PSY 6450 Unit 7
Performance and Satisfaction
The Hawthorne Studies
Intrinsic “Motivation” & Extrinsic Rewards
Schedule: Monday and Wednesday, Lecture
Monday, 12/01, Exam
1
SO1: Two major speculations about the
relationship between performance and
satisfaction

Most correlational studies have found low to
moderate positive relationships between
performance and satisfaction



Satisfaction causes performance
 Most common one
 If workers are satisfied, they will perform well
 If workers are not satisfied they will not perform well
Performance causes satisfaction
 If workers perform well, they will be satisfied
 If workers do not perform well, they will not be satisfied
In either case, it is hypothesized that there is a
causal relationship between the two
2
SO2: Causal vs. correlational
analyses and Coke example

Most studies that have examined the relationship
between performance and satisfaction have been
correlational.


However, you cannot determine causality from
correlational research and therein lies much of the
problem with respect to this topic
Three potential interpretations of a strong correlation
between two variables
A
B
B
A
A
C
B
3
Coke example, analysis and diagrams


Early 1950s, polio epidemic
Studies found that coke consumption was highly
related to incidences of polio
A
B
Coke causes polio
B
A
Polio causes people to drink Coke
A
C
B
Warm, moist climate caused both polio and people to
drink coke, resulting in a high correlation between coke
and polio
(polio virus; exactly what happened with p&s: third variable, way rewards are delivered, headed)
4
High positive relationship



People who perform well are satisfied
People who don’t perform well are not
satisfied
High negative relationship


People who perform well are not satisfied
People who don’t perform well are
satisfied
High
Low
Low
High
Performance
Satisfaction

Satisfaction
High positive, high negative relationship
between performance and satisfaction
High
Low
Low
High
Performance
5
(Before going on, I just want to make sure you understand what is meant by - set the stage for SO3, click for line; performance on x axis)
SO3: Zero relationship - 3 situations
Be able to draw diagrams for the exam


Some who perform well are satisfied, some
are not
Some who don’t perform well are satisfied,
some are not
Satisfaction is the same for all,
performance differs


All are relatively satisfied or
None are relatively satisfied
High
Low
Low
High
Performance
High
Satisfaction

Satisfaction
Random relationship
Satisfaction

Low
High
Low
Performance is the same for all,
satisfaction differs


All are relatively high performers or
All are relatively low performers
High
Low
High
Performance
Satisfaction

Satisfaction
Low
High
Performance
Low
Low
High
Performance
High
Low
Low
High
Performance
6
(Both sides of the same coin - be careful!!))
SO4: Skinner’s analysis



4A: Feelings and emotions are accompaniments of
behavior, not causes of behavior
4B: Both operant behaviors and feelings/emotions are
the products of the same environmental
variables/causes
4C: Satisfaction does not cause operant behavior
(performance); rather it simply occurs at the same time
because it is a conditioned response elicited by the
same environmental variables (in this case, rewards)
that are responsible for the operant behavior
(performance)
(same pt and analysis as self-eficacy, U3)
7
SO4D: Skinner’s analysis of feelings;
relevance to satisfaction/performance

Most traditional I/O psychologists maintain that there
is a causal relationship between satisfaction and
performance:
A: Satisfaction
B: Performance

B: Performance
A: Satisfaction
Skinner’s analysis would suggest, instead:
C: Environmental stimulus
e.g., receipt of reward
A
Satisfaction
B
Performance
8
SOs 5&6: What determines the relationship
according to the authors?


(SO5) The type of reward system
(SO6) Describe reward systems and hypothesis
about relationship between performance and
satisfaction


A random reward system will result in zero relationship
between performance and satisfaction
A positively contingent reward system will result in a high
positive relationship between performance and satisfaction


What we usually refer to just as a “contingent relationship” between
performance and rewards
A negatively contingent reward system will result in a high
negative relationship between performance and
satisfaction
9
(the answer to this sets the stage for the entire article; state the answer to SO5, but come back to it after we do SO6)
SO7: Behavioral analysis: Learn
diagrams

Key to the analysis


Rewards cause/elicit satisfaction
This is no different than what Skinner said about
piece rate pay:


Piece rate pay may evoke feelings of confidence,
certainty of success, and enjoyment
He could well have added “evoke feelings of
satisfaction”
R (working) –––> Sr (rewards)
CS (rewards) –––> CR (satisfaction)
10
(very important diagram; what you want to keep in mind is that rewards cause satisfaction, don’t forget the CSCR!!)
SO7, behavioral diagrams, cont.

