Unit 5

1. Unit 5 Feedback, cont. Goal Setting Schedules of Reinforcement

2. Unit 5: Schedule • Wednesday: Lecture • Monday, 10/20 • U5 lecture, cont. • Exercise: Schedules of reinforcement in the lab and applied settings • Wednesday, 10/22: E5 • Monday, 10/27: ME1 over Units 1-4 • I’ll hand out study objectives for ME1 on Monday, 10/20

3. ME1 • Covers Units 1-4 (not E5) • If you have missed an exam, you need to take ME1 or your missing exam score turns into a zero • If you have taken all the exams to date and would like to replace your lowest score on Es 1-4, you should take ME1 • If your grade on ME1 is lower than your grades on Es 1-4, I throw out ME1; the ME1 cannot hurt your grade, it can only help your grade • If you have taken all of the exams to date and are satisfied with your scores, you get the day off (Monday, 11/03 is the last day to withdraw from classes w/o academic penalty)

4. In-class exercise (8 points), Mon. 10/20 • Read Latham & Dossett in the coursepack • Pay particular attention to the Methods section • Was the continuous reinforcement (CRF) schedule used in the Latham & Dossett article a true CRF schedule? • Was the variable ratio 4 (VR4) schedule used in the Latham & Dossett article a true VR4 schedule? • For each question, first say “yes” or “no” • List as many reasons as you can • You can bullet each reason, then provide an explanation beneath each bullet

5. In-class exercise (8 points), Mon. 10/22 • I am not looking for a long paper: 2 pages max • The points you earn will depend upon • whether you identify the most obvious reasons • the number of reasons you identify • This is NOT an opinion paper • Use the material from this class • Possibly others

6. SO1: SMART goals (NFE) • Locke & Latham developed “goal setting” theory and have done some stellar studies in the area • While originally, Locke did not believe feedback was important, over the years he adjusted his opinion about that based on his research • Thus, while we would not agree with Locke’s conceptual analyses, once again, as with expectancy theory, we do agree about practical implementation • SMART goals (Rubin, 2002) • Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound • I would add “accompany with feedback and consequences” Locke & Latham (Eds.) (2013). New developments in goal setting and task performance.

7. SO2A: Specific goals are better than general goals (Locke & Latham). Why from a behavioral perspective? OBM position: Goals affect performance only because of the consequences that follow behaviors that result in goal attainment. • When goals are specific • They specify the response requirements • They specify the criterion for reinforcement/reward • Thus, both employees and managers can easily discriminate successful from unsuccessful performance • Goals function like task clarification in the sense that the employee knows exactly what good performance consists of • They also provide an explicit “evaluative” component which, as I have indicated earlier, appears to be necessary for feedback to function effectively in most situations (material is from an analysis by Fellner & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1984, jOBM. Time to update the literature review, do your best goals next; evaluation component does NOT have to be goals - could be achieved a number of ways, but goals “work” )

8. SO2B. What are the problems with “do your best” goals? • What about “do your best goals?” • They preclude objective assessment because no performance criteria are stated • Employees may set lower goals than the supervisor and anticipate rewards that they then don’t receive • Remember, most employees evaluate themselves better than their supervisor evaluates them

9. SO3: Although difficult goals may lead to higher levels of performance, be careful! Goals should be realistic and challenging but not too difficult From a behavioral perspective. Why? There are 3 problems. 1. Goal: R (work hard) ––––> Sp (supervisory criticism) 2. Goal: R (work hard) ––––> Ext (don’t meet goal) 3. Goal: R (work hard) ––––> Sp (signs of failure) In our culture, signs of failure tend to be conditioned punishers. Think about it. Regardless of the criticism you get from a supervisor (or professor), when you fail to meet a goal or standard, how do you “feel?” Signs of failure tend to be “automatically punishing” - which punishes the behavior of working harder. (example in book, students who were failing set goals to get a 4.0; stretch goals, #2 Daniels’ Oops – 13 mangt practices that waste time & money operationally defined as those that are attained less than 10% of the time; students often get the first two, miss the third; 1st EOM programs)

10. Jeffrey et al. study (2012): nfe • Many organizations use one goal: a goal that is the same for all workers • Basic research question: Are ability-based goals more effective, particularly for low and middle performers? (lab study, interesting study, interesting results)

