PSY 6450 Unit 7

1. PSY 6450 Unit 7 Performance and Satisfaction The Hawthorne Studies Intrinsic “Motivation” & Extrinsic Rewards Schedule: Monday and Wednesday, Lecture Monday, 12/02, Exam

2. SO1: Two major speculations about the relationship between performance and satisfaction • Most correlational studies have found low to moderate positive relationships between performance and satisfaction • Satisfaction causes performance • Most common one • If workers are satisfied, they will perform well • If workers are not satisfied they will not perform well • Performance causes satisfaction • If workers perform well, they will be satisfied • If workers do not perform well, they will not be satisfied • In either case, it is hypothesized that there is a causal relationship between the two

3. A B B A A C B SO2: Causal vs. correlational analyses and Coke example • Most studies that have examined the relationship between performance and satisfaction have been correlational. • However, you cannot determine causality from correlational research and therein lies much of the problem with respect to this topic • Three potential interpretations of a strong correlation between two variables

4. Coke causes polio Polio causes people to drink Coke A B B A Warm, moist climate caused both polio and people to drink coke, resulting in a high correlation between coke and polio A C B Coke example, analysis and diagrams • Early 1950s, polio epidemic • Studies found that coke consumption was highly related to incidences of polio (polio virus; exactly what happened with p&s: third variable, way rewards are delivered, headed)

5. High Satisfaction Low Low High Performance High Satisfaction Low Low High Performance High positive, high negative relationship between performance and satisfaction • High positive relationship • People who perform well are satisfied • People who don’t perform well are not satisfied • High negative relationship • People who perform well are not satisfied • People who don’t perform well are satisfied (Before going on, I just want to make sure you understand what is meant by - set the stage for SO3, click for line; performance on x axis)

6. High High High High High Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction Low Low Low Low Low Low High Low Low Low Low High High High High Performance Performance Performance Performance Performance SO3: Zero relationship - 3 situationsBe able to draw diagrams for the exam • Random relationship • Some who perform well are satisfied, some are not • Some who don’t perform well are satisfied, some are not • Satisfaction is the same for all, performance differs • All are relatively satisfied or • None are relatively satisfied • Performance is the same for all, satisfaction differs • All are relatively high performers or • All are relatively low performers (Both sides of the same coin - be careful!!))

7. SO4: Skinner’s analysis • 4A: Feelings and emotions are accompaniments of behavior, not causes of behavior • 4B: Both operant behaviors and feelings/emotions are the products of the same environmental variables/causes • 4C: Satisfaction does not cause operant behavior (performance); rather it simply occurs at the same time because it is a conditioned response elicited by the same environmental variables (in this case, rewards) that are responsible for the operant behavior (performance) (same pt and analysis as self-eficacy, U3)

8. A: Satisfaction B: Performance B: Performance A: Satisfaction A Satisfaction Performance B SO4D: Skinner’s analysis of feelings; relevance to satisfaction/performance • Most traditional I/O psychologists maintain that there is a causal relationship between satisfaction and performance: • Skinner’s analysis would suggest, instead: C: Environmental stimulus e.g., receipt of reward

9. SOs 5&6: What determines the relationship according to the authors? • (SO5) The type of reward system • (SO6) Describe reward systems and hypothesis about relationship between performance and satisfaction • A random reward system will result in zero relationship between performance and satisfaction • A positively contingent reward system will result in a high positive relationship between performance and satisfaction • What we usually refer to just as a “contingent relationship” between performance and rewards • A negatively contingent reward system will result in a high negative relationship between performance and satisfaction (the answer to this sets the stage for the entire article; state the answer to SO5, but come back to it after we do SO6)

10. SO7: Behavioral analysis: Learn diagrams • Key to the analysis • Rewards cause/elicit satisfaction • This is no different than what Skinner said about piece rate pay: • Piece rate pay may evoke feelings of confidence, certainty of success, and enjoyment • He could well have added “evoke feelings of satisfaction” R (working) –––> Sr (rewards) CS (rewards) –––> CR (satisfaction) (very important diagram; what you want to keep in mind is that rewards cause satisfaction, don’t forget the CSCR!!)

11. Good performers ––> Sr (rewards: sustain good performance) CS (rewards) CR (satisfaction) Poor performers ––> No Sr (rewards) No CS (rewards), hence no CR (no satisfaction) SO7, behavioral diagrams, cont. • Positively-contingent rewards should lead to a high positive relationship • Good performers are rewarded • Poor performers are not, • Hence, the good performers who receive rewards will be satisfied and the poor performers who do not will not be satisfied (note both diagrams are important!!)

