Unit 3: Motivation 1

Another schizophrenic unit Motivation from a behavioral perspective: The

motivating operation (MO) Wednesday

Motivation from a traditional I/O perspective Monday

E3: Wednesday, 10/02

Spring Registration2

Spring schedule is available for viewing Monday, Sept. 30

Graduate students can register for classes beginning at 8AM on Monday, Oct. 14

You should register for your spring classes at 8AM on Monday, Oct. 14! 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 EOs/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 change, thus the excerpt from their article refers to “UEOs” rather than “UMOs” I’ll talk about the difference between a UMO (UEO) and a CMO

(CEO) in a moment

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)

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 in the sense that 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)

Difference between UMOs and CMOs, NFE11

UMO = Unconditioned motivating operation UMOs make unconditioned reinforcers more or less

reinforcing or unconditioned punishers more or less punishing

And evoke or suppress behavior that has been reinforced or punished by unconditioned reinforcers or unconditioned punishers

CMO = Conditioned motivating operation CMOs make conditioned reinforcers more or less

reinforcing or conditioned punishers more or less punishing

And evoke or suppress behavior that has been reinforced or punished by conditioned reinforcers or conditioned punishers

(Olson et al. excerpt used the term UEO; I don’t talk about the differences in my paper; most MOs that are relevant inbusiness settings are CMOs, but not all – caffeine or nicotine deprivation would be UMOs, for example)

Why do we need a new term for “motivation?”12

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?”13

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

If we can’t predict behavior in complex settings, which we often can’t, does that invalidate our science of behavior?

14

A physics analogy

If a person dropped a feather from the top of the Washington Monument would a physicist be ableto predict where it would land?

(complexity of variables and unknown variables – we don’t have access to a person’s complete reinforcement history nordo we always have access to motivational variables that affect an individual)

Our own worst enemy for years:Reinforcement = Motivation15

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- back to the MO. In one sense, it is quite understandable that we have been criticized by others for ignoring motivation)

SO1A: Two reasons for success in applied settings, despite ignoring MOs16

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 example17

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

18

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 Effects19

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

20

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.

21

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 Effect22

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 Effect23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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.29

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)

30

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.

31

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

32

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.

(read SO)

SO 6: Srs that can be affected by food deprivation and satiation (NFE)

33

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)

34

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, although Olson et al. do)

SO8: Some OBM examples35

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 examples36

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 examples37

Work sampling by supervisor ( objective measurement of performance)

Assume:R (working) ––> Sr/Sp (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

38

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 MO39

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 example40

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)41

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 don’t 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

42

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…

SO10: Discussion Question43

In the following example, analyze and diagram the possible behavioral functions of the goal as an SD and/or MO.

The customer service division of an electric utility is interestedin how long it takes to turn on an electric meter at a home after a customer requests it. The customer service reps track the number of days from request for service to meter turn-on and thus have on-going individual feedback available. The manager sets a goal of a six day turnaround time. In addition, she establishes a monthly bonus when workers average a six-day turnaround. Turn around time improves.

Questions over SOs 1-10?44

TRADITIONAL MOTIVATIONAL THEORY

From Aamodt 45

SO11: 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

46

SO11: 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

47

(I have already dealt with this, but it is important, so….explanatory fiction)

SO12: MO and driving a worker to action – translation of the term “drive”48

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

Predisposition to be motivated: Two complex conceptual issues (NFE)

49

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

50

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)

51

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

SO 16: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs52

Probably the best known theory of motivation (even though there isn’t much 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 16: Description of Maslow’s theory

53

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

54

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

SO18: Translation of “needs” using Maslow as an opportunity

55

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)

SO18: Translation of “needs” - using Maslow as an opportunity

56

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)

SO19: Expectancy Theory57

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

58

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)

59

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

60

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?

61

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.

SO19B: Behavioral translations62

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)

SO20: Adams’ Equity Theory63

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

64

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)

65

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

SO22: A behavioral analysis of inequity

66

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

22(1): Analysis of Inequity (FE)

67

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)

22(2): Analysis of Inequity, Underpayment (FE)

68

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 23-24: How is OBM portrayed in I/O Psychology texts?69

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

SO23: Review of texts in I/O70

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)

71

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)

SO24: Review of texts in I/O

SO25: Excerpts in coursepack72

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.73

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.

SO25: More excerpts74

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.

SO25A: So what does the main concern about OBM appear to be?

75

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

76

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

77

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?

SO25B: What was the second most frequently mentioned concern?

78

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?

79

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”

SO25: “Endnote” (NFE)

THE END!80

Questions? Comments?