Upload
april-harrison
View
35
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Unit 3: Motivation. Another unit with multiple personalities Wednesday Motivation from a behavioral perspective: The motivating operation (MO) Monday Motivation from a traditional I/O perspective E3: Wednesday, 10/01. Spring Registration. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Unit 3: Motivation 1
Another unit with multiple personalities Wednesday
Motivation from a behavioral perspective: The motivating operation (MO)
Monday Motivation from a traditional I/O perspective
E3: Wednesday, 10/01
Spring Registration2
Spring schedule is available for viewing Monday, Sept. 29
Graduate students can register for classes beginning at 8AM on Monday, Oct. 13
You should register for your spring classes at 8AM on Monday, Oct. 13! Some of our classes fill quickly, particularly
6340!
And, please help pass the word along!
The MO: Introduction to unit3
MO material for the unit Article by me based on a chapter written by Jack
Michael (2007, in Cooper, Heron, & Heward) Excerpt at the end of the study objectives from an
article by Olson, Laraway, & Austin about MOs in OBM
Motivating Operations = Establishing Operations Concept of the EO was introduced by Michael around
1980 About 6 years ago, based on an article by Laraway,
Snycerski, Poling, & Michael, different terminology was introduced
Article by Olson et al. was published before the change, but I updated the terminology
MO Introduction, cont.4
We haven’t made much practical use of the MO in OBM with respect to our interventions, so why cover it? Traditional I/O psychologists criticize behavior
analysis because we “ignore motivation” The MO does play a very important role in our
conceptual analyses, and when you read the OBM literature, authors are making considerable use of it
(trouble knowing how to handle this concept in this class, difficult, whole unit, but I don’t want to spend a whole unit on it, we haven’t made much use of it. I dropped it at one point but felt I needed to add it back in)
Lotfizadeb, Edwards, & Poling (2014)
Some basics5
In common sense terms, behavior is a function of: Knowledge and motivation: a person must
“know how” to do something and “want to” do it In traditional psychology, “wanting to do
something” has been defined and discussed as motivation
Some basics6
Skinner, early, talked about motivation in terms of three main factors: Satiation, deprivation, and termination of aversive
stimulation However, recognize, as Skinner did, that
reinforcement schedules also play a role in some of the features of behavior that have been attributed to “motivation” by traditional psychologists VR schedules yield high rates of responding without
pauses, for example Intermittent schedules make behavior more resistant to
extinction than an FR1
Motivation according to Skinner
7
Deprivation Food deprivation makes you “want” food Water deprivation makes you “want” water
Satiation Food satiation makes you “want” food less (or not at
all) Water satiation makes you “want” water less (or not at
all) Aversive stimulation
Pain makes you “want” to get rid of the pain Loud aversive noise makes you “want” to get rid of the
noise. Very high temperature makes you “want” to get cooler
(back to motivation according to Skinner; want is not a behavioral way to talk)
What does “want” mean behaviorally, then?8
Food deprivation Makes food more reinforcing and Evokes behaviors that have in the past
resulted in food as a consequence Food satiation
Makes food less reinforcing (or not reinforcing at all) and
Suppresses behaviors that have in the past resulted in food as a consequence
Motivating Operations9
MO: Response ––––> ConsequenceTime 1 MO (food deprivation): R (go to refrigerator) –––> SR (food)
Time 2 MO (food deprivation):
A: Makes food reinforcingB: Will evoke going to the refrigerator
Time 3 MO (food satiation):
A: Makes food less reinforcingB: Will suppress going to the refrigerator
So, in general:10
A motivating operation Makes a consequence more or less reinforcing (or
punishing) Evokes or suppresses behavior that has, in the past,
resulted in that consequence Considered a “momentary” variable: it
helps determine what a person will do at that moment in time If food deprived, you are likely to eat If in pain, you are likely to take an aspirin
Helps determine which behavior a person will engage in at a particular moment in time If really “hungry” and you are also a “little” tired, you are
likely to eat rather than take a nap
(also important - continuum, not all or none)
Why do we need a new term for “motivation?”11
The goals of science are to explain, control, and then predict the phenomenon of interest This is done through the discovery of “If-then” laws Our principles in behavior analysis are “if-then” laws just
