Unit 3: Motivation
1

Another schizophrenic unit

Motivation from a behavioral perspective: The motivating
operation (MO)


Motivation from a traditional I/O perspective


Wednesday
Monday
E3: Wednesday, 10/02
Spring Registration
2



Spring schedule is available for viewing Monday,
Sept. 30
Graduate students can register for classes
beginning at 8AM on Monday, Oct. 14
You should register for your spring classes at 8AM
on Monday, Oct. 14!

Some of our classes fill quickly, particularly 6340!
And, please help pass the word along!
The MO: Introduction to unit
3

MO material for the unit
Article by me based on a chapter written by Jack Michael
(2007, in Cooper, Heron, & Heward)
 Excerpt at the end of the study objectives from an 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 6 years ago, based on an article by Laraway, Snycerski,
Poling, & Michael, different terminology was introduced
 Article by Olson et al. was published before change, thus the
excerpt from their article refers to “UEOs” rather than “UMOs”


I’ll talk about the difference between a UMO (UEO) and a CMO
(CEO) in a moment
MO Introduction, cont.
4

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”
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
(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
5

In common sense terms, behavior is a function of:


Knowledge and motivation: a person must “know how” to
do something and “want to” do it
In traditional psychology, “wanting to do something”
has been defined and discussed as motivation
Some basics
6

Skinner, early, talked about motivation in terms of three
main factors:


Satiation, deprivation, and termination of aversive stimulation
However, recognize, as Skinner did, that reinforcement
schedules also play a role in some of the features of
behavior that have been attributed to “motivation” by
traditional psychologists


VR schedules yield high rates of responding without pauses, for
example
Intermittent schedules make behavior more resistant to extinction
than an FR1
Motivation according to Skinner
7

Deprivation



Satiation



Food deprivation makes you “want” food
Water deprivation makes you “want” water
Food satiation makes you “want” food less (or not at all)
Water satiation makes you “want” water less (or not at all)
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
(back to motivation according to Skinner; want is not a behavioral way to talk)
What does “want” mean behaviorally, then?
8

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
Motivating Operations
9
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
So, in general:
10

A motivating operation



Considered a “momentary” variable in the sense that
it helps determine what a person will do at that
moment in time



Makes a consequence more or less reinforcing (or punishing)
Evokes or suppresses behavior that has, in the past, resulted
in that consequence
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
(also important - continuum, not all or none)
Difference between UMOs and CMOs, NFE
11

UMO = Unconditioned motivating operation
UMOs make unconditioned reinforcers more or less
reinforcing or unconditioned punishers more or less punishing
 And evoke or suppress behavior that has been reinforced or
punished by unconditioned reinforcers or unconditioned
punishers


CMO = Conditioned motivating operation
CMOs make conditioned reinforcers more or less reinforcing
or conditioned punishers more or less punishing
 And evoke or suppress behavior that has been reinforced or
punished by conditioned reinforcers or conditioned punishers

(Olson et al. excerpt used the term UEO; I don’t talk about the differences in my paper; most MOs that are relevant in
business settings are CMOs, but not all – caffeine or nicotine deprivation would be UMOs, for example)
Why do we need a new term for “motivation?”
12

The goals of science are to explain, control, and then
predict the phenomenon of interest
This is done through the discovery of “If-then” laws
 Our principles in behavior analysis are “if-then” laws just as
the laws of physics





If water is heated to 100 degrees centigrade at sea level, then
characteristics result which we term boiling
If an object in a vacuum on earth is dropped, then it will fall a distance
expressed by 1/2gt2
If a behavior is followed by a reinforcer, then it will increase in frequency
in the future
If a behavior is reinforced in the presence of a stimulus and not in its
absence, then the stimulus will become an SD and evoke the behavior
when it is presented
(I am going to have to get a little conceptual here and deal a bit with philosophy of science)
Why do we need a new term for “motivation?”
13



