Connecting Positive Psychology and Organizational Behavior Management

CONCEPTUAL ARTICLE

Connecting Positive Psychologyand Organizational Behavior Management:

Achievement Motivation and the Powerof Positive Reinforcement

Douglas M. WiegandE. Scott Geller

ABSTRACT. Positive psychology is becoming established as a reputa-ble sub-discipline in psychology despite having neglected the role ofpositive reinforcement in enhancing quality of life. The authors discussthe relevance of positive reinforcement for positive psychology, withimplications for broadening the content of organizational behavior man-agement. Specifically, literature in achievement motivation is discussed,and ways to promote success-seeking over failure-avoiding are enter-tained. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document DeliveryService: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]>Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc.All rights reserved.]

Douglas M. Wiegand and E. Scott Geller are affiliated with the Department of Psy-chology, Center for Applied Behavior Systems, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity, Blacksburg, VA 24061 (E-mail: [email protected]).

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 24(1/2) 2005Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JOBM

© 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J075v24n01_02 3

http://www.HaworthPress.com

http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JOBM

KEYWORDS. Organizational behavior management, reinforcement,success, failure, achievement, positive psychology

As evidenced by the recent accumulation of literature surroundingthe movement, “positive psychology” has gained considerable attentionover the past several years. So much, in fact, it seems to be creating itsown sub-discipline in psychology, complete with a recently publishedhandbook (Snyder & Lopez, 2002), and several conferences dedicatedexplicitly to this emerging field.

Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) describe positive psychologyas “a science of positive subjective experience, positive individualtraits, and positive institutions (which) promises to improve quality oflife and prevent the pathologies that arise when life is barren and mean-ingless” (p. 5). The focus is on positive features of life, such as factorsthat enable hope, wisdom, creativity, future mindedness, courage, spiri-tuality, and responsibility. By understanding the factors that establishsuch positive human characteristics, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi(2000) predict that positive psychology will set the foundation for amore perfect world.

What positive psychology is missing is an emphasis on the principlesof applied behavior analysis, particularly positive versus negative rein-forcement. When performing a PsycINFO search on April 29, 2003 us-ing the keywords positive psychology, the senior author received 152entries. Among the abstracts, only two articles addressed positive rein-forcement (i.e., Catania, 2001; Follette, Linnerooth, & Ruckstuhl,2001). Catania (2001) notes this lack of attention to positive reinforce-ment and urges advocates of positive psychology “ . . . to embrace behav-ior analysis, its applications, and positive reinforcement in particular bylearning more about it, by teaching it to their students, and by promotingit in our culture and in the world at large” (p. 87).

The issue raised here is comparable to the disappointment expressedby Geller (2002) regarding the American Psychological Association’slack of attention to applied behavior analysis in their campaigning forthe “Decade of Behavior: 2000-2010.” Researchers, teachers, and prac-titioners in the fields of applied behavior analysis and organizational be-havior management (OBM) should heed these instances of neglect.Apparently within our own field of psychology, the power of positivereinforcement has yet to be completely understood and/or integrated tothe extent warranted, let alone disseminated to the masses.

4 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

This presentation addresses this predicament, and discusses achieve-ment motivation as an example of how applied behavior analysis can beused to promote a success-seeking orientation within organizations andour educational system.

BROADENING THE CONTENT OF OBM

Recently, Geller (2002) discussed the importance of expanding thecontent of OBM so as to attract more students, teachers, researchers,and practitioners to the field. He stated that industrial-organizational(I/O) psychologists have a promotional edge over OBM in that they“. . . draw on the broad range of sub-disciplines in psychology, fromphysiological and cognitive to personality and social psychology, todevelop their theories, design their applications, and analyze and in-terpret empirical findings” (p. 14).

Not only would broadening the content of OBM make the field moremarketable (Bailey, 1991; Lindsey, 1991), it would also gain attentionand credibility by forming a reciprocal relationship with other disci-plines (including various sub-disciplines within psychology). Being un-aware of the research of our counterparts in other disciplines may createconfusion and waste resources by “reinventing the wheel.”

One example of such an unfortunate journey in science is Malott’s(2002) “ What OBM Needs Is More Jewish Mothers, ” which addressesthe topic of achievement motivation. Malott wrote this article in re-sponse to Geller’s (2002) expansion piece, which served as the inspira-tion for the present paper.

Enter the Jewish Mother and Negative Reinforcement

Malott (2002) uses the metaphor of a Jewish mother to explain whyhe believes children reared using negative reinforcement are more suc-cessful than those reared using positive reinforcement. He states, “ahighly successful person must be very self-critical; a highly successful[person] must have heavy fear, guilt, and/or shame” ( italics in original).According to Malott, successful individuals acquire this sense of fear,guilt, and/or shame early in life, and are highly motivated to avoid suchfeelings (and the inevitable disappointment of their Jewish mother) byworking extremely hard and never being satisfied with their achieve-ments. He claims that such negative person states are more effectivemotivators than Geller’s “actively-caring” states of self-esteem, self-ef-

Douglas M. Wiegand and E. Scott Geller 5

ficacy, personal control, optimism, and sense of belonging (Geller,1995, 2001a, c).

