1. Indirect Acting Contingencies & Feedback
Schedule:
Monday and Wednesday: Lecture
Monday, 10/19: Exam
PSY 6450 Unit 4
Indirect Acting Contingencies &
Feedback

2. Before U4: Note U5 has an exercise
After you finish U4, please look ahead to U5
In U5, I am asking you to complete a written assignment (the only one this semester)
The exercise is due Monday 10/26
We will discuss the exercise in class
Please see the study objectives for details and the point value for exercise

3. Introduction: indirect acting contingencies
When dealing with changing the behavior of human adults, certainly workers, we are usually dealing with indirect acting contingencies, not direct acting contingencies.
In order for consequences to affect behavior directly, they must occur within 60 seconds or so after the behavior (molecular vs. molar perspective)
You often hear:
If workers go on strike and management gives in, management has reinforced workers for going on strike
The sales commission that sales rep receive once a month reinforces their sales behaviors
Phooey!!

4. Molecular vs. molar, NFE
Molecular perspective: Consequences must follow behavior immediately (or almost immediately) in order for them to affect behavior (temporal contiguity)
Molar perspective: Consequences do not have to be temporally contiguous; only correlated with behavior over and over again – the delay between the behavior and the consequence is not important

5. The Western Way Western way has historically been molecular
Michael, Malott, Fuqua, Van Houten, McGee, Johnson, Dickinson
That’s why Michael and Malott go to such effort to distinguish between direct and indirect acting contingencies and analyze molecular variables that may account for the effectiveness of long-delayed consequences
(Reno & FIT, same as WMU)

6. The Western Way
In 2010, Bradley and Poling surveyed the Board of Editors of the main BA journals (TAVB, 2010) Used Michael’s grant writing example from this unit Respondents did not agree in regards to whether temporal contiguity was important
(table with data next)

7. Michael’s Example
A person applies for a research grant and then six months later gets a letter in the mail informing him he has gotten the grant. The person then writes more grants.
Is the grant money reinforcement for writing the grant?

8. Results: Money is a reinforcer
True
False
JEAB
62%
38%
JABA
57%
43%
JOBM
53%
44%
TAVB
47%
42%
TBA
71%
29%

9. Results: Money is a reinforcer, but dependent on verbal behavior
True
False
JEAB
60%
35%
JABA
53%
JOBM
58%
37%
TAVB
55%
36%
TBA
80%
20%
(of those that said true)

10. Conclusions
Majority of members of the BOEs of behavioral journals are willing to call delayed consequences reinforcers: Range 47%-71%
This is not my position; my position is the minority position
Majority of those who are willing to call delayed consequences reinforcers maintain they are mediated by verbal behavior
Delayed consequences are reinforcers even if they are mediated by verbal behavior
A small minority maintain that delayed consequences are direct acting (molar perspective and correlational-based law of effect)
No need to distinguish between direct acting and indirect acting contingencies; no need to invoke verbal mediation

11. SO1: Three positions regarding delayed consequences
Delayed consequences are not reinforcers/punishers even if mediated by verbal behavior
Molecular
Delayed consequences are reinforcers/punishers even if mediated by verbal behavior
I don’t know how to label this perspective!
Delayed consequences are direct acting reinforcers/punishers
Molar

12. Molecular vs. Molar
These results are very similar to the results of a study conducted by Schlinger, Blakely, Fillhard, & Poling conducted 20 years ago (TAVB, 1991)
Interesting questions are raised by this:
Our field does not agree on one of the very basic concepts: do consequences have to be temporally contiguous?
Most people maintain that a consequence does not have to be temporally contiguous to be called a reinforcer/punisher as long as a functional relation can be established, however, most also believe effects of delayed consequences are due to verbal behavior
Some said you needed to define “immediate” – within 5-60 seconds wasn’t “immediate”

13. Molecular vs. Molar in OBM
Strong advocates for molar
Mawhinney & Hantula
Many simply ignore the issue but often analyze things from a molar perspective
That is, they talk about a consequence being a direct “reinforcer” even it is delayed by a week, month, etc.
Ultimately, it’s an experimental question
Recent nonhuman data indicate that consequences can affect behavior if they are delayed, but the delays have not exceeded 2 seconds – and you begin to “lose” behavior even after 2 seconds

