Learning & Behaviour Modification

Dr. Calvin Burns

 Behaviour Modification in the
Workplace

Learning of behaviour: linking

behaviour with rewards and
punishment

• manipulating other people’s

behaviour using rewards (and
perhaps punishments) so that they
do what the manger wants them to
do
 Behaviourist Psychology

• behaviour is reinforced (it is more likely to recur) by

positive consequences
• In this behavioural perspective, learning is any relative
permanent change in behaviour produced by experience
• learning as behaviour, not cognition or other internal
psychological processes
• sometimes also referred to as conditioning
 Behaviourist Psychology

2 main types of conditioning:

1) Classical (respondent) conditioning

2) Instrumental (operant) conditioning

 Classical Conditioning
Pavlov’s Dogs

Unconditional stimulus (UCS) = Food

Unconditioned response (UCR) = Salivation

UCS UCR

Dogs automatically salivate when presented

with food
 Classical Conditioning
Pavlov’s Dogs

Conditioned stimulus (CS) = Bell

Conditioned response (CR) = Salivation when hear bell

CS + UCS UCR
CS CR

A behaviour is elicited by new circumstances. (Dogs

wouldn’t normally salivate when they hear a bell!)
 Classical Conditioning
In work:
Limited application because the conditioned behaviour is often
involuntary
But sometimes explains apparently “irrational behaviour”
Example:
A person works by a draughty door
When it opens, he or she shivers because cold air comes in
When it opens, it is usually the boss coming in
The shivering may become the person’s reaction to the boss,
wherever they are

What is the UCS, UCR, CS, & CR?

 Operant Conditioning
B.F. Skinner
It started with rats!
Operant Behaviour = Behaviour which operates on
the environment
Behaviour that is not the result of simple, automatic
responses
3 key elements are: 1) stimulus, 2) response, 3)
reinforcement (or reward)

Most OB Mod programmes are based on principles

of operant conditioning
 Operant Conditioning
B.F. Skinner
Shaping of behaviour - ie reinforcement of
progressively closer approximations to the desired
behaviour
Quite complex sequences of behaviour
Human behaviour as well as animal behaviour
Voluntary behaviour - more open to control and
manipulation than involuntary behaviour
 Types of Reinforcement

• Tokens (Money, shares, profit-sharing)

• Desired Activities (Extended breaks, more
responsible job)
• Social (Praise / public recognition, friendly greetings,
compliments)
• Consumables (Free lunch, company picnic)
• Objects (Company car, watches)
• Sensory (Office with a window, redecoration)
 Reinforcement
The rewards for behaviour

1. Positive: stimuli that increase likelihood of

behaviour that precedes them when given
Negative: stimuli that increase likelihood of
behaviour that precedes them when
removed (e.g. The beatings will stop when
morale improves)

Negative reinforcement is NOT punishment

 Reinforcement
The rewards for behaviour
2. Contingent: reinforcement is dependent of
producing the desired behaviour

Non-Contingent: reinforcement not

dependent on behaviour

The concept of contingency - for

conditioning to occur, reinforcement should
be provided only when desired behaviour
occurs
 Reinforcement
The rewards for behaviour
3. Continuous: reward given every time
desired behaviour occurs

Partial: less reinforcement given for

producing the desired behaviour

Partial reinforcement can be on an interval (time) or

ratio (number of responses) schedule
Partial reinforcement produces more effective
changes in behaviour than continuous reinforcement
(e.g. Lewis & Duncan, 1956 – slot machines)
 Reinforcement
The rewards for behaviour
4. Immediate: reinforcement given immediately
after desired behaviour

Delayed: reinforcement given some time

period after desired behaviour

The concept of contiguity – for conditioning

to occur there should be only a small delay
between behaviour and reinforcement (or
punishment)
 Reinforcement
The rewards for behaviour
1. Positive v Negative
2. Contingent v Non-Contingent
3. Continuous v Partial
4. Immediate v Delayed

What types of reinforcement are best for:

(a) Learning new behaviour?
(b) Increasing the frequency of
already-learned behaviour?
 More Learning Phenomena
Extinction - the disappearance of behaviour
following withdrawal of reinforcement
Which types of reinforcement will be associated
with the fastest extinction?
Punishment - not the same as negative
reinforcement
- suppresses the undesired behaviour, but may
not, in itself, produce the desired behaviour
- punishment-orientated organisations often
“frozen with fear”
 Premack principle

The opportunity to engage in one behaviour

can be used as a reward for another
behaviour.

