Unit 3: Motivation
 Another schizophrenic unit
 Motivation from a behavioral perspective: The
motivating operation (MO)
 Tonight
 Motivation from a traditional I/O perspective
 Monday
 Exam (35 pts) a week from tonight
 No exercise this week
 Immediately after exam, look at the exercise
for U4 so you can get started
1
The MO: Introduction to unit
 MO material for the unit
 Article by Dickinson based on a recent chapter written
by Jack Michael (2007, Cooper, Heron, & Heward)
 Article by Olson, Laraway, & Austin about EOs/MOs in
OBM
 Motivating Operations = Establishing Operations
 Concept of the EO was introduced by Michael around
1980
 About 4 years ago, based on an article by Laraway,
Snycerski, Poling, & Michael, different terminology was
introduced
 Article by Olson et al. was published before change
2
MO Introduction, cont.
 We haven’t made much practical use of the MO
in OBM with respect to our interventions, so
why cover it?
 Traditional I/O psychologists criticize behavior
analysis because we “ignore motivation” (see
Muchinsky)
 The MO does play a very important role in our
conceptual analyses, and when you read the OBM
literature, authors are making considerable use of it
(and you should, too!)
3
(trouble knowing how to handle this concept in this class, difficult, whole unit, but I don’t want to spend a whole unit on it, we haven’t
made much use of it. I dropped it at one point but felt I needed to add it back in)
Some basics
 In common sense terms, behavior is a function
of:
 Knowledge and motivation: a person must “know
how” and “want to”
 In traditional psychology, “wanting to do
something” has been defined and discussed as
motivation
 Skinner, early, talked about motivation in terms
of three main factors:
 Satiation, deprivation, and termination of aversive
stimulation
4
Motivation according to Skinner
 Deprivation
 Food deprivation makes you “want” food
 Water deprivation makes you “want” water
 Satiation
 Food satiation makes you “want” food less (or not at all)
 Water satiation makes you “want” water less (or not at
all)
 Termination of aversive stimulation
 Pain makes you “want” to get rid of the pain
 Loud aversive noise makes you “want” to get rid of the
noise.
 Very high temperature makes you “want” to get cooler
5
(want is not a behavioral way to talk)
What does “want”
mean behaviorally, then?
 Food deprivation
 Makes food more reinforcing and
 Evokes behaviors that have in the past
resulted in food as a consequence
 Food satiation
 Makes food less reinforcing (or not reinforcing
at all) and
 Suppresses behaviors that have in the past
resulted in food as a consequence
6
Motivating Operations
MO: Response –––– > Consequence
Time 1
MO (food deprivation): R (go to refrigerator) –––> SR (food)
Time 2
MO (food deprivation):
A: Makes food reinforcing
B: Will evoke going to the refrigerator
Time 3
MO (food satiation):
A: Makes food less reinforcing
B: Will suppress going to the refrigerator
7
So, in general:
 A motivating operation
 Increases or decreases the reinforcing (or punishing)
value of a consequence and
 Evokes or suppresses behavior that has, in the past,
resulted in that consequence
 Considered a “momentary” variable in the sense
that it helps determine what a person will do at
that moment in time
 If food deprived, you are likely to eat
 If in pain, you are likely to take an aspirin
 Helps determine which behavior a person will
engage in at a particular moment in time
 If really “hungry” and you are also a “little” tired, you
are likely to eat rather than take a nap
8
(also important - continuum, not all or none)
Our own worst enemy for years:
Reinforcement = Motivation
 If behavior isn’t occurring, it must be due to
the fact that it is not being sufficiently
reinforced
 And, it is often the case that many behavioral
problems can be solved by altering
consequences, but not all
9
(in one sense, it is quite understandable that we have been criticized by others for ignoring motivation)
SO1: Two reasons for success in
applied settings, despite ignoring MOs
1. Often behavioral problems are due to
problems with consequences: insufficient
reinforcement or punishment
Most OBM problems can be solved by altering
antecedents and consequences
2. Most reinforcers in applied settings,
particularly OBM settings consist of
generalized conditioned reinforcers. Typically
generalized Srs are effective at any time
because they have been paired with so
many other reinforcers
Praise, money, signs of success, “funny money”
10
tokens, etc.