12. Poor performers ––> Sr (rewards: sustain poor performance) CS (rewards) CR (satisfaction) Good performers ––> No Sr (rewards) No CS (rewards), hence no CR (no satisfaction) SO7, behavioral diagrams, cont. • Negatively-contingent rewards: negative relationship • Poor performers are rewarded • Good performers are not, • Hence, the poor performers who receive rewards will be satisfied and the good performers who do not will not be satisfied

13. SO7, behavioral diagrams, cont. • Random rewards: No relationship • Equal number of good and poor performers are rewarded and • Equal number of good and poor performers are not rewarded • Hence, the good and poor performers who receive rewards will be satisfied and the good and poor performers who do not receive rewards will not be satisfied 1/2 good and 1/2 poor performers ––> Sr (rewards: sustain performance, good or bad) CS (rewards) CR (satisfaction) 1/2 good and 1/2 poor performers ––> No Sr (no rewards) No CS (no rewards), hence no CR (no satisfact)

14. SO8: Why is it that real high correlations btwn performance & satisfaction are unlikely? • Some (many) rewards in the work setting are not going • to be contingent upon performance: • Health benefits • Retirement plans • Flexible work hours • Day care availability • Good social relationships with coworkers • Responsibility • Independence (Click; provide at least some examples; survey of why staff work at WMU; remember the components of a compensation system from last unit - security)

15. Cherrington et al., brief review • Participants: 90 undergraduates (groups of 7-9) • Task: Scoring tests • Sessions: Two back-to-back one hour sessions • Procedures • Ps were told they would be paid $1.00 an hour (1971 wages) and that the top 50% in the group would receive an additional $1.00 bonus • Es picked up the tests every 10 minutes so they had a measure of performance by the end of the session • The Ps were paid after the first hour. They were told the top performers received the $1.00 bonus • The Ps also completed a self-report satisfaction questionnaire

16. Cherrington et al., brief review • Procedures, cont. • Although Ps were told the top performers received the bonus and the bottom performers did not, in fact the bonus was given to 1/2 of the top performers and 1/2 of the bottom performers. This means that: • 50% of the top performers received rewards while 50% did not • 50% of the bottom performers received rewards while 50% did not • After a 5-min break, the whole procedure was repeated • At the end of the second hour, the monetary bonus was given to the same individuals who received it after the first hour • Ps once again completed a self-report satisfaction questionnaire • (SO14) Note that the total group represents a random reward group or system • Rewards: 1/2 of top performers and 1/2 of bottom performers • No rewards: 1/2 of top performers and 1/2 of bottom performers

17. Cherrington et al., brief review • The authors then did several comparisons by dividing the Ps into different groups after the study was over (between grp) • They compared the (a) performance and (b) satisfaction of: • Rewarded group vs. Nonrewarded group • Appropriately rewarded group vs. Inappropriately rewarded group • They then compared the relationship between satisfaction and performance for the: • Total group = random reward system • Appropriately rewarded group = positively contingent reward system • Inappropriately rewarded group = negatively contingent reward system

18. SO9: Results for satisfaction forReward vs. Nonreward groups • Reward group • 21 top performers • 21 bottom performers • Nonreward group • 21 top performers • 21 bottom performers • Knowing nothing else but: Rewards (CS) ––> Satis (CR) • What would you predict the results would be? Would satisfaction be: • Equal for the two groups? • Greater for the reward group than the nonreward group, or • Greater for the nonreward group than the reward group? • Why? (42 Ps who performed above md, 42 below, threw out 6 who fell at the md; answer not on click)

19. SO10A: Explain sub groups that comprised the appropriately and inappropriately rewarded groups. • Inappropriate Reward Group • 21 top performers: no rewards • 21 bottom performers: rewards • Appropriate Reward Group • 21 top performers: rewards • 21 bottom performers: no rewards SO10B: What type of reward system is represented by each of the above? • Appropriate Reward Group? Positively contingent reward system • Inappropriate Reward Group? Negatively contingent reward system

20. SO11: Results for satisfaction of Appropriate Reward Group vs. Inappropriate Reward Group • Inappropriate Reward Group • 21 top performers: no rewards • 21 bottom performers: rewards • Appropriate Reward Group • 21 top performers: rewards • 21 bottom performers: no rewards • Knowing nothing else but: Rewards (CS) ––> Satis (CR) • What would you predict the results would be? Would satisfaction be: • Equal for the two groups • Greater for the appropriate reward group than the inappropriate group, or • Greater for the inappropriate group than the appropriate group? • Why? (answer not on click!)

