Transcript Document

Unit 5
Feedback, cont.
Goal Setting
Schedules of Reinforcement
1
Unit 5: Schedule


Wednesday: Lecture
Monday, 10/21




U5 lecture, cont.
Exercise: Schedules of reinforcement in the lab and applied settings
Wednesday, 10/23: E5
Monday, 10/28: ME1 over Units 1-4

I’ll hand out study objectives for ME1 on Monday, 10/21
2
ME1



Covers Units 1-4 (not E5)
If you have missed an exam, you need to take ME1 or
your missing exam score turns into a zero
If you have taken all the exams to date and would like to
replace your lowest score on Es 1-4, you should take
ME1


If your grade on ME1 is lower than your grades on Es 1-4, I
throw out ME1; the ME1 cannot hurt your grade, it can only
help your grade
If you have taken all of the exams to date and are
satisfied with your scores, you get the day off
(Monday, 11/04 is the last day to withdraw from classes w/o academic penalty)
3
In-class exercise (8 points), Mon. 10/21







Read Latham & Dossett in the coursepack
Pay particular attention to the Methods section
Was the continuous reinforcement (CRF) schedule used
in the Latham & Dossett article a true CRF schedule?
Was the variable ratio 4 (VR4) schedule used in the
Latham & Dossett article a true VR4 schedule?
For each question, first say “yes” or “no”
List as many reasons as you can
You can bullet each reason, then provide an explanation
beneath each bullet
4
In-class exercise (8 points), Mon. 10/22



I am not looking for a long paper: 2 pages max
The points you earn will depend upon
 whether you identify the most obvious reasons
 the number of reasons you identify
This is NOT an opinion paper
 Use the material from this class
 Possibly others
5
SO1: SMART goals (NFE)




Locke & Latham developed “goal setting” theory and have done some
stellar studies in the area
While originally, Locke did not believe feedback was important, over
the years he adjusted his opinion about that based on his research
Thus, while we would not agree with Locke’s conceptual analyses,
once again, as with expectancy theory, we do agree about practical
implementation
SMART goals (Rubin, 2002)






Specific
Measurable
Attainable
Relevant
Time-bound
I would add “accompany with feedback and consequences”
6
SO2A: Specific goals are better than general goals
(Locke & Latham). Why from a behavioral perspective?
OBM position: Goals affect performance only because of the
consequences that follow behaviors that result in goal attainment.

When goals are specific



They specify the response requirements
They specify the criterion for reinforcement/reward
Thus, both employees and managers can easily discriminate
successful from unsuccessful performance


Goals function like task clarification in the sense that the
employee knows exactly what good performance consists of
They also provide an explicit “evaluative” component which, as I
have indicated earlier, appears to be necessary for feedback to
function effectively in most situations
(material is from an analysis by Fellner & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1984, jOBM. Time to update the literature review, do your best goals next; evaluation
component does NOT have to be goals - could be achieved a number of ways, but goals “work” )
7
SO2B. What are the problems with “do your best”
goals?

What about “do your best goals?”


They preclude objective assessment because no
performance criteria are stated
Employees may set lower goals than the supervisor
and anticipate rewards that they then don’t receive

Remember, most employees evaluate themselves better
than their supervisor evaluates them
8
SO3: Although difficult goals may lead to
higher levels of performance, be careful!
Goals should be realistic and challenging but not too difficult
From a behavioral perspective. Why? There are 3 problems.
1. Goal: R (work hard) ––––> Sp (supervisory criticism)
2. Goal: R (work hard) ––––> Ext (don’t meet goal)
3. Goal: R (work hard) ––––> Sp (signs of failure)
In our culture, signs of failure tend to be conditioned punishers.
Think about it. Regardless of the criticism you get from a supervisor (or
professor), when you fail to meet a goal or standard, how do you “feel?”
Signs of failure tend to be “automatically punishing” - which punishes the
behavior of working harder.
(example in book, students who were failing set goals to get a 4.0; stretch goals, #2 Daniels’ Oops – 13 mangt practices that waste time & money
9
operationally defined as those that are attained less than 10% of the time; students often get the first two, miss the third; 1st EOM programs)
Jeffrey et al. study (2012): nfe


Many organizations use one goal: a goal
that is the same for all workers
Basic research question: Are ability-based
goals more effective, particularly for low and
middle performers?
(lab study, interesting study, interesting results)
10
Jeffrey et al. (2012): nfe


Based on an initial performance assessment,
divided participants into low performers, middle
performers and high performers
Two conditions


