = 4.31, p < .05 and Chi-Square (1, n = 65) = 6.82, p < .01 respectively. The lack of evidence for the effectiveness of pre-behavior reward strategy is discussed and contrasted with previous findings."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"dc:format.medium","label":"Dc Format Medium","values":["ETD"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The Timing and Magnitude of Monetary Reward: Testing Hypotheses from Expectancy vs. Reciprocity Theory"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeechair":["Geller, E. Scott"],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Winett, Richard A.","Axsom, Danny K."],"dc:contributor.department":["Psychology"],"dc:creator":["Lehman, Philip Kent"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2011-08-06T15:58:26Z"],"dc:date.available":["2011-08-06T15:58:26Z","2004-11-18"],"dc:date.issued":["2003-09-26"],"dc:description.abstract":["Social psychologists have noted that compliance strategies based on the social norm of reciprocity can be an effective tool for changing behavior (e.g., Cialdini, 2001). In contrast to expectancy-based behavior-change strategies, which offer a reward after a behavior is completed (post-behavior reward); reciprocity-based strategies present the reward first in the form of a gift (pre-behavior reward). Although there are no explicit contingencies attached to the gift, a sense of obligation to reciprocate may be a powerful motivator to comply with the request. It was hypothesized that pre-behavior rewards would be more effective than post-behavior rewards at low magnitudes of reward, and that both strategies would be effective at higher levels. This study examined effects of the timing and magnitude ($1 vs. $10) of a cash reward on compliance with a request to use a specially designed thank-you card recognizing prosocial and proenvironmental behavior. The hypotheses were not supported. The highest rate of compliance occurred in the post-behavior $10 condition, where 35.5% of participants complied, followed by post-behavior $1 (18.8%), pre-behavior $1 (12.9%) and pre-behavior $10 (8.8%). Pairwise comparisons revealed compliance in the $10 post-behavior condition was significantly higher than the rate of compliance in the $1 and $10 pre-behavior conditions, Chi-Square (1, n = 62) = 4.31, p < .05 and Chi-Square (1, n = 65) = 6.82, p < .01 respectively. The lack of evidence for the effectiveness of pre-behavior reward strategy is discussed and contrasted with previous findings."],"dc:description.degree":["Master of Science"],"dc:format.medium":["ETD"],"dc:identifier.other":["etd-11132003-193736"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/9846"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:subject":["Expectancy","Reward","Reciprocity","Reward Timing"],"dc:title":["The Timing and Magnitude of Monetary Reward: Testing Hypotheses from Expectancy vs. Reciprocity Theory"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:18:46Z"}