Money as an example
In our society, money is often paired with food when
we are food deprived, water when we are water
deprived, relief from pain when we are in pain Therefore, money will function as a reinforcer
whenever a person is food deprived, water deprived,
in pain, or some combination of them.
Because generalized Srs tend to be paired with so
many other reinforcers when those reinforcers are
deprived, they will be reinforcing almost at any time because one or more of the relevant MOs are present.
11
(same for praise)
SO 2: Name and describe the two main
cojoint effects that MOs have
1. Value Altering Effect:
They alter the reinforcing/punishing value of a
consequence. That is, they make a consequence more
or less reinforcing. (Note carefully: they do not make a
behavior more or less reinforcing!)
2. Behavior Altering Effect:
They immediately evoke or suppress behaviors that
have resulted in the consequence in the past
•
In unacceptable lay terms: MOs (a) make an individual
“want” or “not want” a consequence and (b) immediately
increase or decrease the frequency/likelihood of the
response that produced that consequence in the past.
(terms are very descriptive)
12
SO 2: Examples of the cojoint effects of MOs
Value Altering and Behavior Altering Effects
Examples of MOs that increase the reinforcing
value of a consequence and evoke behaviors:
 Food deprivation (1) increases the reinforcing
value of food and (2) immediately evokes
behaviors that have, in the past, been reinforced
with food (e.g., going to the refrig; asking for food).
 Becoming too cold (1) increases the reinforcing
value of warmth and (2) immediately evokes
behaviors that have, in the past, been reinforced
with warmth (e.g., putting on a jacket).
13
SO 2: More examples of the cojoint effects:
Value Altering and Behavior Altering Effects
Examples of MOs that decrease the reinforcing
value of a consequence and immediately
suppress behaviors:
 Food satiation (1) decreases the reinforcing value
of food and (2) immediately suppresses behaviors
that have, in the past, been reinforced with food
(e.g., going to the refrig; asking for food).
 Becoming too warm (1) decreases the reinforcing
value of warmth and (2) immediately suppresses
behaviors that have, in the past, been reinforced
with warmth (e.g., putting on a jacket).
14
SO 2: Main effects of MOs cont.
 Value Altering Effect
 MOs can increase or decrease the reinforcing
value of a consequence
 Increase value: Reinforcer Establishing Effect
 Decrease value: Reinforcer Abolishing Effect
 Behavior Altering Effect
 MOs can immediately evoke or suppress
behavior that has preceded the relevant
reinforcer in the past
 Evoke behavior: Evocative Effect
 Suppress behavior: Abative Effect
(descriptiveness of terms)
15
SO 3: Table 2 - MOs with a Reinforcer
Establishing Effect and an Evocative Effect
 Pain increase (1) increases the reinforcing
effectiveness of a decrease in pain, and (2)
evokes behaviors that have, in the past,
terminated pain (taking an aspirin).
 Sleep deprivation (1) increases the reinforcing
effectiveness of sleep, and (2) evokes
behaviors that have, in the past, led to sleep
(getting into bed, turning off lights, turning off
the ringer on your cell phone, etc.)
(If establishing, also evocative: ee)
16
SO 3: More MOs with a Reinforcer
Establishing Effect and an Evocative Effect
 Becoming too warm (1) increases the
reinforcing effectiveness of becoming cooler,
and (2) evokes behaviors that have, in the past,
resulted in becoming cooler (taking off a
jacket).
 Salt ingestion (1) increases the reinforcing
effectiveness of water/liquids, and (2) evokes
behaviors that have, in the past, led to
water/liquids (getting a glass of water, going to
a water fountain, etc.)
(If establishing, also evocative: ee)
17
SO 4: Table 3 - MOs with a Reinforcer
Abolishing Effect and an Abative Effect
 Pain decrease (1) decreases the reinforcing
effectiveness of a decrease in pain, and (2)
suppresses behaviors that have, in the past,
terminated pain. (just like satiation!)