21. SO13A: The relationship between performance and satisfaction for the three reward systems • Total group of Ps = random reward system • Zero relationship between performance and satisfaction • Appropriately rewarded group = positively contingent reward group • Positive relationship between performance and satisfaction • Inappropriately rewarded group = negatively contingent reward system • Negative relationship between performance and satisfaction

22. High Satisfaction Low Low High Performance 13B Why the results make sense referring to subgroups 21 21 21 21 Equal number of performers in each quadrant, that is: 21 low performers who did not receive rewards: not satisfied 21 low performers who received rewards: satisfied 21 high performers who did not receive rewards: not satisfied 21 high performers who received rewards: satisfied Random reward group 21 low performers who did not receive rewards 21 low performers who received rewards 21 high performers who did not receive rewards 21 high performers who received rewards

23. High High Satisfaction Satisfaction Low Low Low Low High High Performance Performance 13B Why the results make sense referring to subgroups 42 42 42 42 • Inappropriately Rewarded Group 42 low performers who received rewards 42 high performers who did not receive rewards (last slide on this – next Hawthorne studies) Appropriately Rewarded Group 42 low performers who did not receive rewards 42 high performers who received rewards

24. Hawthorne studies, intro • As I indicated in U1, the Hawthorne studies are often cited as one of the most important episodes in the history of I/O psychology and management – putting the “O” in I/O • Article by Parsons, published in Science in 1974, required reading for all behavior analysts, certainly for those in OBM • You have probably heard about the “Hawthorne effect” as it relates to experimental psychology - • Lest you think this is “passe,” people talk about this effect all the time (but, it wasn’t the intention of researchers to do that; for the most part, they were looking at the same type of variables that had been examined in past: work breaks and duration of work )

25. SO14: The “Hawthorne Effect” • Changes in the behavior of participants in a study that are NOT due to the IV being examined, but instead are due to the fact that the participants know they are in a study (study objectives are pretty straightforward, thus I am only going to cover a few in lecture)

26. SO15: How many studies and the dates of those studies? • Most textbooks only refer to the “light illumination” study in the relay assembly test room - that was only a minor study in the series of studies • Seven studies conducted between 1924 and 1932 at the Chicago plant of Western Electric (located officially in Hawthorne, IL)

27. Relay Assembly Test Room Study What are relays? Used in telephone circuits so calls could be directed to the correct place (very basic and unsophisticated definition!!). They have been replaced by computer chips. Relays had from 26-52 parts; most had between 34 & 38. Consider it a complex assembly task.

28. SO18: First Relay Assembly Test Room: Incentive system and how it was altered • Prior to the study, the assemblers were paid a base salary and received group monetary incentives • There were 100+ workers in the unit • When group performance exceeded a specified standard, then each assembler received the same amount of incentive based on the group’s productivity • During the study, the pay system itself was not altered • But, the five workers who were participants were moved to a separate room, and their group incentives were based on only the performance of the five workers - now their performance contributed 20% to the group’s performance rather than 1% • And, in fact, the wages of these five workers (because of their increased productivity) went from $16.00 a week to $28-$50.00 a week. (absolutely critical to mention the group incentive plan)

29. SO19: The other important difference in the Relay Assembly Test Room • To accurately measure performance, the researchers implemented a new measurement system that also provided feedback to the workers • Chutes were located at each of the assembler’s work station. When an assembler completed a relay, she would put it in the chute which automatically incremented a counter. The counters displayed both individual and group performance and were readily in view of the assemblers at all times • Readings from the counters were taken by the supervisor every 1/2 hour • At the end of the day, a report was issued and posted indicating the number of relays each worker had assembled and the total group’s productivity

30. Relay Assembly Test Room

31. SO22: Bank Wiring Room • According to Homans, what factor made workers maintain rather than increase their performance and also made them punish members who worked too fast even though workers were paid incentives? • Workers believed that management would “lower the piece work rate” if they increased performance; and thus • They would have to work harder to get the same amount of pay they were currently getting • What does “lower the piece work rate mean?” Decreasing the amount of incentive that is paid for each part that is completed. (so ever since the days of the Hawthorne we have known that workers will restrict their output if you increase the standards (lower the piece rate), yet this is still the #1 error mgrs. make with goals and incentives)