as the laws of physics If water is heated to 100 degrees centigrade at sea level, then
characteristics result which we term boiling If an object in a vacuum on earth is dropped, then it will fall a
distance expressed by 1/2gt2
If a behavior is followed by a reinforcer, then it will increase in frequency in the future
If a behavior is reinforced in the presence of a stimulus and not in its absence, then the stimulus will become an SD and evoke the behavior when it is presented
(I am going to have to get a little conceptual here and deal a bit with philosophy of science)
Why do we need a new term for “motivation?”12
In order to determine the “if” in an “if-then” relationship, you must be able to reliably observe it and measure it
Motivation as typically conceptualized Motivation is an internal state, sometimes perceived as
genetic, sometimes perceived as socially learned (nature vs. nurture)
You can’t measure it directly because it is internal; thus you must infer it from behavior or ask individuals to self report
Motivating operation places “motivation” in the environment We can “see it” and we can measure it independently of
behavior or self reports (which we know are unreliable) Thus, in keeping with our other principles of behavior and
the principles of other hard sciences, we can observe it and manipulate it, and determine its effects on behavior
Our own worst enemy for years:Reinforcement = Motivation
13
If behavior isn’t occurring, it must be due to the fact that it is not being sufficiently reinforced
And, it is often the case that many behavioral problems can be solved by altering consequences, but not all
(OK- is quite understandable that we have been criticized by others for ignoring motivation)
SO1A: Two reasons for success in applied settings, despite ignoring MOs14
1. Often behavioral problems are due to problems with consequences: insufficient reinforcement or punishment
Most OBM problems can be solved by altering antecedents and consequences
2. Most reinforcers in applied settings, particularly OBM settings consist of generalized conditioned reinforcers. GSrs are usually effective at any time because they have been paired with so many other reinforcers
Praise, money, signs of success, “funny money” tokens, etc.
SO1B: Money as an example15
In our society, money is often paired with food when we are food deprived, water when we are water deprived, relief from pain when we are in pain -
Therefore, money will function as a reinforcer whenever a person is food deprived, water deprived, in pain, or some combination of them.
Because generalized Srs are paired with so many other reinforcers when those reinforcers are deprived, they will be reinforcing almost at any time - because one or more of the relevant MOs are present almost at any time. (same for praise; emphasis really should be on the MO, not the number of reinforcers)
SO 2: Name and describe the two main cojoint effects that MOs have
16
1. Value Altering Effect: They alter the reinforcing/punishing value of a consequence. That is, they make a consequence more or less reinforcing. (Note carefully: they do not make a behavior more or less reinforcing; they make a consequence more or less reinforcing!)
2. Behavior Altering Effect:They immediately evoke or suppress behaviors that have resulted in the consequence in the past
• In lay terms: MOs (a) make an individual “want” or “not want” a consequence (unacceptable) and (b) immediately increase or decrease the frequency/likelihood of the response that produced that consequence in the past.
(terms are very descriptive)
SO2: Examples of the cojoint effects of MOs-Value Altering and Behavior Altering Effects17
Examples of MOs that increase the reinforcing value of a consequence and evoke behaviors:
Food deprivation (1) makes food more reinforcing and (2) immediately evokes behaviors that have, in the past, been reinforced with food (e.g., going to the refrigerator; asking for food).
Becoming too cold (1) makes warmth more reinforcing and (2) immediately evokes behaviors that have, in the past, been reinforced with warmth (e.g., putting on a jacket; turning up the heat).
SO 2: More examples of the cojoint effects: Value Altering and Behavior Altering Effects
18
Examples of MOs that decrease the reinforcing value of a consequence and immediately suppress behaviors:
Food satiation (1) makes food less reinforcing and (2) immediately suppresses behaviors that have, in the past, been reinforced with food (e.g., suppresses going to the refrigerator and asking for food).
Becoming too warm (1) makes warmth less reinforcing and (2) immediately suppresses behaviors that have, in the past, been reinforced with warmth (e.g., suppresses putting on a jacket and turning up the heat).
SO 2: Main effects of MOs cont.