One goal: 20% of all performers had met the goal
Ability-based goals: different goals for the different
groups



Low performers: 20% of low performers had met the goal
Middle performers: 20% of middle performers had met the
goal
High performers: 20% of all performers had met the goal
(based on pilot study; decoding task – 3-digit number that they had to convert into a letter
of the alphabet – were given the key; divided Ps into three groups based on initial session)
11
Jeffrey et al. (2012): nfe


Pay: $2 base pay + bonus for reaching goal
One session, divided into 5 periods



Practice session
Assessment session with per piece incentives for each
item correctly decoded: used to assign Ps to low,
middle, high performers
Three 5-minute performance periods
12
Jeffrey et al. study (2012): nfe

Ability-based goals were more effective than one
goal for all for low performers



Low performers who were given goals based on low
performance performed better than their counterparts who were
given a higher goal based on the performance of all performers
(which included the middle and high performers)
Low and middle performers who received the one goal
decreased their performance across 3 sessions
Challenging, but “attainable” goals are the best


What is challenging and what is too difficult??
Were the goals in this study too difficult?
(the analysis I provided earlier probably explains why: goals were too difficult for the low and middle performers;
0% of the low and middle performers in the one goal condition met the goal; only ~35% of high performers did) 13
Jeffrey et al. follow-up studies




Goals may have been too high and bonus system may
have influenced the results
Redo the study using goals based on the average
performance of the groups, not a goal that only 20% of
individuals can meet
Use piece rate pay rather than an all or none bonus
system
Different perspective of traditional management and
OBM?


Only top performers should be rewarded and get bonus pay
All workers who perform well (above average) should be paid
commensurate with their performance (piece rate pay)
14
Practical dos and don’ts: still nfe

When possible do use tiered (multiple
goals) with successively increasing
rewards for meeting each higher goal


Performance Matrix is a great tool for this
because of the multiple goals (columns 6-10)
Do not have different goals for different
individuals with the same tangible/monetary
rewards – disaster
(organizations typically can’t set individual goals – too labor intensive; but it may be possible 2-3 tiers;
Pampino et al. did that in study in U2; last slide on this)
15
SO5: Assigned vs participative goals

The research indicates that participating in goal
setting does not increase performance when
compared to assigned goals


Three meta-analysis studies now support this
conclusion, first one in 1986
The key issue, thus, is not how a goal is set, but
whether a goal is set
(Back to the Sos: this is a very common misconception; issue keeps coming up at ABAI, with a student -from another program-arguing
and maintaining that participative goals were better)
16
SO6A: Goals – what is the best combination?

We know that goals combined with feedback are more
effective than either alone




Feedback enhances the effectiveness of goals
Goals enhance the effectiveness of feedback
Studies suggest that graphic feedback is the most
effective type of feedback to use with goals: better than
vocal or written
We know that goals and feedback are much more
effective when consequences are provided

Not definitive, but it appears that monetary incentives/rewards are
more effective than nonmonetary incentives/rewards
THUS……….
(next slide)
17
SO6A: What is the best combination? (answer)



Goals
Graphic feedback that displays performance
over time, preferably at least once a week
Some type of performance consequence,
preferably monetary incentives
(the same recommendation from Balcazar et al – just add goals when at all possible)
18
SO6B: Group goals


When using group goals, what factor should
be taken into account?
Group size
Group goals are more effective with small
groups than large ones


However, we don’t know what the “critical” size is
This would be a very interesting and valuable
study to conduct

Goals, graphic feedback, consequences, while
manipulating group size
(alone, not combining them with individual goals; group size is an issue in ALL group
contingencies)
19
SO7: Possible behavioral functions of
goals: nfe



Analyses of goals parallel those of feedback
Summarized the prevalent ones in SO7
Good summary and starting point if you
want to pursue this:
Tammemagi et al. (2013)
20
SO8: Daniels vs. Dickinson

Daniels maintains that if you set a goal and if
performance meets but does not exceed that
goal, the contingency is a negative rather than
positive reinforcement contingency

Also maintains that negative reinforcement contingencies
are bad contingencies because they represent aversive
control


In order for negative reinforcement to work there must be a
pre-existing aversive stimulus that the behavior terminates
or avoids
Is this a correct analysis?
21
Dickinson’s position



People are not going to overshoot goals if there is no
further reinforcement for doing so, whether or not the
contingency is a negative or positive reinforcement
contingency
Negative reinforcement contingency
 People will perform only to the level that terminates or
avoids criticism or punishment
Positive reinforcement contingency
 People will perform only to the level that results in
maximum positive reinforcement
22
Main point repeated