 Sleep satiation (1) decreases the reinforcing
effectiveness of sleep, and (2) suppresses
behaviors that have, in the past, led to sleep.
18
(As go together: aa)
SO 4: More MOs with a Reinforcer
Abolishing Effect and an Abative Effect
 Becoming too cold (1) decreases the reinforcing
effectiveness of becoming cooler, and (2)
suppresses behaviors that have, in the past, led
to becoming cooler. (taking off a sweater, turning
on a fan, etc.)
 Sleep satiation (1) decreases the reinforcing
value of sleep, and (2) suppresses behaviors that
have, in the past, led to sleep (lying down, turning
off the cell phone, pulling the shades down, etc.)
19
SOs 3 & 4: Sample exam questions on the
Value Altering Effect
 What is the reinforcer establishing effect of
becoming too cold?
 What is the reinforcer establishing effect of a
sudden increase in bright sunshine?
 What is the reinforcer abolishing effect of
becoming too cold?
 What is the reinforcer abolishing effect of activity
NOTE CAREFULLY: It is the consequence that becomes more
or less reinforcing, NOT THE BEHAVIOR. Behaviors cannot
become more or less reinforcing!!
20
SOs 3 & 4: Sample exam questions on the
Behavior Altering Effect
 What is the evocative effect of becoming too
cold?
 What is the evocative effect of a sudden increase
in bright sunshine?
 What is the abative effect of becoming too cold?
 What is the abative effect of sleep?
NOTE CAREFULLY: It is not correct to say that the abative
effect “increases not eating (food sat) or not taking off a
sweater (becoming too cold).”
Why isn’t it correct??
21
SO 5: MOs are often confused with SDs
 5A How are they similar?
 They both precede behavior
 They both evoke behavior (but for very different
reasons)
 5B How do they differ?
 SDs are correlated with the differential
availability of a reinforcer
 MOs are correlated with the differential
effectiveness of a reinforcer (that is, the extent
to which the consequence is “reinforcing” at that
moment in time)
22
(confusion is understandable)
MOs versus SDs, cont.
 Differential effectiveness vs. differential
availability of a consequence are different
 You may be hungry (food deprived) and thus food is
an effective reinforcer, however, it is not available.
On the other hand:
 Food may be available, but you may not be hungry.
 MO: Related to whether or not you are hungry
 SD: Related to whether or not food is available
23
SO 5: SDs vs. MOs (diagrams in article, NFE)
Rat example:
A. MO: (food dep): SD (light on): R (press lever)--> SR (food)
B. MO: (food dep): S∆ (light off): R (press lever)-->Ext (no fd)
Food is reinforcing, but only available when SD is present
C. MO (food dep): SD (light on): R (press lever)--> SR (food)
D. MO (food sat): SD (light on): R (press lever)--> Food, but
not SR
Food is available, but only reinforcing when food dep.
24
SO 5: SDs vs. MOs, cont.
Human example (sometimes confusing because of verbal beh):
A. MO (food dep):
SD (Good Food Here!): R (walk in store)--> SR (food)
B. MO (food dep):
S∆ (hardware store): R (walk in store)-->Ext (no food)
Food is reinforcing, but only available when SD is present
C. MO (food dep):
SD (Good Food Here!): R (walk in store)--> SR (food)
D. MO (food sat):
SD (Good Food Here!): R (walk in store)--> Food, but not SR
Food is available, but only reinforcing when food dep.
25
SO6: (NFE) MOs also affect conditioned
reinforcers
 Value Altering Effect of an MO:
 The MO increases or decreases the reinforcing
value of the consequence
 Not only does the MO affect the reinforcing
value of SRs, it also affects the reinforcing
value of any and all Srs (conditioned
reinforcers) that have been repeatedly
paired with the SR in the past.