Positively-contingent rewards should lead to a high
positive relationship



Good performers are rewarded
Poor performers are not,
Hence, the good performers who receive rewards will be
satisfied and the poor performers who do not will not be
satisfied
Good performers ––> Sr (rewards: sustain good performance)
CS (rewards)
CR (satisfaction)
Poor performers ––> No Sr (rewards)
No CS (rewards), hence no CR (no satisfaction)
11
(note both diagrams are important!!)
SO7, behavioral diagrams, cont.

Negatively-contingent rewards: negative relationship



Poor performers are rewarded
Good performers are not,
Hence, the poor performers who receive rewards will be
satisfied and the good performers who do not will not be
satisfied
Poor performers ––> Sr (rewards: sustain poor performance)
CS (rewards)
CR (satisfaction)
Good performers ––> No Sr (rewards)
No CS (rewards), hence no CR (no satisfaction)
12
SO7, behavioral diagrams, cont.

Random rewards: No relationship



Equal number of good and poor performers are rewarded and
Equal number of good and poor performers are not rewarded
Hence, the good and poor performers who receive rewards
will be satisfied and the good and poor performers who do not
receive rewards will not be satisfied
1/2 good and 1/2 poor performers ––> Sr (rewards: sustain performance, good or bad)
CS (rewards)
CR (satisfaction)
1/2 good and 1/2 poor performers ––> No Sr (no rewards)
No CS (no rewards), hence no CR (no satisfact)
13
SO8: Why is it that real high correlations
btwn performance & satisfaction are unlikely?
Some (many) rewards in the work setting are not going
to be contingent upon performance:
• Health benefits
• Retirement plans
• Flexible work hours
• Day care availability
• Good social relationships with coworkers
• Responsibility
• Independence
(Click; provide at least some examples; survey of why staff work at WMU; remember the
components of a compensation system from last unit - security)
14
Cherrington et al., brief overview




Participants: 90 undergraduates (groups of 7-9)
Task: Scoring tests
Sessions: Two back-to-back one hour sessions
Procedures




Ps were told they would be paid $1.00 an hour (1971 wages) and
that the top 50% in the group would receive an additional $1.00
bonus
Es picked up the tests every 10 minutes so they had a measure
of performance by the end of the session
The Ps were paid after the first hour. They were told the top
performers received the $1.00 bonus
The Ps also completed a self-report satisfaction questionnaire
15
Cherrington et al., brief overview

Procedures, cont.

Although Ps were told the top performers received the bonus and
the bottom performers did not, in fact the bonus was given to 1/2
of the top performers and 1/2 of the bottom performers. This
means that:






50% of the top performers received rewards while 50% did not
50% of the bottom performers received rewards while 50% did not
After a 5-min break, the whole procedure was repeated
At the end of the second hour, the monetary bonus was given to
the same individuals who received it after the first hour
Ps once again completed a self-report satisfaction questionnaire
(SO12) Note that the total group represents a random
reward group or system


Rewards: 1/2 of top performers and 1/2 of bottom performers
No rewards: 1/2 of top performers and 1/2 of bottom performers
16
Cherrington et al., brief review

The authors then did several comparisons by dividing the Ps
into different groups after the study was over (between grp)

They compared the (a) performance and (b) satisfaction of:



Rewarded group vs. Nonrewarded group
Appropriately rewarded group vs. Inappropriately rewarded group
They then compared the relationship between satisfaction
and performance for the:



Total group = random reward system
Appropriately rewarded group = positively contingent reward system
Inappropriately rewarded group = negatively contingent reward
system
17
SO9: Results for satisfaction for
Reward vs. Nonreward groups

Reward group



Nonreward group



21 top performers
21 bottom performers
21 top performers
21 bottom performers
Knowing nothing else but: Rewards (CS) ––> Satis (CR)

What would you predict the results would be? Would satisfaction be:




Equal for the two groups?
Greater for the reward group than the nonreward group, or
Greater for the nonreward group than the reward group?
Why?
(42 Ps who performed above md, 42 below, threw out 6 who fell at the md; answer not on click)
18
SO10A: Explain sub groups that comprised the
appropriately and inappropriately rewarded groups.
Appropriate Reward Group



21 top performers: rewards
21 bottom performers: no rewards

Inappropriate Reward Group


21 top performers: no rewards
21 bottom performers: rewards
SO10B: What type of reward system is represented
by each of the above?