11. Jeffrey et al. (2012): nfe • Based on an initial performance assessment, divided participants into low performers, middle performers and high performers • Two conditions • One goal: 20% of all performers had met the goal • Ability-based goals: different goals for the different groups • Low performers: 20% of low performers had met the goal • Middle performers: 20% of middle performers had met the goal • High performers: 20% of all performers had met the goal (based on pilot study; decoding task – 3-digit number that they had to convert into a letter of the alphabet – were given the key; divided Ps into three groups based on initial session)

12. Jeffrey et al. (2012): nfe • Pay: $2 base pay + bonus for reaching goal • One session, divided into 5 periods • Practice session • Assessment session with per piece incentives for each item correctly decoded: used to assign Ps to low, middle, high performers • Three 5-minute performance periods

13. Jeffrey et al. study (2012): nfe • Ability-based goals were more effective than one goal for all for low performers • Low performers who were given goals based on low performance performed better than their counterparts who were given a higher goal based on the performance of all performers (which included the middle and high performers) • Low and middle performers who received the one goal decreased their performance across 3 sessions • Challenging, but “attainable” goals are the best • What is challenging and what is too difficult?? • Were the goals in this study too difficult? (the analysis I provided earlier probably explains why: goals were too difficult for the low and middle performers; 0% of the low and middle performers in the one goal condition met the goal; only ~35% of high performers did)

14. Jeffrey et al. follow-up studies • Goals may have been too high and bonus system may have influenced the results • Redo the study using goals based on the average performance of the groups, not a goal that only 20% of individuals can meet • Use piece rate pay rather than an all or none bonus system • Urschel (2013), Replication using 3 tiered goals versus one high goal or one medium goal with bonus pay for reaching goals • Different perspective of traditional management and OBM? • Only top performers should be rewarded and get bonus pay • All workers who perform well (above average) should be paid commensurate with their performance (piece rate pay)

15. Practical dos and don’ts: still nfe • When possible do use tiered (multiple goals) with successively increasing rewards for meeting each higher goal • Performance Matrix is a great tool for this because of the multiple goals (columns 6-10) • Do not have different goals for different individuals with the same tangible/monetary rewards – disaster (organizations typically can’t set individual goals – too labor intensive; but it may be possible 2-3 tiers; Pampino et al. did that in study in U2; Dan’s dissertation; last slide on this)

16. SO5: Assigned vs participative goals • The research indicates that participating in goal setting does not increase performance when compared to assigned goals • Three meta-analysis studies now support this conclusion, first one in 1986 • The key issue, thus, is not how a goal is set, but whether a goal is set (Back to the Sos: this is a very common misconception; issue keeps coming up at ABAI, with a student -from another program-arguing and maintaining that participative goals were better; just this summer I was asked about this by a consultant who works for a behavioral firm)

17. SO6A: Goals – what is the best combination? • We know that goals combined with feedback are more effective than either alone • Feedback enhances the effectiveness of goals • Goals enhance the effectiveness of feedback • Studies suggest that graphic feedback is the most effective type of feedback to use with goals: better than vocal or written • We know that goals and feedback are much more effective when consequences are provided • Not definitive, but it appears that monetary incentives/rewards are more effective than nonmonetary incentives/rewards THUS………. (next slide)

18. SO6A: What is the best combination? (answer) • Goals • Graphic feedback that displays performance over time, preferably at least once a week • Some type of performance consequence, preferably monetary incentives (the same recommendation from Balcazar et al – just add goals when at all possible)

19. SO6B: Group goals • When using group goals, what factor should be taken into account? Group size • Group goals are more effective with small groups than large ones • However, we don’t know what the “critical” size is • This would be a very interesting and valuable study to conduct • Goals, graphic feedback, consequences, while manipulating group size (alone, not combining them with individual goals; group size is an issue in ALL group contingencies)

20. SO7: Possible behavioral functions of goals: nfe • Analyses of goals parallel those of feedback • Summarized the prevalent ones in SO7 • Good summary and starting point if you want to pursue this: Tammemagi et al. (2013)

21. SO8: Daniels vs. Dickinson • Daniels maintains that if you set a goal and if performance meets but does not exceed that goal, the contingency is a negative rather than positive reinforcement contingency • Also maintains that negative reinforcement contingencies are bad contingencies because they represent aversive control • In order for negative reinforcement to work there must be a pre-existing aversive stimulus that the behavior terminates or avoids • Is this a correct analysis?