(read SO)
26
SO 6: Srs that can be affected by food
deprivation and satiation (NFE)
 Food deprivation would not only make food more
reinforcing it would also make the following Srs
more reinforcing:




Sight and smell of food
Pictures of food
The word “food”
The sight of the refrigerator
 Alternatively, food satiation would decrease the
reinforcing value of the above Srs
27
SO 6: CMOs and UMOs (NFE)
 When MOs affect conditioned reinforcers and
behaviors reinforced by conditioned reinforcers, we
call the MO a Conditioned Motivating Operation
 When MOs affect unconditioned reinforcers and
behaviors reinforced by unconditioned reinforcers,
we call the MO an Unconditioned Motivating
Operation
 Food deprivation is an
 UMO for food and any behavior reinforced by food, but a
 CMO for a picture of food or the word “food” behavior
reinforced by those stimuli
 Not requiring that distinction for this class - nor am I
going to talk about the three types of CEOs,
28
although Olson et al. do
SO 8: Some OBM examples
 Feedback
Assume:
R (making widets) ––> Sc (sight of completed widget)
The sight of the completed widget is not a reinforcer
Now:
MO (fbk): R (making widgets)––> Sr (sight of completed wdgt)
Feedback may: (a) make the sight of the completed widget reinforcing - the
value altering effect, and (b) evoke making widgets - the behavior
altering effect.
Note: The sight of the completed widget was present before the feedback,
but was not reinforcing. Hence, in this example, the feedback cannot be
an SD because the sight of the completed widget was available even
when feedback wasn’t.
29
(students seem to have trouble with these and I can’t figure out why, so if you don’t understand them, please ask questions!))
SO 8: Some OBM examples
 Irritation at the supervisor (you are angry at supv/union conflicts)
Assume:
MO (no irritation at supv.): R (work slowly) ––> Sc (signs of distress/anger by supv.)
The signs of distress/anger by the supervisor are not reinforcers, and may
actually be punishers
Now:
MO (irritation at supervisor): R (sabotage, etc.)––> Sr (signs of distress by supv.)
Irritation at supv. may: (a) make signs of distress/anger by supervisor
reinforcing - the value altering effect, and (b) evoke sabotage, work slow
down, etc. - the behavior altering effect.
30
SO 8: Some OBM examples
 Work sampling by supervisor ( objective measurement of
performance)
Assume:
R (working) ––> Sc (supervisor praises or criticizes your work)
However, the supervisor’s praise and criticism are not reinforcers or punishers why? He is not accurately evaluating your performance or doesn’t understand it.
Now:
MO (work sampling): R (working) ––> Sr/Sp (praise/criticism)
Work sampling may: (a) make praise/criticism by supervisor
reinforcing/punishing- the value altering effect, and (b) evoke harder work - the
behavior altering effect.
31
Questions over SOs 1-8?
32
Olson et al. article
The MO and OBM
33
SO 9: Slow interact access example
 MOs can generate escape behaviors that interfere with
productive work (and suggest different interventions)
MO (slow internet access): Dial up vs. cable
R (accessing internet/email): Sight of email in inbox
becomes less reinforcing
Slow internet (a) makes sight of email in the inbox less
reinforcing, and (b) suppresses internet and email access
behaviors - you will do something else as a result and only
infrequently check email.
MO (fast internet access):
R (accessing internet/email): Sr (sight of email in inbox)
34
(example of where knowledge of MOs may lead us to slightly different interventions)
SO 9: Potential advantages of this type of
MO manipulation (NFE)
 Easier, more effective/efficient interventions
 One intervention without considering MO:
 Answering all emails within 3 hours is added as a measure of
behavior and consequated
 However, changing the internet access system is less
intrusive and less effortful on the part of management
- once it’s done, it’s done.
 Does not require on-going monitoring of behavior or delivery
of consequences
 Increase quality of working life (Olson et al.)
 Eliminating aversive environmental events in the
environment (relevant to MOs that relate to aversive
antecedent events - too hot, too noisy, safety goggles
don’t fit well and obscure vision, latex gloves don’t fit
well and make it difficult to manipulate objects, etc.)