14. How do molecular advocates deal with the effectiveness of molar interventions?
The effectiveness of molar interventions is due to changes in the molecular contingencies
When you change the molar contingencies you also change the molecular contingencies.
The effectiveness of molar interventions is mediated by verbal behavior (rule-governed behavior)
This can account for the variability in performance when you implement interventions with adults – individuals may formulate different “rules”.
For this reason, I also believe that it is very important for all OBM practitioners to understand verbal behavior.
It may not be necessary for practitioners to understand VB as long as they collect data and evaluate their interventions but it sure can prevent some theoretical misconceptions!

15. SO3: Michael, indirect contingencies
Michael makes a very complex argument with respect to the grant writing example.
Example
A person applies for a research grant and then six months later gets a letter in the mail informing him he has gotten the grant. And then the person writes more grants. Many would call getting the grant money reinforcement for writing the grant. But Michael says, “NO! It is not, even though grant writing may increase.”
(not going to talk about SO2)

16. SO3, cont.
I want to go through his argument carefully and head off a problem
Michael is NOT arguing that the delay is the main problem. Many Malottians say that - and while that is a problem, it is not Michael’s main argument. (he wants to convince molar folk as well, so he is not arguing the point simply on the delay issue – on the molecular vs. molar argument I just presented but they are related)
Rather, Michael is basing his argument on the “automaticity of reinforcement.”
That is, that operant conditioning is automatic - if a particular reinforcer follows a behavior, that behavior will increase in the future.

17. Michael’s example again
A researcher writes a research grant and six months later receives a letter indicating he received the money. As a result, he writes more grants.
Now assume the researcher writes a research grant and six months later receives a letter telling him he has received the same amount of money as an inheritance.

18. Michael’s argument
I think we would all agree (as would Michael) that the inheritance money would not increase grant writing
But, Michael’s point is if operant reinforcement was at work, that is, if we were dealing with direct acting contingencies, then both the grant money and the inheritance money should increase grant writing
If money is a reinforcer, then it should increase grant writing regardless of whether it was money from a granting agency or an inheritance
Why? Because of the automaticity of reinforcement.
A reinforcer will increase any behavior it follows - the organism doesn’t have to understand “why” he/she is getting it - all that is important is that the Sr follows behavior

19. SO3, cont. Others would say: (the molar perspective)
Those situations are very different!
Receiving grant money is causally related to writing the grant while the inheritance money is not.
Therefore, it IS simple reinforcement
How does a person “know” the money is causally related to the grant?
A lot of other behaviors occurred in between
Without a complex verbal repertoire (indirect acting cntg), the grant money would not increase grant writing

20. Michael’s unstated underlying argument
Reinforcement increases behavior when consequences are causally related to the behavior, when there is an if-then relationship between behavior and the consequence
However, we also know that “adventitious” or “noncontingent” reinforcement also increases behavior
Reinforcement that just “happens” to follow a behavior will increase that behavior as well
That is, behavior can be accidentally or “adventitiously” reinforced
SO3B: Why/how is the following example related to Michael’s argument about grant writing?

21. Contingent Reinforcement: FR1 Reinforcement Schedule
R (pigeon pecks floor) –––––––> SR (food)
Pecking the floor increases in frequency
Adventitious Reinforcement: FT20” Reinforcement Schedule
R (pigeon pecks floor) –––––––> SR (food)
Pecking the floor increases in frequency even though
there is not a causal/contingent relationship between
the response and the reinforcer
(From pigeon’s perspective - doesn’t matter. Take home point: if a consequence is a reinforcer it will increase the frequency
of the response even though it is not contingent - again, because operant conditioning is automatic. The organism doesn’t have
to know or be aware of the relationship between R and Sr)

22. SO3C: Analogous contingencies
Contingent reinforcement: (assume FR1 for pigeon)
R (pigeon pecks floor) –––––––––––> SR (food)
R (researcher writes grant) –––––––> Sr (grant money)
Adventitious Reinforcement: (assume FT for pigeon)
R (pigeon pecks floor) –––––––––––> SR (food)
R (researcher writes grant) –––––––> Sr (inheritance)
Given that pecking the floor increases in both of the above, if we are
dealing with direct acting contingencies, so too should grant writing.
But it doesn’t in the second situation - hence we cannot be dealing with
the basic principles of behavior. (Automaticity, not delay is mn point)