If there is no further reinforcement for performing above
the goal, then people will not exceed the goal, regardless
of whether the reinforcement is positive or negative


If you want people to perform above the goal, then you must
provide additional reinforcement/rewards for them to do that
Daniels’ misconception (I think) comes from the fact that he
encourages further praise/reward/recognition from supervisors for
above goal performance; but often those rewards are not
qualitatively different than rewards for meeting goals (nontangible
socials), so doesn’t view those rewards as “additional” positive
reinforcement
23
Example:

Union National Bank





Baseline: 1,065 items per machine hour
Feedback: 1,800 items per machine hour
Incentive, top incentive rate was for 2,500 items per machine
hour: 2,700 items per machine hour
Incentive 2, top incentive rate was for 3,500 items per machine
hour: 3,500 items per machine hour
During the first incentive phase, proof operators met but
did not exceed the goal (except to a level than insured they met
the goal)

Yet during the second incentive phase when additional
incentives (reinforcement) was provided, they increased
their performance (but again, only to a level that met the goal)
24
SO9: Most common mistake re goals
What is the most common mistake that managers make after
implementing a goal setting program for employees?
Increase the goals without increasing the rewards
Why is that a problem?
It’s a punishment procedure. The consequence of
meeting the goal is that management increases the
goal so that the worker has to work harder and harder
to obtain the same rewards
What are employees going to do?
Restrict their productivity and in some cases
develop performance norms monitored by the group
(mgrs loose their common sense when they become managers. social isolation and criticism)
25
What about successively increasing goals? NFE




Daniels recommends that you set goals low so people can
meet them, then gradually increase them
Wilk & Redmon used successively increasing goals
Sulzer-Azaroff used successively increasing goals
Proceed with caution: OK if praise and celebrations are
consequences
With tangible rewards, particularly with incentives, you should never
increase the goal level without increasing the reward level
Tiered reward systems work well with tangible rewards, however
 Union National Bank - increased incentive rate
 Pampino et al. (U2) - an additional lottery ticket
 Performance matrix - more points for higher levels of performance
(only after goals had been met several times; another interesting study - )
26
Schedules of Reinforcement


The basic schedules of reinforcement are
emphasized way too much in OBM. They are not
very relevant. In fact, I would argue they are not
relevant at all. I’ll come back to this in a moment
I have provided definitions of basic schedules in
SO10 (NFE)

You need to know them for your exercise this week
27
SO11A: Is hourly pay is an example of a
FI schedule?


Yes or no
Why or why not?
(answer not on slide)
28
SO11B: FR3 example, NOT!



Goal of study: increase the extent to which college
students rode buses on a college campus (Penn State)
Tokens that could be traded for merchandise from local
stores served as the “reinforcers” (pop, reduced price on
pizza, etc.)
Gave a token to every third person that got on the bus
(FR3)
What is the major problem with calling this schedule an
FR3?
29
Schedules of Reinforcement


Back to Dickinson’s point: The basic schedules of
reinforcement tend to be emphasized way too much in
OBM. They are not very, if at all relevant.
SO12: Hantula’s conclusions after reviewing the effects of
schedules of reinforcement on organizational behavior review covered 1971-1994


Reinforcement schedules (in comparison to hourly pay) are an
effective way to manage work, however
The parameters of the schedule did not result in consistent
differences in performance. Rather, the presence of a
contingent relationship between performance and rewards was
the critical factor with respect to improving performance

Bucklin & Dickinson found the same thing in a review of monetary
incentives
30
SO12: What does this mean?


Performance contingent rewards do increase
performance,
But different schedules of reinforcement (e.g., FR vs VR
schedules, FR1 vs FR4, FR1 vs VR2, VR2 vs VR4) do
not affect performance differently in work settings
(ABA presentation set up incentives for staff in human service setting - very nice study - spent many, many hours deciding what
reinforcement schedule to use - wasted hours).
31
SO13: Why are these results different
than the results of research on basic schedules?


In the operant laboratory, different schedules of reinforcement
do generate different response rates and patterns of
performance. So, what may account for the differences seen in
the laboratory and in applied settings?
Before answering, why does anyone care? Why is this analysis
important?