35
SO 10: Three reasons why people in
OBM should know about MOs
1. May improve precurrent behavior
related to intervention design by adding
in MO

What does this mean??
36
(explain first in your own words - what does it mean?)
SO 10, cont.
2. May help us identify undesirable
(aversive) environmental events that
direct behavior in unproductive ways.


Directly related to the slow internet example
Eliminate MOs that evoke unproductive
escape behaviors

Mentioned before: safety goggles don’t fit right
and obscure vision; gloves don’t fit right and
interfere with manual dexterity; bullet proof vests
too heavy or bulky
37
SO 10, cont.
3. May help us account for momentary differences
in performance. Why is performance better at
one time rather than another?

Fatigue causing error (14 hour shifts in hospitals?)



Fatigue and hunger causing PSY 645 students to make
more errors at the end of class and become “inattentive.”
Real problem with 3 hour classes!
Inactivity (sitting for long periods of time) causing
error
Nicotine deprivation causing inattentiveness,
“haziness,” inability to concentrate
38
SO 11: 3 Factors that constitute
barriers to MO in OBM (only 1 FE)
 Molar interventions and analyses are one
barrier in contrast to other areas (working
with autistic children)
 But Olson et al. state that molecular
analyses are indeed relevant
 SO: How do Olson et al. argue that a
molecular analysis is relevant for analyses
and interventions?
39
A word on molecular vs. molar
 Molecular perspective: Consequences
must follow behavior immediately in order
for them to affect behavior (temporal
contiguity)
 Molar perspective: Consequences do not
have to be temporally contiguous; only
correlated with behavior over long periods
of time
40
Western Way
 Western way has historically been molecular
 Michael, Malott, Fuqua, Dickinson, Poling
 That’s why Michael and Malott go to such effort to
distinguish between direct and indirect acting
contingencies and analyze molecular variables that
may account for the effectiveness of long-delayed
consequences (more on this in the next unit on
rule-governed behavior)
 Strong advocates for molar
 Baum, Hineline, within OBM, Mawhinney & Hantula
 Many simply ignore the issue but often
analyze things from a molar perspective
 That is, they talk about a consequence being a
direct “reinforcer” even it is delayed by a week,
month, etc.
41
Finally, how do Olson et al. deal with it?
 Back to the main point. The MO is relevant to OBM even
though it is a molecular concept because:
The effectiveness of molar interventions are not
independent of and may be enabled (translation may be caused by) the moment-to-moment
molecular contingencies.
Experimental literature indicates that molecular
contingencies control behavior even if they are not
explicitly programmed by the researcher. The molar
contingencies may alter the molecular contingencies (even
if the intervener is not aware of it or did not directly alter
those molecular contingencies), but the molecular
contingencies are most likely the cause of the behavior
changes. Thus, the MO as a “molecular” concept is
relevant.
42
SO13: The UMO of activity deprivation/satiation
and monitoring performance
 Olson et al. example
Employees observe a monitoring screen that
tracks the operation of expensive machines.
Employees need to make changes to the
machines if they see something that is out of
tolerance to avoid very costly defects in the
product. Fidgeting, pacing, looking around are
incompatible with and disrupt the vigilance task
 Can be generalized to any situation that requires ongoing vigilance: i.e., security monitors
43
Activity as an MO
 Activity deprivation (Table 2)
 Increases the reinforcing value of activity
 Reinforcer establishing effect
 Evokes behavior that has, in the past, resulted in
activity
 Evocative effect
 Activity satiation (Table 3)
 Decreases the reinforcing value of activity
 Reinforcer abolishing effect
 Suppresses behavior that has, in the past, resulted in
activity
 Abative effect
44
Analysis of example
MO: Activity deprivation - monitoring for long periods of time:
1. Makes activity reinforcing - reinforcer establishing effect
2. Evokes fidgeting, pacing, looking around- evocative effect
Solution? Change the MO as follows:
MO: Activity satiation - taking stretching/exercise breaks:
1. Makes activity less reinforcing - reinforcer abolishing effect
2. Suppresses fidgeting, pacing, looking around- abative effect
45
Olson et al. article
 Questions?