23. SO4: Direct and indirect effects
Michael then provides examples from OBM where procedures are likely to influence behavior, but consequences are too remote to be “simple” reinforcement/punishment
Makes the point that the indirect effects are the ones we are interested in - the direct effects are not very interesting
Monetary bonus for sales reps for meeting quota, and checks are placed in the mailboxes on Friday afternoon
Indirect effect, increase sales
Direct effect, look in mailbox more frequently on Friday afternoons, or walks more quickly to the mailbox on Friday afternoon
(picked on OBM because of me!)

24. SO4: More examples: Direct and indirect effects
A wrestler who is too heavy and needs to make weight for a meet eats small meals one day. The next morning he steps on the scales and sees he has lost weight.
Direct effect?
Indirect effect?
Weekly lottery for attendance. When workers arrive on time to work, they receive a “lottery ticket” that is placed in a hat and the drawing is held at the end of the week.
Direct effects?

25. SO5: 3 clues that an effect is indirect
Delay - if the consequence is delayed by more than 60 seconds
Preconsequence increase in behavior
Tell workers in advance that we are going to implement a feedback program and they increase performance before getting the feedback
Ask a worker to stay late and finish a project and that you will take the worker to lunch the next day if he/she stays - and the worker stays late.

26. SO5: 3 clues, cont.
Large change in behavior as a result of a single delivery of a consequence: direct effects tend to occur gradually
Praise a worker for mopping up oil spills on the floor, and the worker then does it from then on
Criticize a worker for smoking near flammable material - he never does it again
Exception is that we do know that intense punishment can immediately suppress behavior, but is does have to be intense.
(I am not going to talk about SO6 - straightforward)

27. Some OBM interventions do involve direct acting contingencies
SO7: Three reasons why are we successful even if we talk about indirect effects as direct effects
Some OBM interventions do involve direct acting contingencies
Praise that immediately follows behavior
On-line feedback systems/measurement in mfg
(1st and 3rd are quite straightforward - students have trouble with the second.)

28. SO7: Second reason why are we successful even if we talk about indirect effects as direct effects
“We don’t get distracted by by inner directedness, rather we look to the environment for causal variables and manipulate those variables.”
Examples - related to SO7B
In BBS, we don’t try to change “attitudes” by posting signs about how important safety is. Consequate performance.
Problem in past re “posting signs”: We may post signs, but not to change attitudes and we don’t rely on them.
We don’t try to change “satisfaction” in order to increase productivity
We don’t try to change a person’s self-esteem to change “motivation” to increase productivity
(set goals, provide, provide feedback Posting signs is a very common practice: safety and quality
– to change attitudes, only as prompts - antecedents.)

29. SO7: Third reason why are we successful even if we talk about indirect effects as direct effects
Our methdology and empiricism: may be the most important reason
Objective measurement of performance/behavior
Record/measure behavior over time as it occurs in the workplace
As a result, we constantly assess whether our interventions are actually working
Daniels, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.”
50% of experimental articles in JAP used self-report measures to assess the effects of their interventions - we know how unreliable verbal reports are

30. Peterson article:
FEEDBACK

31. Intro to Peterson: Feedback
Both Peterson and Balcazar et al. make the same major points:
Feedback is NOT a principle of behavior
Yet we often talk about it as if it were
Peterson
The term “feedback” has become professional slang

32. SO8: Why is it inappropriate to talk in the abstract about what function fbk serves?
When people address the behavioral function of feedback generally or in the “abstract,” they usually say that it works because it is an SD or Sr, which Peterson says in incorrect
Feedback, information about past performance can potentially serve any number of behavioral functions depending upon the situation
It is first and foremost a physical stimulus and only that. Thus, it can have any or all of the possible effects of any stimulus in a particular situation
MO, conditioned reinforcer, conditioned punisher, SD, CS

33. SO9: Why can’t feedback be either an Sr or SD in most settings?
Peterson also states that feedback cannot be either an Sr or an SD in most settings
He gives two reasons for each, but deals with them in a different order than I am going to
First, why can’t feedback be a reinforcer?
Second, why can’t feedback be an SD?