Appropriate Reward Group?
Positively contingent reward system

Inappropriate Reward Group?
Negatively contingent reward system
19
SO11: Results for satisfaction of Appropriate Reward
Group vs. Inappropriate Reward Group

Appropriate Reward Group



21 top performers: rewards
21 bottom performers: no rewards

Inappropriate Reward Group


21 top performers: no rewards
21 bottom performers: rewards
Knowing nothing else but: Rewards (CS) ––> Satis (CR)

What would you predict the results would be? Would satisfaction be:




Equal for the two groups
Greater for the appropriate reward group than the inappropriate
group, or
Greater for the inappropriate group than the appropriate group?
Why?
20
(answer not on click!)
SO13A: The relationship between performance
and satisfaction for the three reward systems

Total group of Ps = random reward system


Appropriately rewarded group = positively
contingent reward group


Zero relationship between performance and satisfaction
Positive relationship between performance and satisfaction
Inappropriately rewarded group = negatively
contingent reward system

Negative relationship between performance and
satisfaction
21

Random reward group
21 low performers who did not receive rewards
21 low performers who received rewards
21 high performers who did not receive rewards
21 high performers who received rewards
Satisfaction
13B Why the results make sense
referring to subgroups
High
Low
21 21
21 21
Low
High
Performance
Equal number of performers in each quadrant, that is:
21 low performers who did not receive rewards: not satisfied
21 low performers who received rewards: satisfied
21 high performers who did not receive rewards: not satisfied
21 high performers who received rewards: satisfied
22

Appropriately Rewarded Group
21 low performers who did not receive rewards
21 high performers who received rewards
Satisfaction
13B Why the results make sense
referring to subgroups
High
21
21
Low
Low
High

Inappropriately Rewarded Group
21 low performers who received rewards
21 high performers who did not receive rewards
Satisfaction
Performance
High
21
21
Low
Low
High
Performance
(last slide on this – next Hawthorne studies)
23
Hawthorne studies, intro




As I indicated in U1, the Hawthorne studies are often
cited as one of the most important episodes in the history
of I/O psychology and management – putting the “O” in
I/O
Article by Parsons, published in Science in 1974,
required reading for all behavior analysts, certainly for
those in OBM
You have probably heard about the “Hawthorne effect” as
it relates to experimental psychology Lest you think this is “passe,” people talk about this effect
all the time
(but, it wasn’t the intention of researchers to do that; for the most part, they were looking at the same type of variables
that had been examined in past: work breaks and duration of work )
24
SO14: The “Hawthorne Effect”

Changes in the behavior of participants in a
study that are NOT due to the IV being
examined, but instead are due to the fact that the
participants know they are in a study
25
(study objectives are pretty straightforward, thus I am only going to cover a few in lecture)
SO15: How many studies and the
dates of those studies?


Most textbooks only refer to the “light
illumination” study in the relay assembly test
room - that was only a minor study in the series
of studies
Seven studies conducted between 1924 and
1932 at the Chicago plant of Western Electric
(located officially in Hawthorne, IL)
26
Relay Assembly Test Room
Study
What are relays?
Electromagnetic switches used in telephone circuits so
calls could be automatically directed to the correct place
(very basic and unsophisticated definition!!). They have
been replaced by computer chips.
Relays had from 26-52 parts; most had between 34 & 38.
Consider it a complex assembly task.
27
SO18: First Relay Assembly Test Room:
Incentive system and how it was altered

Prior to the study, the assemblers were paid a base salary
and received group monetary incentives


There were 100+ workers in the unit
When group performance exceeded a specified standard,
then each assembler received the same amount of incentive
based on the group’s productivity
28
(absolutely critical to mention the group incentive plan)
SO18: First Relay Assembly Test Room:
Incentive system and how it was altered

During the study, the pay system itself was not altered


But, the five workers who were participants were moved to a
separate room, and their group incentives were based on only
the performance of the five workers - now their performance
contributed 20% to the group’s performance rather than 1%
And, in fact, the wages of these five workers (because of their
increased productivity) went from $16.00 a week to $28$50.00 a week.
29
SO19: The other important difference
in the Relay Assembly Test Room

To accurately measure performance, the researchers
implemented a new measurement system that also
provided feedback to the workers



Chutes were located at each of the assembler’s work
station. When an assembler completed a relay, she would
put it in the chute which automatically incremented a
counter. The counters displayed both individual and group
performance and were readily in view of the assemblers at
all times
Readings from the counters were taken by the supervisor
every 1/2 hour
At the end of the day, a report was issued and posted
indicating the number of relays each worker had assembled
and the total group’s productivity
30
Relay Assembly Test Room
31
SO22: Bank Wiring Room

According to Homans, what factor made workers
maintain rather than increase their performance and
also made them punish members who worked too
fast even though workers were paid incentives?