In order to determine the “if” in an “if-then” relationship, you
must be able to reliably observe it and measure it
Motivation as typically conceptualized
 Motivation is an internal state, sometimes perceived as genetic,
sometimes perceived as socially learned (nature vs. nurture)
 You can’t measure it directly because it is internal; thus you
must infer it from behavior or ask individuals to self-report
Motivating operation places “motivation” in the environment
 We can “see it” and we can measure it independently of
behavior or self-reports (which we know are unreliable)
 Thus, in keeping with our other principles of behavior and the
principles of other hard sciences, we can observe it and
manipulate it, and determine its effects on behavior
If we can’t predict behavior in complex settings, which we
often can’t, does that invalidate our science of behavior?
14
A physics analogy
If a person dropped a feather from the top of the
Washington Monument would a physicist be able
to predict where it would land?
(complexity of variables and unknown variables – we don’t have access to a person’s complete reinforcement history nor
do we always have access to motivational variables that affect an individual)
Our own worst enemy for years:
Reinforcement = Motivation
15


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
(OK- back to the MO. In one sense, it is quite understandable that we have been criticized by others for ignoring motivation)
SO1A: Two reasons for success in applied
settings, despite ignoring MOs
16
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. GSrs are usually effective at any time
because they have been paired with so many
other reinforcers
Praise, money, signs of success, “funny money” tokens,
etc.
SO1B: Money as an example
17
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 are 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 almost at any time.
(same for praise; emphasis really should be on the MO, not the number of reinforcers)
SO 2: Name and describe the two main cojoint
effects that MOs have
18
1.
2.
•
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; they make a consequence more or less reinforcing!)
Behavior Altering Effect:
They immediately evoke or suppress behaviors that have resulted in
the consequence in the past
In lay terms: MOs (a) make an individual “want” or “not want” a
consequence (unacceptable) and (b) immediately increase or decrease
the frequency/likelihood of the response that produced that
consequence in the past.
(terms are very descriptive)
SO2: Examples of the cojoint effects of MOsValue Altering and Behavior Altering Effects
19


Examples of MOs that increase the reinforcing value of
a consequence and evoke behaviors:
Food deprivation (1) makes food more reinforcing and
(2) immediately evokes behaviors that have, in the past,
been reinforced with food (e.g., going to the
refrigerator; asking for food).
Becoming too cold (1) makes warmth more reinforcing
and (2) immediately evokes behaviors that have, in the
past, been reinforced with warmth (e.g., putting on a
jacket; turning up the heat).
SO 2: More examples of the cojoint effects: Value
Altering and Behavior Altering Effects
20


Examples of MOs that decrease the reinforcing value of
a consequence and immediately suppress behaviors:
Food satiation (1) makes food less reinforcing and (2)
immediately suppresses behaviors that have, in the past,
been reinforced with food (e.g., suppresses going to the
refrigerator and asking for food).
Becoming too warm (1) makes warmth less reinforcing
and (2) immediately suppresses behaviors that have, in
the past, been reinforced with warmth (e.g., suppresses
putting on a jacket and turning up the heat).
SO 2: Main effects of MOs cont.
21

Value Altering Effect

MOs can increase or decrease the reinforcing value of a
consequence



More reinforcing: Reinforcer Establishing Effect
Less reinforcing: 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)
SO 3: Table 2 - MOs with a Reinforcer
Establishing Effect and an Evocative Effect
22


Pain increase (1) makes a decrease in pain more
reinforcing, and (2) evokes behaviors that have, in
the past, terminated pain (taking an aspirin).
Sleep deprivation (1) makes sleep more reinforcing,
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.)
(sleep – physiological state, not a behavior; If establishing, also evocative: ee)
SO 3: More MOs with a Reinforcer Establishing
Effect and an Evocative Effect
23


Being too warm (1) makes becoming cooler more
reinforcing, and (2) evokes behaviors that have, in
the past, resulted in becoming cooler (taking off a
jacket).
Salt ingestion (1) makes water/liquids more
reinforcing, and (2) evokes behaviors that have, in
the past, led to water/liquids (getting a glass of
water, going to a water fountain, etc.)
SO 4: Table 3 - MOs with a Reinforcer Abolishing
Effect and an Abative Effect
24