 Comments?
46
Traditional Motivational Theory
From Muchinsky
47
SOs 16, 17, & 18: Translation of
traditional motivational concepts
 Traditional theories of motivation typically
address three factors:
 Direction: Choice of behaviors/tasks - why do we do
what we do at the time we do it
 Intensity: How much effort do we expend doing what
we do?
 Duration: Persistence over time
 The MO can account for all three
 Reinforcement/consequences also contribute, of
course
48
SO 16: Direction
 16A: Direction - what we do at a particular
moment in time
 16B: MO
The MO determines what is and what is not
reinforcing at a particular moment in time and
evokes behaviors that have, in the past,
resulted in a consequence that is highly
reinforcing at that moment
49
SO 17: Intensity
The stronger the MO, the more reinforcing
the consequence becomes, and the higher
the rate of behavior that has, in the past,
resulted in that reinforcer.
 The more food deprived you are, the higher the
rate of food “getting” behaviors
 The colder you are, the higher the rate of “warmth”
seeking behaviors.
50
SO 18: Duration
The stronger the MO, the more reinforcing the
consequence becomes, and the longer the
individual will respond prior to obtaining
reinforcement and/or the longer the individual
will respond before becoming satiated.
 The more food deprived, the longer you will
respond prior to getting reinforcement
 The more food deprived, even if your behaviors
result in some food, you will engage in more food
getting behaviors because it will take longer to
become satiated
51
SO 20: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
 Probably the best known theory of
motivation (even though there isn’t much
empirical support for it)
 Still very popular, particularly in business
schools, public administration, and
engineering management
 Need satisfaction theory
52
SO 20: Description of Maslow’s theory
 Behavior is motivated by the satisfaction of
innate/genetic needs
 There are five basic needs, arranged in a
hierarchy
 When a lower level need is satisfied or
almost satisfied, then the next higher level
need comes to strength and motivates
behavior
53
Maslow’s Need Hierarchy
Higher order
Self-actualization:
Becoming all you can become
Self-esteem: respect, recognition
Social: belonging, friendship
Safety: freedom from threat, harm
Physiological: air, water, food
Lower order
(can’t self-actualize completely - dead)
54
SO21: Conclusions about Maslow’s
theory based on review of research
 Received little clear or consistent
support!
 Yet, it remains very popular
 And, Muchinsky gives it a positive
review (in contrast to behavior analysis),
saying:
(Plane, dissertation in public admin, Joe Sasson’s dissertation orals and committee)
55
Muchinsky on Maslow
 It is tempting to dismiss most of Maslow’s
theory, given the lack of support, but a few
points suggest a more positive verdict.
 First, it is not a “theory” in the usual sense;
Maslow did not propose testable hypotheses.
As Wahba & Bridwell stated, “Maslow’s need
hierarchy theory is almost a nontestable
theory.”
(that should give you comfort as scientists)
 Although Maslow’s theory is deficient in
explaining day-to-day work behavior, his
contributions to the field of psychology should
not be ignored.
(why? If it can’t explain work behavior, why is it being included in a chapter on work motivation?)
56
SO22: Translation of “needs” - using
Maslow as an opportunity
 Maslow’s lower level needs: physiological
and safety needs
 Need for food, water, air
 Need for freedom from threat, pain
 I will provide this analysis in lecture
(food, water, pain termination - all unconditioned SRs; not in SOs or your ppt version!)
57
SO22: Translation of “needs” - using
Maslow as an opportunity
 Maslow’s higher level needs: social, selfesteem, and self-actualization
 Need for attention, companionship, signs of
success, praise and recognition from others
 I will provide this analysis in lecture
(higher level needs - conditioned reinforcers- Adams next)
58
SO23: Adams’ Equity Theory
 Adams developed a social comparison
motivational theory.