22. Dickinson’s position • People are not going to overshoot goals if there is no further reinforcement for doing so, whether the contingency is a negative or positive reinforcement contingency • Negative reinforcement contingency • People will perform only to the level that terminates or avoids criticism or punishment • Positive reinforcement contingency • People will perform only to the level that results in maximum positive reinforcement

23. Main point repeated • If there is no further reinforcement for performing above the goal, then people will not exceed the goal, regardless of whether the reinforcement is positive or negative • If you want people to perform above the goal, then you must provide additional reinforcement/rewards for them to do that • Daniels’ misconception (I think) comes from the fact that he encourages further praise/reward/recognition from supervisors for above goal performance; but often those rewards are not qualitatively different than rewards for meeting goals (nontangible socials), so doesn’t view those rewards as “additional” positive reinforcement

24. Example: • Union National Bank • Baseline: 1,065 items per machine hour • Feedback: 1,800 items per machine hour • Incentive, top incentive rate was for 2,500 items per machine hour: 2,700 items per machine hour • Incentive 2, top incentive rate was for 3,500 items per machine hour: 3,500 items per machine hour • During the first incentive phase, proof operators met but did not exceed the goal(except to a level than insured they met the goal) • Yet during the second incentive phase when additional incentives (reinforcement) was provided, they increased their performance(but again, only to a level that met the goal)

25. SO9: Most common mistake re goals What is the most common mistake that managers make after implementing a goal setting program for employees? Increase the goals without increasing the rewards Why is that a problem? It’s a punishment procedure. The consequence of meeting the goal is that management increases the goal so that the worker has to work harder and harder to obtain the same rewards What are employees going to do? Restrict their productivity and in some cases develop performance norms monitored by the group (mgrs loose their common sense when they become managers. social isolation and criticism)

26. What about successively increasing goals? NFE • Daniels recommends that you set goals low so people can meet them, then gradually increase them • Wilk & Redmon used successively increasing goals • Sulzer-Azaroff used successively increasing goals • Proceed with caution: OK if praise and celebrations are consequences With tangible rewards, particularly with incentives, you should never increase the goal level without increasing the reward level Tiered reward systems work well with tangible rewards, however • Union National Bank - increased incentive rate • Pampino et al. (U2) - an additional lottery ticket • Performance matrix - more points for higher levels of performance (only after goals had been met several times; another interesting study - )

27. Schedules of Reinforcement • The basic schedules of reinforcement are emphasized way too much in OBM. They are not very relevant. In fact, I would argue they are not relevant at all. I’ll come back to this in a moment • I have provided definitions of basic schedules in SO10 (NFE) • You need to know them for your exercise this week

28. SO11A: Is hourly pay is an example of a FI schedule? • Yes or no • Why or why not? (answer not on slide)

29. SO11B: FR3 example, NOT! • Goal of study: increase the extent to which college students rode buses on a college campus (Penn State) • Tokens that could be traded for merchandise from local stores served as the “reinforcers” (pop, reduced price on pizza, etc.) • Gave a token to every third person that got on the bus (FR3) What is the major problem with calling this schedule an FR3?

30. Schedules of Reinforcement • Back to Dickinson’s point: The basic schedules of reinforcement tend to be emphasized way too much in OBM. They are not very, if at all relevant. • SO12: Hantula’s conclusions after reviewing the effects of schedules of reinforcement on organizational behavior - review covered 1971-1994 • Reinforcement schedules (in comparison to hourly pay) are an effective way to manage work, however • The parameters of the schedule did not result in consistent differences in performance. Rather, the presence of a contingent relationship between performance and rewards was the critical factor with respect to improving performance • Bucklin & Dickinson found the same thing in a review of monetary incentives

31. SO12: What does this mean? Performance contingent rewards do increase performance, but different schedules of reinforcement (e.g., FR vs VR schedules, FR1 vs FR4, FR1 vs VR2, VR2 vs VR4) do not affect performance differently in work settings (ABA presentation set up incentives for staff in human service setting - very nice study - spent many, many hours deciding what reinforcement schedule to use - wasted hours).