19
Value Altering Effect MOs can increase or decrease the reinforcing
value of a consequence More reinforcing: Reinforcer Establishing Effect Less reinforcing: Reinforcer Abolishing Effect
Behavior Altering Effect MOs can immediately evoke or suppress
behavior that has preceded the relevant reinforcer in the past Evoke behavior: Evocative Effect Suppress behavior: Abative Effect
(descriptiveness of terms)
SO 3: Table 2 - MOs with a Reinforcer Establishing Effect and an Evocative Effect20
Pain increase (1) makes a decrease in pain more reinforcing, and (2) evokes behaviors that have, in the past, terminated pain (taking an aspirin).
Sleep deprivation (1) makes sleep more reinforcing, and (2) evokes behaviors that have, in the past, led to sleep (getting into bed, turning off lights, turning off the ringer on your cell phone, etc.)
(sleep – physiological state, not a behavior; If establishing, also evocative: ee)
SO 3: More MOs with a Reinforcer Establishing Effect and an Evocative Effect21
Being too warm (1) makes becoming cooler more reinforcing, and (2) evokes behaviors that have, in the past, resulted in becoming cooler (taking off a jacket).
Salt ingestion (1) makes water/liquids more reinforcing, and (2) evokes behaviors that have, in the past, led to water/liquids (getting a glass of water, going to a water fountain, etc.)
SO 4: Table 3 - MOs with a Reinforcer Abolishing Effect and an Abative Effect
22
Sleep satiation (1) makes sleep less reinforcing, and (2) suppresses behaviors that have, in the past, led to sleep (suppresses lying down, turning off the cell phone, pulling the shades down, etc.).
Pain decrease* (1) makes a decrease in pain less reinforcing, and (2) suppresses behaviors that have, in the past, terminated pain. (just like satiation!)
(As go together: aa)
*Remember to think about a continuum here: you can have a lotof pain, or not much pain. If you don’t have much pain, then a further decrease in pain is not going to be very reinforcing.
SO 4: More MOs with a Reinforcer Abolishing Effect and an Abative Effect
23
Being too cold (1) makes becoming cooler less reinforcing, and (2) suppresses behaviors that have, in the past, led to becoming cooler. (suppresses taking off a sweater, turning on a fan, etc.)
Activity (1) makes more activity and physical exertion less reinforcing, and (2) suppresses behaviors that have, in the past, led to activity (suppresses putting on running shoes, putting on exercise clothes, getting your bike)
(just like sleep, activity as a physiological phenomenon – i.e., depletion of oxygen in cells)
SOs 3 & 4: Sample exam questions on the Value Altering Effect
24
What is the reinforcer establishing effect of being too cold?
What is the reinforcer establishing effect of a sudden increase in bright sunshine?
What is the reinforcer abolishing effect of being too cold?
What is the reinforcer abolishing effect of activity?
NOTE CAREFULLY: It is the consequence that becomes more or less reinforcing, NOT THE BEHAVIOR. Behaviors cannot become more or less reinforcing!!
SOs 3 & 4: Sample exam questions on the Behavior Altering Effect
25
What is the evocative effect of being too cold? What is the evocative effect of a sudden
increase in bright sunshine? What is the abative effect of being too cold? What is the abative effect of sleep?
NOTE CAREFULLY: It is not correct to say that the abative effect “increases not eating (food sat) or not taking off a sweater (becoming too cold).”
Why isn’t it correct??
SO 5: MOs are often confused with SDs
26
5A How are they similar? They both precede behavior They both evoke behavior (but for very
different reasons) 5B How do they differ?
SDs are correlated with the differential availability of a reinforcer (whether or not you can get the reinforcer)
MOs are correlated with the differential effectiveness of a reinforcer (that is, the extent to which the consequence is “reinforcing” to you at that moment in time)
(confusion is understandable)
MOs versus SDs, cont.27
Differential effectiveness vs. differential availability of a consequence are different You may be hungry (food deprived) and thus
food is an effective reinforcer, however, it is not available.
On the other hand: Food may be available, but you may not be
hungry. MO: Related to whether or not you are
hungry SD: Related to whether or not food is
available
SO 5: SDs vs. MOs (diagrams in article, NFE)
28
Rat example:
A. MO: (food dep): SD (light on): R (press lever)--> SR (food)
B. MO: (food dep): S∆ (light off): R (press lever)-->Ext (no fd)
Food is reinforcing, but only available when SD is present
C. MO (food dep): SD (light on): R (press lever)--> SR (food)
D. MO (food sat): SD (light on): R (press lever)--> Food, but not SR
Food is available, but only reinforcing when food dep.