Further, Malott recognizes that some people are raised in the absenceof a Jewish mother, and are therefore not particularly motivated by fear,guilt, and/or shame. These are the individuals he believes need OBM in-tervention. He proposes that to effectively control the productive behav-ior of these individuals, three rules surrounding delayed-outcomeperformance management contingencies need to be met: (a) responseconsequences must be sizable and certain, (b) deadlines must be speci-fied, and (c) the contingency must be reflected in a specific rule. Hispoint here is that if one does not have an inherent sense of fear, guilt,and/or shame, contingencies need to be arranged and deadlines set sothe individual is essentially driven to avoid failure. As deadlinesapproach, the need to avoid failure becomes more prominent.

It is surprising to learn of such strong support for negative reinforce-ment from an astute and experienced behaviorist. Such a stance flies inthe face of radical behaviorism (as well as basic OBM philosophy), andas Geller (2002) states, “sends a potentially dangerous message aboutnegative reinforcement that could cause serious societal harm.” B. F.Skinner himself warned against the use of negative reinforcement, stat-ing it interferes with one’s sense of freedom (Skinner, 1971). Skinnerenvisioned a utopian society where positive reinforcement is the mostwidely used method of control (Skinner, 1948). Malott’s perspectiveadvocates the opposite approach, justifying the use of negativereinforcement in our homes, industry, and educational systems.

Malott believes the person motivated by a Jewish mother perceivesthe experience of guilt as inescapable, and as a result will continue towork harder to achieve. This idea runs contrary to basic theory in ap-plied behavior analysis (Daniels, 2000; Geller, 2001c, d), which pro-poses that when people are working under the guise of negativereinforcement, they will tend to engage in only the minimum amount ofbehavior necessary to avoid the aversive consequences. Further, re-search has shown that one typically will not perform avoidance/escapebehavior if they perceive the aversive consequences are beyond theircontrol (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Berglas & Jones,1978; Maier & Seligman, 1976).

Malott seems to be unaware of a wealth of literature (primarily in thefield of education) spanning several decades of research on achieve-ment motivation. This literature addresses the very issue of personalcharacteristics among successful versus non-successful individuals, aswell as their motivation to achieve versus avoid failure. The lack of ref-


erence to this literature in Malott’s commentary implicates an importantlesson for all of us in the fields of applied behavior analysis and OBM.Previous empirical studies on many topics of direct relevance and im-portance to OBM are available, awaiting consideration and relevant fol-low-up research. This will happen when behavior analysts look beyondthe boundaries they have seemingly created for themselves.

This paper provides a summary of the literature surrounding individ-uals’ motivation to approach success versus avoid failure. While this re-search is predominantly focused in education, we argue it is of directrelevance to OBM. Understanding this information is important for be-havioral scientists to consider adopting as a rationale for their positivereinforcement approach to behavioral intervention. This not only setsthe stage for integrating the principles of applied behavior analysis withresearch conducted in education and other fields, but also provides anexample of how positive reinforcement can claim its rightful position inpositive psychology.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

Need Achievement Theory

Much of the recent literature on achievement motivation is rooted inthe context of need achievement theory (Atkinson, 1957; see alsoMcClelland, 1965). This theory posits that individuals can be character-ized in general terms of their relative motivation to approach successversus avoid failure. Atkinson’s original theory proposed that humanachievement is the product of a conflict between one’s motive to strivefor or approach success (i.e., expectancy for success) versus avoid fail-ure (i.e., fear of failure). He credited differences in emotional anticipa-tion for the reason why some individuals approach tasks readily whileothers are inhibited and withdrawn (Atkinson, 1957, 1964).

As depicted in Figure 1, Atkinson’s theory can be represented by anorthogonal, two-dimensional matrix, categorizing individuals with re-spect to their tendencies to approach success versus avoid failure. Usingthis model, individuals can be classified as either low or high in success-seeking (or achievement) and low or high in failure-avoiding. The fourquadrants allow for the representation of individuals who have conflict-ing motives (e.g., someone who simultaneously approaches success yetis fearful of failure) as well as people who are more straightforward intheir motivation (e.g., those low in avoidance and high in approach).


Unfortunately, much of the research exploring Atkinson’s theory hasdismissed the quadripolar model in favor of a simplified one-dimen-sional continuum of approach versus avoidance (Covington, 1992;Covington & Roberts, 1994). This perspective lumps the approach andavoidance tendencies of individuals together so everyone fits on a con-tinuum between approach and avoidance. As a result, the possibility ofconflicting tendencies of approach versus avoidance is ignored, and in-difference or lack of motivation is not considered.

Returning to Atkinson’s original quadripolar model, recent researchin education expands on need achievement theory by focusing on thequestion of why some college students are driven in their academicwork by something other than the desire to learn and/or achieve. Thisresearch reflects the views of McClelland (1961, 1965), who put asomewhat different spin on need achievement theory by describing themotive to achieve as primarily competitive in nature. McClelland pro-posed that those who are motivated to achieve do so in an attempt to out-shine their peers or compete with a certain standard of excellence.Further, those who are driven to avoid failure do so to avoid being per-


HighSuccess Seeking

Success Seeker Overstriver

LowFailure Avoiding

HighFailure Avoiding

Failure Acceptor Failure Avoider

LowSuccess Seeking

FIGURE 1. Quadripolar Model of Need Achievement

From Making the Grade: A Self-Worth Perspective on Motivation and School Reform, by M.V.Covington, 1992, Cambridge University Press. Adapted with permission.

ceived as inferior in ability when compared to their peers or other stan-dards. Self-worth theory expands on McClelland’s views and shedslight on the issue of failure avoidance.

