Rulegoverned behavior

1
Unit 4

• Rule-governed behavior
• Performance Diagnostic Checklist

2
Unit 4 Introduction Schedule

• Unit exam over study objectives (27 points),
  Wednesday, 10/17
• Michael Indirect acting contingencies
• Malott Rule governed behavior
• Gaetani et al Applied study on self monitoring
• Exercise PDC analysis and interventions (8
  points), due this Wednesday
• PM project proposal due, Monday, 10/15
• One week from tonight

3
PDC Exercise for Wednesday

• Use the PDC from the Pampino et al. article from
  U2 to conduct a functional assessment for
• 1-2 pinpoints you identified in U2 for a job you
  have had or
• Interview another member of the class and do an
  assessment for 1-2 pinpoints they identified
• This will work best if you identify a pinpoint
  that represents a performance problem, but you
  can also do it on a pinpoint that is being
  performed well

4
PDC exercise, cont.

• State the job title and measures, indicating
  whether this is for a job you have had or if you
  interviewed another class member
• Provide a graph similar to the ones on page 11 of
  the U2 Pampino et al. article
• Bar graph showing the of questions that
  identify a problem in each of the four areas of
  analysis
• Antecedents
• Equipment and processes
• Knowledge and training
• Consequences

(note that most of the questions No represents
a problem, but not always)
5
PDC exercise, cont.

• Identify (just using bullets)
• 2-3 major problems (no training, no feedback, no
  conseq)
• Or for good performance, 2-3 things mgt is doing
  that helps sustain/maintain that good performance
• Based on the preceding step
• list/state 2-3 possible interventions that could
  potentially improve performance - in some detail,
  in other words, dont just say, add feedback
  rather be a bit more specific (posted task
  clarification, private graphic feedback once a
  week, posted group feedback, etc.)
• Or for good performance, 2-3 things that mgt
  could do in addition to what they are doing to
  improve performance even more
• Your recommended intervention must be based on
  your PDC analysis - that is the point of doing
  the PDC analysis
• You will lose points if you do not do this

6
Introduction to rule governed behavior

• When dealing with changing the behavior of human
  adults, certainly workers, we are usually dealing
  with indirect acting contingencies, not direct
  acting contingencies.
• In order for consequences to affect behavior
  directly, they must occur within 60 seconds or so
  after the behavior (molecular perspective)
• You often hear
• If workers go on strike and management gives in,
  management has reinforced workers for going on
  strike
• The sales commission that sales rep receive once
  a month reinforces their sales behaviors

Both Michael and Malott would say Well, Malott
would, jack would be likely to say something
stronger)
7
SO2 Michael on indirect contingencies

• Michael makes a very complex argument with
  respect to the example he analyzes about grant
  writing.
• Example
• A person applies for a research grant and then 6
  months later gets a letter in the mail informing
  him he has gotten the grant. And then the person
  writes more grants. Many would call getting the
  grant money reinforcement for writing the grant.
  But Michael says, NO! It is no, even though
  grant writing may increase.

(not going to talk about SO1)
8
SO2, cont.

• I want to go through his argument carefully and
  head off a problem
• Michael is NOT arguing that the delay is the main
  problem. Many Malottians say that - and while
  that is a problem, it is not Michaels main
  argument. (he wants to convince molar folk as
  well, so he is not arguing the point simply on
  the delay issue)
• Rather, Michael is basing his argument on the
  automaticity of reinforcement.
• That is, that operant conditioning is automatic -
  if a particular reinforcer follows a behavior,
  that behavior will increase in the future.

9
Michaels example again

• A researcher writes a research grant and 6
  months later receives a letter indicating he
  received the money. As a result, he writes more
  grants.
• Now assume the researcher writes a research
  grant and 6 months later receives a letter
  telling him he has received the same amount of
  money as an inheritance.

10
Michaels argument

• I think we would all agree (as would Michael)
  that the inheritance money would not increase
  grant writing
• But, Michaels point is if operant reinforcement
  was at work, that is, if we were dealing with
  direct acting contingencies, then both the grant
  money and the inheritance money should increase
  grant writing
• If money is a reinforcer, then it should increase
  grant writing regardless of whether it was money
  from a granting agency or an inheritance
• Why? Because of the automaticity of
  reinforcement. A reinforcer will increase any
  behavior it follows - the organism doesnt have
  to understand why he/she is getting it - all
  that is important is that the Sr follows behavior

11
SO2, cont.

• Others would say (the molar perspective)
• Those situations are very different!
• Receiving grant money is causally related to
  writing the grant while the inheritance money is
  not.
• Therefore, it IS simple reinforcement
• How does a person know the money is causally
  related to the grant?
• A lot of other behaviors occurred in between
• Without a complex verbal repertoire (indirect
  acting cntg), the grant money would not increase
  grant writing

12
Michaels unstated underlying argument

• Reinforcement increases behavior when
  consequences are causally related to the
  behavior, when there is an if-then relationship
  between behavior and the consequence
• However, we also know that adventitious
  reinforcement also increases behavior
• Reinforcement that just happens to follow a
  behavior will increase that behavior as well
• That is, behavior can be accidentally or
  adventitiously reinforced
• SO2B Why/how is the following example related to
  Michaels argument about grant writing?