34. SO9: First reason why fdbk typically cannot be a reinforcer
A reinforcer must immediately follow behavior. In most applied settings, feedback is too delayed.
R ––––––> Feedback
Too much delay
More than 60 sec
(straightforward, the next one often causes problems)

35. SO9: Second reason why fdbk typically cannot be a reinforcer
A reinforcer must be contingent upon performance (adventitious Sr aside). Feedback is not usually contingent upon performance.
Reinforcement
R (lever press) –––> SR (food)
No R (no lever press) –––> No SR
Feedback
R (decrease electric use) –––> Feedback
No R (do not decrease use) –––> Feedback
In most situations, you get feedback whether or not you emit
the appropriate target response, hence the feedback is not
contingent upon performance and cannot be reinforcement
(contingent? If-then relationship; but I’ll come back to this in SO 9, to see whether this analysis is correct)

36. SO9: First reason why fdbk typically cannot be an SD
An SD must evoke a behavior within 60 sec. Feedback typically does not.
But first, this may be a new concept for you
Confusion about Malott’s definition, which is the definition many of you have learned
An SD is a stimulus in the presence of which a response is reinforced or punished
Although not stated because of his study cards, I assure you Malott agrees with the above
Again, it is the molecular position

37. SO9: Finally! The first reason fdbk typically cannot be an SD
SD: R
No more than 60 sec
Feedback
Feedback: R
More than 60 sec
Be careful! It is not the delay between the response and consequence
that is relevant here (as it was for the argument about why feedback
usually cannot be a reinforcer). Rather, it is the delay between feedback
as an antecedent stimulus and the response!
Not R –––> Feedback, but Feedback –––> R
Delay

38. SO9: Second reason fdbk typically cannot be an SD
For an SD, the response must be reinforced in the presence of that stimulus but not in its absence. With feedback there isn’t usually an S∆. SD
SD (light): R (lever press) –––> SR (food)
S∆ (no light): (lever press) –––> No SR (no food)
Feedback
Feedback: R (use less electricity) –––> Sr (lower bill)
No feedback: R (use less electricity) –––> Sr (lower bill)
(for exam, not sufficient just to say, no S∆, explain;)

39. SO10: Is Peterson right in saying feedback is not contingent on performance?
R (decrease electric use) –––> Feedback
No R (do not decrease use) –––> Feedback
But is it?
Feedback is not a unitary stimulus. Doesn’t feedback
differ depending upon whether performance is good or bad?
R (decrease electric use) ––> Feedback
No R (no decrease/increase) ––> Feedback
Are those two feedback graphs the same stimulus?
So, isn’t feedback contingent upon performance after all?
(one of the reasons why feedback can’t be a reinforcer; click, then click again, feeedback diagrams: lecture)

40. Balcazar et al. article
FEEDBACK

41. SO13: Cautionary note about conclusions from review studies
Conclusions are based on the structural analyses of procedures that varied along many different dimensions
In Alvero et al. only 30% of the studies used feedback alone
VanStelle et al. found that in the past decade, different types of feedback were used in all of the feedback studies
Only systematic experimental comparisons can ultimately determine whether feedback procedures affect performance differently
(skipping 11&12’ not one isolated the effects of a particular type of fdbck or typically from other components;)

42. Cautionary note about conclusions from review studies, cont. but NFE
In the Alvero et al. review, there were small Ns in many of the categories (you can only review the studies that have been published)
For example, 4 or fewer feedback applications in 9 of the 12 content categories (the type of information provided on the feedback display)
The results of three empirical investigations have conflicted with the conclusions of the reviews
So et al. (2013): Daily vs. weekly feedback
Goltz et al. (1989): Group vs. Individual + group
VanStelle (2012): Graphic individual, graphic Individual + group average, graphic display of the performance of all performers
(Daily as good as weekly; Group as good or better than individual – 2 experimental studies differed;
So again, my main point is just to be cautious with conclusions from these type of review studies)