Self-Worth Theory

According to self-worth theory, the greatest concern for students isthe need for self-acceptance or protection of self-esteem (Beery, 1975;Covington, 1984a, b, 1992, 1997; Covington & Beery, 1976; Covington &Roberts, 1994). Failure holds implications for individuals’ self-esteembecause it is often perceived to be indicative of low ability, which is of-ten considered the cornerstone of low self-esteem (Covington, 1984b,1992). Therefore, students go to great lengths to protect their sense ofpersonal value, even if it means sacrificing good grades to do so. Twostrategies for protecting one’s perception of ability have been examinedin the achievement literature, namely, self-handicapping and defensivepessimism.

Self-handicapping (Berglas & Jones, 1978) refers to actively placingbarriers in the way of success (e.g., procrastination, reduction of effort,taking on too much at once), so if failure were to occur, the individualcould blame these external impediments as opposed to personal attrib-utes such as ability or competency. These individuals find externalcauses of failure less threatening because they do not have implicationsfor their self-worth. For example, people who go to a party and stay outlate the night before taking a test may be self-handicapping. Such be-havior (going to a party instead of resting and studying) would mostlikely compromise performance on a test, giving these individuals areadily available excuse for earning a poor grade.

Defensive pessimism (Norem & Cantor, 1986a, b) refers to settingunjustifiably low expectations of performance and considering a varietyof potential outcomes in which one can be evaluated. By having un-founded low expectations, an individual is bracing for the worst possi-ble outcome. Then, by comparison, the actual outcome will seem betterthan expected (Norem & Cantor, 1986a, b). This technique is self-pro-tective in that people set “safer” standards against which their abilitywill be judged, thereby “lowering the bar” for acceptable performance(Baumgardner & Brownlee, 1987).

As an example of defensive pessimism, consider a reasonably goodstudent telling herself she is going to fail a test. She is convinced failureis inevitable, and thinks of a variety of ways the situation will play itselfout (e.g., thinking she will not remember anything she studied, thinking


the questions will be too difficult for her to understand, and/or thinkingshe will not have enough time to finish the test). Then, taking the testand earning a grade of “C” will be considered satisfactory, since it ismuch better than the expected grade of “F.” Defensive pessimism maywork to alleviate some anxiety, however, research has shown that in thelong run, such a negative outlook can minimize potential feelings ofsuccess, and will ultimately lead to poorer outcomes (Norem & Cantor,1990).

Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism are ultimately self-de-feating in that they often influence the negative outcomes a person istrying to avoid (Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001a). By attributing pooroutcomes to either external (or situational) circumstances or by compar-ing one’s performance to an even lower expectation, individuals protecttheir self-worth by distancing failure from their perceptions of personalcompetence. It is important to note that these techniques are not aimedat increasing personal ability, but instead protecting people’s percep-tion of their competence as is. Self-worth theory therefore proposes analternative view of motivation to White’s (1959) competence theory.

White (1959) described the desire for competence as a primarysource of human motivation. He posited that this desire is self-initiatingand self-rewarding, and the behaviors related to a sense of competenceare highly focused activities that are intrinsically reinforcing. It is im-portant to realize that in the quest for competence, some form of failureis inevitable as experience is gained at whatever task is being mastered.It is part of the learning process.

Conversely, self-worth theory states that protecting one’s self-es-teem is more motivating to some individuals than gaining competence.These individuals are unwilling to risk their sense of self-worth, even tolearn new skills or to improve deficient ones.

Research shows that individual differences in motivation exist, lend-ing support to both self-worth theory and competence theory (e.g.,Covington & Omelich, 1991). Recognizing these differences has lead tothe identification of distinct achievement typologies, described asfollows.

Achievement Typologies

Based on the quadripolar model of need achievement and self-worththeory, Covington and Omelich (1991) identified four distinct achieve-ment typologies. These typologies have been the focus of recent litera-ture attempting to explain differences in how people approach success


and/or avoid failure. The four typologies describe individuals who are:(1) success seekers, (2) overstrivers, (3) failure avoiders, or (4) failureacceptors. Again, while a majority of this research was conducted usingacademic samples, it is clearly adaptable to organizations.

Success Seekers. Success seekers (SS) have been referred to as the“resilient” typology (e.g., Martin, 2002a), because they seem to be ex-empt from the self-protective tendencies described by the self-worthperspective. They also respond to setbacks (e.g., negative feedback) in aproactive and adaptive manner, persisting with optimism and energy(Covington & Omelich, 1991; Martin, 1998; Martin et al., 2001a). Interms of Atkinson’s model, these individuals show high expectancy forsuccess and low fear of failure.

These individuals display “exemplary achievement behaviors”(Covington & Omelich, 1991, p. 86) in that they are self-confident andwilling to take risks, as opposed to being avoidant due to a fear of fail-ure. Research has shown that SS individuals succeed by focusing onsuccess instead of failure (Covington & Omelich, 1991; Martin, 1998;Martin et al., 2001a). Martin (2002b) found that those classified as SSreported high self-efficacy, high personal control, and low fear of fail-ure. As students, they tend to exhibit the highest quality study skills andhabits (Covington & Omelich, 1991).

Covington and Roberts (1994) surveyed 220 undergraduates to in-vestigate personality variables related to achievement typology. Resultsfrom the California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1987) indi-cate that SS individuals tend to be healthy and psychologically well-ad-justed. They score above average on norm adherence, extraversion,conscientiousness, and tolerance. They also tend to be concerned withthe impression they make on others, and describe themselves assensitive to the needs of others.

