The Several Meanings of “Positive”

Abstract

Wiegand and Geller propose that the salient role of positive reinforcement in behavior analysis should enable a melding of behavior analysis with developments and concepts that have appeared under the banner of “positive psychology.” However, as is true of many words, the term positive has more than one meaning, and the positive of positive reinforcement is not the same as the positive of “positive psychology.” The latter is parasitic upon the vernacular, as “nice” or “desirable,” whereas the former is analogous to the algebraic “add” as when an action produces the appearance (as contrasted with the removal) of some event. The distinct meanings become clear with recognition that addictive and criminal behavior often are maintained through positive reinforcement, and that negative reinforcement of behavior often is benign and beneficial to the persons involved. In addition, most of the phenomena identified with positive psychology that Wiegand and Geller propose to embrace entail more subtle and complex combinations of behavioral principles than these authors acknowledge. Wiegand and Geller also propose to accommodate vernacular assumptions in ways that separate their approach from its conceptual base; this risks impairing the effectiveness of their work whether or not its marketability would be improved.     

Beyond Positive Reinforcement

Abstract

This article comments on the need to recognize that OBM already is a “positive psychology” for many more reasons than just that it embraces positive reinforce as a cornerstone of workplace improvement. This paper suggests there are at least 10 ways in which OBM constitutes a distinctly “positive” and humanizing approach to management practices. These ways are enumerated and briefly reviewed.     

Organizational Behavior Management and Industrial/Organizational Psychology

Abstract

Six scholars in applied psychology wrote thoughtful and provocative reactions to a paper written by the author that presented a case for broadening the content and language of organizational behavior management (OBM) in order to enhance appreciation for OBM in organizational settings and among university faculty and students in mainstream psychology programs. This paper summarizes the follow-up commentaries and adds justification for key points made in the target article. Five topics are addressed: (1) critical distinctions between OBM and industrial/organizational psychology, (2) disadvantages of using negative over positive reinforcement to motivate behavior change, (3) the need to after OBM language in order to increase interest and application, (4) the use of unobservable person state vs. personality traits to explain behavior, and (5) the challenge of improving the education and training of students in OBM programs.     

积极消费行为——概念与量表开发

消费经历包括认知、情感和行为,已有文献描述了消费经历中的积极认知、积极情感,而对积极行为的研究却很少。在文献分析的基础上,提出积极消费行为的概念,在20份消费者报告以及对55名消费者深度访谈和60名消费者预测试的基础上编制积极消费行为问卷,并使用编制的问卷对546名消费者正式调查,最终回收有效问卷517份。使用SPSS13.0和LISREL8.70软件,采用探索性因子分析和验证性因子分析方法,对积极消费行为量表进行信度和效度分析。研究结果表明,开发的量表具有很好的信度和效度,积极消费行为是一个多维度的结构,包括时间间隔、使用频率、解决问题和配套产品4个维度。对积极消费行为的研究结果可为企业提供参考和借鉴。     

On Reinventing OBM

Abstract

This article comments on an argument in favor of a change in OBM's content and focus to include certain empirical findings and theoretical constructs derived from fields like Cognitive and Social Psychology. Specifically, the argument suggests that personal beliefs such as optimism, self-efficacy, and response-efficacy are influential determinants of behavior that give rise to achievement motivation and a success-seeking typology. By incorporating such constructs into OBM, it is suggested that the field will better align itself with related disciplines sharing the goal of promoting personal success, thereby enhancing its performance-improvement toolkit and fostering greater recognition and acceptance for itself within mainstream Psychology. After summarizing key aspects of this argument, this paper identifies certain of its associated challenges and then presents some specific strategies by which the OBM community can chart a future course for the field.     

Giving Versus Giving In

Abstract

Altruism is central to organizational and social life, but its motivations are not well understood. We propose a new theoretical distinction that sorts these motivations into two basic types: “giving” indicates prosocial behaviors in which one willingly engages, while “giving in” indicates prosocial behavior in which one reluctantly engages, often in response to social pressure or obligation. Unlike those who give, those who give in prefer to avoid the situation that compels altruism altogether, even if doing so leaves the would-be beneficiary empty-handed. We review the existing literature on altruism in behavioral economics, psychology, and organizational behavior and suggest that the distinction between giving and giving in is not only central from a theoretical standpoint, but also has important methodological implications for researchers trying to study prosocial behavior and practitioners trying to encourage it.     

On Making Mountains Out of Molehills

Abstract

Seven thoughtful and provocative commentaries were activated by one or both of two articles I authored or coauthored. One article (Geller, 2002) presented a case for broadening the content of organizational behavior management (OBM), while the other (Wiegand & Geller, 2004) discussed linkages between positive reinforcement, positive psychology, and achievement motivation. This rejoinder explains apparent misperceptions of the earlier papers, and adds to the case for expanding the language and scope of OBM, including a consideration of hypothetical constructs influenced reciprocally by environmental conditions and contingencies. A rationale for success seeking over failure avoiding is given with reference to Skinner's theorizing about freedom and dignity.     