43. SO15: Why is it that if reinforcement already exists, fdb might improve performance further?
Feedback may have discriminative control and evoke higher levels of performance due to generalization of past reinforcement contingencies (discriminative control refers to feedback as an SD – an antecedent variable – probably verbally mediated in most cases)
That is, in the past, when feedback has been introduced (as an antecedent), you have been reinforced for performing well and criticized/punished for performing poorly. Thus, in the current situation, as long as performance isn’t maxed out, it may evoke higher levels of performance as an antecedent stimulus.
Once the worker is performing better due to the feedback, the higher performance results in more rewards (due to the already existing differential reinforcement system), and the greater rewards then sustain the higher performance over time
(skipping 14 straightforward; already a differential reinforcement system in place but no fdb -
If you add feedback why might performance increase further - assuming, of course, it hasn’t maxed out: two parts!)

44. SO15: Example
Assume that workers are being paid a per piece incentive for each widget they assemble. The more widgets they produce, the more money they make. But, they are not getting feedback
Now, weekly feedback is introduced
Feedback increases the number of widgets produced because of generalization of past contingencies (stimulus generalization, SD)
They earn more money now because they are producing more widgets than before, and the extra earnings now sustain their higher levels of performance
(both points are important for the analysis!)

45. SO15: What evidence do we have that feedback may enhance the effectiveness of extant rewards?
Bucklin, McGee, & Dickinson, 2003
JOBM, 23(2/3), pp
ABA with A=incentives, B=incentives plus feedback
All 8 Ps increased performance when feedback was added but, unfortunately, performance did not reverse
Results must be interpreted cautiously
Annecdotal from Bill Abernathy’s work: Monetary incentives and monthly feedback
“Need PM to bridge the gap”
Stongest may by Union National Bank case study - never published

46. Union National Bank, Little Rock, AR
When: early to mid 1980s
Who: Abernathy, McNally, McAdams, & Dierks
Job: Proof operator at bank
Get checks and deposit slips from all bank branches and, using a proofing machine, put the numbers on the bottom so they can be automatically entered into the bank’s computer
DV: number of items entered per machine hour
Industry standard: 1,000 items per hour
Phases
Baseline
Weekly graphed feedback

47. UNB cont.
Phases, cont.
Incentive 1
One piece rate: 1500 items per machine hour
Higher piece rate: 2000 items per machine hour
Higher yet: 2500 items per machine hour
Incentive 2
Above plus higher rate: 3500 items per machine hour
No feedback, but incentives (new supervisor)
Reinstate feedback with Incentive 2 conditions
Last three phases represent a very nice reversal, incentives with and without feedback

48. Union National Bank: Proof Operators
Incentive
w/o fdbk
Fdbk
1,800
Inct 1
2,700
Inct 2
3,500
Fdbk
restored
Baseline
1,065
~Industry standard
Why
reversal?
Notice: Baseline in weeks
Remaining in months!
Almost 7 years of data!
(note that it took four months before performance declined w/o feedback - may not see it in shorter studies)

49. SO16: Effectiveness of feedback alone and with tangible rewards, Balcazar et al.
% of articles in which performance consistently improved
Feedback alone: ~30%
Feedback with tangible rewards: ~90%
Take home point: Feedback works because it is correlated with a differential reward system
But what about when it works alone?
Feedback may be linked to a differential reward system even though that reward system was not explicitly designed by the researcher/practitioner
Performance may have been measured for too short of time to see a possible decrease over time - feedback would be expected to increase performance temporarily when first introduced

50. SO17: Why feedback may be more effective when provided by supervisor
17A: First reason
Feedback on how well workers are doing may prompt supervisors to provide differential consequences for good and bad performance when supervisors hadn’t done that before
So…

51. SO17A, cont. For the supervisor: Antecedent: R –––––––––––> Sr
Good feedback Praises worker “Thanks!”
about worker’s perf More good work
Antecedent: R –––––––––––> Sr
Bad feedback Criticizes worker “I’ll do better”
about worker’s perf Prompts worker Better work
Thus, feedback may change the consequences that the
supervisor provides to the workers.