Our basic principles of behavior have been called into question
(particularly by expectancy theorists in I/O) because humans do
not show the same response patterns as nonhumans
That is, they claim this proves that our basic principles are
incorrect
So, we have to be prepared to answer these criticisms and
concerns
32
Two reasons why humans do not usually display the typical
performance patterns displayed by nonhumans in an operant
laboratory setting
1.
Although schedules used in applied settings are
indeed schedules of reinforcement, they are rarely, if
ever the same schedules examined in the laboratory,
even though they are called the same thing (e.g., FR1,
FR3, etc.). Given that they are not the same, we
should not expect the performance patterns to be the
same

FR3 example earlier
33
Two reasons why humans do not usually display the typical
performance patterns displayed by nonhumans in an operant
laboratory setting
2.
Adult humans tend to describe contingencies to
themselves and then their behavior is controlled by
their self-stated rules



FI: Slow responding is reinforced
FR: Fast responding is reinforced
Fergus Lowe’s (Welsh behavioral psychologist)
study with infants, 2-3 year olds and 5-year olds
(last slide on this)
34
Crawley et al. article, introduction



I have included this article because it is the best one I have ever
seen with respect to improving sales behaviors and I would
wager that most many of the behaviors identified in their exquisite
analysis would generalize to other sales positions
Study was conducted by one of Ed Feeney’s consultants, Bill
Crawley (I didn’t stress Feeney’s accomplishments in U1, but I
recommend that you go back and read the Dickinson article for an
historical perspective)
(NFE) Note the analysis at the beginning that was designed to determine
the best opportunities for intervention, based on both the potential for
improving performance (exemplar performer vs. average performer) and
the economic pay-off of intervening on the performance
(back to feedback; old study)
35
SO14: What approach was not successful in
identifying what made sales reps effective?


Surveys were sent to the top sales representatives in the country
asking what is was that they did that made them so effective
This approach did not work because sales representatives could
not describe the behaviors that made them successful





I am friendly
It’s genetic - my parents were sales representatives
You need to be “up”
You need to be aggressive
General point
Even though workers are exemplary workers, they often can’t tell you
what they do that makes them exemplary workers. Those behaviors are
often contingency-shaped (controlled by direct-acting contingencies)
and employees never have had to describe them (describing what
you do and doing what you do are different behavioral repertoires)


Automobile mechanics
Construction workers
36
SO15 (NFE): Exquisite specificity of the
targeted behaviors

To determine the behaviors




They observed 65 top performers
Over a four month period of time
For 1,000 hours
Both inside the store and at in-home sales calls




Recorded the stimulus-response sequences
That is, what were the antecedents that prompted a response by
the sales representative, and how did the sales representatives
respond to those antecedents
Also interviewed customers for 50 hours
Pilot tested the entire intervention in two stores


First with the consultant as the coach
Then with the store manager as the coach (fidelity - did they
create an intervention that could be carried out by employees)
37
SO15 (NFE): Exquisite specificity of the
targeted areas and behaviors, cont.

Areas with 5-11 behaviors in each area








Customer greeted
Customer needs identified
Needs matched to store product and service benefits
Objections identified and overcome
Decision maker identified
Close made
Results of sales contact
Follow-up action taken
(48 behaviors in addition to smiling, eye contact, natural voice, and use of customer’s name in each area)
38
SO15 (NFE): Exquisite specificity of the
targeted areas and behaviors, cont.

Examples of behaviors in the Customer Greeted area





Customers should be approached within 120 seconds after
entering the store
The sales representative should stand within 3-4 feet of the
customer, smile and maintain eye contact
The sales representative should approach the customer at a
normal pace and maintain a natural and relaxed posture
Introduce self using first and last names and identify his/her
position
Obtain the customer’s name and use it throughout the sales
interaction
39
SO17: Two reasons why commissions did not
function as effective rewards
Sales representatives received sales commissions
monthly which most would assume would be sufficient
to maintain high levels of performance

Commission payments were delayed, often by as many as 3
months, weakening the relation between sales and the amount
of money earned


Commissions earned in January would not be received until March
or April
Commissions were based on sales, an accomplishment
measure, and sales representatives did not know the behaviors
required to improve sales

The initial survey that failed to identify the critical target behaviors
showed that sales representatives did not know what behaviors
led to improved sales
(skippingSO16 – on your own; Tom Gilbert, Human comp., 1978, accomplishments v. behaviors; daniels’ concern, systems v. PM)
40
SO18: Why is it important to compare data to records for the
same months in the preceding year?