Workers believed that management would “lower the piece
work rate” if they increased performance; and thus
They would have to work harder to get the same amount of
pay they were currently getting
What does “lower the piece work rate mean?”
Decreasing the amount of incentive that is paid for each
part that is completed.
(so ever since the days of the Hawthorne we have known that workers will restrict their output
if you increase the standards (lower the piece rate), yet this is still the #1 error mgrs. make with goals
and incentives)
32
SO23: Cohesive groups



People often believe that “cohesive” groups will perform
better than “non-cohesive” groups. The results from the
Bank Wiring Room dispel that myth.
While it is true that “cohesive” groups are likely to
control/affect the performance of group members more
effectively than non-cohesive groups, cohesive groups
can perform better or worse than non-cohesive groups.
What determines whether cohesive groups will perform
better or worse than non-cohesive groups? (for the exam)

The types of social/group contingencies that members
implement within the group. Do members reinforce or
punish high levels of productivity?
(that is, members in cohesive groups act more similarly; “peer pressure”, social reinforcers/punishers are more potent; but that does not
mean be more productive or “do the right thing” – fraternities – alcohol poisoning; continues on the next slide)
33
SO23: Cohesive groups, cont.

Note that the group contingencies were very different
in the Bank Wiring Room than in the first Relay
Assembly Test Room study.


In the Bank Wiring Room, workers punished individuals who
performed either too well or too poorly
In the Relay Assembly Test Room – first study, the top three
workers ostracized and punished the two poor
performers, leading to their replacement in the study
34
When cohesive groups go wrong

Hollywood Division of the Los Angeles Police
Department, early 1980s





Many division officers and detectives were extensively
involved in property crimes
They would break into retail stores and then radio in that
they were responding to the ringing of burglar alarms
The placed the stolen goods in the trunks of their cars and
the proceeded to “investigate” the break-ins
The officers later met at specific locations to hide and sell
the stolen merchandise
Officers who were not involved knew about it, but did not
report them
35
(aamodt example)
The “Real” Hawthorne Effect (NFE)


“Generalizing from the particular situation at
Hawthorne, I would define the Hawthorne effect as
the confounding that occurs if experimenters fail to
realize how the consequences of subjects’
performance affect what subjects do.”
To avoid such a confound, “Don’t let subjects see
the data or reward them according to their
performance. But such precautions are not the
same thing as keeping subjects ‘unaware’ that they
are in an experiment.”
Parsons, p. 930
36
INTRINSIC “MOTIVATION”
AND EXTRINSIC REWARDS
(This area of controversy, by the way, is one of the reason I believe that every single person trained
in applied fields, including OBM, should have a very strong conceptual/theoretical background in BA;
otherwise, a person might well be led astray by these type of issues when they come up; and/or not
be able to respond adequately)
37
Intro, Intrinsic “motivation”


I am including this material because of a book
that was published by Daniel H. Pink in 2010:
Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates
us
It’s become very popular in business and
industry



Bestselling list: NY Times, Wall Street Journal,
Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, San
Francisco Chronicle & Publishers Weekly
Bestseller in Japan and United Kingdom
Being translated into 32 languages
(has anyone read it?, former speechwriter for Al Gore, BA from Northwestern, JD from Yale Law
written 3 other best sellers; speaker circuit for corporations, associations & universities on
economic transformation and the new workplace )
38
Intro, Intrinsic “motivation”



Articles have appeared in the NY Times, Harvard
Business Review, Wired, Fast Company and The
Sunday Telegraph
Appeared on CNN, CNBC, ABC, NPR, etc., etc.,
etc.
In 2011, Thinkers50 ranked him as one of the 50
most influential business thinkers in the world
My consulting colleagues in OBM say the
same thing as I: He is “driving them crazy”
(to paraphrase Aubrey Daniels)
(his publicity material states that he uses “50 years of behavioral science to overturn the conventional
wisdom about human motivation and offer a more effective path to high performance.”; felt it necessary 39
to talk about this a bit; I’m afraid it is not going to go away for a while and it may get worse before better)
Intro, Intrinsic “Motivation”