52. SO17B: from lecture SO17B: Second reason (not in SOs)
The supervisor has more control over the employee’s rewards than others, and therefore the feedback is more strongly correlated/paired with (a) more rewards and (b) higher value rewards when provided by the supervisor, and thus will function as a more effective antecedent and consequence.

53. SO18: Balcazar et al.’s fundamental conclusion
If no system of functional, differential consequences exist, there is probably no point in establishing a feedback system. Effort would be better spent developing procedures (contingent rewards) for wanted behaviors
In other words, you should not develop and implement a feedback system until and unless you develop and implement a system of functional, differential rewards! (or determine one already exists)
This has become a problem in the field
37% of articles reviewed by Balcazar et al. used feedback alone (review covered , approximately)
29% of articles reviewed by Alvero et al. used feedback alone
(review covered )
(This is straightforward, yet students seem to have trouble with it)

54. SO19: If feedback is established independently of functional, differential rewards, what type appears to be the most effective?
Feedback that is:
Graphic
Confirmed by Wilk & Redmon (1998)
Confirmed by Austin, Weatherly, & Gravina (2005)
Provided at least once a week
Combined with tangible rewards
This is interesting - basically the authors are saying you need to implement a reward system along with the feedback, so I am not at all sure it is a logical answer to the question that was asked, but you should include it in your answer.

55. SO 20: Johnson (2013) Intro
Johnson conducted a study to determine the relative effects of objective feedback, evaluative feedback, and objective combined with evaluative feedback
Objective feedback: information about your performance absent any type of evaluation
Evaluative feedback: information/stimuli about how well you are performing absent specific data/numbers
Praise/criticism from supervisor or someone else (you are doing great, super job, not so good)
(important study that helps explain when/why feedback will be effective; could well help explain some of the differences of feedback studies – will tie into two studies next unit – results were
Suggestive, but not as definitive)

56. Background/rationale of study
Bucklin, McGee, & Dickinson (2003)
Conducted to specifically test Balcazar’s analysis that feedback is likely to improve performance even when a contingent reward system exists (like monetary incentives)
ABA with A=incentives, B=incentives plus feedback
All 8 Ps increased performance when feedback was added but performance did not reverse
It is possible that during the reversal phase, the incentives maintained the higher levels of performance
Recommended using a different design
(I referred to this study earlier, SO15)

57. Background/rationale of study
Johnson, Huitema, & Dickinson (2008)
2 X 2 between group factorial design: 4 groups
Hourly pay without feedback
Hourly pay with feedback
Incentive pay without feedback
Incentive pay with feedback
Somewhat surprisingly, although incentives increased performance in comparison to hourly pay (proving the incentives were functional rewards); feedback did not improve performance when Ps were paid hourly or monetary incentives
(basically, that’s what we did for Dr. Johnson’s thesis)

58. Background/rationale of study
What could account for the fact that feedback did not have any effect?
We decided it probably was due to the fact that we used objective feedback, absent evaluation
Just reported the number of accurately completed forms using a data entry task
Most feedback procedures, at least those used in OBM involve both an objective and evaluative component
Numbers plus praise from supervisor; numbers plus average group data; numbers plus goals, etc.
(So, Johnson’s study specifically compared the relative effectiveness of objective feedback,
evaluative feedback, and feedback that had both components )

59. Methodology: 4 Groups (no pay)
No feedback
Objective feedback
Data entry task: how many records/checks were completed accurately
Evaluative feedback
Evaluative statements without objective feedback based on whether their performance was excellent, good, average, or poor
Really impressive, wow; impressive, one of the better performers; normal, typical, standard; under standard, below what the average person does, somewhat low
Combined objective and evaluative feedback
(summarize this – read the details on your own)

60. SO23: Results Objective feedback: 17% above no fdbk
Evaluative feedback: 17% above no fdbk
Combined: 30% above no feedback
Statistical significance (NFE):
Combined > objective, evaluative, no fdbk
Objective & Evaluative > no fdbk
(personally, I think it’s particularly interesting that evaluative feedback was no better than objective –
an applied study you will be reading next week, Gaetani & Johnson found that to be the case as well,
but due to the design of the applied study, results weren’t as definitive.)