As part of the analysis to determine the effectiveness of the
program, they compared the sales data to sales records for the
same month the preceding year. Why?
 Sales fluctuate seasonally and monthly
 February is traditionally a big sales month while December is
traditionally a low sales month
 In behavior analysis, we often use time series data (AB
design) to determine the effectiveness of our interventions but
 If you compared sales in February and it had increased in
comparison to Dec and Jan, you may conclude that your
program was successful when it was not
 Alternatively, if you compared Dec data with Nov data
(with traditionally higher sales), you may conclude your
program was not successful, when indeed it was
(including this just so you don’t just say “due to seasonal fluctuations” but add an explanation)
41
Crowell et al. Task Clarification
1. Task clarification improved performance
2. “Objective” feedback improved it further but
3. Praise improved it again
Task clarification alone only results in modest increases;
Objective feedback should be combined with evaluative
feedback/consequences
(note that these results re objective feedback are consistent with the Johnson article from last unit
and thus emphasizes that the difference between objective and evaluative feedback is important)
42
NFE: Crowell et al.



My main reason for including this article was its
implications for task clarification and feedback (see
previous slide)
Secondary purpose was because of the authors’ analysis
of whether feedback functioned as an antecedent, a
consequence, or both (rarely done, astute analysis)
Feedback includes task clarification, so task clarification
was examined first

If the only function of feedback was as an
antecedent, one would not expect additional
increases in performance when it was implemented
after task clarification
43
NFE: Crowell et al. overview


6 bank tellers
11 customer service behaviors defined



Quality points assigned to each depending upon importance
100 total points possible, with 85 as the minimum acceptable
Task Clarification

Memo from management identifying the target behaviors and
quality points
(sos on your own)
44
NFE: Crowell et al. overview

Feedback

Posted chart with individual point scores, daily, coded



Fake scores for any teller that was absent to protect confidentiality
Supervisor met with each teller individually when the teller came to
work, but “descriptive” not “evaluative”
Praise added

Supervisors praised tellers if the point score was above 85 or below
85, but higher than the preceding score
45
NFE: Crowell et al. results
Phase
Average
Baseline 1
61.4 points
Task clarification 1
72.0 points
Feedback 1
78.0 points
Feedback + praise 1
83.0 points
Baseline 2
76.0 points
Feedback 2
83.0 points
Feedback + praise 2
88.0 points
last 6 sessions, > 85
only phase mean > 85
Above standard performance was obtained and sustained only
when both feedback and praise were added to task clarification
46
NFE: Social validity not definitive, but actual hard data
facts, not survey data – cool!

Dollars on deposit in bank


24 to 42 million, 75% growth
Customer complaints


2-3 per month, dropped to near-zero level
Compliments increased
(no customer input, so no certainty customer perceptions and behaviors were affected by the intervention, but …;
results continued on next slide)
47
NFE: Social validity not definitive, but actual hard data
facts, not survey data – cool!

Bank managers rolled-out the program



Streamlined and implemented it in 6 other branches
Program was being implemented in the remaining 5
branches at the time the study ended
Cost


Annual cost of program as implemented: $6,000.00
Streamlined version in other 11 branches, an additional
$16,000

This included the cost of a dedicated full-time program
administrator/observer
(streamlining next slide)
48
NFE: Social validity not definitive, but actual hard data
facts, not survey data – cool!

Streamlined version



Reduced teller observations from daily to 3X a week
Reduced the number of transactions recorded per teller
in each session from six to three
Once praise was introduced, a maintenance procedure
was suggested in which the frequency of recording be
further reduced to one session per week
(reduce labor intensiveness and number of observers required; ok last slide on this, moving on)
49
Gaetani & Johnson, cash shortages, intro



Purpose:
Decrease cash and inventory shortages in a retail
beverage chain (employee theft?)
Assessed the effects of data plotting (self-recording),
praise, and state lottery tickets
I’m including it because of the comparison of selfrecording/praise/lottery tickets and as another example
of a lottery system; not expensive but effective


Unusual lottery system in that each mgr who met the criterion
received 2 state lottery tickets (only $1.00 a piece!)
Most lottery systems employees who meet the criterion have a
chance to win a prize, but same basic principle
(also including it – tie in with the Johnson study from last unit – address that in a moment)
50
Gaetani & Johnson, cash shortages, intro


Participants: 12 store managers
DV: Efficiency estimate

Very nice measure; could be computed from data the stores were
already collecting and equated high sales volume and low sales
volume stores



Researchers did not implement any new measurement system or data
collection system – BIG PLUS
Calculate baseline measures using archival data
IVs




