PSY 6450 Unit 7

1. PSY 6450 Unit 7 Goal Setting Schedules of Reinforcement

2. Schedule • Exam (27 points), Monday, 11/12 • Exercise (8 points), Wednesday, 11/07

3. SO1: Locke/Latham maintain that difficult goals lead to higher levels of performance Goals should be realistic and challenging but not too difficult From a behavioral perspective. Why? There are 3 problems. Diagrams and analyses will be provided in lecture

4. SO2A: Specific goals are better than general goals (Locke). Why from a behavioral perspective? Goals affect performance only because of the consequences that follow behaviors that lead to goal attainment. • When goals are specific • They specify the response requirements • 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 may be necessary for feedback to function effectively (in fact, I have recently come to the conclusion that some type of evaluative component is a necessary condition for feedback to work, in most situations - exceptions, self-competition or strong generalized reinforcement for signs of achievement and being the “best”) (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” )

5. 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 (material is from an analysis by Fellner & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1984, jOBM. Time to update the literature review)

6. SO3A: Translation of “desire and intention” to to attain the goal • Behavioral translation, where the control of behavior is based on the past reinforcement contingencies: Goals will control behavior if, in the past, when a goal has been set, reaching a goal has been rewarded and/or not reaching a goal has been punished or criticized • Emphasis is on what happened in the past • Emphasis is on the consequences of behaviors that have led (or not led) to goal attainment, not the goal itself as is emphasized by Locke (which is an antecedent) (note cognitive way of talking about goals and effects: “rational” theory in the sense that we set goals and then in advance direct our behavior - the control of the behavior is in the “here and now,” not in the past consequences)

7. SO3B: We do talk to ourselves about goals.Thus, rule-governed behavior plays a role. • What rule is a goal likely to evoke? (according to Malott) If I don’t get to work on this, I will not meet the goal and I will look bad • Once that rule is evoked, how does it control behavior? (according to Malott) The rule sets up noncompliance with the rule as a learned aversive condition, and compliance with the rule (getting to work) immediately decreases that aversiveness (must recognize that we do talk to ourselves about goals before we engage in behaviors that will lead to goal attainment, and it would not be realistic or good to ignore that - too simplistic an analysis - 3C on next slide)

8. SO3C: Goal as an MO • How could a goal function as an MO? • That is, what effects would it have • Reinforcer establishing? • Evocative?

9. SO4: Assigned vs participative and self-assigned goals • At the present time, the research indicates that assigned and participative goals are equally effective • There are no consistent data whatsoever indicating that participative goals influence behavior more effectively that goals established by management • The key issue appears to be not how a goal is set, but whether a goal is set(of course the goal must be realistic and attainable) (issue came up at ABA last year, with a student -from another program-arguing and maintaining that participative goals were better)

10. NFE: Feedback and goals • Not in SOs, but we do know that goals combined with feedback are more effective than either alone • Feedback enhances the effectiveness of goals • Goals enhance the effectiveness of feedback • Whenever possible, the following combination should be used: • Graphic feedback that displays performance over time • Goals • Some type of performance consequence

11. SO5: 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? (answer is not in sos or on your ppt)

12. Dickinson’s position Analysis will be provided in lecture

13. Main point repeated Analysis will be provided in lecture

14. 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)

15. SO6: Most common mistake re goalsAnswers will be provided in lecture What is the most common mistake that business people make after implementing a goal setting program for employees? Why is that a problem? What are employees going to do? (mgrs loose their common sense when they become managers. social isolation and criticism)

16. What about successively increasing goals? NFE • Daniels recommends that you first 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 You may be able to successively increase goals if rewards are not tangible, but with tangible rewards, particularly with incentives, you should never increase the goal level without increasing the reward level Tiered reward systems work well • Union National Bank - increased incentive rate • Pampino et al. (U2) - an additional lottery ticket • Performance matrix - more points for higher levels of performance

17. Schedules of Reinforcement • The basic schedules of reinforcement are emphasized way too much in OBM. They are not very relevant. I’ll come back to this in a moment • Muchinsky characterizes “reinforcement theory” almost entirely in terms of schedules of reinforcement and their manipulation • Provides definitions and examples of basic schedules • I correct his definitions in SO7 (NFE)

18. SO8: Muchinsky states that hourly pay is an example of a FI schedule • Is it? • Why or why not? Will be discussed in class

19. Schedules of Reinforcement • Back to Dickinson’s point: The basic schedules of reinforcement are emphasized way too much in OBM. They are not very relevant. • SO9: 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

20. SO9: What does this mean? • Performance contingent rewards do increase work 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).

21. SO10: 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

22. 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 • Example, FR3 for riding a college campus bus. Every third student was given a token that could be traded for merchandise at local stores • What’s wrong with “this picture?”