32. SO23: Cohesive groups • People often believe that “cohesive” groups will perform better than “non-cohesive” groups. The results from the Bank Wiring Room dispel that myth. • While it is true that “cohesive” groups are likely to control/affect the performance of group members more effectively than non-cohesive groups, cohesive groups can perform better or worse than non-cohesive groups. • What determines whether cohesive groups will perform better or worse than non-cohesive groups? (for the exam) • The types of social/group contingencies that members implement within the group. Do members reinforce or punish high levels of productivity? (that is, members in cohesive groups act more similarly; “peer pressure”, social reinforcers/punishers are more potent; but that does not mean be more productive or “do the right thing” – fraternities – alcohol poisoning; continues on the next slide)

33. SO23: Cohesive groups, cont. • Note that the group contingencies were very different in the Bank Wiring Room than in the first Relay Assembly Test Room study. • In the Bank Wiring Room, workers punished individuals who performed either too well or too poorly • In the Relay Assembly Test Room – first study, the top three workers ostracized and punished the two poor performers, leading to their replacement in the study

34. When cohesive groups go wrong • Hollywood Division of the Los Angeles Police Department, early 1980s • Many division officers and detectives were extensively involved in property crimes • They would break into retail stores and then radio in that they were responding to the ringing of burglar alarms • The placed the stolen goods in the trunks of their cars and the proceeded to “investigate” the break-ins • The officers later met at specific locations to hide and sell the stolen merchandise • Officers who were not involved knew about it, but did not report them (aamodt example)

35. The “Real” Hawthorne Effect (NFE) • “Generalizing from the particular situation at Hawthorne, I would define the Hawthorne effect as the confounding that occurs if experimenters fail to realize how the consequences of subjects’ performance affect what subjects do.” • To avoid such a confound, “Don’t let subjects see the data or reward them according to their performance. But such precautions are not the same thing as keeping subjects ‘unaware’ that they are in an experiment.” Parsons, p. 930

36. Intrinsic “motivation” and Extrinsic Rewards (This area of controversy, by the way, is one of the reason I believe that every single person trained in applied fields, including OBM, should have a very strong conceptual/theoretical background in BA; otherwise, a person might well be led astray by these type of issues when they come up; and/or not be able to respond adequately)

37. Intro, Intrinsic “motivation” • I am including this material because of a book that was published by Daniel H. Pink in 2010: Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us • It’s become very popular in business and industry • Bestselling list: NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle & Publishers Weekly • Bestseller in Japan and United Kingdom • Being translated into 32 languages (has anyone read it?, former speechwriter for Al Gore, BA from Northwestern, JD from Yale Law written 3 other best sellers; speaker circuit for corporations, associations & universities on economic transformation and the new workplace )

38. Intro, Intrinsic “motivation” • Articles have appeared in the NY Times, Harvard Business Review, Wired, Fast Company and The Sunday Telegraph • Appeared on CNN, CNBC, ABC, NPR, etc., etc., etc. • In 2011, Thinkers50 ranked him as one of the 50 most influential business thinkers in the world My consulting colleagues in OBM say the same thing as I: He is “driving them crazy” (to paraphrase Aubrey Daniels) (his publicity material states that he uses “50 years of behavioral science to overturn the conventional wisdom about human motivation and offer a more effective path to high performance.”; felt it necessary to talk about this a bit; I’m afraid it is not going to go away for a while and it may get worse before better)

39. Intro, Intrinsic “Motivation” • Motivation 1.0: The ancient human drive to survive • Motivation 2.0: Rewards and punishment • Motivation 3.0: Intrinsic, innate rewards that come from autonomy, mastery, and purpose (clearly, I am not going to do justice to his position; 2.0 replaced 1.0 and is where we are now)

40. Intro, Intrinsic “Motivation” • Carrots and sticks: The seven deadly flaws (p. 57) • They can extinguish intrinsic motivation • They can diminish performance • They can crush creativity • They can crowd out good behavior • They can encourage cheating, shortcuts, and unethical behavior • They can become addictive • They can foster short-term thinking (his term: pejorative; déjà vu all over again – channeling Deci & Ryan, and Alfie Kohn; we dealt with these issues 20 years ago; dissertation, 1989 paper, 2 studies, 1995 paper and talks, Cameron’s work; instead of reinventing the wheel, use articles that I wrote back then – it doesn’t address all of these, but comes close enough; romantic view of behavior; also realistic – rewards can cause problems; but reward systems are to blame, not the rewards themselves – make this point in both articles)

