Escaping Bribery & “Bribery-Land” in ABA: Why Reinforcement Matters

 

Escaping Bribery & “Bribery-Land” in ABA: Why Reinforcement Matters

In Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), the goal is to build lasting behavior change through reinforcement-not to negotiate compliance through bribery. Yet in busy classrooms and therapy settings, the line between reinforcement and bribery can blur. This confusion creates what many call “bribery-land.”

What Is Bribery?

Bribery occurs when something desirable is offered before or during behavior as an attempt to stop or start an action. It’s a strategy-used to gain immediate compliance or end undesirable behavior right now. For example:

• “If you stop crying, I’ll give you the iPad.”

• “You can have a cookie if you sit quietly.”

These tactics might work in the moment, but they teach the individual that problem behavior controls the environment. Over time, this increases the likelihood of future noncompliance, since the person learns that escalation leads to rewards.​

What Is Reinforcement?

Reinforcement, in contrast, is earned after the desired behavior occurs. It’s proactive, planned, and designed to strengthen long-term compliance and independence. Reinforcement connects effort and outcome,“When I finish this task, I get something I value”-without turning the process into a negotiation.​

Reinforcement strengthens desired behaviors and supports skill acquisition. In this structure, reinforcement follows the behavior and still supports the values of consistency, predictability, and fairness that are central to effective ABA instruction.

Living in “Bribery-Land”

Staff often slip into “bribery-land” when they are limited on time, patience, or resources. The most common signs include heavy reliance on:

• First/then or if/then statements (“If you do this, then I’ll give you…”)
• “I’m working for…” token boards where rewards are chosen upfront and immediately visible
• Offering/reminders of items mid-task or during problem behavior just to gain compliance

Although these systems may look structured, they often reinforce the expectation of pre-negotiated or visible rewards, making the reinforcement schedule difficult to fade.

*on the other hand, avoid threats and "threat-land". Clear reinforcement and punishment is much more effective and efficient. Threat-land might include: warnings, count-downs, explicit threats, and permanent removal of reinforcement.​

The Problem With Preselecting Rewards

Allowing individuals to choose rewards before the work is complete creates predictability in a way that can backfire. When every task begins with the same bargain, the learner’s motivation becomes externally anchored-they act to obtain the reward rather than building internal engagement or tolerance for delayed reinforcement.

A more effective approach involves providing clear instruction first, delivering reinforcement only after successful completion. This keeps the adult-not the learner’s behavior-in control of the contingencies.

Why Timing Matters

Timing is everything:

• Bribery: Offered before/during behavior, strengthens short-term compliance, reinforces avoidance or escape, access and other disruptive behavior.
• Reinforcement: Delivered after behavior, strengthens desired responses, supports skill retention.

The sequence determines whether the learner’s behavior or the staff’s direction controls the environment.

    *a few additional problems with pre-selection include: the Learner might change their mind when reinforcement becomes available, some learners are not good at making choices or understanding how to make choices for the future, options may not be available by the time they are earned.​

Teaching Instead of Enticing

Bribery may calm a moment, but reinforcement teaches a skill. When staff adhere to token systems, level charts, or differential reinforcement strategies as designed, providing praise and tangible rewards only after expectations are met, they create consistent opportunities for reinforcement that can be systematically faded over time.

Differential reinforcement also allows the team to shift from continuous rewards to more natural schedules and value levels of the reinforcement ensuring behaviors are maintained under real-world conditions.

Clarifying the Approach for Practitioners

Many professionals have been taught that to maintain motivation and establish motivating operations, visual prompts like “I am working for” boards or Premack statements (“First work, then toy”) must always be used. While these strategies are teaching tools-that may be used with certain learners when introducing early contingency awareness-they are not requirements for maintaining motivation or engagement over time. In fact, continual reliance on them can inadvertently reduce instructional control and create dependency on external negotiation.​

In our recommended progressive model, instruction starts naturally and firmly:

“Come sit” or “Time for work.”

The teaching environment is already prepared-a full token board is set out representing the expected contingency. This can initially represents the SD= Reinforcement is available. The learner is taught that once the board is full, reinforcement follows the exchange, not before. Initially, success can be scaffolded by starting with a full or nearly full board (e.g., only one token missing). Over time, expectations systematically increase-first by requiring more tokens, then by layering clear, observable behaviors such as hands down, calm body, or sustained sitting before earning each token. The reinforcement is delivered only after the completed board is exchanged, which eliminates bribery and builds predictable behavioral regulation.​

This approach still honors the function of motivating operations-it simply embeds them within a consistent, pre-established contingency structure rather than pre-announcing or negotiating the reinforcer. This ensures:

1. Reinforcers are still meaningful and carefully selected through preference assessments, ongoing awareness of interests and desires, and reinforcement development.
2. The behavior–reinforcement contingency remains intact and clear.
3. Gradual fading of external cues is built into the system to promote independence and generalization.

Ultimately, the purpose isn’t to reject the principles behind Premack or “I am working for” visuals-it’s to refine how and when they’re applied. By embedding reinforcement contingencies within instruction rather than negotiation, practitioners promote durable behavior change, instructional control, and the natural fading of external motivators into real-world functioning.

On the contrary, when a concrete or visual representation of ​S-delta= Reinforcement is not available, the token board can be flipped over to the back side - absent of tokens and earning. The clip on a level chart can be moved representing reinforcement is not happening. A time-in system, the SD such as a slap bracelet, necklace, or clip is removed for the remaining time in the interval also representing the s-delta=reinforcement is not available.​

Key Takeaways for Practitioners

• Give the instruction first-then follow through with reinforcement only after the task is completed.
• Recognize and interrupt “bribery-land” patterns and routines
• Use token or level systems as structured reinforcement, not bargaining tools.
• Emphasize delayed and varied reinforcement to expand tolerance for waiting.
• Ensure reinforcement supports meaningful learning and independence, not momentary compliance.