Overstrivers. Individuals classified as overstrivers (OS) avoid failureby working in excess to succeed (Covington & Omelich, 1991; Martin &Marsh, 2003; Martin et al., 2001a). They fit into the quadrant ofAtkinson’s model that reflects both high expectancy for success andhigh fear of failure. These people are diligent, academically successful,meticulous, and at times optimistic. However, they maintain a level ofself-doubt about their abilities and experience high levels of evaluationanxiety, driving them to avoid failure by succeeding (Covington, 1992;Covington & Omelich, 1991; Martin et al., 2001a). Their dual tendencyto contemplate potential success and failure leads these individuals tofailure avoidance because they are particularly vulnerable to threats totheir perceived competence (Covington, 1992, as cited in Martin et al.,


2001a). Covington and Omelich (1991) found these individuals to becomparable to SS individuals with regard to personal estimates of abil-ity and study skills. Although OS students reported spending more timestudying than those reflecting the other typologies, a fair portion of thistime was spent engaging in counterproductive wishful thinking (e.g., “Iwish I didn’t have to take this test”; Covington & Omelich, 1991).

Covington and Roberts (1994) found OS individuals to have a dispo-sition toward meticulous over-preparation. In other words, they are pre-occupied with perfection. On the CPI, they score relatively low ontolerance and well-being, and high on anger towards self and others.They often show signs of skepticism, arrogance, and aggression, as wellas a lack of emotional control. They are also described as being less thanwilling to comply with the wishes of others (Covington & Roberts,1994).

These individuals are driven by negative reinforcement. They workhard to escape aversive feelings of guilt, shame, incompetence, andanxiety. While this seems to be a useful strategy for these individuals(i.e., they are generally successful), the process is unpleasant for them(Martin & Marsh, 2003). They report high anxiety, low perceptions ofpersonal control, and unstable self-esteem (Martin, 1998; 2001; Martin,Marsh, & Debus, 2001b). Further, failure affirms OS individuals’ suspi-cions that they are incompetent, which may impede their progress ifthey cope by engaging in the kind of counterproductive behavior dis-played by failure-avoidant individuals (Covington, 1992; Covington &Omelich, 1991; Martin & Marsh, 2003; Martin et al., 2001a).

In his paper on the Jewish mother syndrome, Malott (2002) seems tobe describing OS individuals as most successful. While he believesthese individuals are ideal employees, they do not seem to be the type ofperson we would want on our work team, given the negative character-istics demonstrated by the research cited above.

Failure Avoiders. Individuals classified as failure avoiders (FAV) donot avoid failure per se, but rather the implications of failure (Coving-ton, 1992; Martin & Marsh, 2003; Martin et al., 2001a). They are moti-vated by fear of failure, and do whatever it takes to protect themselvesfrom implications they are incompetent. In Atkinson’s model, they aredefined by low expectancy for success and high fear of failure.

These individuals are most likely to use techniques such as self-handi-capping and defensive pessimism to protect themselves from potentialfailure (Covington, 1992). They report significantly lower estimates ofability than the SS, as well as a high level of certainty regarding these esti-mates (Covington & Omelich, 1979, 1991). In fact, relative to the other


typologies, these students show the lowest levels of academic achieve-ment (Martin, 2002b). They avoid challenges, and are debilitated by asetback because it confirms their doubts about their lack of competence,personal control, and/or self-efficacy (Covington & Omelich, 1991; Mar-tin, 1998; Martin et al., 2001a). Martin (2002b) described these individu-als as avoidant, anxious, and pessimistic, and having low self-belief andlow perceptions of control.

Failure avoiders tend to be unsure of themselves, and are described asbeing preoccupied with worries about the future, including their physicaland mental health (Covington & Roberts, 1994). They have difficulty fin-ishing what they begin, dislike direct competition, and generally have lowcompliance with others’ wishes or opinions. Finally, they score low onpsychological mindedness, meaning they focus more on behaviors thanfeelings (Covington & Roberts, 1994).

Failure Acceptors. The final typology represented by Atkinson’smodel describes individuals low in both expectancy for success and fearof failure. Covington and Omelich (1985) label these individuals failureacceptors (FAC). These individuals have been described as being for-mer FAVs who decided their excuses were no longer plausible, and ac-cepted their failures as implications of low ability (e.g., Covington &Omelich, 1991; Martin & Marsh, 2003).

Failure acceptors withdraw from academic competition, and are gener-ally typified by indifference (Covington & Omelich, 1991). They displaya pattern of motivation analogous to learned helplessness (Abramson etal., 1978; Covington, 1992; Maier & Seligman, 1976), embracing the be-lief that no matter how hard they try they will inevitably fail (Coyne &Lazarus, 1980; Miller & Norman, 1979). Martin (1998, 2002b) foundthese individuals report school as a low priority and noted that they lackboth academic motivation and resilience (Martin, 2002a).

While their competence estimates fall between the SS and FAV, theyare not worried about their ability (Covington & Omelich, 1991). Interms of self-protective behaviors, some have considered these individ-uals to be the epitome of self-handicappers in that they do not try at all(Martin et al., 2001a). However, when faced with failure, they are theleast likely to blame outside or situational factors for their failure. Theytake personal credit for their failure (Covington & Omelich, 1991).

When examining FAC individuals’ scores on the CPI, Covington andRoberts (1994) found interesting and unexpected results. These individ-uals, typically described as unmotivated and indifferent, are actuallymore psychologically adjusted than the two failure-avoiding groups.They score high on well-being, tolerance, self-control, and social pres-


ence. They report being self-assured and self-disciplined, and experi-ence a passive lifestyle relatively free of worry. These individuals canbe described as creative, eccentric, individualistic, and unconventional(Covington & Roberts, 1994).