29
SO 5: SDs vs. MOs, cont.Human example (sometimes confusing because of verbal beh):
A. MO (food dep):
SD (Good Food Here!): R (walk in store)--> SR (food)
B. MO (food dep): S∆ (hardware store): R (walk in store)-->Ext (no food)
Food is reinforcing, but only available when SD is present
C. MO (food dep): SD (Good Food Here!): R (walk in store)--> SR (food)
D. MO (food sat): SD (Good Food Here!): R (walk in store)--> Food,
but not SR
Food is available, but only reinforcing when food dep.
SO6: (NFE) MOs also affect conditioned reinforcers
30
Value Altering Effect of an MO: The MO increases or decreases the
reinforcing value of the consequence Not only does the MO affect the reinforcing
value of SRs, it also affects the reinforcing value of any and all Srs (conditioned reinforcers) that have been repeatedly paired with the SR in the past.
SO 6: Srs that can be affected by food deprivation and satiation (NFE)
31
Food deprivation would not only make food more reinforcing it would also make the following Srs more reinforcing: Sight and smell of food Pictures of food The word “food” The sight of the refrigerator
Alternatively, food satiation would make the above Srs less reinforcing
(sign in the distance, can’t quite make it out)
SO6: UMOs vs. CMOs again (NFE)
32
When MOs affect unconditioned reinforcers and behaviors reinforced by unconditioned reinforcers, we call the MO an Unconditioned Motivating Operation
When MOs affect conditioned reinforcers and behaviors reinforced by conditioned reinforcers, we call the MO a Conditioned Motivating Operation
Food deprivation is an UMO for food and any behavior reinforced by food, but a CMO for a picture of food or the word “food” and behavior
reinforced by those stimuliI am not requiring that distinction for this class - nor am I going to talk about the three types of CEOs
SO8: Some OBM examples33
Feedback Assume:R (making widets) ––> Sc (sight of completed widget)The sight of the completed widget is not a reinforcerNow:MO (fbk): R (making widgets)––> Sr (sight of completed widget)
Feedback may: (a) make the sight of the completed widget reinforcing - the reinforcer establishing effect, and (b) evoke making widgets - the evocative effect.
Why not an SD? The sight of the completed widget was present before the feedback, but was not reinforcing. Hence, in this example, the feedback cannot be an SD because the sight of the completed widget was available even when feedback wasn’t. No S delta condition, but give a more complete answer:)(students seem to have trouble with these and I can’t figure out why, so if you don’t understand them, please ask questions!))
SO8: Some OBM examples34
Irritation at the supervisor (you are angry at supv/union conflicts)
Assume:MO (no irritation at supv.): R (work slowly) ––> Sc (signs of
distress/anger by supv.)The signs of distress/anger (frowns, raised voice) by the supervisor are not reinforcers, and may actually be punishers
Now:MO (irritation at supervisor): R (work slowly, etc.)––> Sr (signs of
distress by supv.)
Irritation at supv. may: (a) make signs of distress/anger by supervisor reinforcing - the reinforcer establishing effect, and (b) evoke sabotage, work slow down, etc. - the evocative effect.
Why isn’t the irritation an SD?
SO8: Some OBM examples35
Work sampling by supervisor ( objective measurement of performance)
Assume:R (working) ––> Sc (supervisor praises or criticizes your work)
However, the supervisor’s praise and criticism are not reinforcers or punishers - why? He is not accurately evaluating your performance or doesn’t understand it.
Now:MO (work sampling): R (working) ––> Sr/Sp (praise/criticism)
Work sampling may: (a) make praise/criticism by supervisor reinforcing/punishing- the reinforcer establishing effect, and (b) evoke harder work - the evocative effect.
Why isn’t the work sampling an SD?