61. SO24: Results differ from Johnson et al. (2008)
In this study, objective feedback increased performance by 17%
In Johnson et al. (2008), objective feedback had no effect

62. SO24A,B,&C: Results differ from Johnson et al. (2008)
Possible reason for the difference?
In this study, objective feedback was provided by a person
In Johnson et al. (2008), objective feedback was provided by a computer*
Why may this be important?
Objective feedback may not be as effective when delivered by electronic devices (computers, smart phones, iPads, etc.) as when delivered by a person (supervisor)
*This past ABAI, Slowiak also reported that computer-based feedback
did not affect the performance of participants in a study she conducted

63. SO24A,B,&C: Results differ from Johnson et al. (2008)
Why might objective feedback delivered by a person be more effective?
Evaluation is implied when a person provides the feedback but such evaluation is not present with an electronic device
When we receive feedback on our performance
from another individual, it is typically the case that
that person is evaluating our performance, even
though the person might not say that explicitly. Not
so with electronic devices.

64. Human-delivered vs. electronically-delivered feedback
Poster at ABAI this past May, 2015
Chae, S., Moon, K., Lee, K., & Oah, S., Chung-Ang University
Simulation study: Human-delivered feedback increased performance more than feedback delivered by
Garrett Warrilow proposed study: (Johnson’s lab)
Face-to-face human feedback
Computer-delivered feedback
Cell phone text message feedback

65. Another Interesting potential study (NFE)
2 x 2 between group factorial design
Human-delivered objective feedback
Human-delivered evaluative feedback
Electronically-delivered objective feedback
Electronically-delivered evaluative feedback
But a bit dangerous because you may not get any
Differences and you can’t confirm a null hypothesis:
Should probably have a no feedback group as well.

66. If time: Current trends, discussion of social comparison feedback (NFE)
Some applied studies have used a type of social comparison feedback in which the performance of all employees is displayed publicly, usually by name
This would be similar to my putting your names on the grade sheet.
A recent trend in business and industry is gamification: there are many start-up software companies offering gamification to companies
In gamification, employees have on-line access to the following performance data: (a) their own, (b) their peers, identified by name, (c) their department/unit, and (d) department/unit data for different stores (assuming multiple stores/locations)

67. If time: Current trends, discussion of social comparison feedback
Sears is an example of this with their “GameOn”
Presentations by CLG at th ABAI conference on visual management
The performance data re social comparison feedback with named peers:
OBM studies have shown that in each study in which peer to peer feedback is provided, performance has improved substantially
VanStelle’s dissertation showed that graphic feedback with the performance data of all peers, with names, increased performance more than graphic feedback that displayed the individual’s performance and group’s average performance, which increased performance more than graphic feedback that displayed only the individual’s performance

68. If time: Current trends, discussion of social comparison feedback
The social validity data re social comparison feedback with named peers:
In the few OBM field studies that assessed satisfaction, employees did not find peer-to-peer social comparison feedback aversive
In VanStelle’s dissertation, participants in this group did not rate the feedback procedure as any more aversive than the other two types of feedback procedures
In a company that has adopted gamification, a behavior analyst who I respect very much, told me that the employees found it a lot of fun and engaged in a lot of fun “trash talk” with each other
The system is a criterion-referenced, not normative, so just like in my classes everyone can receive an A, which can promote “friendly competition” rather than “vicious competition”

69. If time: Current trends, discussion of social comparison feedback
Alternatively, in a study by Steigleder et al. (1978), when given the option of opting out of competition (dyads with performance feedback with respect to who has the highest score – no other contingencies on performance):
Participants who were led to believe that they were in the 90th percentile of performers opted out
Participants who were led to believe that they were in the 20th percentile opted out more quickly and acquired the opt out response more quickly
Steigleder, M. K., Weiss, R. F., Cramer, R. E., & Feinberg, R. A. (1978). Motivating
And reinforcing functions of competitive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 36(11),

70. If time: Current trends, discussion of social comparison feedback
What do you think?
Is it aversive to be compared to peers by name?
Have times changed with social networking so that individuals of your generation don’t find this type of competition and social comparison aversive?

71. Questions??