13
Contingent Reinforcement FR1 Reinforcement
Schedule
From lecture
Adventitious Reinforcement FT20 Reinforcement
Schedule
From lecture
14
SO2C Analogous contingencies, from lecture
Contingent reinforcement (assume FR1 for pigeon)
Adventitious Reinforcement (assume FT for pigeon)
15
SO3 Direct and indirect effects

• Michael then provides examples from OBM where
  procedures are likely to influence behavior, but
  consequences are too remote to be simple
  reinforcement/punishment
• Makes the point that the indirect effects are the
  ones we are interested in - the direct effects
  are not very interesting
• Monetary bonus for sales reps for meeting quota,
  and checks are placed in the mailboxes on Friday
  afternoon
• Direct effect, increase sales
• Indirect effect, look in mailbox more frequently
  on Friday afternoons, or walks more quickly to
  the mailbox on Friday afternoon

(picked on OBM because of me!)
16
SO3 More examples Direct and indirect effects

• A wrestler who is too heavy and needs to make
  weight for a meet eats small meals one day. The
  next morning he steps on the scales and sees he
  has lost weight.
• Direct effect?
• Indirect effect?
• Weekly lottery for attendance. When workers
  arrive on time to work, they receive a lottery
  ticket that is placed in a hat and the drawing
  is held at the end of the week.
• Direct effects?
• Indirect effect?

(picked on OBM because of me!)
17
SO4 3 clues that an effect is indirect (briefly)

• Delay - if the consequence is delayed by more
  than 60 seconds
• Preconsequence increase in behavior
• Tell workers in advance that we are going to
  implement a feedback program and they increase
  performance before getting the feedback
• Ask a worker to stay late and finish a project
  and that you will take the worker to lunch the
  next day if he/she stays - and the worker stays
  late.

18
SO4 3 clues, cont.

• Large change in behavior as a result of a single
  delivery of a consequence direct effects tend to
  occur gradually
• Praise a worker for mopping up oil spills on the
  floor, and the worker then does it from then on
• Criticize a worker for smoking near flammable
  material - he never does it again

(I am not going to talk about SO5 -
straightforward)
19
SO6 Three reasons why are we successful even if
we talk about indirect effects as direct effects

• Some OBM interventions do involve direct acting
  contingencies
• Praise that immediately follows behavior
• On-line feedback/measurement in mfg
• We dont get distracted by by inner
  directedness, rather we look to the environment
  for causal variables and manipulate those
  variables.
• Examples - related to SO6B
• In BBS, we dont try to change attitudes by
  only posting signs about how important safety is.
  Consequate performance.
• We dont try to change satisfaction in order to
  increase productivity

(1st and 3rd are quite straightforward - students
have trouble with the second)
20
SO6 Third reason why are we successful even if
we talk about indirect effects as direct effects

• Our methdology and empiricism may be the most
  important reason
• Objective measurement of performance/behavior
• Record/measure behavior over time as it occurs in
  the workplace
• As a result, we constantly assess whether our
  interventions are actually working
• Daniels, If you cant measure it, you cant
  manage it.
• 50 of experimental articles in JAP used
  self-report measures to assess the effects of
  their interventions - we know how unreliable
  verbal reports are

21
Malotts definition of a rule

• A rule is a verbal description of a behavioral
  contingency, where a contingency consists of
• SD R Sc (consequence)

22
SO7 Malott on rule-governed behavior

• 7A Biggest problem with respect to self-control
  for humans?
• Not the delay, which is a problem with nonhuman
  animals
• Nonhuman animals, smaller, more immediate
  consequences control behavior much more
  effectively than smaller, long delayed conseq.
• Delay is not a problem with humans as evidenced
  by the large number of indirect acting
  contingencies (interventions) that have
  significantly affected behavior/performance

23
SO7A cont.

• So, the biggest problem is not the delay, but the
  fact that consequences are often
• Too small to reinforce or punish the response
  even though the cumulative impact may be crucial
  for the individual
• Immediate punishers of smoking are too small to
  affect smoking, even though cancer is likely
• Immediate effects of exercise are too small to
  maintain exercise program to maintain weight and
  health