23. 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

24. Wilk & Redmon article • Study was conducted as Dr. Braksick’s doctoral dissertation while she was at WMU • Excellent model of how to do research in the real world; few better examples • Follow-up of a study conducted at WMU in our admissions and orientation office • Pam Liberacki, Director of Admissions and Orientation • Leslie was hired as a consultant to implement the program at U of M based on the success of the program here (not going to go over many of the SOs)

25. SO11: Why was the efficiency measure used? Provide the formula. • Participants were 16 clerical workers at UM • DVs • Number of tasks completed • Performance efficiency • Employee satisfaction

26. SO11: Why was the efficiency measure used? Provide the formula. • Performance efficiency formula: Total number of tasks completed by all participants Total number of hours worked by all participants • Why is this an important measure - why not just use the total number of tasks completed? • The total number of hours worked by the employees differed from week to week • If you only looked at the total number of tasks completed, you wouldn’t know whether workers were completing more tasks because they were working more hours or whether they were completing the more tasks in the same amount of time • If workers completed more tasks but also worked more hours, then you have not increased performance (asking you to learn the formula to make sure you understand it)

27. Skipping to SO16: What procedure was used to verify that the supervisor actually delivered the feedback? • After feedback was given during the week day, the employee placed a check mark on the next entry on their data sheet • If you use a graphic feedback display, have employees initial the graphic feedback display • If you post a graph, have employees initial the posted graph • More modern technology: send the graph or feedback via email with verification that the email has been opened by the recipient (not as good - employees could conceivably open the email and not look at the feedback, but better than nothing) (I am pointing this out because it is an excellent procedure - it’s simple, doesn’t require any extra effort on the part of the researcher, yet does confirm that feedback was provided as it was supposed to be provided - fidelity of implementation of the IV - a lot of our students at WMU have used this or something similar in their studies )

28. 983 582 685 1703 994 861 4188 1243 1049 Base GS GS Fdbk Graph Filing Mail Room 5077 8822 13389 Credit Eval Data Entry (Results!)

29. Base GS GS Fdbk Graph 983 1703 4188 Filing Mail Room 5077 8822 13389 Credit Eval 685 861 1049 Data Entry 582 994 1243 SO19: Most importantly, what does this study reveal? The important role that graphic feedback plays in improving performance (click highlight: go back to preceding slide - abrupt immediate increase even over previous phase of GS and verbal fdbk)

30. Questions over Wilk and Redmon?

31. SO20: Sulzer-Azaroff et al. (NFE) • Purpose of the study To determine whether targeting behaviors (rather than accidents/injuries) would lead to a decrease in accidents/injuries • First BBS study to focus on behaviors and prove a link between that focus and reduction in accidents • Prior study in a university chemistry lab, but too few accidents/injuries to document the link to a reduction in accidents/injuries

32. SO21: Target behaviors/conditions or accidents and injuries? • 21A Some behavior analysts feel very strongly that it is inappropriate to target accidents and injuries rather than behaviors/conditions • Employees will not report accidents and injuries if you target those and reward low accident/injury rates - of course, that is a very bad thing • If you target low accident and injury rates, supervisors are more likely to use aversive control (when an accident/injury occurs, they will punish/criticize workers) (paper company - lottery based on low accidents/injury rates)

33. SO21: Target behaviors/conditions or accidents and injuries? • 21B But, what is the danger of targeting only behaviors/conditions • The ultimate goal is to reduce accident/injury rate. If you don’t at least measure those, you won’t know whether you have really been successful • What if you targeted the wrong behaviors/conditions? (paper company - lottery based on low accidents/injury rates)

34. SO23: Determining where to start in an organization • How were the departments selected, and why were departments selected on this basis? • Records were analyzed to determine which departments had the highest accident and injury rates and the initial program was implemented in those departments • Focusing on these “hot spots” would give the greatest initial payoff (we like big pips! Improvements will help convince others in the organization that the program works and is worth the time and effort to Implement. Champions within the organization who are “on board” and enthusiastic. Roll-out the program to other departments)

35. SO25: What was the cost of one lost time accident/injury? • $17,000 in compensation costs alone • Annual savings estimate of $55,000 • Why is this important? • Safety programs make good sense economically • Conflict between operations and safety (students working in a local paper company, behavior based safety assessment - death. Operations killed it - 1/2 of 1% of operating budget went to worker’s compensation expenses. Always cost out the expenses involved in accidents/injuries)

36. Questions over Sulzer-Azaroff et al.?

37. Parsons et al. article • This is the best study I have seen about a large scale OBM intervention in a human service setting • The study was conducted in five group homes for the developmentally disabled • In the study objectives, I point out some very useful procedures that could be implemented in any human service setting although clearly some of the details of the procedures would have to be modified • Implemented a total system intervention package

38. Parsons intro, cont. • There are two studies • I only have one SO over E1 because I wanted to focus on the intervention, but part of the beauty of this work is having the normative data from E1 when analyzing the results from E2

39. Overview of Experiments 1 & 2 • Experiment 1 • Benchmarking study on treatment and services • 22 living units in six state residential facilities • 18 were certified as intermediate care facilities under Medicaid (which means services can be reimbursed through Medicaid) • Experiment 2 • Purpose was to develop and implement a comprehensive management system to improve treatment services in five group homes • Group homes were Medicaid certified • Medicaid had reviewed services and the facilities had been given a time-limited mandate to improve services or face de-certification. Improvement was critical - “critical business issue.