When could it be an SD as opposed to an MO? (not in SOs)(remember Komaki, U2)
SO9: The UMO of activity deprivation/satiation and monitoring performance
36
Olson et al. exampleEmployees observe a monitoring screen that tracks the operation of expensive machines. Employees need to make changes to the machines if they see something that is out of tolerance to avoid very costly defects in the product. Fidgeting, pacing, looking around are incompatible with and disrupt the vigilance task Can be generalized to any situation that requires
on-going vigilance: i.e., security monitors
Activity as an MO37
Activity deprivation (Table 2) Makes activity more reinforcing
Reinforcer establishing effect Evokes behavior that has, in the past, resulted
in activity Evocative effect
Activity satiation (Table 3) Makes activity less reinforcing
Reinforcer abolishing effect Suppresses behavior that has, in the past,
resulted in activity Abative effect
(not activity as a behavior, physiological phenomenon - depletion of oxygen in cells)
Analysis of example38
MO: Activity deprivation - monitoring for long periods of time:
1. Makes activity reinforcing - reinforcer establishing effect2. Evokes fidgeting, pacing, looking around- evocative effect
Solution? Change the MO as follows:
MO: Activity satiation - taking stretching/exercise breaks:
1. Makes activity less reinforcing - reinforcer abolishing effect2. Suppresses fidgeting, pacing, looking around- abative effect
SO9: Potential advantages of this type of MO manipulation (NFE)39
Easier, more effective/efficient interventions One intervention without considering MO:
Observe and reinforce mechanics for wearing/keeping on safety goggles
Change MOs instead first (note both Sp and MO manipulation) Buy goggles that don’t obscure vision and fit well –
eliminating the MO for taking them off (as well as the punishment for putting them on)
Increase quality of working lifeEliminating aversive environmental events in the environment (relevant to MOs that relate to aversive antecedent events - too hot, too noisy, latex gloves don’t fit well and make it difficult to manipulate objects, etc.)
SO9: Another potential advantage of considering the MO in our analyses
40
May help us account for momentary differences in performance. Why is performance better at one time rather than another?
Fatigue causing error (14 hour shifts in hospitals?)
Fatigue and hunger causing PSY 6450 students to make more errors at the end of class and become “inattentive.” Real problem with 3 hour classes!
Nicotine deprivation causing inattentiveness, “haziness,” inability to concentrateI really would prefer when I fly that all of the pilots be nonsmokers…
Questions over SOs 1-9?41
TRADITIONAL MOTIVATIONAL THEORY
From Aamodt 42
SO10: Conceptual differences - motivation
Aamodt’s definitionThe internal force that drives a worker to action as well as external factors that encourage action
How can you directly measure an “internal force?” You can’t. Thus, from this traditional perspective motivation must be inferred from “action” - (performance, behavior)
The MO places “motivation” in the environment
43
SO10: Conceptual differences - motivation
What is the important conceptual and empirical advantage?You can measure “motivation” objectively, independently from behavior
From a philosophy of science perspective, is there a circular reasoning problem?We know a person is motivated because she/he performs well; the person performs well because she/he is motivated
44
(I have already dealt with this, but it is important, so….explanatory fiction)
SO11: MO and driving a worker to action – translation of the term “drive”45
The MO: Determines what is and what is not
reinforcing at a particular moment and Evokes or abates behaviors that have, in
the past, resulted in that consequence
SO 16: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
46
Probably the best known theory of motivation (even though there isn’t empirical support for it)
Academicians haven’t supported it since the 1970s
Still very popular, particularly in business schools, public administration, and engineering management
Need satisfaction theory(Plane, dissertation in public admin, dissertation orals and committee with a member from business, bit of a problem with the fact that Aamdot states that it may still be useful even though it is not supported by research.)
