|
| Theory, Concept, and Data in OBM |
| Tuesday, May 31, 2005 |
| 9:00 AM–10:20 AM |
| Joliet (3rd floor) |
| Area: OBM |
| Chair: Jeanne Marshall (University of Nevada, Reno) |
| |
| Everything You Know About OBM Is Wrong: Part II |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| JASON T. OTTO (Greene Valley Developmental Center), Richard W. Malott (Western Michigan University) |
| |
| Abstract: AKA: OBM and the Three-contingency Model of Performance Management—Part II. This review of OBM articles in JABA suggests that the three-contingency model of performance management can facilitate the analysis of the relevant contingencies in OBM research. The model 1) identifies the natural contingencies that fail to support the behavior of interest and explains why they fail, 2) points out the aversive nature of most indirect-acting, performance-management contingencies in OBM and suggests those which will be most effective, 3) shows how an inferred, direct-acting contingency is needed to explain the effectiveness of most OBM performance-management contingencies, and 4) points to the importance in of rule-governance in most OBM contingencies (i.e., those with delayed outcomes). |
| |
| Effects of Superior’s Power Reduction on Superior-Subordinate Interaction Rates: Theory and Data |
| Domain: Theory |
| THOMAS C. MAWHINNEY (University of Detroit Mercy) |
| |
| Abstract: Four all-male superior-subordinate dyads exchanged reinforcements via button presses by the superior and trigger pulls by the subordinate that resulted in each receiving points worth money within a laboratory paradigm created by Rao and Mawhinney (1991) and validated by Mawhinney (In press). The four dyads where not entirely independent in that two superiors interacted with two different subordinates but both interacted, at different times, with another, third, subordinate. The current paradigm and conditions differed from the previous ones (referenced above) in that superiors could both give points and take them away from subordinates while subordinates could, under a low superior power condition, in concurrent schedule fashion, alternate between interacting with superiors or responding to a second trigger alternative that operated an FI-10 sec. 1.5 cent reinforcement schedule. As expected, presence of the FI alternative (low superior power condition) clearly reduced superiors’ abilities to maintain maximal rates of subordinate responding in three of the four dyads. However, one superior failed to reliably control subordinate response rates of his “independent” subordinate under either the high or low superior power condition. Results are discussed in terms of various concepts of social power and their implications for the practice of OBM. |
| |
| Self-Monitoring: A Review of the Literature and Critical Analysis of the Issues |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| JEANNE MARSHALL (University of Nevada, Reno), Cristin D. Harrison (University of Nevada, Reno), Linda J. Parrott Hayes (University of Nevada, Reno) |
| |
| Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to review the use of self-monitoring as an option to maintain the performance of targeted skills in the workplace. While it is extremely challenging for small agencies and schools to provide the level of supervision that is necessary to maintain training effects, it is clear from the research that performance feedback is a critical component to include in training and feedback packages. This paper reviews the literature on both performance feedback and self-monitoring as a special case. To date, there is no review of self-monitoring procedures in the behavioral literature, and as a result, this very viable strategy does not get the attention that is warranted. There are a great number of reasons including efficiency, low-cost, and low effort that make it an ideal tool for supplanting staff supervision and feedback procedures. An analysis of effective components and variations to the procedure will be discussed as well as future directions for research and implementation. |
| |
|
| |