Sleep satiation (1) makes sleep less reinforcing, and
(2) suppresses behaviors that have, in the past, led to
sleep (suppresses lying down, turning off the cell
phone, pulling the shades down, etc.).
Pain decrease* (1) makes a decrease in pain less
reinforcing, and (2) suppresses behaviors that have, in
the past, terminated pain. (just like satiation!)
*Remember to think about a continuum here: you can have a lot
of pain, or not much pain. If you don’t have much pain, then a
further decrease in pain is not going to be very reinforcing.
(As go together: aa)
SO 4: More MOs with a Reinforcer Abolishing
Effect and an Abative Effect
25


Being too cold (1) makes becoming cooler less
reinforcing, and (2) suppresses behaviors that have, in
the past, led to becoming cooler. (suppresses taking off
a sweater, turning on a fan, etc.)
Activity (1) makes more activity and physical exertion
less reinforcing, and (2) suppresses behaviors that have,
in the past, led to activity (suppresses putting on running
shoes, putting on exercise clothes, getting your bike)
(just like sleep, activity as a physiological phenomenon – i.e., depletion of oxygen in cells)
SOs 3 & 4: Sample exam questions on the Value Altering
Effect
26




What is the reinforcer establishing effect of being too
cold?
What is the reinforcer establishing effect of a sudden
increase in bright sunshine?
What is the reinforcer abolishing effect of being 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!!
SOs 3 & 4: Sample exam questions on the
Behavior Altering Effect
27




What is the evocative effect of being too cold?
What is the evocative effect of a sudden increase in
bright sunshine?
What is the abative effect of being 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??
SO 5: MOs are often confused with SDs
28

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 (whether or not you can get the reinforcer)
MOs are correlated with the differential effectiveness of
a reinforcer (that is, the extent to which the consequence is
“reinforcing” to you at that moment in time)
(confusion is understandable)
MOs versus SDs, cont.
29

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
SO 5: SDs vs. MOs (diagrams in article, NFE)
30
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.
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.
31
SO6: (NFE) MOs also affect conditioned
reinforcers
32

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)
SO 6: Srs that can be affected by food deprivation and
satiation (NFE)
33

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 make the above Srs less
reinforcing
(sign in the distance, can’t quite make it out)
SO6: UMOs vs. CMOs again (NFE)
34



When MOs affect unconditioned reinforcers and
behaviors reinforced by unconditioned reinforcers, we call
the MO an Unconditioned Motivating Operation
When MOs affect conditioned reinforcers and behaviors
reinforced by conditioned reinforcers, we call the MO a
Conditioned 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” and behavior
reinforced by those stimuli
I am not requiring that distinction for this class - nor am I going to
talk about the three types of CEOs, although Olson et al. do)

SO8: Some OBM examples
35

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 widget)
Feedback may: (a) make the sight of the completed widget reinforcing - the
reinforcer establishing effect, and (b) evoke making widgets - the evocative effect.
Why not an SD? 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. No S delta condition, but give a more complete answer:)
(students seem to have trouble with these and I can’t figure out why, so if you don’t understand them, please ask questions!))
SO8: Some OBM examples
36

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 (frowns, raised voice) by the supervisor are not
reinforcers, and may actually be punishers
Now:
MO (irritation at supervisor): R (work slowly, etc.)––> Sr (signs of distress by supv.)
Irritation at supv. may: (a) make signs of distress/anger by supervisor reinforcing the reinforcer establishing effect, and (b) evoke sabotage, work slow down, etc. - the
evocative effect.
Why isn’t the irritation an SD?
SO8: Some OBM examples
37

Work sampling by supervisor ( objective measurement of performance)
Assume:
R (working) ––> Sr/Sp (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 reinforcer establishing effect, and (b) evoke harder work
- the evocative effect.
Why isn’t the work sampling an SD?
When could it be an SD as opposed to an MO? (not in SOs)
(remember Komaki, U2)
SO9: The UMO of activity deprivation/satiation
and monitoring performance
38