SO 15: Description of Maslow’s theory
47
Behavior is motivated by the satisfaction of innate/genetic needs
There are five basic needs, arranged in a hierarchy
When a lower level need is satisfied or almost satisfied, then the next higher level need comes to strength and motivates behavior
Maslow’s Need Hierarchy
48
Biological: air, water, food
Safety: freedom from threat, harm
Social: belonging, friendship
Ego: respect, recognition
Self-actualization:“Be all that you can be”
(can’t self-actualize completely - dead)
Lower order
Higher order
SO16: Translation of “needs” using Maslow as an opportunity
49
Maslow’s lower level needs: biological and safety needs Need for food, water, air Need for freedom from pain, discomfort
The translation: MOs (actually UMOs) and their corresponding unconditioned reinforcers When an individual is food deprived Food becomes reinforcing and Behaviors that have resulted in food in the past
will be evoked
(food, water, pain termination - all unconditioned SRs; not in SOs)
SO16: Translation of “needs” - using Maslow as an opportunity
50
Maslow’s higher level needs: social, ego, and self-actualization Need for attention, companionship, signs of
success, praise and recognition from others The translation: MOs (actually CMOs) and the
corresponding conditioned reinforcers When an individual is “attention” deprived Attention becomes reinforcing and Behaviors that have resulted in attention in the
past will be evoked
(higher level needs - conditioned reinforcers- expectancy theory next)
SO18: Expectancy Theory51
Expectancy theory is very interesting from a behavioral perspective If a person is an expectancy theorist, he/she
would end up recommending the same interventions as we would - conceptual differences, but not practical differences
18A: Learn major components of expectancy theory
18B: Translate those components behaviorally
52
1. Force = Effort ––> Performance ––> 4. Outcomes
5. Valence
2. Expectancy 3. Instrumentality
Pay
Praise
Status
Independence
New computer
Conference
1. Force: Level of motivation, “pressure to act”
2. Expectancy: Perception about the relationship between effort and performance. If I work harder will my performance be better? a. Low expectancy = little relation, decreases motivation b. High expectancy = strong relation, increases motivation (come back to this)
3. Instrumentality: Perception about the relationship between performance and outcomes. If my performance is better will my outcomes be better? a. Low instrumentality = little relation, decreases motivation b. High instrumentality = strong relation, increases motivation
4. Outcomes: Organizational rewards (and punishers)
5. Valence: Feelings about each outcomes, ratings of -10 to +10
(expanded version; Vroom, Porter & Lawler; definition of expectancy different; look at expectancy)
53
1. Force = Effort ––> Performance ––> 4. Outcomes
5. Valence
2. Expectancy 3. Instrumentality
Pay
Praise
Status
Independence
New computer
Conference
Expectancy: Perception about the relationship between effort and performance. If I work harder will my performance be better? a. Low expectancy = little relation, decreases motivation b. High expectancy = strong relation, increases motivation
Task clarificationJob aidsGoalsEquipmentKnowledge & abilityWork process
Back to expectancy
54
1. Force = Effort ––> Performance ––> 4. Outcomes
5. Valence
2. Expectancy 3. Instrumentality
Pay
Praise
Status
Independence
New computer
Conference
1. Force: Level of motivation, “pressure to act”
2. Expectancy: Perception about the relationship between effort and performance. If I work harder will my performance be better? a. Low expectancy = little relation, decreases motivation b. High expectancy = strong relation, increases motivation (come back to this)
3. Instrumentality: Perception about the relationship between performance and outcomes. If my performance is better will my outcomes be better? a. Low instrumentality = little relation, decreases motivation b. High instrumentality = strong relation, increases motivation
4. Outcomes: Organizational rewards (and punishers)
5. Valence: Feelings about each outcomes, ratings of -10 to +10
Back to full theory: Any questions about theother components?
55
1. Force = Effort ––> Performance ––> 4. Outcomes
5. Valence
2. Expectancy 3. Instrumentality
Pay
Praise
Status
Independence
New computer
Conference
Workers will be maximally motivated if:a) Expectancy is highb) Instrumentality is highc) Valences are high and positive
Workers will not be maximally motivated if any of the aboveis not the case. The level of motivation is determined by which of the above is present and to what degree.