Underpinned by:
A hierarchy of rewards
The order of rewards in the hierarchy will
change as circumstances change
e.g. a worker can take a long lunch or an early
finish
 Luthans and Kreitner -
(Organisational) Behaviour
Modification
Based on operant conditioning
a. Identify critical behaviours
b. Measure them
c. Functional analysis of behaviour
d. Develop intervention strategy
e. Evaluate intervention strategy
 OB Mod programmes

Not all OB Mod programmes are successful

in practice

e.g. Zohar and Fussfeld (1981); ear defender

usage increased from 35% to 90%, maintained
9 months after intervention

e.g. Beard et al. (1998); 0.5% increase in

attendance, disappeared by end of study
 Zohar (2002)
Abstract

Overall purpose: To present a leadership-

based intervention model designed to modify
supervisory monitoring and rewarding of
subordinates’ safety performance

What was done, and how

What were the main findings and implications

 Zohar (2002)
Introduction
Safe behaviour is a managerial challenge.

Safe behaviour incurs immediate costs like slower pace,

extra effort, personal discomfort

Expected utility of unsafe behaviour > safe behaviour if risk

of injury underestimated (as is usually the case)

Unsafe behaviour reinforced by more weight on short-term

gains (i.e. production over safety).
 Zohar (2002)
Introduction
Most successful programmes tried to influence safe
behaviour by introducing short-term rewards that outweigh
immediate costs
Use of Antecedents – Behaviour – Consequences
framework
2 kinds of antecedents used: training, goal setting
Komaki: used supervisor monitoring, and feedback as
antecedents
Reviewed what effective supervisors do
 Zohar (2002)
Introduction

Zohar proposed that an intervention that improves

supervisory safety practices could offer a new intervention
model

A distinctive feature of this model is that intervention takes

place at the level ABOVE the target behaviour (i.e.
supervisory practice is modified to introduce change on the
shop floor).
 Zohar (2002)
Introduction

Hypotheses:
H1: Improved supervisory safety practices will
result in better subunit safety records.

H2: Improved supervisory safety practices will

result in higher safety climate in subunits.

H3: Improved supervisory safety practices will

result in higher rates of earplug use in subunits.
 Zohar (2002)
Method

Subjects:
381 line workers, 36 supervisors
All male subjects
Mean age, mean tenure: supervisors older
more tenured than workers
36 work groups: 18 for experimental group, 18
for control group, matched for job, risk level
 Zohar (2002)
Method

Procedure:
3 months prior to study: baselines established
for safety-oriented supervisory interactions,
minor injuries from unsafe behaviour, safety
climate scores

Intervention lasted 8 weeks: feedback given

weekly to supervisors and their section
managers by researchers (indirect behaviour
sampling methodology)
 Zohar (2002)
Method

Procedure:
Supervisors given individual feedback, which
consisted of number of reported safety-oriented
episodes (safety was criterion for approval or
disapproval) between the supervisor and his
subordinates out of all role-related episodes

Section managers given comparative

information about the supervisors in their
section and told to inform supervisors of their
position and express approval or disapproval.
 Zohar (2002)
Results

Don’t get too bogged down by the statistics at

your stage

Safety-oriented episodes:
Exp: 9% - 58%
Con: No change from baseline
No decline 5 months after intervention
Shown by Figure 1
 Zohar (2002)
Results

Ear plug use:

Exp: 25% - 73%
Con: No change, averaging 18%
No decline 5 months after intervention
Shown by Figure 1

Support for Hypothesis 3

 Zohar (2002)
Results

Accident rate:
Exp: decrease in post-intervention accident rate
Con: Increase in post-intervention accident rate
Shown by Figure 2

Support for Hypothesis 1

 Zohar (2002)
Results

Climate perceptions:
Exp: increase in climate scores
Con: no increase in climate scores
Expectation scores increased more than action
scores for exp. group
Shown by Figure 3

Support for Hypothesis 2

 Zohar (2002)
Discussion

Re-states the main findings from the results

section

Discusses the importance of the findings and

relates them to wider theory

Zohar discusses his leadership-based

intervention in terms of theories of leadership
 Social Cognitive Theory vs.
Behaviourism

Zohar (2002) used feedback as a consequence of

supervisory-monitoring behaviour

Feedback and its role in shaping behaviour is a

troublesome concept for pure behaviourism since
it is difficult to see how it can have any influence
on subsequent behaviour without the cognitive
component being important
 Social Cognitive Theory vs.
Behaviourism

Social Cognitive Theory used to be called Social

Learning Theory

Bandura: “Outcomes change behaviour largely

through the intervening influence of thought.”

Skinner: “A person does not act upon the world,

the world acts upon him.”
 Social Cognitive Theory vs.
Behaviourism

SCT accepts behavioural approach but adds to it

It says that internal cognitive processes are

important determinants of behaviour

Interaction between person, behaviour, and

situation called Reciprocal Determinism
 Social Cognitive Theory vs.
Behaviourism

SCT can be used to explain observational learning

or modelling: junior employees model their dress,
attitudes, and behaviours on successful senior
employees

Lasting behaviour change most often occurs when

a person believes that he really wants to change
for his own reasons rather than because he is
being rewarded for doing so