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 on-going
vigilance: i.e., security monitors
Activity as an MO
39

Activity deprivation (Table 2)

Makes activity more reinforcing


Evokes behavior that has, in the past, resulted in activity


Reinforcer establishing effect
Evocative effect
Activity satiation (Table 3)

Makes activity less reinforcing


Reinforcer abolishing effect
Suppresses behavior that has, in the past, resulted in activity

Abative effect
(not activity as a behavior, physiological phenomenon - depletion of oxygen in cells)
Analysis of example
40
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
SO9: Potential advantages of this type
of MO manipulation (NFE)
41

Easier, more effective/efficient interventions

One intervention without considering MO:


Change MOs instead first (note both Sp and MO
manipulation)


Observe and reinforce mechanics for wearing/keeping on safety
goggles
Buy goggles that don’t obscure vision and don’t fit well – eliminating
the MO for taking them off (as well as the punishment for putting them
on)
Increase quality of working life
Eliminating aversive environmental events in the environment (relevant to
MOs that relate to aversive antecedent events - too hot, too noisy, latex
gloves don’t fit well and make it difficult to manipulate objects, etc.)
SO9: Another potential advantage of
considering the MO in our analyses
42

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 6450 students to make more errors at
the end of class and become “inattentive.” Real problem with 3 hour
classes!

Nicotine deprivation causing inattentiveness, “haziness,”
inability to concentrate
I really would prefer when I fly that all of the pilots be nonsmokers…
SO10: Discussion Question
43
In the following example, analyze and diagram the possible
behavioral functions of the goal as an SD and/or MO.
The customer service division of an electric utility is interested
in how long it takes to turn on an electric meter at a home after
a customer requests it. The customer service reps track the
number of days from request for service to meter turn-on and
thus have on-going individual feedback available. The
manager sets a goal of a six day turnaround time. In addition,
she establishes a monthly bonus when workers average a sixday turnaround. Turn around time improves.
44
Questions over SOs 1-10?
TRADITIONAL
MOTIVATIONAL THEORY
From Aamodt
45
SO11: Conceptual differences - motivation
46



Aamodt’s definition
The internal force that drives a worker to action as
well as external factors that encourage action
How can you directly measure an “internal force?”
You can’t. Thus, from this traditional perspective
motivation must be inferred from “action” (performance, behavior)
The MO places “motivation” in the environment
SO11: Conceptual differences - motivation
47


What is the important conceptual and empirical
advantage?
You can measure “motivation” objectively,
independently from behavior
From a philosophy of science perspective, is there a
circular reasoning problem?
We know a person is motivated because she/he
performs well; the person performs well because
she/he is motivated
(I have already dealt with this, but it is important, so….explanatory fiction)
SO12: MO and driving a worker to action –
translation of the term “drive”
48

The MO:
 Determines
what is and what is not reinforcing at a
particular moment and
 Evokes or abates behaviors that have, in the past,
resulted in that consequence
Predisposition to be motivated: Two complex
conceptual issues (NFE)
49

Aamodt includes a section on
Is an employee predisposed to being motivated?

His wording is very careful here:
Psychologists have postulated that some employees are more predisposed to
to being motivated than are others


Note than he does not attribute the “predisposition” to either an internal
innate trait/drive/motive or to external contingencies that may historically
have been responsible for someone having such a predisposition (nature vs.
nurture, or innate vs. learned): He leaves that open
Also note that in this section, he talks about some very practical
environmental things companies can do to affect factors that “predispose”
an individual to be motivated (i.e., self-esteem workshops, experience with
success, positive supervisory feedback and interactions)
SO13: Predisposition to be motivated
Self-esteem (NFE): how to analyze
50

Self-esteem, similar to some of the other variables in this
section, is being viewed as an antecedent causal variable


Good self-esteem High motivation  Good performance
Thus, interventions are aimed at influencing a person’s self-esteem,
which will then influence motivation and, finally, performance
A behavioral perspective views this differently: The same
environmental variables that affect performance also influence
a person’s self-esteem (emotion, attitude)
R