SO18B: Behavioral translations56
Force: how hard a person works Expectancy: to what extent will my work
behaviors lead to successful performance/accomplishments
Instrumentality: to what extent are rewards and punishers contingent upon performance
Outcomes: the consequences of performance
Valence: reinforcing or punishing value of each consequence (resulting, if you will in a “balance of consequences analysis”)
(Adams’ equity, next slide)
SO19: Adams’ Equity Theory57
Adams developed a social comparison motivational theory (and satisfaction)
We compare ourselves to another individual with respect to the ratio of work inputs to outcomes, and if those ratios are not equal, we become motivated to bring the ratios into balance
That is, inequity between those ratios creates tension, which causes the individual to become motivated to reduce that tension(inputs: education, experience, how hard we work, health, etc.; outcomes - what we get, NOT outputs, what we accomplish)
Social Comparison Theory
58
100/50
YourInputs/Outcomes
Comparison OtherInputs/Outcomes
Equity = Equal Ratios 100/10050/50
100/100
100/100100/10075/75
Inequity = Unequal Ratios
Underpayment 100/100
150/100 100/100
Overpayment 100/100 100/50
100/100 150/100
(Needless to say, perhaps, we seem to have a high tolerance for overpayment and low tolerance for underpayment)
Ways to reduce inequity (NFE)
59
Behavioral ways Change inputs or outcomes Get other to change inputs or outcomes Get supervisor to change outcomes
“Cognitive” ways (no behavior change) Change perception about your inputs or
outcomes Change perception about “other’s” inputs or
outcomes Change who you compare yourself to
SO21: A behavioral analysis of inequity
60
There is merit in Adams’ social comparison concept and we do seem to ignore it in our analyses - we do compare our rewards/outcomes to the rewards/outcomes of others
In our society, signs of equity (fairness) tend to be reinforcing and signs of inequity (unfairness) tend to be punishing Think of kids and students, “But it’s not FAIR!” Equates to underpayment in Adams’ theory
21(1): Analysis of Inequity (FE)
61
Signs of (stimuli correlated with) inequity function as an MO that: Makes equity more reinforcing (reinforcer
establishing effect) Evokes behaviors that have, in the past,
restored equity (evocative effect)
21(2): Analysis of Inequity, Underpayment (FE)
62
Signs of inequity related to underpayment function as an MO that: Makes one’s current consequences less
reinforcing (reinforcer abolishing effect) Abates behaviors that have, in the past,
resulted in those reinforcers (abative effect) and/or
Evokes behaviors that have, in the past, restored equity (evocative effect)
SOs 22-24: How is OBM portrayed in I/O Psychology texts?
63
From Unit 1 recall that there is not much “cross-fertilization” between OBM and I/O psychology although our goals are identical
Until recently, I/O psychology texts did not say much about OBM
Two years ago, when I reviewed the top selling 8 I/O texts, I found that times are changing
SO22: Review of texts in I/O64
Four of the 8 discussed OBM in the motivation chapter, both accurately and favorably
One of the 8 included OBM in the motivation chapter, but portrayed it unfavorably
Three didn’t mention OBM in the motivation chapter, but did mention the importance of reinforcement in the training chapters
(only the first for the exam)
65
Why is this important? These are the texts that students in “traditional” I/O
psychology programs are reading If we want to establish a closer relationship with
traditional I/O psychology, it is important for us to know how they perceive us – both strengths and weaknesses
It is also important for us to learn more about I/O psychology and recognize what they do well that we do not. In my opinion, for example: Personnel selection and placement Survey construction and methodology Diversity (unfair discrimination and cross-cultural I/O psychology)
(most people in OBM don’t know much about IO psychology)
SO23: Review of texts in I/O
SO24: Excerpts in coursepack66
Muchinsky (2006, deleted in 2009)*
The theory entails placing the control of employee motivation in the organization’s hands because organizations can “regulate” the energy output of employees by manipulating reinforcement schedules. Most people would like to feel that they are in control of their own lives rather than being manipulated into certain behavior patterns by the organization. The issue of responsibility for controlling behavior is sensitive because it involves ethical considerations of employee welfare.
*by far, the top selling I/O psychology text
Muchinsky quote, cont.67
If employees work to exhaustion by mismanaging their efforts, they are responsible for their actions. However, if they are manipulated into expending excessive effort, they have been victimized by a force beyond their control, and the organization should be held responsible for their condition.
Issues of ethical responsibility for behavior are not central to the theory, but they are important when it is applied in daily life. Whenever anything is “done” to someone by an outside agent, the question arises of whose values (the individual’s or the agent’s) are being optimized.
SO24: More excerpts68
Edwin Locke (2008)
It was an unpleasant time in the field of psychology, because it was then dominated by the doctrine of behaviorism (with B. F. Skinner as its leader). This very irrational doctrine had dominated psychology for most of the century….Neither Ryan, nor Smith, nor I accepted this doctrine (which started to collapse in the 1970s) but we were in the minority then.
Another quote from Edwin Locke:
I am unalterably opposed to behaviorism, not because I am biased, but because it flies in the face of the most elementary and self-evident facts about human beings: that they possess consciousness and that their minds are their guide to action, or more fundamentally: their means of survival. I am not against the judicious use of contingent rewards and punishments; it is the behaviorist philosophy of man that I oppose.