Motivation 1.0: The ancient human drive to
survive
Motivation 2.0: Rewards and punishment
Motivation 3.0: Intrinsic, innate rewards that
come from autonomy, mastery, and purpose
(clearly, I am not going to do justice to his position; 2.0 replaced 1.0 and is where we are now)
40
Intro, Intrinsic “Motivation”

Carrots and sticks: The seven deadly flaws (p. 57)







They can extinguish intrinsic motivation
They can diminish performance
They can crush creativity
They can crowd out good behavior
They can encourage cheating, shortcuts, and unethical
behavior
They can become addictive
They can foster short-term thinking
(his term: pejorative; déjà vu all over again – channeling Deci & Ryan, and Alfie Kohn; we dealt with
these issues 20 years ago; dissertation, 1989 paper, 2 studies, 1995 paper and talks, Cameron’s work;
instead of reinventing the wheel, use articles that I wrote back then – it doesn’t address all of these, but
comes close enough; romantic view of behavior; also realistic – rewards can cause problems; but
reward systems are to blame, not the rewards themselves – make this point in both articles)
41
SO27: Why the concern that extrinsic
rewards may decrease intrinsic motvn



Two types of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic
and person’s behavior is primarily motivated one
or the other
Intrinsic motivation is innate, and intrinsically
motivated behavior (which is self-initiated) is
believed to be more creative, spontaneous, and
flexible than extrinsically motivated behavior
Thus, the concern that extrinsic rewards
decrease much highly valued behavior
(two articles, written for behavior analysts, the other for a lay audience; study objectives over the
scholarly one; Pink’s position is that autonomy, mastery, and purpose are innate drives)
42
SO29: Define “intrinsic motivation
behaviorally”; give an original example



Intrinsically controlled behavior is behavior
maintained by consequences that are the
natural and automatic results of responding
In contrast, extrinsically controlled behavior is
behavior controlled by consequences that are
external to the task (often programmed by our
social environment)
From a behavioral perspective, no functional
difference between these types of behaviors –
they are still controlled by rewards
(traditionally, int motvn has been defined by default; that is behaviors that occurs in the apparent
absence of extrinsic rewards has been and is still said to be “intrinsically motivated.”; automatic pun)
43
SO29: Examples of automatic reinfmt


Painting: when you paint a picture, your painting
behavior is automatically reinforced as the
picture begins to form by each brush stroke
Jigsaw puzzle: when doing a puzzle, your
behavior is automatically reinforced by pieces
fitting together and by progress toward
completing the puzzle
44
SO29: Examples of automatic reinfmt

Skinner, a complex example: when learning how to write,
or writing a paper, “the important reinforcers are largely
automatic: a sentence comes out right, it says something
interesting, if fits another sentence.”
“If these automatic reinforcers are powerful enough, the
student may continue to write and improve his writing
even though he receives few if any comments”
“Money, grades, and honors must be husbanded
carefully, but the automatic reinforcement of being right
and moving forward are inexhaustible.”
(Holland & Skinner, 1961, page 160; Skinner, Technology of teaching, 1968, p. 158; learning to read;
Harry Potter books – thick, long books – The hunger games)
45
SO30: Innate vs. innate or learned

Traditional accounts generally assume that
intrinsic motivation is innate*


Thus, signs of self-determination (autonomy),
competence (mastery), and control over the
environment function as unconditioned reinforcers
Behavioral interpretation makes no such
assumption: Intrinsic reinforcers, like extrinsic
reinforcers, may be unconditioned or
conditioned reinforcers, or generalized
conditioned reinforcers
(this is Pink’s position for autonomy, mastery, & purpose – his motivation 3.0; exception, Lepper & Greene
46
who talk about intrinsic interest, not intrinsic motivation and maintain that interest in a task might be learned)
Innate or learned, cont.
but this slide NFE


For example, Skinner stated (SHB, 1953)
Behaviors that occur in the absence obvious rewards
may be maintained by control over the environment, and
that control may function as either generalized
conditioned or generalized unconditioned reinforcement
Instrinsic reinforcers could also be a simple form
conditioned reinforcement in which stimuli associated the
task have been correlated with approval, praise, or some
other form of reinforcement

VB – when a child is learning to talk, sounds that mimic the
parent or adult are automatically reinforcing: show that when
teaching VB to autistic children for whom that may not be true
(if you want more detail, you can read my quote in the paper; baby’s rattle – rattle might be
unconditioned rft – evolutionary history of “making the world behave”; mn pt – intrinsic motivation
Is innate vs. a behavioral position in which intrinsic consequences can be unconditioned or learned )
47
SO31: Irreversibility of intrinsic
motivation and interest?



