PSY 6450 Unit 7

1
PSY 6450 Unit 7

• Goal Setting
• Schedules of Reinforcement

2
Schedule

• Exam (27 points), Monday, 11/10
• Exercise (8 points), Wednesday, 11/05

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, as I have indicated earlier, may
  be necessary for feedback to function

(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 dont
  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
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 dont 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 from lecture

• 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
Dickinsons 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 goals Answers 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. Ill 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 Dickinsons point The basic schedules of
  reinforcement are emphasized way too much in OBM.
  They are not very relevant.
• SO9 Hantulas 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
• Whats 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 Lowes (Welsh behavioral psychologist)
  study with infants, 2-3 year olds and 5-year olds

24
Wilk Redmon article

• Study was conducted as Dr. Braksicks 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 wouldnt 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 - its simple, doesnt
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
Base
GS GS Fdbk Graph
Filing
5077
8822
13389
Mail Room
Credit Eval
Data Entry
(Results!)
29
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 dont at least measure those, you
  wont know whether you have really been
  successful
• What if you targeted the wrong behaviors/condition
  s?

(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 workers 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 recurring
  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 dont last
44
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 dont 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 wasnt 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 werent 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, including some who
  were Medicaid certified

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?

51
SO37 What is the potential disadvantage of
targeting staff behavior in contrast to resident
behavior?

• As the authors note, and I mentioned briefly
  earlier, while group home supervisors observed
  the behaviors of staff and gave feedback to them
  weekly immediately after the observations,
  neither staff behavior nor supervisor observation
  behavior were graphed and fed back to supervisors
  or staff
• Rather, the feedback that was given was feedback
  on the of off-task resident behavior and of
  time residents were involved in active treatment
• To truly determine a functional relationship
  between staff and supervisor behavior and
  resident behavior, you would have to measure both
  (however, I admit I am convinced by the data)

52
SO37, cont.

• The authors make the point, however, that there
  is a disadvantage of monitoring staff behavior
• Maintain that staff frequently do not like to be
  observed and often react negatively - from mild
  nervousness to out right hostility
• But, they do not react as negatively when
  resident behavior is monitored and reported
• Thus, this may have made it more likely that
  supervisors would continue to use the system
• Its an interesting point - but I dont know how
  valid it is
• I looked at the reference given, but it was to a
  book written by Reid et al. for practitioners,
  and no data were provided
• It would be an interesting (but difficult) study
  to conduct

53
Highly recommended book

• Reid, Dennis H., Parsons, Marsha B (1995)
• Motivating human service staff
• Habilitative Management Consultants
• PO Box 2295
• Morganton, North Carolina 28680

54
Questions on the Parsons et al. article?
55
Maintenance of PM interventions NFE but very,
very important

• We know we can get short-term improvements in
  performance
• How do we get maintenance?
• There is only one sure way PM must be embedded
  in the management system
• Human service settings tend to emphasize only
  client service and goals to the exclusion of PM
  programs

56
Maintenance of PM interventions NFE but very,
very important

• Parsons et al. Sulzer-Azaroff et al. provide
  exemplary examples of how to do that
• In both settings, everyone up the chain of
  command was held accountable for results
• Top person in system received data and was
  responsible for consequating his/her subordinate
  manager

57
Maintenance of PM interventions NFE but very,
very important

• Parsons et al.
• The facility director (top boss) received weekly
  data, interacted with and made comments to the
  area director
• The area director reported back to and
  consequated the cottage supervisors
• Cottage supervisors reported back to and
  consequated the cottage staff

58
Maintenance of PM interventions NFE but very,
very important

• Sulzer-Azaroff et al.
• Director (top boss in the safety system)
  prepares data for VP of operations (his boss)
• Includes safety as an objective in the managers
  MBO program (measures and consequences)
• Participates in one or more dept. safety awards
  monthly
• Rewards one supervisor selected by a manager
  monthly
• Selects dept. to receive quarterly safety award

59
Maintenance of PM interventions NFE but very,
very important

• Sulzer-Azaroff et al.
• Managers
• Gets data, rewards supervisors whose departments
  meet or exceed weekly goals
• Participates in awards programs for safety
• Participates in the development of safety
  pinpoints for new safety programs or revisions of
  current programs
• Encourages suggestions by supervisors and workers
  that may improve safety and uses position to help
  implement suggestions/improvements

60
Maintenance of PM interventions NFE but very,
very important

• Sulzer-Azaroff et al.
• Supervisors
• Updates dept. safety performance charts within 24
  hours of receiving weekly data
• Gives positive feedback to employees during
  weekly meetings
• Encourages/rewards individual employees for safe
  performance
• Encourages suggestions by workers that may
  improve safety and uses position to help
  implement suggestions/improvements

61
Maintenance of PM interventions NFE but very,
very important

• Both Parsons et al. Sulzer-Azaroff et al.
  involved three levels of management, each of
  which was accountable to the one above
• This is really the only way to guarantee
  maintenance
• Individual supervisors can and do implement PM
  without such upper level support, but those are
  rare and the PM programs probably wont maintain
  if the individual supervisor leaves
• Unless he/she becomes a manager and embeds PM
  into the jobs of the supervisors

(exercise next)
62
In-class exercise

• 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?