SO24A: So what does the main concern about OBM appear to be?
69
Philosophical and ethical – ultimately, the concept that behavior is controlled by the environment.
How would you respond to this criticism with respect to other motivational theories?
OBM uses many of the same “motivational” variables as “traditional” I/O theories – self-recording, feedback, goal-setting, rewards….yet these other theories are not subjected to the same criticisms.
(i.e., expectancy theory vs. OBM, goal-setting theory vs. OBM, self-regulation theory vs. OBM)
Here’s a response by a colleague of mine
70
Why wouldn’t managers want to accept the existence of laws of human behavior? One reason is that the concepts of prediction and control run counter to deeply ingrained beliefs about free will. Managers are caught in the dilemma of wanting to change/control behavior while simultaneously retaining the concept of free will. Managers want results but they don’t want to believe that behavior can be controlled. Thus, while most say that they don’t believe it, they act like they do. Managers want effective management tools and interventions, but they don’t want the assumptions upon which those successful tools and interventions must be based – that behavior is caused and determined.
Here’s a response by a colleague of mine
71
A change in terminology may help. Other management theories and techniques have a more pleasant ring to them and the names sound innocent enough. But, isn’t the point in every case, if the manager follows the advice given in the article or book, then the behavior of the employee will be changed in the desired direction? To the extent that such techniques are valid, they are simply conveying accurate laws of behavior. Perceived this way, the semantic cover is blown. But is this semantic cover necessary so that managers do not have to confront the underlying assumption of behavioral control - enabling them to maintain the illusion of free will while still acting to the contrary?
SO24B: What was the second most frequently mentioned concern?
72
That we believe that all individuals are rewarded and punished by the same things
That is, that we do not believe that different things reinforce/punish different individuals
I honestly don’t know where they got this one except for perhaps reviewing our interventions in which we apply the same intervention to all employees in a unit – but don’t others as well?
73
We haven’t helped the authors of I/O psychology texts much: we still do not have a scholarly text in OBM We haven’t given them our perspective on
ethics and the control issue in an easy-to-access source/book/text They still might not like what we have to say, but
at least they would know how we handle these issues
They don’t know how we deal with “different strokes for different folks”
SO24: “Endnote” (NFE)
THE END!74
Questions? Comments?
Predisposition to be motivated: Two complex conceptual issues (NFE)
75
Aamodt includes a section on
Is an employee predisposed to being motivated? His wording is very careful here:
Psychologists have postulated that some employees are more predisposed to to being motivated than are others
Note than he does not attribute the “predisposition” to either an internal innate trait/drive/motive or to external contingencies that may historically have been responsible for someone having such a predisposition (nature vs. nurture, or innate vs. learned): He leaves that open
Also note that in this section, he talks about some very practical environmental things companies can do to affect factors that “predispose” an individual to be motivated (i.e., self-esteem workshops, experience with success, positive supervisory feedback and interactions)
SO13: Predisposition to be motivated Self-esteem (NFE): how to analyze
76
Self-esteem, similar to some of the other variables in this section, is being viewed as an antecedent causal variable
Good self-esteem High motivation Good performance
Thus, interventions are aimed at influencing a person’s self-esteem, which will then influence motivation and, finally, performance
A behavioral perspective views this differently: The same environmental variables that affect performance also influence a person’s self-esteem (emotion, attitude)
R SrPerformance Signs of success/praise/rewards
CS CR (good self-esteem) (first on this slide; thus, our interventions – feedback, rewards, praise, training, task clarification – would directly target the performance;good self-esteem, feeling good about one-self would come as a by-product of the same interventions; example Cole&Hopkins, 1995)
Predisposition to be motivated (still NFE)
77
A second major conceptual issue related to this material (specifically, intrinsic motivation, a need for achievement, and a need for power) Many contend that factors such as intrinsic motivation, a
need for achievement and a need for power are internal (and often innate) “forces”
Behaviorists, as environmentalists, oppose this position and place the causal variables in the environment My translation of Maslow’s needs (SO18) will provide examples of
how to redefine/re-conceptualize the concepts of “needs” and “drives”
My translation of intrinsic motivation which I will cover in U7 also will provide an example of how to redefine/re-conceptualize concepts like this