41. SO27: Why the concern that extrinsic rewards may decrease intrinsic motvn • Two types of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic and person’s behavior is primarily motivated one or the other • Intrinsic motivation is innate, and intrinsically motivated behavior (which is self-initiated) is believed to be more creative, spontaneous, and flexible than extrinsically motivated behavior • Thus, the concern that extrinsic rewards decrease much highly valued behavior (two articles, written for behavior analysts, the other for a lay audience; study objectives over the scholarly one; Pink’s position is that autonomy, mastery, and purpose are innate drives)

42. SO29: Define “intrinsic motivation behaviorally”; give an original example • Intrinsically controlled behavior is behavior maintained by consequences that are the natural and automatic results of responding • In contrast, extrinsically controlled behavior is behavior controlled by consequences that are external to the task (often programmed by our social environment) • From a behavioral perspective, no functional difference between these types of behaviors – they are still controlled by rewards (traditionally, int motvn has been defined by default; that is behaviors that occurs in the apparent absence of extrinsic rewards has been and is still said to be “intrinsically motivated.”; automatic pun)

43. SO29: Examples of automatic reinfmt • Painting: when you paint a picture, your painting behavior is automatically reinforced as the picture begins to form by each brush stroke • Jigsaw puzzle: when doing a puzzle, your behavior is automatically reinforced by pieces fitting together and by progress toward completing the puzzle

44. SO29: Examples of automatic reinfmt • Skinner, a complex example: when learning how to write, or writing a paper, “the important reinforcers are largely automatic: a sentence comes out right, it says something interesting, if fits another sentence.” “If these automatic reinforcers are powerful enough, the student may continue to write and improve his writing even though he receives few if any comments” “Money, grades, and honors must be husbanded carefully, but the automatic reinforcement of being right and moving forward are inexhaustible.” (Holland & Skinner, 1961, page 160; Skinner, Technology of teaching, 1968, p. 158; learning to read; Harry Potter books – thick, long books – The hunger games)

45. SO30: Innate vs. innate or learned • Traditional accounts generally assume that intrinsic motivation is innate* • Thus, signs of self-determination (autonomy), competence (mastery), and control over the environment function as unconditioned reinforcers • Behavioral interpretation makes no such assumption: Intrinsic reinforcers, like extrinsic reinforcers, may be unconditioned or conditioned reinforcers, or generalized conditioned reinforcers (this is Pink’s position for autonomy, mastery, & purpose – his motivation 3.0; exception, Lepper & Greene who talk about intrinsic interest, not intrinsic motivation and maintain that interest in a task might be learned)

46. Innate or learned, cont. but this slide NFE • For example, Skinner stated (SHB, 1953) Behaviors that occur in the absence obvious rewards may be maintained by control over the environment, and that control may function as either generalized conditioned or generalized unconditioned reinforcement • Instrinsic reinforcers could also be a simple form conditioned reinforcement in which stimuli associated the task have been correlated with approval, praise, or some other form of reinforcement • VB – when a child is learning to talk, sounds that mimic the parent or adult are automatically reinforcing: show that when teaching VB to autistic children for whom that may not be true (if you want more detail, you can read my quote in the paper; baby’s rattle – rattle might be unconditioned rft – evolutionary history of “making the world behave”; mn pt – intrinsic motivation Is innate vs. a behavioral position in which intrinsic consequences can be unconditioned or learned )

47. SO31A&B: Type of rewards that does appear to result in post-reward decrmts. • Task contingent: when rewards are provided for simply engaging in a task, irrespective of quality or quantity • This is “of no great social import because rewards are rarely showered on people regardless of how they behave” Banudra, 1987

48. SO32: Type of rewards that do not result in decrements • Success-contingent rewards: when individuals receive rewards for “success” – performing well • Success-contingent rewards sustain or increase intrinsically controlled behavior • This effect is robust and consistent • This is recognized by even strong opponents of performance-contingent rewards; yet they still argue against the use of any type of contingent rewards (i.e., Deci & Ryan, Kohn) • This has always seemed strange to me (Pink seems to argue a little more specifically, against if-then rewards; rewards after the fact are OK in some cases)

49. SO33: My reply to Deci • Deci: Rewards that are appropriately linked to performance, representing positive feedback in an informational context, ought not to be detrimental. The cost to the system, however, in signifying good performance through the use of performance-contingent rewards is that many people end up receiving the message that they are not doing very well and this is likely to be amotivating (my reply next)

50. SO33: My reply to Deci • Dickinson If, under performance-contingent reward systems, “many people end up receiving the message that they are not doing very well”..the fault lies not in the contingent rewards, but with the performance standards upon which the rewards are based I should have added “or the reward system is a competitive system that divides employees into winners and losers”