An Analysis of Organizational Behavior Management Research in Terms of the Three-Contingency Model of Performance Management

ABSTRACT

The three-contingency model of performance management (Malott, 1992, 1993, 1999) was used to analyze interventions in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM) from the years 1990 through 2005 (Volume 11[1] –Volume 25[4]). The current article extends previous reviews (Malott, Shimamune, & Malott, 1992; Otto & Malott, 2004) by assessing how behavior analysts have applied this level of analysis in the description of interventions and the importance of this conceptual precision when describing maintaining variables. All 48 studies meeting criteria for inclusion in the current article involved indirect-acting contingencies with outcomes too delayed to reinforce the causal response. Only 17 of the 24 articles that described the performance-management contingencies described them correctly in terms of the maintaining behavioral mechanisms.

KEYWORDS:

• Three-contingency model of performance management
• organizational behavior management
• direct-acting contingency
• indirect-acting contingency

Notes

1. (Boudreau, Christian, & Thibadeau, 1993; Carter & Holmberg, 1992; Clayton, Mawhinney, Luke, & Cook, 1997; Gikalov, Baer, & Hannah, 1997; LaFleur & Hyten, 1995; Landau, 1993; Rodriguez et al., 2005; Strouse, Carroll-Hernandez, Sherman, & Sheldon, 2004)

2. (Allison, Silverstein, & Galante, 1992; Arco, 1997; Austin, Kessler, Riccobono, & Bailey, 1996; Bateman & Ludwig, 2003; Boyce & Geller, 1999; Brown & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1994; Cook & Dixon, 2005; Eikenhout & Austin, 2005; Hantula, Rajala, & Kellerman, & Bragger, 2001; Hawkins, Burgio, Langford, & Engel, 1992; Henry & Redmon, 1990; Hickman & Geller, 2003; Huberman & O'Brien, 1999; Jessup & Stahelski, 1999; Johnson & Masotti, 1990; Kortick & O'Brien, 1996; LaFleur & Hyten, 1995; Langeland, Johnson, & Mawhinney, 1998; Ludwig, Biggs, Wagner, & Geller, 2001; Ludwig & Geller, 2000; Nicol & Hantula, 2001; Olson & Austin, 2001a; Pampino, Jr., MacDonald, Mullin, & Wilder, 2003; Rodriguez et al., 2005; Rohn, Austin, & Lutrey, 2002; Sasson & Austin, 2005; Slowiak, Madden, & Mathews, 2005; Stephens & Ludwig, 2005; Sulzer-Azaroff, Loafman, Merante, & Hlavacek, 1990; Wilk & Redmon, 1990; Wilk & Redmon, 1998; Wilson, Boni, & Hogg, 1997; Wittkopp, Rowan, & Poling, 1990)

3. (Allison et al., 1992; Austin et al., 1996; Bateman & Ludwig, 2003; Cook & Dixon, 2005; Godbey & White, 1992; Gravina, Wilder, White, & Fabian, 2005; Hickman & Geller, 2003; Huberman & O'Brien, 1999; Jessup & Stahelski, 1999; Kortick & O'Brien, 1996; Landau, 1993; Ludwig et al., 2001; Pampino, Jr., Heering, et al., 2003; Thurkow, Bailey, & Stamper, 2000; Welsh, Bernstein, & Luthans, 1992)

4. (LaFleur & Hyten, 1995; Pampino, Jr., Heering, et al., 2003; Pampino, Jr., MacDonald, et al. 2003; Rodriguez et al., 2005; Slowiak et al., 2005; Wilson et al., 1997)

5. (Eikenhout & Austin, 2005; Godbey & White, 1992; Hawkins et al., 1992; Huberman & O'Brien, 1999; Langeland et al., 1998; Sulzer-Azaroff et al., 1990; Wilk & Redmon, 1990; Wilson et al., 1997)

6. (Bateman & Ludwig, 2003; Boyce & Geller, 1999; Eikenhout & Austin, 2005; Huberman & O'Brien, 1999; Jessup & Stahelski, 1999; Johnson & Masotti, 1990; LaFleur & Hyten, 1995; Langeland et al., 1998; Ludwig & Geller, 2000; Nicol & Hantula, 2001; Pampino, Jr., MacDonald, et al. 2003; Slowiak et al. 2005; Stephens & Ludwig, 2005; Sulzer-Azaroff et al., 1990; Wilk & Redmon, 1990; Wilk & Redmon, 1998)

7. (Arco, 1997; Austin, Hatfield, Grindle, & Bailey, 1993; Boyce & Geller, 1999; Ludwig & Geller, 1999a; Ludwig & Geller, 1999b; Milligan & Hantula, 2005; Mueller, Moore, Doggett, & Tingstrom, 2000; Mueller, Moore, Tingstrom, & Doggett, 2001)

8. (LaFleur & Hyten, 1995; Slowiak et al., 2005)

9. (Hawkins et al., 1992; Hickman & Geller, 2003; Olson & Austin, 2001a; Rodriguez et al., 2005)

10. (Bumstead & Boyce, 2005; Hantula et al., 2001; Hickman & Geller, 2003; Olson & Austin, 2001a)

11. Since the outcome is too small or improbable, the contingency is ineffective and does not actually reinforce the target behavior; therefore, we put quotes around reinforcement and call it an ineffective “reinforcement” contingency because it would reinforce the behavior, if the outcome were sufficiently large and probable. And we reserve the term analog-to-a-reinforcement contingency for those occasions when the outcome is large and probable enough to reinforce the target behavior, but the outcome is delayed by more than 60 seconds. In that case, if a rule describing the contingency were used, that contingency could indirectly control the behavior, as if it actually were a reinforcement contingency; so the terminology analog-to-a-reinforcement contingency would be appropriate.