It is possible the achievement measures do not tap the constructs nec-essary to describe the FAC person. As Martin (1998) found, school isnot particularly important to failure acceptors, which reflects negativelyon them when they complete the achievement measures. He believesthey might render more positive, achievement-related characteristics iftheir assessment referenced tasks other than academics.

Given the research summarized above, it is clear the SS individualsare motivated by positive reinforcement, while the OS and FAV indi-viduals are driven by negative reinforcement. The principles of OBMcould be applied to help these failure-avoiding individuals reach theideal of a success-seeking orientation, mainly by arranging environ-mental contingencies in terms of positive versus negative reinforce-ment. Restructuring the environment to make positive reinforcementthe salient contingency may increase positive person states (e.g., thepsychological well-being and conscientiousness qualities of the SOindividuals) as well as increase productivity.

BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENTAND ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION

Personality Traits vs. Personality States

Pertinent to this discussion is whether person-based variables can beinfluenced. A personality trait is thought to be stable and persistent overtime and therefore difficult to influence. This is the stance typically takenby I/O psychologists who study personality factors as determinants of be-havior.

Conversely, other researchers and scholars (including those in OBM)view personality factors as fluctuating states under the influence of theenvironment and the three-term contingency. In this case, person statesare examined as dependent variables. With this view, research is con-ducted to increase positive person states through environmental condi-tions and contingencies, which then affect a person’s motivationorientation.

A major focus of OBM is to create environments in which productivityand quality are high and workers are generally satisfied, happy, healthy,


and safe. Thus, it can be deduced that OBM aims to promote a success-seeking orientation. As described above, success seekers are generallywell-adjusted, work towards being the best they can be, and experience highself-worth or self-efficacy, perceptions of personal control, and low fear offailure (Covington & Omelich, 1991; Covington & Roberts, 1994; Martin,1998, 2002b; Martin et al., 2001a). As college students, they exhibit thehighest quality study skills, and obtain relatively high grades. It seemsthese are the ideal person states to cultivate when creating effective aca-demic or organizational climates.

PROMOTING A SUCCESS-SEEKING ORIENTATION

Numerous scholarly works have addressed ways to enhance motiva-tion by creating success-focused environments (e.g., Covington, 1992;Covington & Roberts, 1994; Martin, 2001; Martin & Marsh, 2003).While a comprehensive review of this literature is beyond the scope ofthis presentation, one recent set of recommendations is discussed whichemphasizes the importance of increasing positive person states and de-creasing negative person states when shaping one’s achievement moti-vation. By gaining awareness of the scholarship that has been producedby change agents in education and other disciplines, the field of OBMcan begin to make its own contributions, from filling gaps in the re-search to developing new approaches to develop success-seekingmotivation.

Martin’s achievement model (2001, 2002a, in press) categorizes cog-nitive and behavioral determinants of motivation as boosters, guzzlers,or mufflers. Boosters are those factors that enhance motivation, includ-ing self-efficacy, school appreciation, a learning-focused mindset, goalpersistence, planning, and self-monitoring. In contrast, guzzlers reducemotivation, including low personal control and self-protection (i.e.,self-handicapping and defensive pessimism). Finally, mufflers have thepotential of limiting motivation, yet are not as debilitating as guzzlers.Examples of mufflers are anxiety and failure avoidance.

Martin and his colleagues have described techniques for increasingboosters and decreasing guzzlers and mufflers in academic settings(Martin, 2001, 2002a, 2002b, in press; Martin & Marsh, 2003; Martin etal., 2001b). These techniques are summarized below as supported by re-search conducted in applied behavior analysis and OBM.

Self-Efficacy. Martin and Marsh (2003) describe self-efficacy (a.k.a.,self-belief) as students’ confidence they will understand and succeed in


what they plan to do, while performing to the best of their ability. Self-ef-ficacy is one of the strongest predictors of achievement (Bandura, 1986,1997; Marsh, 1990; Martin & Debus, 1998). Thus, it is a crucial boosterto increase among students and workers alike.

Perceptions of self-efficacy can be increased using techniques devel-oped by Watson and Tharp (1997). One method is to choose a task theperson can complete successfully. This may involve breaking a job as-signment into smaller, more manageable components (McInerney,2000). By increasing the opportunities to experience success or “smallwins” (Weick, 1984), self-efficacy will increase. Also, individualsshould set goals within their knowledge and capability range, and theirview of success should focus on personal bests and improvement as op-posed to competing against others (Covington, 1992; Martin, 2002a).One way to accomplish this is to create a hierarchy of things one wouldlike to accomplish, ranging from easiest to most difficult. Once easiertasks have been accomplished, self-efficacy can build successively tohelp one conquer more difficult tasks.

School Appreciation. This refers to students’ belief that what theylearn in school is important and practical to them and society in general(Martin, 2001). This is comparable to Bandura’s notions of response effi-cacy (1997) and outcome expectancy (1986). Response efficacy refers tothe belief that certain behaviors will produce a desired outcome (e.g., “If Istudy hard, I will succeed”). Outcome expectancy refers to the results (orconsequences) people anticipate from engaging in certain behaviors, andwhether or not these outcomes are perceived as worth the effort (e.g.,“Succeeding in school is important, and it will make my life better”). Inthis case, these terms pertain to the belief that doing well in school is rele-vant to future success and worth the effort. This notion is also comparableto having workers “buy in” to their job assignment or a behavior manage-ment program to increase their competence or motivation.

