To Fine or Not To Fine? This is the Question

1. To Fine or Not To Fine? This is the Question Anthony Chow, Ph.D. aschow@uncg.edu Assistant Professor Department of Library and Information Studies The University of North Carolina at Greensboro -- Christian Burris Head of Serials Acquisitions, Wake Forest University burriscj@wfu.edu -- Chase Baity -- David Rachlin

2. Overview • Study Introduction • Literature Review • Research Method • Findings • Discussion and Recommendations

3. Introduction UNCG New Faculty Grant • What impact will the use of positive reinforcement have on patron behavior in returning library resources on time? • Will the use of positive reinforcement lead to more positive user perceptions of the library? • Will the use of positive reinforcement lead to higher circulation of library resources per patron?

4. Literature • Some libraries are starting to rethink the use of fines as there is a growing concern about its negative effect on public perception and library patrons (Towsey, 2008) • A recent study found that 41% of 12-17 year old youth surveyed no longer visited the library because they owed over due fines (Heeger, 2007). • When amnesty programs are implemented that allow creative ways for previous patrons to “exonerate” themselves by reading to kids, donating to a good cause, or use of an anonymous “fine” jar, they are often extremely successful (Green, 2008; Heeger, 2007; US Fed News, 2005; Ries-Taggart, 2004).

5. Reinforcement & Punishment • From a behavioral psychology stand point, fines serve as both a punishment (adverse stimulus intended to decrease undesirable behavior – returning books late) and as negative reinforcement (threat of punishment is removed if library resources are returned on time). • Either way, ironically, the actual desired behavior of returning a library resource on time is usually never rewarded or even acknowledged for that matter by the library. • Turning library resources in on time is expected and assumed; it is only when something is overdue that patrons are contacted by the library. • This situation is counterintuitive to several research grounded tenets about human behavior and rewards and punishments – desired behaviors to be strengthened and increase should be positively reinforced, undesirable behaviors to be decreased should be punished, reinforcement in general is stronger and more effective then punishment, and using them both (rewards to increase desired behavior, punishments to reduce undesired behavior) is the most powerful combination of all.

6. Reinforcement Theory • Carrot and the Stick • Both stimulate the medial orbitofrontal cortex • Carrot or stick? It’s the same…

7. Fines and Reinforcement Theory • Carrot and the Stick • Both stimulate the medial orbitofrontal cortex • Carrot or stick? It’s the same… Return Return Return

8. Rewards and Avoiding punishment are equals • Avoiding or “dodging” punishment is its own reward • In other words fear of a fine and joy of “not paying it” are equals: 1-1=0

9. Rationale for fines • Get resources back on time • Revenue generator • “Teach” responsibility

10. Study Hypotheses • H1: G1 and G2 will check out more items than G3 • H2: G1 and G2 will have less overdue items than G3 • H3: G1 and G2 will have less fines than G3 • H4: G1 and G2 will be more satisfied than G3 • H5: G1 will be most satisfied • H6: G2 overall will have less overdue items and fines

11. Let’s empirically test it • What impact will the use of positive reinforcement have on patron behavior in returning library resources on time? • Will the use of positive reinforcement lead to more positive user perceptions of the library? • Will the use of positive reinforcement lead to higher circulation of library resources per patron?

12. Method • 85 university undergraduate students were randomly sampled and stratified into new and returning student groups:

13. Method (2) • Randomly sampled through institutional research • Group 1 – Rewards only • If checked out and returned items on time with no over dues: • “Get out of jail free card” • “Thank you” email • Invitation to MVP reception • Extended one week checkout privileges • Group 2 – Same as G1 along with traditional fines • Group 3 – Control group (no change) • Three data collection points of circulation history and fines • Baseline – 10/09 • Set 2 – 12/09 • Set 3 – 2/10

14. FindingsUsage and Return Rates (Sept. – Dec. 2009)

15. Findings (2) – Resources and Overdue Items

16. Findings (3) H1: G1 and G2 will check out more items than G3

17. Findings (4) H2: G1 and G2 will have less overdue items than G3

18. Findings (5) H3: G1 and G2 will have less fines than G3

19. Findings (6) H4: G1 and G2 will be more satisfied than G3

20. Findings (7) H5: G1 will be most satisfied

21. Findings (8) H6: G2 overall will have less overdue items and fines

22. Findings (9) – Participants believe rewards would have impact…. Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

23. Findings (10) – Reward effectiveness? Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree

24. Which is more effective?

25. Should libraries offer rewards?

26. Would rewards positively impact perceptions of libraries?

27. What do librarians think? • Good idea, hard to implement • Noticed no impact of participating students • No one used fine waiver certificates

28. Conclusions & Recommendations • Study’s hypotheses were supported • RQ1: What impact will the use of positive reinforcement have on patron behavior in returning library resources on time? • Positive impact • Patrons and Librarians agree a combination would be more effective • RQ2: Will the use of positive reinforcement lead to more positive user perceptions of the library? • Yes, overall satisfaction rating for G1 was statistically significantly higher

29. Conclusions & Recommendations (2) • RQ3: Will the use of positive reinforcement lead to higher circulation of library resources per patron? • Yes – G2 (6.0), G1 (5.2), and G3 (4.7)

30. Conclusions & Recommendations (3) • Reinforcement only – higher satisfaction, more items, more overdue and higher fines • Reinforcement plus fines – less overdue, less fines, lower satisfaction than reinforcement only • Fine only – less items, more overdue, less satisfaction

31. Conclusions & Recommendations (4) • Rewards were not very effective: • Intrinsic more than extrinsic motivations for checking out items • MVP receptions were poorly attended • Suggestions: • “First dibs” • Advisory board or online survey to help choose books • Extended check-outs • “Thanks” is nice • Free raffles

32. Rewards and Avoiding punishment are equals • In other words fear of a fine and joy of “not paying it” are equals: 1-1=0 (neutralizes) • Adding a reward: 1-1+1=1 !!! Reward Overdue fine Motivation to RETURN is stronger!!! Not Paying it

33. Thank You!! • Anthony Chow – aschow@uncg.edu • Christian Burris – burriscj@wfu.edu

34. References • Green, E.R.(2008). The lighter side of the bookshelves: Should libraries fine for late books?Colorado Libraries • v. 34 no. 3 (2008) p. 62, • Heeger, P.B. (2007). Better Late Than Never. School Library Journal, 53(2), Retrieved January 26, 2009, from • Research Library database. • Oder, N. (2006). Philadelphia Backs Off Fine Policy. Library Journal, 131(3), 20-20. • Pew Internet & American Life Project (2004). New Report Finds Libraries Help Close Digital Divide but Struggle • to Sustain Public Access Computing Services. Retrieved on January 29th from • http://www.pewinternet.org/press_release.asp?r=74 • Ries-Taggart, J.T. (2004). Columbus Metropolitan Library Allows Kids to Read Off Fines. Public • Libraries, 43(1), 16.  • Rodney, M. J., Lance, K. C., and Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2003). The Impact of Michigan school librarians on • academic achievement: Kids who have libraries succeed. Lansing, MI: Library of Michigan. • Towsey, M. (2008, July). Abolish public library fines!. Library & Information Update, 7(7/8), 30-30. • US Fed News Service (2005). Library Fines Headed To Tsunami Relief. Retrieved January 26, 2009, from • Research Library database.