Performance
Sr
Signs of success/praise/rewards
CS  CR (good self-esteem)
(first on this slide; thus, our interventions – feedback, rewards, praise, training, task clarification – would directly target the performance;
good self-esteem, feeling good about one-self would come as a by-product of the same interventions; example Cole&Hopkins, 1995)
Predisposition to be motivated (still NFE)
51

A second major conceptual issue related to this material
(specifically, intrinsic motivation, a need for achievement, and a
need for power)


Many contend that factors such as intrinsic motivation, a need for
achievement and a need for power are internal (and often innate)
“forces”
Behaviorists, as environmentalists, oppose this position and place the
causal variables in the environment


My translation of Maslow’s needs (SO18) will provide examples of how to
redefine/re-conceptualize the concepts of “needs” and “drives”
My translation of intrinsic motivation which I will cover in U7 also will provide
an example of how to redefine/re-conceptualize concepts like this
SO 16: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
52




Probably the best known theory of motivation (even
though there isn’t much empirical support for it)
Academicians haven’t supported it since the 1970s
Still very popular, particularly in business schools,
public administration, and engineering management
Need satisfaction theory
(Plane, dissertation in public admin, dissertation orals and committee with a member from business, bit of a
problem with the fact that Aamdot states that it may still be useful even though it is not supported by research.)
SO 16: Description of Maslow’s theory
53



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
Maslow’s Need Hierarchy
Higher order
54
Self-actualization:
“Be all that you can be”
Ego: respect, recognition
Social: belonging, friendship
Safety: freedom from threat, harm
Biological: air, water, food
Lower order
(can’t self-actualize completely - dead)
SO18: Translation of “needs” using
Maslow as an opportunity
55

Maslow’s lower level needs: biological and safety
needs



Need for food, water, air
Need for freedom from pain, discomfort
The translation: MOs (actually UMOs) and their
corresponding unconditioned reinforcers



When an individual is food deprived
Food becomes reinforcing and
Behaviors that have resulted in food in the past will be evoked
(food, water, pain termination - all unconditioned SRs; not in SOs)
SO18: Translation of “needs” - using Maslow
as an opportunity
56

Maslow’s higher level needs: social, ego, and selfactualization
Need for attention, companionship, signs of success, praise
and recognition from others
The translation: MOs (actually CMOs) and the corresponding
conditioned reinforcers
 When an individual is “attention” deprived
 Attention becomes reinforcing and
 Behaviors that have resulted in attention in the past will be
evoked


(higher level needs - conditioned reinforcers- expectancy theory next)
SO19: Expectancy Theory
57

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
18A: Learn major components of expectancy
theory
18B: Translate those components behaviorally
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)
58
5. Valence: Feelings about each outcomes, ratings of -10 to +10
(expanded version; Vroom, Porter & Lawler; definition of expectancy different; look at expectancy)
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
59
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)
60
5. Valence: Feelings about each outcomes, ratings of -10 to +10
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.
61
SO19B: Behavioral translations
62





Force: how hard a person works
Expectancy: to what extent will my work behaviors
lead to successful performance/accomplishments
Instrumentality: to what extent are rewards and
punishers contingent upon performance
Outcomes: the consequences of performance
Valence: reinforcing or punishing value of each
consequence (resulting, if you will in a “balance of
consequences analysis”)
(Adams’ equity, next slide)
SO20: Adams’ Equity Theory
63



Adams developed a social comparison motivational
theory (and satisfaction)
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 to
bring the ratios into balance
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)
Social Comparison Theory
Your
Comparison Other
Inputs/Outcomes Inputs/Outcomes
64
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
(Needless to say, perhaps, we seem to have a high tolerance for overpayment and low tolerance for underpayment)
Ways to reduce inequity (NFE)
65

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
SO22: A behavioral analysis of inequity
66


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
22(1): Analysis of Inequity (FE)
67

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)
22(2): Analysis of Inequity, Underpayment (FE)
68

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)
SOs 23-24: How is OBM portrayed in
I/O Psychology texts?
69