To increase school appreciation, educators need to link what they areteaching to students’ personal lives (including their interests and tal-ents), the “real world” (including current events and job experiences),and to other subjects taught in school (Martin, 2001, 2002a; Martin &Marsh, 2003). In other words, the question “Why do I need to knowthis?” should be addressed specifically and in many ways. This relatesdirectly to organizational issues regarding workers’ perceptions of theirjob competence and performance outcomes.

School appreciation can also be increased if students understand theyare not only learning what is being taught directly, but are also enhanc-ing important problem-solving skills and such virtues as patience, per-


sistence, and emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995). Similarly,workers in organizations can be helped to understand their job is part ofa larger network that produces outcomes valued by the organizationand/or society. Thus, one’s perspective broadens from an individual to asystems view (Senge, 1990), which can fuel a sense of belonging (dis-cussed below) and ownership of one’s contributions to the largeroutcome.

McInerney (2000) stressed that educators should model school appre-ciation by expressing their personal value of the topics taught (Martin,2001, 2002a; Martin & Marsh, 2003). Whereas educators can increasestudent interest by modeling genuine interest, work supervisors and man-agers should model their personal investment in the organization.

Learning-Based Focus, Goal Setting, Planning, Self-Monitoring, andPersistence. These boosters are rooted in motivation-orientation theory,which focuses on gaining a sense of personal mastery as opposed toworking to outperform others (Martin, 2001; Nicholls, 1989; Qin, John-son, & Johnson, 1995). Developing a sense of mastery involves learningthat accomplishment and improvement are based largely on strategy andeffort (Craven, Marsh, & Debus, 1991; Martin et al., 2001b). By cultivat-ing this learning-based focus, students and workers (Senge, 1990) can bedriven to develop problem-solving skills and seek the intrinsic rewards oflearning for the sake of learning (Martin, 2002a; Martin & Marsh, 2003).Further, once a learning-based focus is adopted, individuals will be morelikely to view setback as a form of corrective feedback that can lead topersonal improvement (Middleton & Midgley, 1997). This reflects a spe-cial benefit of positive reinforcement.

Developing a sense of mastery also involves teaching people how toset goals and accomplish them (Martin, 2001, 2002a; McInerney,2000). A recommended strategy is to illustrate SMART goals, or goalsthat are Specific, Motivational, Achievable, Relevant, and Trackable(Geller, 2001c). After SMART goals are set, people should be taughthow to: (a) plan towards the completion of their goals, (b) evaluate andmonitor their progress, and (c) work to overcome barriers (Martin,2001, 2002a; McInerney, 2000). Individuals should also learn to rewardthemselves for accomplishing their goals, thereby strengthening desiredbehavior with positive reinforcement.

As noted above, it is important to monitor progress toward reachinggoals. Not only does this provide valuable feedback about individualcompetence, but it also allows opportunities to re-evaluate goals andperhaps alter behavior if current techniques are not working. Once


progress has been tracked, people should be encouraged to focus ontheir accomplishments as opposed to their failures (Geller, 2001c, d).

Enhancing a Sense of Personal Control. When individuals lack asense of personal control, they are unsure of their ability to achieve suc-cess and/or avoid failure (Martin & Marsh, 2003). They may engage incounterproductive behaviors and thoughts such as self-handicappingand defensive pessimism (Martin et al., 2001a, 2001b). People’s senseof personal control is increased when they see the link between theirstrategic efforts and success (Craven et al., 1991; Martin, 2001, 2002a;Martin & Marsh, 2003; McInerney, 2000). This can be accomplished byhaving them monitor their progress, as described above.

Perceptions of personal control can be enhanced within organiza-tions by giving workers some choice in their jobs (within a clear struc-ture), such as assignment content, due dates, evaluation criteria, etc.(McInerney, 2000). Opportunities to choose lead to increased involve-ment, which is associated with enhanced perceptions of personal con-trol (Geller, 2001c). When people sense personal control, they aregenerally more motivated to become involved and work to achieve(e.g., White, 1959). Thus, we have a continuous cycle of choice, in-volvement, and perception of personal control (Geller, 2001c).

Other important ways to increase personal control are to give consis-tent behavior-based feedback so individuals understand what they cando to make successive improvements (Craven et al., 1991; Geller,2001c; Martin et al., 2001b). It is also important to give frequent re-warding and correcting feedback for process behavior instead of onlyfocusing on outcomes (Geller, 2001c).

Finally, rewards and punishers should be administered in such a waythat individuals clearly understand the three-term contingency. Whatbehavior is responsible for the positive or negative consequence? Con-sistent contingencies increase individuals’ sense of personal control,and decrease confusion and uncertainty (Thompson, 1994; Martin,2002a; Martin & Marsh, 2003).

Reducing Anxiety and Fear of Failure. Perhaps the most effectivemethod for reducing anxiety and fear of failure is to emphasize that suc-cess reflects strategy and effort, and is not a reflection of an individual’sworth as a person (Covington, 1992; Martin, 1998, Martin et al., 2001a,2001b; 2003). Moreover, as stated above, creating an environment thatemphasizes self-improvement and personal bests (Qin et al., 1995; Mar-tin, 2002a) teaches that failure is an opportunity to learn (Covington,1992).


Martin’s model and the recommendations summarized above offer auseful foundation for understanding how to promote a success-seekingorientation within both academic and industrial settings. Increasingboosters and decreasing guzzlers and mufflers is comparable to promot-ing the person states of self-esteem, self-efficacy, personal control, opti-mism, and belonging that make up Geller’s (1995, 2001c, d) actively-caring model as depicted in Figure 2.