 We compare ourselves to another individual
with respect to the ratio of work inputs to
outcomes, and if those ratios are not equal, we
become motivated
 That is, inequity between those ratios creates
tension, which causes the individual to become
motivated to reduce that tension
(inputs: education, experience, how hard we work, health, etc.; outcomes - what we get, NOT outputs, what we accomplish)
59
Social Comparison Theory
You
Comparison Other
Inputs/Outcomes Inputs/Outcomes
Equity = Equal Ratios
100/100
50/50
100/100
100/100
100/100
75/75
100/50
100/100
150/100
100/100
100/100
100/50
100/100
150/100
Inequity = Unequal Ratios
Underpayment
Overpayment
60
(Needless to say, perhaps, we seem to have a high tolerance for overpayment and low tolerance for underpayment)
Ways to reduce inequity (NFE)
 Behavioral ways
 Change inputs or outcomes
 Get other to change inputs or outcomes
 Get supervisor to change outcomes
 “Cognitive” ways (no behavior change)
 Change perception about your inputs or outcomes
 Change perception about “other’s” inputs or
outcomes
 Change who you compare yourself to
61
SO24: How and why does a behavioral
approach conflict with Adams?
 The notion of inequity as a “motivator”
runs counter to a behavioral approach.
 We provide rewards contingently upon
behavior to maximize performance - the
better a person performs the more rewards
he/she should get
 If we set up the contingencies correctly, the
“ratios” of inputs to outcomes should, in fact,
be the same for everyone - that is, the
situation should be equitable across
individual workers
62
(tends to give some students a problem)
SO25: On the other hand - A
behavioral analysis of inequity
 There is merit in Adams’ social comparison
concept and we do seem to ignore it in our
analyses - we do compare our
rewards/outcomes to the rewards/outcomes of
others
 In our society, signs of equity (fairness) tend
to be reinforcing and signs of inequity
(unfairness) tend to be punishing
 Think of kids and students, “But it’s not FAIR!”
 Equates to underpayment in Adams’ theory
63
Analysis of Inequity (FE)
 Signs of (stimuli correlated with)
inequity function as an MO that:
 Makes equity more reinforcing (reinforcer
establishing effect)
 Evokes behaviors that have, in the past,
restored equity (evocative effect)
64
Analysis of Inequity,
Underpayment (FE)
 Signs of inequity related to
underpayment function as an MO that:
 Makes one’s current consequences less
reinforcing (reinforcer abolishing effect)
 Abates behaviors that have, in the past,
resulted in those reinforcers (abative effect)
and/or
 Evokes behaviors that have, in the past,
restored equity (evocative effect)
65
SO26: Expectancy Theory
 Expectancy theory is very interesting from a
behavioral perspective
 If a person is an expectancy theorist, he/she
would end up recommending the same
interventions as we would - conceptual
differences, but not practical differences
 26A: Learn major components of expectancy
theory
 26B: Translate those components
behaviorally
66
5. Valence
Pay
Praise
1. Force = Effort ––> Performance ––> 4. Outcomes
Status
Independence
New computer
2. Expectancy
3. Instrumentality
Conference
1. Force: Level of motivation, “pressure to act”
2. Expectancy: Perception about the relationship between effort and
performance. If I work harder will my performance be better?
a. Low expectancy = little relation, decreases motivation
b. High expectancy = strong relation, increases motivation (come back to this)
3. Instrumentality: Perception about the relationship between performance
and outcomes. If my performance is better will my outcomes be better?
a. Low instrumentality = little relation, decreases motivation
b. High instrumentality = strong relation, increases motivation
4. Outcomes: Organizational rewards (and punishers - transfer)
5. Valence: Feelings about each outcomes, ratings of -10 to +10
(look at expectancy)
67
5. Valence
Back to expectancy
Pay
Praise
1. Force = Effort ––> Performance ––> 4. Outcomes
Status
Independence
New computer
2. Expectancy
3. Instrumentality
Conference
Task clarification
Job aids
Goals
Equipment
Knowledge & ability
Work process
Expectancy: Perception about the relationship between effort and
performance. If I work harder will my performance be better?
a. Low expectancy = little relation, decreases motivation
b. High expectancy = strong relation, increases motivation
68
Back to full theory: Any questions about the
other components?
