PSY 6450 Unit 9
Performance and Satisfaction
1
Schedule


Exam (35 points) Monday, 12/03, ONLY ONE LECT
Measurement project due:




Wednesday, 12/05





Monday 12/03 if you want your grade before ME2
Otherwise, Monday 12/10 during finals week
See me if you need permission to hand it in later than that
No lecture
Return of E9
Study objectives for ME2
Return of any projects handed in Monday 12/03
Monday, 12/10, class meets at 7:15 pm


ME2
Measurement project due as indicated above
2
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
3
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
Diagrams will be provided in lecture
4
Coke example


Early 1950s, polio epidemic
Studies found that coke consumption was highly
related to incidences of polio
Diagrams and analysis provided in lecture
5
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
6
(Before going on, I just want to make sure you understand what is meant by - set the stage for SO3, click for line)
SO3: Zero relationship - 3 situations
Be able to draw diagrams for the exam


Some who perform well are satisfied, some
are not
People who don’t perform well are
satisfied, some are not
Satisfaction is the same for all,
performance differs


All are relatively satisfied
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
All are relatively low performers
High
Low
High
Performance
Satisfaction

Satisfaction
Low
High
Performance
Low
Low
High
Performance
High
Low
Low
High
Performance
7
(Both sides of the same coin - be careful!!))
SO4: Skinner’s analysis of feelings,
intro, NFE



Skinner’s analysis of feelings differs from Malott’s
conceptualization
Michael agrees with Skinner’s analysis as presented
by these authors
Malott’s conceptualization



Feelings and emotions can function as consequences of
operant behavior, and hence cause operant behavior
R (get back to work)--> Sr- (decrease in anxiety)
Both Skinner and Michael would disagree with the
above analysis
8
SO4: Skinner’s analysis (FE)



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 that evoke the
operant behavior (performance)
9
SO4D: Skinner’s analysis of feelings;
relevance to satisfaction/performance


Recall, from U1, most traditional I/O psychologists
maintain that there is a causal relationship between
satisfaction and performance:
Skinner’s analysis would suggest, instead:
Diagrams provided in lecture
10
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
11
(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, intro

Key


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 would well have added “evoke feelings of
satisfaction”
Diagram provided in lecture
12
(very important diagram: what you want to keep in mind is that rewards cause satisfaction)
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)
13
(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)
14
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)
15
SO8: Why is it that real high correlations
btwn performance & satisfaction are unlikely?
Discussion in class
16
Cherrington et al., brief review




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) but
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
17
Cherrington et al., brief review

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
(SO14) 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
18
Cherrington et al., brief review

The authors then did several comparisons by dividing the Ps
into different groups after the study was over

They compared the performance and satisfaction (not the
relationship between them yet; that comes later) of:



Rewarded group vs. Nonrewarded group
Appropriately rewarded group vs. Inappropriately rewarded group
They then compared the relationship between satisfaction
for the:



Total group = random reward system
Appropriately rewarded group = positively contingent reward system
Inappropriately rewarded group = negatively contingent reward
system
19
SO9: Results for satisfaction of
Rewarded vs. Nonrewarded groups

Reward group



Nonrewarded group



22 top performers
22 bottom performers
22 top performers
22 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 rewarded group than the nonrewarded group, or
Greater for the nonrewarded group than the rewarded group?
Why?
20
(answer not on click)
SO10: Rewards cause satisfaction, even if they are
not contingent upon performance: Explain why
this makes sense referring to the sub groups.

Reward group



22 top performers
22 bottom performers
Nonreward group


22 top performers
22 bottom performers
Rewards were not contingent upon performance in the reward
group because 22 top performers were rewarded and 22
bottom performers were also rewarded, yet the participants in
this group were significantly more satisfied than the participants
in the nonreward group.
21
(authors concluded the above, based on this comparison; explain fully)
SO11A: Explain sub groups that comprised the
appropriately and inappropriately rewarded groups.
Appropriate Reward Group



22 top performers: rewards
22 bottom performers: no rewards

Inappropriate Reward Group


22 top performers: no rewards
22 bottom performers: rewards
SO11B: What type of reward system is represented
by each of the above?

