1

PSY 6450 Unit 9

Performance and Satisfaction

2

Schedule Exam (35 points) Monday, 12/03, ONLY ONE LECT Measurement project due:

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

Wednesday, 12/05 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

3

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

4

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

5

Coke example Early 1950s, polio epidemic Studies found that coke consumption was highly

related to incidences of polio

Diagrams and analysis provided in lecture

6

Performance

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low

Low

High

High

High positive, high negative relationship between performance and satisfaction

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

(Before going on, I just want to make sure you understand what is meant by - set the stage for SO3, click for line)

Performance

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low

Low

High

High

7

SO3: Zero relationship - 3 situationsBe able to draw diagrams for the exam

Random relationship 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

Performance is the same for all, satisfaction differs

All are relatively high performers All are relatively low performers

(Both sides of the same coin - be careful!!))

Performance

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low

Low

High

High

Performance

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low

Low

High

High

Performance

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low

Low

High

High

Performance

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low

Low

High

High

Performance

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low

Low

High

High

8

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

9

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)

10

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

11

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

(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)

12

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”

(very important diagram: what you want to keep in mind is that rewards cause satisfaction)

Diagram provided in lecture

13

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

No CS (rewards), hence no CR (no satisfaction)Poor performers ––> No Sr (rewards)

Good performers ––> Sr (rewards: sustain good performance)CR (satisfaction)CS (rewards)

(note both diagrams are important!!)

14

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

No CS (rewards), hence no CR (no satisfaction)Good performers ––> No Sr (rewards)

Poor performers ––> Sr (rewards: sustain poor performance)CR (satisfaction)CS (rewards)

15

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

No CS (no rewards), hence no CR (no satisfact)1/2 good and 1/2 poor performers ––> No Sr (no rewards)

1/2 good and 1/2 poor performers ––> Sr (rewards: sustain performance, good or bad)CR (satisfaction)CS (rewards)

16

SO8: Why is it that real high correlations btwn performance & satisfaction are unlikely?

Discussion in class

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

SO9: Results for satisfaction ofRewarded vs. Nonrewarded groups Reward group

22 top performers 22 bottom performers

Nonrewarded group 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?

(answer not on click)

21

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

(authors concluded the above, based on this comparison; explain fully)

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.

22

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

Appropriate Reward Group?

SO11B: What type of reward system is represented by each of the above?

Inappropriate Reward Group?

23

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?

(answer not on click!)

24

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

(authors arrived at the above conclusion, why? Explain fully)

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.

25

SO15: The relationships between performance and satisfaction for the three reward systems?

Total group of Ps = random reward system Zero relationship between performance and satisfaction

Appropriately rewarded group = positively contingent reward group Positive relationship between performance and satisfaction

Inappropriately rewarded group = negatively contingent reward system Negative relationship between performance and

satisfaction

(I have already covered SO14, so onto 15:The relationships are exactly what the authors predicted -)

26

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?”

27

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.

(study objectives are pretty straightforward, thus I am not covering all of them; based on time, skip to SO24, slide 31)

28

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)

29

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.

(absolutely critical to mention the group incentive plan)

30

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

31

SO24: Second Relay AssemblyTest 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)

32

SO24: Second Relay AssemblyTest 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

(24D next slide)

33

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

34

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?”

35

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?

(continues on the next slide)

36

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

37

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

38

Questions? Comments?