The EO in OBM

Abstract

Olson, Laraway, and Austin (2001) propose an increased emphasis on the establishing operation in organizational behavior management. Their proposal raises interesting questions about theory, science, and practice. (1) What should be the role of theory in behavior analysis? (2) Should we try to find problems that match our solutions or vice versa ? (3) What is the relative importance of the establishing operation and the performance-management contingency in managing organizational behavior? (4) Should theory and basic research be more informed by the issues raised in applied settings?     

Leadership’s Role in Process Safety: An Understanding of Behavioral Science Among Managers and Executives Is Needed

ABSTRACT

A recent prevalence of high visibility catastrophic events has garnered increased attention to process safety issues. While the use of Behavior-Based Safety interventions demonstrate a reduction in workplace injuries by targeting employee behavior, we believe that process safety requires a greater focus on the behavior of leaders (e.g., creating and executing strategy). One effective method to begin targeting leader behavior for the improvement of process safety is to teach leaders about the principles of behavior, including ways by which the science may be applied within their own organizational models.     

Evaluation of False Positive and False Negative Outcomes in NTP Long-Term Rodent Carcinogenicity Studies

The decision-making process used by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in its evaluation of long-term rodent carcinogenicity studies was investigated to determine whether or not this procedure resulted in an excessive number of false positive or false negative outcomes. All site-specific tumor incidences that were found to be significantly ( p < 0.05) increased either by a trend test or by pairwise comparisons of each dosed group against the controls in 218 NTP 2-year studies with Fischer 344 rats and/or B6C3F1 mice were tabulated and compared to the number of statistically significant tumor increases expected to occur by chance. Our evaluation suggests that false positive rates are fairly low in NTP long-term studies. Assessing false negative rates is more difficult because of the limited sensitivity of the bioassay for detecting subtle carcinogenic effects. Moreover, reduced body weights frequently occur in dosed animals, and the positive correlation between the incidences of certain site-specific tumors and body weight may mask the detection of carcinogenic effects. Despite these difficulties, our analysis did identify one tumor showing evidence of false negative outcomes: interstitial cell tumors of the testis in male Fischer 344 (F344) rats. This tumor showed considerably more significant ( p > 0.05) increased incidences than expected by chance, yet none were considered to be chemically-related. However, the biological significance of interstitial cell tumor increases in F344 rats is uncertain because of the high background rate of neoplasia (>90%) for this target site.     

A People-Based Approach to OBM

Abstract

This rejoinder discusses some common points raised in the commentaries of this special issue of JOBM, including (1) different definitions of positive and negative, (2) use of the terms reinforcement and establishing operation, and (3) concerns over the abandonment of behavior analysis for mentalistic research. In addition, a people-based approach to psychology is introduced and advocated as a leading-edge approach to understanding and improving organizational behavior.     

The Scientific and Methodological Basis of a Systematic Approach to Human Behavior Management

Behavior management has become an increasingly popular approach to the improvement of human work effectiveness. Philosophically, the origins of this movement can be traced almost directly to the Skinnerian distinction between operant and respondent behavior. The implications of this distinction have led to a reinforcerment based technology of behavior change with which behavior management is closely identified. In the present paper, it is argued that such an alignment places the behavior management approach in too narrow a perspective. In its most fundamental sense, this movement is both a scientific and methodological endeavor. As a science, behavior management has an empirical character marked by concerns for the objectivity and validity of its knowledge. Within this framework, the methodology it employs has many features in common both with procedures of "the experimental analysis of behavior" and with the tradition of "quasi-experimentation." The essential features of this common methodology are outlined. and their relation to several imponant types of validity issues is noted. In the final analysis, it is suggested that behavior management can be viewed more profitably as a general purpose "tool" for the evaluation of any potentially effective management practice than as a technological outgrowth of operant conditioning.     

Managing the Risk of Aggressive Dog Behavior: Investigating the Influence of Owner Threat and Efficacy Perceptions

Aggressive behavior in pet dogs is a serious problem for dog owners across the globe, with bite injuries representing a serious risk to both people and other dogs. The effective management of aggressive behavior in dogs represents a challenging and controversial issue. Although positive reinforcement training methods are now considered to be the most effective and humane technique to manage the risk of aggression, punishment‐based methods continue to be used. Unfortunately, there has been little scientific study into the various factors influencing whether dog owners choose to use positive reinforcement techniques to manage aggression in their dogs. As such, current understanding of how best to encourage and support dog owners to use these methods remains extremely limited. This article uses a survey methodology based on protection motivation theory (PMT) to investigate the factors that influence owner use of positive reinforcement methods to manage aggressive behavior, in an attempt to understand potential barriers and drivers of use. In addition, the article provides an initial exploration of the potential role of wider psychological factors, including owner emotional state, social influence, and cognitive bias. Findings show that the perceived efficacy of positive reinforcement methods and the perceived ability of owners to effectively implement the technique are both key factors predicting future intentions and current reported use. Future interventions should focus on enhancing owner confidence in the effective use of positive reinforcement techniques across multiple scenarios, as well as helping owners manage their own emotional responses when they encounter challenging situations and setbacks.     