24
SO7B Confound in analysis of example Wittkopp,
Rowan, Poling

• The example
• Performance Issue Machine set-up times in a
  manufacturing environment
• Feedback intervention significantly decreased
  set-up times and increased annual gross profits
  of the company by 10

25
Malotts analysis

• Initial problem
• Long set-up times were due to small, cumulative
  outcomes. That is, each single instance of
  off-task behavior had minimal adverse impact on
  the companys profit, and short set-up times had
  minimal positive effect
• Malott says if the following rule existed,
  workers would not have a problem following it
  (even though consequence is long-delayed, it is
  now sufficiently big to affect performance)
• A single unauthorized coffee break will reduce
  your machines gross profit by 10 for the year,
  but will not take effect until exactly one year
  after the illegal coffee break.

26
Malotts analysis A confound according to
Dickinson

• A single unauthorized coffee break will reduce
  your machines gross profit by 10 for the year,
  but will not take effect until exactly one year
  after the illegal coffee break.
• Do you buy Malotts analysis that any operator
  who was planning on staying with the company for
  the next year should have no problem complying
  with such an easy-to-follow rule, though the
  outcome would be delayed.
• Do you think a set-up mechanic would follow that
  rule?
• Why or why not?

27
The confound--- from lecture
28
Example Forklift driver loading boxcar

• Check the boxcar to insure that cases of the
  product were not damaged in shipping
• No nails, straps or metal boards that would
  damage cases
• No contamination such as grain, chemical powder,
  liquids
• No holes in sides, floor or ceiling of the boxcar
  that would expose cases to weather and
  contamination

29
Some consequences

• Fewer customer complaints
• Gets praise from supervisor
• Takes longer to load boxcar
• Must work harder due to physical effort
• Increase number of cases not damaged or
  contaminated
• Costs related to damaged goods reduced
• Customers will order more products because they
  arrive in good condition

30
So Dickinsons addition from lecture
31
SO9A Back to Malott, the 2nd problem that makes
rules hard to follow for humans

• Improbable/uncertain consequences
• Safety workers can perform unsafely many, many
  times and never get hurt
• No safety goggles - usually no eye damage
• Dont mop up oil spills - no falls
• Poor lifting techniques - no back strains
• Walk under or jump over moving conveyer belt - no
  falls, clothing or body parts dont get caught in
  belt
• Change light bulb using chair rather than step
  ladder?
• When pealing potatoes or fruit, cut toward
  yourself with blade rather than away
  (trimming/flashing plastic parts in mfg)

(first - consequences are too small and only
matter as they cumulatively add up)
32
SO9B

• If a person has a close call, he or she will
  usually perform safely for a while, but then
  stops performing safely. Why, from a behavioral
  perspective?
• R (perform safely) Sr- (avoids injury)
• Avoidance - no salient, obvious consequence, so
  the behavior will extinguish
• Particularly a problem if the unsafe behavior is
  followed by immediate positive reinforcers, such
  as less effortful, takes less time

33
Avoidance behavior is hard to maintain

• Even in the operant laboratory with nonhumans
  and tight control, avoidance behavior
  (analogous to performing safely) is very
  difficult to maintain. Eventually the organism
  will not engage in the behavior and come into
  contact with the aversive consequence. Only then
  will the organism start responding again.
• R (avoidance behavior) Sr- (avoids aversive)
• No R (no avoidance beh) Sp (aversive)

34
SO10 Easy and hard to follow rules

• Easy to follow rules, outcomes are
• Sizeable
• Probable
• Hard to follow rules, outcomes are
• Too small (but may have cumulative large effect)
  and/or
• Improbable
• Delay is irrelevant
• From lecture

35
SO11 Same confound in Malotts analysisPersonal
vs. organizational outcome Wilk Redmon

• For exam
• What was Malotts analysis in terms of the change
  from the hard to follow rule to an easy to follow
  rule - that is, what was changed to make it an
  easy to follow rule according to Malott
• What is the confound in Malotts analysis
  according to Dickinson?
• From lecture
• From lecture

(not going to over this or talk about it - but I
do want to add the third and fourth parts I want
in your answers - I could not give them to you in
the SOs without giving away the answers to
earlier SOs.)
36
SO12 Procrastination - why isnt the rule an SD?
Add for the exam Explain your answer

• A person has four hours to finish a project
  before the deadline.
• The rule?
• If I do not get to work right now, I will miss
  the deadline and look bad.
• Why isnt the rule an SD?

