Towards understanding the mechanism through which reward and punishment motivate or demotivate behaviours
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persuasive gamified systems are effective tools for motivating behaviour change using various persuasive strategies. In line with the reinforcement theory, some persuasive gamified systems employ reward and punishment in their design to achieve the intended behavioural outcome. Research has argued both in favour and against using these strategies in behaviour change applications due to mixed results with respect to their effectiveness. However, there is a lack knowledge about how interventions using these strategies could motivate or demotivate behaviours. Therefore, this paper explores the mechanism through which Reward and Punishment motivate or demotivate behaviours with respect to their strengths and weaknesses. The results of large-scale exploratory studies (N = 1768) uncover important strengths and weaknesses that could facilitate or hinder the effectiveness of Reward and Punishment at motivating behaviour change. These include their ability to engage users and make behaviour fun, reinforce commitments to goals, and reveal some consequences of bad behaviour. We also compared the perceived effectiveness of reward and punishment quantitatively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it