5. Valence
Pay
Praise
1. Force = Effort ––> Performance ––> 4. Outcomes
Status
Independence
New computer
2. Expectancy
3. Instrumentality
Conference
1. Force: Level of motivation, “pressure to act”
2. Expectancy: Perception about the relationship between effort and
performance. If I work harder will my performance be better?
a. Low expectancy = little relation, decreases motivation
b. High expectancy = strong relation, increases motivation (come back to this)
3. Instrumentality: Perception about the relationship between performance
and outcomes. If my performance is better will my outcomes be better?
a. Low instrumentality = little relation, decreases motivation
b. High instrumentality = strong relation, increases motivation
4. Outcomes: Organizational rewards (and punishers - transfer)
5. Valence: Feelings about each outcomes, ratings of -10 to +10
69
5. Valence
Pay
Praise
1. Force = Effort ––> Performance ––> 4. Outcomes
Status
Independence
New computer
2. Expectancy
3. Instrumentality
Conference
Workers will be maximally motivated if:
a) Expectancy is high
b) Instrumentality is high
c) Valences are high and positive
Workers will not be maximally motivated if any of the above
is not the case. The level of motivation is determined by
which of the above is present and to what degree.
70
SO26B: Behavioral translations
 I will provide these translations in lecture
(not in SOs or in your ppt version)
71
SOs 28, 30, & 31: Muchinsky on
“Reinforcement Theory”
 Reinforcement theory = schedules of reinforcement
 Most recent study cited was a 1976 study, although he cites two
later reviews
 Equates reinforcement theory with piece-rate pay in Table 12,
indicating that reinforcement only as moderate organizational
applicability because contingent pay is only possible in some
jobs
 Yet he gives a strong thumbs up to goal-setting theory and “selfregulation” theories that utilize self-monitoring, feedback, and
goal setting.
 Why is he so critical of behavior analysis?
 Interesting paper: review popular I/O texts and see how
they deal with OBM
(muchinsky is one of the most popular I/O texts - about 5-6)
72
Philosophical and ethical concerns
 Muchinsky
The theory entails placing the control of employee
motivation in the organization’s hands because
organizations can “regulate” the energy output of
employees by manipulating reinforcement schedules.
Most people would like to feel that they are in control of
their own lives rather than being manipulated into certain
behavior patterns by the organization. The issue of
responsibility for controlling behavior is sensitive
because it involves ethical considerations of employee
welfare.
73
Philosophical and ethical concerns, cont.
If employees work to exhaustion by mismanaging their
efforts, they are responsible for their actions. However, if
they are manipulated into expending excessive effort,
they have been victimized by a force beyond their
control, and the organization should be held responsible
for their condition.
Issues of ethical responsibility for behavior are not
central to the theory, but they are important when it is
applied in daily life. Whenever anything is “done” to
someone by an outside agent, the question arises of
whose values (the individual’s or the agent’s) are being
optimized.
74
Philosophical and ethical concerns, cont.
 Edwin A. Locke (of goal setting fame)
I am unalterably opposed to behaviorism, not because I
am biased, but because it flies in the face of the most
elementary and self-evident facts about human beings:
that they possess consciousness and that their minds
are their guide to action, or more fundamentally: their
means of survival. I am not against the judicious use of
contingent rewards and punishments; it is the behaviorist
philosophy of man that I oppose.
75
Philosophical and ethical concerns, cont.
 So, any comments about that?
 Any philosophers in the class?
If two theories/philosophies of behavior are
different, but both result in the same
practical applications and interventions, can
one be good and the other be bad?
(one more jab at Muchinsky about safety - bad me)
76
Muchinsky on safety, p. 185
A consistent finding from contemporary safety
research is that the most critical need is not a
list of dos and don’ts or even a set of policies
and procedures to follow in the workplace.
Rather it is the general environment or
climate the organization established about
the importance of safety…The importance of
the pretraining environment is no more
evident than in the area of safety training.
(so much for BBS)
77
THE END!
 Questions?
 Comments?
78