Department of Psychology · Upper-Division Undergraduate
PSY 401: Behavioral Psychology
Week 2 Case Study Assignment
Applying Operant Conditioning Principles to Real-World Behavioral Scenarios
Assignment Overview
In Week 2 of PSY 401, you shift from surveying foundational behaviorist theory toward applying it analytically. This case study assignment asks you to examine a provided behavioral scenario through the lens of operant conditioning — identifying antecedents, consequences, reinforcement schedules, and the mechanisms by which behavior is shaped or extinguished over time.
Operant conditioning, first systematized by B. F. Skinner, remains one of the most empirically grounded frameworks in behavioral psychology. Its concepts — positive and negative reinforcement, positive and negative punishment, schedules of reinforcement, and stimulus control — have direct applications in clinical, educational, organizational, and everyday settings. Your task is to demonstrate that you can move beyond definitional recall and engage in genuine behavioral analysis.
Learning Objectives Addressed: By completing this assignment, you will demonstrate the ability to (1) distinguish among the four primary operant conditioning contingencies; (2) analyze antecedent-behavior-consequence (A-B-C) relationships in applied contexts; (3) evaluate how reinforcement schedules influence behavioral persistence and extinction; and (4) connect behavioral theory to peer-reviewed research.
Case Scenario
Since the new structure was introduced, Marcus’s supervisors have observed that he makes significantly more calls per shift, rarely takes extended breaks, and becomes notably persistent even after several consecutive rejections. However, his manager has also noted that Marcus displays visible frustration and occasionally snaps at colleagues after a string of unrewarded calls. A peer who was placed on a fixed-ratio schedule — a bonus after every tenth successful call — shows steady but noticeably less intense work behavior and stops entirely for short periods once a bonus is earned.
Marcus’s manager is now considering whether to modify the commission structure further, introduce a token economy for the broader team, or address the stress-related behavior through a differential reinforcement strategy.
Assignment Task
Write a 1,050–1,400-word case study analysis in which you apply operant conditioning theory to the scenario above. Your paper should be structured, evidence-based, and written in formal academic prose. Do not use headers within the body of the paper unless your instructor specifies otherwise; instead, use well-organized paragraphs with clear topic sentences.
Your analysis must address all of the following:
- Identify and explain the operant conditioning contingency most prominently at work in Marcus’s situation. Clarify whether the primary mechanism is positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, negative punishment, or a combination, and justify your identification with reference to behavioral theory.
- Analyze the reinforcement schedule operating in Marcus’s current commission structure. Explain why a variable-ratio schedule produces the behavioral pattern his supervisors observe — including both the high response rate and the resistance to extinction — and contrast this explicitly with the fixed-ratio schedule applied to his peer.
- Conduct an A-B-C (antecedent–behavior–consequence) analysis for at least two distinct behavioral episodes described or implied in the scenario. Identify the discriminative stimulus or antecedent condition, the target behavior, and the consequence in each episode.
- Evaluate the manager’s proposed interventions. For each of the three options mentioned (modifying the commission structure, implementing a token economy, or using differential reinforcement), briefly assess the behavioral rationale and likely outcome. Recommend one option and justify your recommendation using evidence from the peer-reviewed literature.
- Address at least one ethical consideration relevant to using operant conditioning principles in a workplace context, drawing on behavioral psychology literature or applied ethics scholarship.
Format and Submission Requirements
- Length: 1,050–1,400 words (excluding title page and references)
- Format: APA 7th Edition throughout — title page, in-text citations, and a full reference list
- Sources: Minimum of four peer-reviewed sources published between 2015 and 2026; at least two must be empirical studies (not textbooks or review articles alone)
- Font and spacing: 12-point Times New Roman or comparable serif font, double-spaced, 1-inch margins
- Submission: Upload as a .docx or .pdf file to the course portal by 11:59 PM on Sunday of Week 2
- Plagiarism policy: All submissions are processed through the course’s academic integrity tool. Paraphrase all source material properly; do not quote excessively.
A note on depth: At the 400 level, definitional restatement alone will not earn full marks. You are expected to synthesize concepts, engage critically with the evidence, and demonstrate that you can apply behavioral theory to ambiguous, real-world conditions — not just to textbook examples.
Grading Rubric
| Criterion | Excellent (Full Marks) | Proficient | Developing | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identification of Operant Contingency | Accurately identifies and fully justifies the primary contingency with behavioral terminology and citation support | Correct identification with partial justification; minor terminological gaps | Incorrect or incomplete identification; limited use of theory | 20 |
| Reinforcement Schedule Analysis | Thoroughly explains variable-ratio effects (high rate, extinction resistance) and contrasts meaningfully with fixed-ratio evidence | Addresses both schedules adequately; contrast lacks nuance | Only one schedule discussed or analysis is superficial | 20 |
| A-B-C Analysis | Two or more A-B-C chains are clearly and accurately constructed; discriminative stimuli are correctly distinguished from motivating operations | A-B-C structure is present but one element per chain is imprecise | A-B-C framework is missing or significantly misapplied | 20 |
| Evaluation of Interventions and Recommendation | All three options are assessed with behavioral rationale; recommendation is well-argued and supported by at least one empirical citation | Two options addressed adequately; recommendation is present but evidence is limited | One or fewer options addressed; recommendation absent or unsupported | 20 |
| Ethical Consideration | Substantive engagement with a relevant ethical issue; grounded in scholarly or professional literature | Ethical issue named and briefly discussed; limited source support | Ethical consideration absent or treated as an afterthought | 10 |
| APA Formatting and Academic Writing | Flawless APA 7th edition; formal prose; no grammatical or citation errors; four or more appropriate sources | Minor APA errors; prose is clear with occasional informal phrasing; sources meet minimum | Multiple APA errors or fewer than four sources; writing impedes comprehension | 10 |
Total: 100 points
When evaluating the manager’s proposed interventions, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) stands out as the most clinically defensible option for addressing the frustration-related behavior without eliminating the productivity gains the variable-ratio structure has generated. A token economy, while effective in structured environments such as classrooms or residential treatment facilities, may introduce administrative complexity that is disproportionate to the workplace context. Cooper, Heron, and Heward (2020) note that the success of token systems depends heavily on consistent implementation across all mediators — a condition that can be difficult to sustain in fast-paced sales environments where supervisory oversight is variable. Modifying the commission structure itself carries the risk of reducing the response rate that management currently values, particularly if the new schedule moves toward a fixed-interval arrangement, which tends to produce scalloping patterns rather than sustained output.
Learning Resources and References
The following peer-reviewed sources are relevant to this assignment. You are not limited to these references, but each meets the currency and credibility standards required for PSY 401 submissions. Verify access through your institution’s library database.
- Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.
- Podlesnik, C. A., & Shahan, T. A. (2010). Extinction, relapse, and behavioral momentum. Behavioural Processes, 84(1), 400–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2010.02.001
- Doll, J., Livesey, J., McHaffie, E., & Ludwig, T. D. (2007). Keeping an uphill edge: Managing cleaning behaviors at a ski area. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 27(4), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v27n04_03
- Pritchard, R. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., & DeLeo, P. J. (1980). The effects of continuous and partial schedules of reinforcement on effort, performance, and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25(3), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(80)90026-3
- Staddon, J. E., & Cerutti, D. T. (2003). Operant conditioning. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145124