Appropriate Reward Group?

Inappropriate Reward Group?
22
SO12: Results for satisfaction of Appropriate Reward
Group vs. Inappropriate Reward Group

Appropriate Reward Group



22 top performers: rewards
22 bottom performers: no rewards

Inappropriate Reward Group


22 top performers: no rewards
22 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?
23
(answer not on click!)
SO13: Positively contingent rewards do not increase
satisfaction: Explain why this makes sense referring
to the sub groups

Appropriate Reward Group


22 top performers: rewards
22 bottom performers: no rewards

Inappropriate Reward Group


22 top performers: no rewards
22 bottom performers: rewards
Rewards were positively contingent upon performance in the
appropriate group because 22 top performers were rewarded
and 22 bottom performers were not rewarded, yet the
participants in this group were not significantly more satisfied
than the participants in the inappropriate reward group.
24
(authors arrived at the above conclusion, why? Explain fully)
SO15: The relationships 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
25
(I have already covered SO14, so onto 15:The relationships are exactly what the authors predicted -)
Hawthorne studies, intro





As Muchinsky indicated, the Hawthorne studies are often cited
as the single most important episode in the history of I/O
psychology and management
Article by Parsons, published in Science in 1974, required
reading for all behavior analysts, certainly for those in OBM
But, before looking at the study objectives, what, if anything
have you heard about the Hawthorne studies (or the
Hawthorne effect?
Lest you think this is “passe,” Ryan Olson recently published
two articles in Psychology of Teaching and Learning
addressing popular (and current) misconceptions of this study.
I gave a master’s series presentation at ISPI in 2005, and one
of the questions I got, “Could the results have been due to the
Hawthorne effect?”
26
SO16: The “Hawthorne Effect”

Changes in the behavior of participants in a
study that are due to variables introduced as part
of the experiment (such as Ps knowing they are
in a study) but that are NOT the designated or
target IVs.
27
(study objectives are pretty straightforward, thus I am not covering all of them; based on time, skip to SO24, slide 31)
SO18: 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)
28
SO21: 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
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
(absolutely critical to mention the group incentive plan)
SO22: 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
SO24: Second Relay Assembly
Test Room Study

24A. Participants and how their pay system was
changed




Participants were five operators. Researchers collected data at
their regular work stations for 1-5 weeks while they were paid
according to the departmental group incentive system
They then worked together for 9 weeks at a common bench, but
still in the same room with the other assemblers
However, once again, as in the first study, their group incentives
were based on the productivity of only those five workers rather
than the productivity of the 100+ assemblers
They then went back to their regular work stations and were
switched back to the group monetary incentive system based on
the productivity of all 100+ assemblers. Their performance was
measured for 6-7 weeks.
(skipping to SO24)
31
SO24: Second Relay Assembly
Test Room Study

24B. What experimental design is represented by the
way in which conditions were implemented?


ABA
24C. What were the results?

Performance increased about 12% during the small group
incentive phase
32
(24D next slide)
SO24D: A comparison of the first and
second studies in the Relay Assembly Test
Room



Quite correctly, Parsons notes that the results of the second study
support the position that the small group incentives were a very
important factor in the productivity increases seen in the first Relay
Assembly Test Room study
However, he also contrasts the results of the first study with the results
of the second study, noting how they differed
24D(1) How did the results differ?



In the first study, performance increased by 30% and continued to increase
throughout the phase (for the most part)
In the second study, performance increased only 12% and did not show an
increasing trend - that is performance leveled off at 12% higher
24D(2) What does Parsons attribute these differences to (albeit subtly)?

Assemblers received feedback in the first study but not in the second; thus
he attributes the differences in the above results to the fact that frequent
feedback was provided along with the incentives in the first study
33
SO25: 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?”
34
SO26: 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?
35
(continues on the next slide)
SO26: 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, the top three workers
ostracized and punished the two poor performers,
leading to their replacement in the study
36
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
37


Questions?
Comments?
38