40. SO26: Results of E1, the benchmarking study • 24A On average, what percentage of resident behavior was off-task? When developmentally disabled clients are in group homes, 2/3 of their time is spent in activity that that appears to have no habilitative value. This suggests that residential facilities are not fulfilling their active treatment obligations • 24B On average, what percentage of resident behavior was active treatment?

41. General point (NFE) • These data actually confirm earlier benchmarking studies • Iwata et al. (1976) found staff spent 45% of their time off-task and only 4% engaged in active training • Behavior analysts have become very skilled at developing treatment programs, but the problem is getting the direct care staff to implement those programs • Need to train human services professionals in PM • Most find themselves doing staff management (and systems management), yet many do not take PM courses • Confirmed by several graduates of the BA program (Very few academics focus on OBM in human service settings)

42. Organizational structure, staff, and residents 110 Direct care staff 165 Residents

43. Intervention: Four basic components (NFE) • Structure (scheduling) and reassignment of staff • Structure and scheduling is a recurrent intervention in human service settings • Task clarification • Individual accountability • Staff training • Monitoring of performance • Supervisory feedback One of my purposes with the SOs is to point out the systems aspects of the program - they implemented monitoring and feedback systems for individuals at EACH level of the organization - we often intervene at the direct care staff level, but who provides PM to the group home supervisors, and to the supervisor of the group home supervisors? We forget to do that, yet are often surprised our interventions don’t last

44. Each staff member initialed the checklist I am pointing this out because this is basically the same procedure used by Wilk & Redmon and it permits the assessment of the integrity of the intervention without observers. Remember this procedure! SO29 (skipping 27-28) • 29A How often did each supervisor or assistant supervisor observe each staff person? Once a week • 29B What procedure was used to verify that the supervisor observed and gave feedback to the staff member immediately after the observation?

45. SO30: Now we have supv. monitoring and giving feedback to staff with verification • What procedure was put in place so area supervisors knew whether the supervisors were indeed observing and giving feedback to staff? Each week the observation forms were given to the area director who supervised all group home supervisors who reviewed them (watch wording for SO30, too close to SO29; interestingly, the authors don’t indicate whether the area director summarized and gave feedback to the group home supervisors re conducting the observations, but… next slide )

46. SO31: Now we have the area director monitoring the performance of group home supervisors - who givesfeedback to the area director? (NFE) • The data on resident behavior collected by researchers (independent of the preceding measures on staff observations) were summarized and graphed, and sent to the program director weekly. • The program director sent the graphs along with comments to the area director, who then sent the appropriate graphs to each group home supervisor • Note two separate and independent measurement systems • Were supervisors observing and giving feedback to the direct care staff • How was the supervisory system affecting resident behavior - was decreasing resident off-task behavior and increasing active training • Also note that the resident behavior data were collected by: • 8 staff members • Student interns (number wasn’t specified) • Extremely labor intensive

47. SOs 33& 34: Back to why the normative data from E1 was so important SO33: What very nice contribution does the normative data provide when analyzing the results of the study? • Most studies would have reported the improvement in resident behavior in comparison to baseline • During baseline off-task behavior averaged 64%, which decreased to 41% during the PM intervention • That looks like a nice decrease (23% decrease) but residents were still off-task 41% of the time (cont. on next slide)

48. SO33, cont. With the normative data they could also report • Their baseline average was similar to the average off-task behavior in the 22 other group homes (18 of which were Medicaid certified): 64% and 67%, respectively (so maybe they weren’t doing that badly to begin with!) • Not only did off-task resident decrease considerably, but it is now well below the normative average, so…

49. SO33, cont. Not only could the administrators and researchers show that these group homes had improved considerably, they could also show that they were doing considerably better than other state residential facilities

50. SO 34: Why is it important to collect normative data from a staff perspective? • Basically, so you know realistically, what good performance is given typical staff-to-resident ratios • The residents were profoundly developmentally disabled, typically nonverbal, and required assistance in self-care routines • The agency can only hire a certain number of direct care staff due to budgetary constraints - and usually these type of organizations are understaffed • It is simply unrealistic to assume that it is possible to have 0% off-task resident behavior - so back to the original question - what is good performance?