32. SO13: Why are these results differentthan the results of research on basic schedules? • In the operant laboratory, different schedules of reinforcement do generate different response rates and patterns of performance. So, what may account for the differences seen in the laboratory and in applied settings? • Before answering, why does anyone care? Why is this analysis important? • Our basic principles of behavior have been called into question (particularly by expectancy theorists in I/O) because humans do not show the same response patterns as nonhumans • That is, they claim this proves that our basic principles are incorrect • So, we have to be prepared to answer these criticisms and concerns

33. Two reasons why humans do not usually display the typical performance patterns displayed by nonhumans in an operant laboratory setting • Although schedules used in applied settings are indeed schedules of reinforcement, they are rarely, if ever the same schedules examined in the laboratory, even though they are called the same thing (e.g., FR1, FR3, etc.). Given that they are not the same, we should not expect the performance patterns to be the same • FR3 example earlier

34. Two reasons why humans do not usually display the typical performance patterns displayed by nonhumans in an operant laboratory setting 2. Adult humans tend to describe contingencies to themselves and then their behavior is controlled by their self-stated rules • FI: Slow responding is reinforced • FR: Fast responding is reinforced • Fergus Lowe’s (Welsh behavioral psychologist) study with infants, 2-3 year olds and 5-year olds (last slide on this)

35. Crawley et al. article, introduction • I have included this article because it is the best one I have ever seen with respect to improving sales behaviors and I would wager that most many of the behaviors identified in their exquisite analysis would generalize to other sales positions • Study was conducted by one of Ed Feeney’s consultants, Bill Crawley (I didn’t stress Feeney’s accomplishments in U1, but I recommend that you go back and read the Dickinson article for an historical perspective) • (NFE) Note the analysis at the beginning that was designed to determine the best opportunities for intervention, based on both the potential for improving performance (exemplar performer vs. average performer) and the economic pay-off of intervening on the performance (back to feedback; old study)

36. SO14: What approach was not successful in identifying what made sales reps effective? • Surveys were sent to the top sales representatives in the country asking what is was that they did that made them so effective • This approach did not work because sales representatives could not describe the behaviors that made them successful • I am friendly • It’s genetic - my parents were sales representatives • You need to be “up” • You need to be aggressive • General point Even though workers are exemplary workers, they often can’t tell you what they do that makes them exemplary workers. Those behaviors are often contingency-shaped (controlled by direct-acting contingencies) and employees never have had to describe them (describing what you do and doing what you do are different behavioral repertoires) • Automobile mechanics • Construction workers

37. SO15 (NFE): Exquisite specificity of the targeted behaviors • To determine the behaviors • They observed 65 top performers • Over a four month period of time • For 1,000 hours • Both inside the store and at in-home sales calls • Recorded the stimulus-response sequences • That is, what were the antecedents that prompted a response by the sales representative, and how did the sales representatives respond to those antecedents • Also interviewed customers for 50 hours • Pilot tested the entire intervention in two stores • First with the consultant as the coach • Then with the store manager as the coach (fidelity - did they create an intervention that could be carried out by employees)

38. SO15 (NFE): Exquisite specificity of the targeted areas and behaviors, cont. • Areas with 5-11 behaviors in each area • Customer greeted • Customer needs identified • Needs matched to store product and service benefits • Objections identified and overcome • Decision maker identified • Close made • Results of sales contact • Follow-up action taken (48 behaviors in addition to smiling, eye contact, natural voice, and use of customer’s name in each area)

39. SO15 (NFE): Exquisite specificity of the targeted areas and behaviors, cont. • Examples of behaviors in the Customer Greeted area • Customers should be approached within 120 seconds after entering the store • The sales representative should stand within 3-4 feet of the customer, smile and maintain eye contact • The sales representative should approach the customer at a normal pace and maintain a natural and relaxed posture • Introduce self using first and last names and identify his/her position • Obtain the customer’s name and use it throughout the sales interaction

40. SO17: Two reasons why commissions did not function as effective rewards Sales representatives received sales commissions monthly which most would assume would be sufficient to maintain high levels of performance • Commission payments were delayed, often by as many as 3 months, weakening the relation between sales and the amount of money earned • Commissions earned in January would not be received until March or April • Commissions were based on sales, an accomplishment measure, and sales representatives did not know the behaviors required to improve sales • The initial survey that failed to identify the critical target behaviors showed that sales representatives did not know what behaviors led to improved sales (skippingSO16 – on your own; Tom Gilbert, Human comp., 1978, accomplishments v. behaviors; daniels’ concern, systems v. PM)