Response Generalization in Behavioral Safety

Abstract

This paper details concerns with the potential misuse of the term “response generalization” in the behavioral safety literature. Stokes and Baer's (1977) technologies of generalization and the basic literature on response induction are used to make the claim. Ludwig and Geller's (2000) Journal of Organizational Behavior Management special issue describing their work with pizza delivery drivers is used as an example. The potential problems of non-technical use of language in a technological behavioral science are briefly discussed. Finally, Baer, Wolf, and Risley's (1968, 1987) criteria of applied behavior analysis are re-visited in this context in hopes of calling researchers of organizational behavior management to more closely align their work with the tradition of applied behavior analysis.     

Relationships between personality variables and burnout: A meta-analysis

Abstract

Most burnout research has focussed on environmental correlates, but it is likely that personality factors also play an important part in the development of burnout. Previous meta-analyses, however, have been limited in scope. The present meta-analysis examined the relationship between personality and three dimensions of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI): emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment. Consistent with our hypotheses, self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control, emotional stability, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, positive affectivity, negative affectivity, optimism, proactive personality, and hardiness, each yielded significant relationships with burnout. Type A Personality, however, was only related to personal accomplishment. Furthermore, regression analysis found that core self-evaluations, the Five-Factor Model personality characteristics, and positive and negative affectivity explained significant variance in each of the burnout dimensions. Finally, moderator analyses found several instances in which the strength of personality–burnout relationships depended upon whether burnout was assessed with the Human Services Survey of the MBI or the General Survey version of the MBI. It is concluded that employee personality is consistently related to burnout. Given the practical importance of employee burnout, it is recommended that personality variables be included as predictors in future research on burnout.     

Performance and risk management

Abstract

Performance and risk management are seen by some as two ends of the same spectrum. Performance measurement and management is about steering an enterprise towards a profitable and viable future, whilst risk management is about avoiding the pitfalls that can overwhelm and ultimately put an enterprise out of business. But should the functions and processes of performance measurement and management be integrated with those of risk management? What are the consequences of this integration? How should this be done in practice? In this editorial we briefly chart the debate between those who propose it is important to keep the functions separate and those who advocate integration before presenting the empirical research that informs this conversation.     

The Role of Positive Psychology in Enhancing Satisfaction,Motivation, and Productivity in the Workplace

Abstract

Positive psychology offers scope for enhancing satisfaction, motivation, and productivity in the workplace. Wiegand and Geller (2004, this issue) point to a number of strategies to enhance individuals' success orientation and conclude their discussion with the actively caring model which appears to be a useful means of representing pivotal facets of a positive and supportive workplace climate. The discussion in this article extends some of the concepts presented in their paper, adapts a model of motivation to develop the Occupational Motivation and Engagement Wheel, and also further discusses some particularly key strategies alluded to by Wiegand and Geller. These include a discussion of workplace resilience, authoritarian versus authoritative leadership/management styles, motivating workplace climates, personal bests, staff morale, flow in work, the value individuals attach to tasks and outcomes, and the centrality of relationships in the performance context. The article concludes with a multi-level “broaden and build” framework for enhancing satisfaction, motivation, and productivity in the workplace.     

Changing Conceptions of Employee Compensation

Abstract

This paper reviews and discusses many differing forms of incentive compensation systems that are being used in today's organizations. The review traces the roots of bonus compensation from individual piece-work plans through the adoption of organization-wide gainsharing plans to the growing recognition of open-book management. Reasons for the shift in units of analysis from the individual employee to the work team or organization as a whole are discussed. Explanations are also given for why many companies are beginning to concentrate on outcomes rather than process measures as indicators of organizational success. Lastly, suggestions for enhancing the research agenda and bridging the gap between science and practice are provided for the scientists and practitioners of organizational behavior management.     

Should Organizational Behavior Management Expand Its Content?

Abstract

The American Psychological Association (APA) has defined the years 2000 to 2010 as the “Decade of Behavior,” and has been promoting this designation in convention materials, newsletters, media briefs, and professional publications. But APA seems to be avoiding the leading discipline in analyzing and changing behaviors in industrial settings-organizational behavior management (OBM). Furthermore, with only a few exceptions, OBM does not receive the attention it deserves in university psychology departments, including graduate programs in industrial/organizational (I/O) Psychology. This paper entertains reasons for the low and decreasing academic attention to OBM, and offers some possible solutions. It is proposed that OBM is generally discussed in overly simplistic terms; and unlike I/O Psychology, OBM does not draw on the wealth of relevant concepts and principles in other areas, especially cognitive and social psychology. Specific examples are given for expanding the typical boundaries of the OBM curriculum in order to improve organization-based interventions and realize greater opportunities to demonstrate the unique qualities of a behavior analysis approach to real-world problem solving.