Data plotting alone (closed circles on graph)
Praise alone (open triangles on graph)
Data plotting and praise (closed triangles on graph)
Data plotting, praise, and lottery tickets (closed squares on graph)
(one of few studies that has examined supervisory praise alone – without specific graphic feedback – weekly phone conversations –
51
this is the tie-in with the Johnson study from last week; praise alone without objective feedback)
SO29: Least effective and most effective IVs

Least effective
Data plotting alone
 Supervisory praise alone
Most effective
 Data plotting, praise, and lottery tickets





Group A stores, 123% above baseline
Group B stores, 108% above baseline
Group C stores, 40% above baseline
 Group C, no prior exposure to self-recording or praise as Group
A and Group B managers, so prior exposure may well have
affected the results
(skipping to SO29, are straightforward – careful with wording; data plotting + praise better)
52
NFE, but: remember your consequences!



Self-monitoring alone does not seem to be a particularly
powerful intervention
 Richman et al. study, look at in U8
 Gaetani et al. (1983): The study I recommended but
did not include in coursepack
Supervisory praise by itself does not seem to be a
powerful intervention (need objective feedback as well) –
and objective feedback itself may not be powerful w/o
praise or some type of evaluation (Crowell study)
Once again, the combination of feedback, praise, and
tangible rewards appears to be the most powerful
(note the consistency of these results with Johnson- that’s why I like that article so much; it ties in and
Explains the results of some of these applied studies – more controlled study)
53
Wilk & Redmon article




Study was conducted as Braksick’s (Wilk’s) doctoral
dissertation while she was at WMU
Excellent model of how to do research in the real world;
few better examples
Follow-up of a study conducted at WMU in our
admissions and orientation office
 Pam Liberacki, Director of Admissions and Orientation,
who retired three years ago
Braksick was hired as a consultant to implement the
program at UM based on the success of the program
here
(not going to go over many of the Sos; chair of the board, CLG, one if its founders in 1993; this study was an excellent predictor of her
future work – excellent, excellent work)
54
Wilk & Redmon intro, cont.


Participants were 16 clerical workers at UM
DVs



Number of tasks completed
Performance efficiency
Employee satisfaction
55
SO32: Why was the efficiency measure
used?

Performance efficiency formula (NFE):
Total number of tasks completed by all participants
Total number of hours worked by all participants

Why is this an important measure - why not just
use the total number of tasks completed?


The total number of hours worked by the employees differed from
week to week
If you only looked at the total number of tasks completed, you
wouldn’t know whether workers were completing more tasks
because they were working more hours or whether they were
completing the more tasks in the same amount of time
 If workers completed more tasks but also worked more
hours, then you have not increased performance
56
Skipping to SO37: What procedure was used to verify
that the supervisor actually delivered the feedback?

After feedback was given during the week day, the
employee placed a check mark on the next entry on their
data sheet
 If you use a graphic feedback display, have employees
initial the graphic feedback display
 If you post a graph, have employees initial the posted
graph
 More modern technology: send the graph or feedback
via email with verification that the email has been
opened by the recipient

not as good - employees could conceivably open the
email and not look at the feedback, but better than nothing
(I am pointing this out because it is an excellent procedure - it’s simple, doesn’t require any extra effort on the part of the researcher, yet does confirm
that feedback was provided as it was supposed to be provided - fidelity of implementation of the IV - a lot of our students at WMU have used this or 57
something similar in their studies )
(Results!; circled data are an issue – decreasing trend back to previous level; but others, large, abrupt change; average data next)
58
SO40: Most importantly, what does this study reveal?
Base
Line
Filing
GS
GS,
Fdbk Graph
983 1,703 4,188
Mail 5,077 8,822 13,389
Room
Credit
Eval
685
861
1,049
Data
Entry
582
994
1,243
(average data: click highlight: last slide on Wilk except questions, comments)
The important role that
graphic feedback plays
in improving performance
59
Questions over Wilk and Redmon?
60
NFE: Take home points about goals and
feedback

Ability-based/individualized goals are the most
effective (Jeffrey et al., 2012)



Probably helps account for dynamite results in Wilk &
Redmon, 1993
Objective plus evaluative feedback (praise)
better then either alone (Johnson, 2013; Crowell
et al., 1988; Gaetani & Johnson, 1983)
Graphic feedback is better than vocal feedback
(Wilk & Redmon, 1993)
61
In-class exercise


Was the continuous reinforcement (CRF)
schedule used in the Latham & Dossett
article a true CRF schedule?
Was the variable ratio 4 (VR4) schedule
used in the Latham & Dossett article a true
VR4 schedule?
62