41. SO18: Why is it important to compare data to records for the same months in the preceding year? • As part of the analysis to determine the effectiveness of the program, they compared the sales data to sales records for the same month the preceding year. Why? • Sales fluctuate seasonally and monthly • February is traditionally a big sales month while December is traditionally a low sales month • In behavior analysis, we often use time series data (AB design) to determine the effectiveness of our interventions but • If you compared sales in February and it had increased in comparison to Dec and Jan, you may conclude that your program was successful when it was not • Alternatively, if you compared Dec data with Nov data (with traditionally higher sales), you may conclude your program was not successful, when indeed it was (including this just so you don’t just say “due to seasonal fluctuations” but add an explanation)

42. Crowell et al. Task Clarification 1. Task clarification improved performance 2. “Objective” feedback improved it further but 3. Praise improved it again Task clarification alone only results in modest increases; Objective feedback should be combined with evaluative feedback/consequences (note that these results re objective feedback are consistent with the Johnson article from last unit and thus emphasizes that the difference between objective and evaluative feedback is important)

43. NFE: Crowell et al. • My main reason for including this article was its implications for task clarification and feedback (see previous slide) • Secondary purpose was because of the authors’ analysis of whether feedback functioned as an antecedent, a consequence, or both (rarely done, astute analysis) • Feedback includes task clarification, so task clarification was examined first • If the only function of feedback was as an antecedent, one would not expect additional increases in performance when it was implemented after task clarification

44. NFE: Crowell et al. overview • 6 bank tellers • 11 customer service behaviors defined • Quality points assigned to each depending upon importance • 100 total points possible, with 85 as the minimum acceptable • Task Clarification • Memo from management identifying the target behaviors and quality points (sos on your own)

45. NFE: Crowell et al. overview • Feedback • Posted chart with individual point scores, daily, coded • Fake scores for any teller that was absent to protect confidentiality • Supervisor met with each teller individually when the teller came to work, but “descriptive” not “evaluative” • Praise added • Supervisors praised tellers if the point score was above 85 or below 85, but higher than the preceding score

46. NFE: Crowell et al. results last 6 sessions, > 85 only phase mean > 85 Above standard performance was obtained and sustained only when both feedback and praise were added to task clarification

47. NFE: Social validity not definitive, but actual hard datafacts, not survey data – cool! • Dollars on deposit in bank • 24 to 42 million, 75% growth • Customer complaints • 2-3 per month, dropped to near-zero level • Compliments increased (no customer input, so no certainty customer perceptions and behaviors were affected by the intervention, but …; results continued on next slide)

48. NFE: Social validity not definitive, but actual hard datafacts, not survey data – cool! • Bank managers rolled-out the program • Streamlined and implemented it in 6 other branches • Program was being implemented in the remaining 5 branches at the time the study ended • Cost • Annual cost of program as implemented: $6,000.00 • Streamlined version in other 11 branches, an additional $16,000 • This included the cost of a dedicated full-time program administrator/observer (streamlining next slide)

49. NFE: Social validity not definitive, but actual hard datafacts, not survey data – cool! • Streamlined version • Reduced teller observations from daily to 3X a week • Reduced the number of transactions recorded per teller in each session from six to three • Once praise was introduced, a maintenance procedure was suggested in which the frequency of recording be further reduced to one session per week (reduce labor intensiveness and number of observers required; ok last slide on this, moving on)

50. Gaetani & Johnson, cash shortages, intro • Purpose: Decrease cash and inventory shortages in a retail beverage chain (employee theft?) • Assessed the effects of data plotting (self-recording), praise, and state lottery tickets • I’m including it because of the comparison of self-recording/praise/lottery tickets and as another example of a lottery system; not expensive but effective • Unusual lottery system in that each mgr who met the criterion received 2 state lottery tickets (only $1.00 a piece!) • Most lottery systems employees who meet the criterion have a chance to win a prize, but same basic principle (also including it – tie in with the Johnson study from last unit – address that in a moment)