37
SO12 from lecture- explain!
38
SO13 Even when the rule describes an indirect
contingency, what controls rgb? Explain.

• Direct acting contingencies, specifically direct
  acting escape contingencies
• That is, molecular contingencies are responsible
  for rgb
• The statement of the rule is an MO that
• Establishes noncompliance as a learned aversive
  condition, thus
• Increasing the reinforcing value of the
  termination of the aversive condition and
• Evoking behaviors that have, in the past,
  terminated the aversive condition (escape
  contingency because of the immediate reduction in
  the aversiveness of the situation)
• Thorny issue, NFE. Is the rule an MO or is the
  learned aversive condition it generates the MO,
  or are both MOs?

(note escape, not avoidance!)
39
Whats missing from the analysis, but assumed?

• Add to SOs According to Dickinson, when will a
  rule establish noncompliance as a learned
  aversive condition and when wont it?
• Noncompliance with the rule will only be truly
  aversive if the outcome/consequence stated in the
  rule is valuable (reinforcing) to the individual.
• If not looking bad to the supervisor is not
  valuable for the individual, then the rule
  statement would not be expected to generate a
  learned aversive condition

(next slide - Malotts counter argument?)
40
Would Malott counter with the following? NFE

• There is such a thing as generalized rule
  following that may make noncompliance with any
  rule somewhat aversive depending upon ones
  learning history
• Malotts Jewish mother metaphor
• In other words, there are rule followers and
  people who are not rule followers and the extent
  to which you are a rule follower depends upon
  your reinforcement history
• Do you obey written signs?
• Do you follow rules when there is no one there
  to consequate that behavior?

(well, enough - onto SO 15)
41
SO14 What causes a person to state a rule, for
example when facing a deadline?

• Malott is providing a complete analysis of the
  sequence of behaviors
• If we are to completely explain/analyze rgb, not
  only do we have to analyze how rules govern
  behavior, but we have to analyze why a person
  states a rule to begin with

42
SO14, cont.

• Simple situation where someone prompts you.
  Dont you have something to do right now?
  Arent you supposed to be working?
• More interesting analysis is when someone doesnt
  prompt you -

43
SO14, cont No prompt from someone else

• Observing yourself being unproductive (or not
  doing what you are supposed to be doing)
  generates a learned aversive condition
• You observe your own behavior and the visual and
  other stimuli from that observation are the
  causal stimuli
• Stating the rule decreases the learned aversive
  condition of observing yourself being unproductive

R MO R
Sr- observe stimuli/not working
state rule decrease aversive yourself
aversive cond
stimuli condition

44
SO14, cont Complicated! (NFE)
R MO R
Sr- observe stimuli/not working
state rule decrease aversive yourself
aversive cond
stimuli condition

MO noncompliance with rule

another av. condition

MO noncompliance with rule aversive condition
R Sr- comply with decrease in
aversive rule condition caused
by noncompliance
45
SO15 Malotts analyses of organizational culture

• 15A. For cultural practices to deal effectively
  with contingencies that are not direct acting
• Leaders must be able to describe organizational
  contingencies and rules that are related to the
  survival of the organization/culture (from
  context, not directly stated this way in the
  article)
• 15BC. The important role of leaders is to
• Describe the contingencies related to
  organizational survival
• Develop rules that will effectively influence
  worker behavior with respect to the contingencies
  related to survival
• Explicitly state the rules to workers, especially
  the management team, and monitor compliance with
  those rules
• 
  (Agnew Redmon)

46
Gaetani et al. self-monitoring study

• Nice article that demonstrates the importance of
  personal consequences and the necessity to be
  very obvious and explicit about how the targeted
  performance will affect the individual
• Small business owner (machine shop) who often
  came to work late - an average of 3 hours and 45
  minutes during baseline!
• First had him self-record lateness but it
  wasnt until the researchers had him record the
  number of potential lost customers that his
  behavior was consistently affected over time

(am not going to go over many of these study
objectives)
47
SO21 Not answered in text

• Based on the graph, do you buy the authors
  conclusion that the addition of data plotting
  (following self-logging) decreased tardiness
  further? Why or why not?

48
SO24 Two excellent points

• The two points may seem redundant to you - they
  are very similar, however
• 24A. The first relates to all types of
  consequences (not just consequences associated
  with self-monitoring) and relates to the fact
  that a consequence must be specific and
  personally relevant
• 24B. The second point relates specifically to
  self-monitoring Self-management and
  self-monitoring may have limited impact if the
  value of the target behavior is not explicitly
  clarified (in this case, tardiness loss of
  potential customers and business)

49
Questions??

• On to PDC project