Explanations by Deci & Lepper maintain that once intrinsic
motivation is lost it may never be regained
That position assumes that the cognitive and motivational processes
responsible for its weakening are not reversible
That is, this position appears to indicate that once intrinsic
motivation or intrinsic interest is lost/damage, it can never be
regained: it can be damaged or destroyed but not restored


If rewards are removed and the individual engages in the formerly intrinsicallymotivated task (let’s say painting or even reading), intrinsic motivation or intrinsic
interest will not be regained
That asymmetry seems odd to me: Are the cognitive and
motivational processes associated with the loss of intrinsic
motivation and interest so powerful and overwhelming, they won’t
reverse?
48
SO32A&B: Type of rewards that does
appear to result in post-reward decrmts.


Task contingent: when rewards are provided for simply
engaging in a task, irrespective of quality or quantity
This is “of no great social import because rewards are
rarely showered on people regardless of how they
behave”
Banudra, 1987
49
SO33: Type of rewards that do
not result in decrements


Success-contingent rewards: when individuals receive
rewards for “success” – performing well
Success-contingent rewards sustain or increase
intrinsically controlled behavior


This effect is robust and consistent
This is recognized by even strong opponents of
performance-contingent rewards; yet they still argue
against the use of any type of contingent rewards (i.e.,
Deci & Ryan, Kohn)

This has always seemed strange to me
(Pink seems to argue a little more specifically, against if-then rewards; rewards after the fact are OK
in some cases)
50
SO34: Deci and my reply to Deci

Deci:
Rewards that are appropriately linked to performance,
representing positive feedback in an informational
context, ought not to be detrimental. The cost to the
system, however, in signifying good performance through
the use of performance-contingent rewards is that many
people end up receiving the message that they are not
doing very well and this is likely to be amotivating
(my reply next)
51
SO34: My reply to Deci

Dickinson
If, under performance-contingent reward systems, “many
people end up receiving the message that they are not
doing very well”..the fault lies not in the contingent
rewards, but with the performance standards upon which
the rewards are based
I should have added “or the reward system is a
competitive system that divides employees into winners
and losers”
52
SO35: What critical difference in
nonbehavioral and behavioral studies
could account for different results?


Nonbehavioral researchers have reported post-reward
decreases; most behavioral researchers have not and in
the few cases where decreases occurred they only
lasted 1-2 sessions post-reward
Most nonbehavioral researchers have purposely used
nonreinforcing rewards, while behavioral researchers
have used only reinforcing rewards
 Williams (1980) demonstrated that “unattractive
rewards” decreased performance, “attractive rewards”
did not, however, attractiveness based on survey data
(next slide research design, will help you understand. why? Did not want results to be confounded
by task exposure, boredom, etc.; Reinforcers less likely to generate feelings of begin controlled
and less countercontrol than nonreinforcing rewards )
53
To understand SO35: Basic
research paradigm (nfe)



Pre-reward baseline session/phase during which task
performance is measured
Reward session/phase during which rewards are
provided for task performance
Post-reward session/phase during which rewards are not
provided (return to baseline)

If task performance is lower than initial baseline, the conclusion is
that the rewards have damaged intrinsic motivation/interest
Why is the post-reward session/phase considered the key phase and
determination of whether rewards have decreased intrinsic motivation?
During the second phase, when rewards are being provided, you can’t tell
the extent to which task performance is being controlled by intrinsic rewards
and extrinsic rewards.
54
SO36: NFE, Bandura’s quote
Social commentators who decry the use of
extrinsic incentives rarely foreswear such
rewards for themselves when it comes to
salary increases, book royalties, and
performance fees, for fear the currency of the
realm will sap their interest. Valued rewards
are accepted as though innocuous to oneself
but harmful to others
(thus, as I ended the article, this whole area is:)
55
Much ado about nothing!!
(last slide – no sos over the other article; very curious to know whether any of you have
encountered this objection to rewards in an applied setting…)
56
Questions?
 Comments?

57