From Unit 1 recall that there is not much “crossfertilization” between OBM and I/O psychology
although our goals are identical
Until recently, I/O psychology texts did not say
much about OBM
Two years ago, when I reviewed the top selling 8
I/O texts, I found that times are changing
SO23: Review of texts in I/O
70



Four of the 8 discussed OBM in the motivation
chapter, both accurately and favorably
One of the 8 included OBM in the motivation
chapter, but portrayed it unfavorably
Three didn’t mention OBM in the motivation
chapter, but did mention the importance of
reinforcement in the training chapters
(only the first for the exam)
SO24: Review of texts in I/O
71




Why is this important?
These are the texts that students in “traditional” I/O psychology
programs are reading
If we want to establish a closer relationship with traditional I/O
psychology, it is important for us to know how they perceive us – both
strengths and weaknesses
It is also important for us to learn more about I/O psychology and
recognize what they do well that we do not. In my opinion, for example:

Personnel selection and placement

Survey construction and methodology

Diversity (unfair discrimination and cross-cultural I/O psychology)
(most people in OBM don’t know much about IO psychology)
SO25: Excerpts in coursepack
72

Muchinsky (2006, deleted in 2009)*
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.
*by far, the top selling I/O psychology text
Muchinsky quote, cont.
73
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.
SO25: More excerpts
74

Edwin Locke (2008)
It was an unpleasant time in the field of psychology, because it was then
dominated by the doctrine of behaviorism (with B. F. Skinner as its
leader). This very irrational doctrine had dominated psychology for most
of the century….Neither Ryan, nor Smith, nor I accepted this doctrine
(which started to collapse in the 1970s) but we were in the minority then.

Another quote from Edwin Locke:
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.
SO25A: So what does the main concern about
OBM appear to be?
75

Philosophical and ethical – ultimately, the concept that
behavior is controlled by the environment.
How would you respond to this criticism with respect to other
motivational theories?
OBM uses many of the same “motivational” variables as
“traditional” I/O theories – self-recording, feedback, goalsetting, rewards….yet these other theories are not
subjected to the same criticisms.
(i.e., expectancy theory vs. OBM, goal-setting theory vs. OBM, self-regulation theory vs. OBM)
Here’s a response by a colleague of mine
76
Why wouldn’t managers want to accept the existence of laws
of human behavior? One reason is that the concepts of
prediction and control run counter to deeply ingrained beliefs
about free will. Managers are caught in the dilemma of
wanting to change/control behavior while simultaneously
retaining the concept of free will. Managers want results but
they don’t want to believe that behavior can be controlled.
Thus, while most say that they don’t believe it, they act like they
do. Managers want effective management tools and
interventions, but they don’t want the assumptions upon which
those successful tools and interventions must be based – that
behavior is caused and determined.
Here’s a response by a colleague of mine
77
A change in terminology may help. Other management theories
and techniques have a more pleasant ring to them and the
names sound innocent enough. But, isn’t the point in every case,
if the manager follows the advice given in the article or book,
then the behavior of the employee will be changed in the
desired direction? To the extent that such techniques are valid,
they are simply conveying accurate laws of behavior.
Perceived this way, the semantic cover is blown. But is this
semantic cover necessary so that managers do not have to
confront the underlying assumption of behavioral control enabling them to maintain the illusion of free will while still
acting to the contrary?
SO25B: What was the second most frequently
mentioned concern?
78


That we believe that all individuals are rewarded
and punished by the same things
That is, that we do not believe that different
things reinforce/punish different individuals
I honestly don’t know where they got this one
except for perhaps reviewing our interventions in
which we apply the same intervention to all
employees in a unit – but don’t others as well?
SO25: “Endnote” (NFE)
79

We haven’t helped the authors of I/O psychology
texts much: we still do not have a scholarly text in
OBM

We haven’t given them our perspective on ethics and the
control issue in an easy-to-access source/book/text


They still might not like what we have to say, but at least they
would know how we handle these issues
They don’t know how we deal with “different strokes for
different folks”
THE END!
80


Questions?
Comments?