Actively Caring

Geller has proposed that the person states listed above affect one’spropensity to actively care, or to go beyond the “call of duty” to help theenvironment (Geller, 1995, 2001a) and/or the safety and health of oth-ers (Geller, 1991, 2001b, d). There are several reasons why this model isapplicable to promoting success-seeking over failure-avoiding.


Personal Control“I’m in control”

“I can do it”Self-Efficacy

“I expect the best”Optimism

“I can make a difference”Empowerment

“I’m valuable”Self-Esteem

“I belong to a team”Belonging

1 2

3

4

1. I can make valuable differences.2. We can make a difference.3. I’m a valuable team member.4. We can make valuable differences.

FIGURE 2. The Actively-Caring Model

From The Psychology of Safety Handbook (p. 330), by E. S. Geller, 2001, Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press. Adapted with permission.

First, as described above, research by Covington and Roberts (1994)found that success seekers scored highly on measures that indicategenuine concern for others and the environment (e.g., extraversion,conscientiousness, tolerance, and sensitivity toward the needs of oth-ers). It is likely these individuals score relatively high on measures ofthe five actively caring person states.

Second, the actively caring model shares several components ofMartin’s model of motivation (2001, 2002a, in press). Most obviousare the components of self-efficacy, personal control, and optimism.Optimism results from thinking positively and expecting the best ofthe future. While Martin (2001, 2002a, in press) does not explicitly re-fer to the term optimism in his suggestions for promoting suc-cess-seeking, it clearly resonates with his notions of self-efficacy andschool appreciation. Further, it is interesting to note that self-efficacy,personal control, and optimism are closely intertwined so that achange in one will likely influence the other two (Geller, 2001c). Theremaining components of Geller’s actively caring model (i.e., self-es-teem and belonging) are also relevant to the discussion of promoting asuccess-seeking orientation.

Self-Esteem. Geller (2001c) recommends several factors relevant toincreasing self-esteem, such as carefully implemented communicationstrategies and consistent behavior-based reinforcement and punishmentcontingencies. For example, effective communication strategies in-clude actively listening, while also stating interpersonal agreement, ad-miration, appreciation, and approval when achievements occur.Avoiding arguments and criticism is also recommended.

Geller (2001c) also gives advice on how to effectively give correc-tive feedback so self-esteem is not threatened. It is key to focus on thebehavior instead of the individual, avoiding statements that could betaken as judgmental, and to stress positive aspects of one’s perfor-mance as opposed to the negative.

Belonging. Geller (1995, 2001c) believes a sense of community orinterdependence is essential to increasing interpersonal trust and ac-tively caring behavior. When people are collectively oriented, theytend to adopt a win-win perspective as opposed to the win-lose per-spective embraced by those with an individualistic orientation(Triandis, 1977).

Borrowing from social psychology, Aronson and colleagues’ jig-saw classroom is exemplary of how a sense of belonging can increasemotivation and performance output (Aronson, 1999; Aronson &Patnoe, 1997; Aronson, Stephan, Sikes, Blaney, & Snapp, 1978). Cre-


ating a sense of interdependency and belonging among participants inthese experiments involved giving students assignments they couldcomplete successfully only if they cooperated with and learned fromeach other. By eliminating the competitive climate and building inter-dependency and a sense of belonging to a “team,” jigsaw participantsevidenced lower prejudice, less absenteeism, and greater self-esteemthan did individuals in control groups (i.e., traditional classrooms).Further, students in the jigsaw classroom showed greater academicimprovement and reported liking school more than those in controlconditions (Aronson, 1999; Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Aronson,Stephan, Sikes, Blaney, & Snapp, 1978).

CONCLUSION

This presentation focused on increasing a success-seeking orienta-tion by means of positive reinforcement as opposed to negative rein-forcement. Specifically, it was argued that creating environmentalcontingencies that enhance and support positive feeling states is a moreeffective means to developing well-adjusted, successful individuals.This runs contrary to Malott’s (2002) notion that negative reinforce-ment is the ideal approach to developing hard-working, productive indi-viduals.

It should be obvious that promoting success-seeking over failure-avoiding is a research topic relevant for collaboration between OBM,applied behavior analysis, and other fields. Many people work to avoidfailure in some, if not multiple, areas of their lives. For instance, peoplemay work to avoid failure in academics, employment, interpersonal re-lationships, athletics, or even recreational activities. Thus, research in-vestigating contingencies effective at enhancing a success orientation inacademic, industrial, and interpersonal settings is crucial, and providesan opportunity for interdisciplinary collaboration.

By expanding the content of OBM and applied behavior analysis, wecan learn from other disciplines, make contributions of our own, and bol-ster others’ understanding of the difference between positive and negativereinforcement. By fulfilling this vision, perhaps positive reinforcement canbegin to gain the recognition it deserves in this Decade of Behavior and inthe development of a positive psychology sub-discipline.


REFERENCES

Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness inhumans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.

Aronson, E. (1999). The power of self-persuasion. American Psychologist, 54,875-884.

Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom: Building cooperation in theclassroom. New York: Longman.

Aronson, E., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., Blaney, N., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw class-room. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psycholog-ical Review, 64, 359-372.

Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.Bailey, J. S. (1991). Marketing behavior analysis requires different talk. Journal of Ap-

plied Behavior Analysis, 24, 37-40.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive the-

ory. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman & Co.Baumgardner, A. H., & Brownlee, E. A. (1987). Strategic failure in social interaction:

Evidence for expectancy disconfirmation processes. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 52, 525-535.

Beery, R. G. (1975). Fear of failure in the student experience. Personnel and GuidanceJournal, 54, 190-203.

Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in re-sponse to noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36,405-417.

Cantania, A. C. (2001). Positive psychology and positive reinforcement. AmericanPsychologist, 56, 86-87.

Covington, M. V. (1984a). Motivated cognitions. In S. G. Paris, G. M. Olson, & H. W.Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 139-164). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Covington, M. V. (1984b). The motive for self-worth. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.),Research on motivation in education (Vol. 1, pp. 77-113). New York: AcademicPress.

Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivationand school reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Covington, M. V. (1997). A motivational analysis of academic life in college. In R. P.Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research andpractice. New York: Agathon Press. Republished from Covington, M. V. (1993). Amotivational analysis of academic life in college. Higher education: Handbook oftheory and research. New York: Agathon Press.

Covington, M. V., & Beery, R. G. (1976). Self-worth and school learning. New York:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1979). Are causal attributions causal? A pathanalysis of the cognitive model of achievement motivation. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 37, 1487-1504.


Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1985). Ability and effort valuation among fail-ure-avoiding and failure-accepting students. Journal of Educational Psychology,77, 446-459.

Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1988). Achievement dynamics: The interactionof motives, cognitions and emotions over time. Anxiety Journal, 1, 165-183.

Covington, M. W., & Omelich, C. L. (1991). Need achievement revisited: Verificationof Atkinson’s original 2 � 2 model. In C. D. Spielberger, I. G. Sarason, Z. Kulcsar,& G. L. Van Heck (Eds.), Stress and emotion, Vol. 14. New York, NY: Hemisphere.

Covington, M. V., & Roberts, B. W. (1994). Self-worth and college achievement: Mo-tivational and personality correlates. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C. E.Weinstein (Eds.), Student motivation, cognition, and learning: Essays in honor ofWilbert J. McKeachie. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Coyne, J. C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). Cognitive style, stress perception, and coping. InI. L. Kutash & L. B. Schlesinger (Eds.), Handbook on stress and anxiety. San Fran-cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (1991). Effects of internally focused feed-back and attributional feedback on the enhancement of academic self-concept.Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 17-26.

Daniels, A. C. (2000). Bringing out the best in people: How to apply the astonishingpower of positive reinforcement. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Follette, W. C., Linnerooth, P. J. N., & Ruckstuhl, L. E. Jr. (2001). Positive psychol-ogy: A clinical behavior analytic perspective. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,41, 102-134.

Geller, E. S. (1991). If only more would actively care. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 24, 607-612.

Geller, E. S. (1995). Integrating behaviorism and humanism for environmental protec-tion. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 179-195.

Geller, E. S. (2001a). Actively caring for occupational safety: Extending the performancemanagement paradigm. In C. M. Johnson, W. K. Redmon, & T. C. Mawhinney (Eds.),Handbook of organizational performance: Behavior analysis and management(pp. 303-326). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Geller, E. S. (2001b). The challenge of increasing proenvironmental behavior. InR. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology(pp. 525-540). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Geller, E. S. (2001c). The psychology of safety handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Geller, E. S. (2001d). Working safe: How to help people actively care for health and

safety (Second Edition). Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Geller, E. S. (2002). Should organizational behavior management expand its content?

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(2), 13-30.Geller, E. S. (2002). Organizational behavior management and industrial/organiza-

tional psychology: Achieving synergy by valuing differences. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior Management, 22(2), 111-130.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.Gough, H. G. (1987). Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 55, 174-180.


Lindsey, O. R. (1991). From technical jargon to plain English for application. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 41-50.

Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence.Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 105, 3-46.

Malott, R. W. (2002). What OBM needs is more Jewish mothers. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior Management, 22(2), 71-87.

Marsh, H. W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theo-retical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77-172.

Martin, A. J. (1998). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: Predictors and con-sequences from a self-worth motivation perspective. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion. University of Western Sydney, Macarthur. As cited in Martin, A. J. (2002).The lethal cocktail: Low self-belief, low control, and high fear of failure. AustralianJournal of Guidance and Counselling, 12, 74-85.

Martin, A. J. (2001). The Student Motivation Scale: A tool for measuring and enhanc-ing motivation. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 11, 1-20.

Martin, A. J. (2002a). Motivation and academic resilience: Developing a model of stu-dent enhancement. Australian Journal of Education. 14, 34-49.

Martin, A. J. (2002b). The lethal cocktail: Low self-belief, low control, and high fear offailure. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 12, 74-85.

Martin, A. J. (in press). The Student Motivation Scale: Further testing of an instrumentthat measures school students’ motivation. Australian Journal of Education.

Martin, A. J., & Debus, R. L. (1998). Self-reports of mathematics self-concept and edu-cational outcomes: The roles of ego-dimensions and self-consciousness. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 68, 517-535.

Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe? Australian Psy-chologist, 38, 31-38.

Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001a). A quadripolar need achievementrepresentation of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 38, 583-610.

Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001b). Self-handicapping and defensivepessimism: Exploring a model of predictors and outcomes from a self-protectionperspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 87-102.

Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Self-handicapping and defensivepessimism: A model of self-protection from a longitudinal perspective. Contempo-rary Educational Psychology, 28, 1-36.

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psycholo-

gist, 20, 321-333.McInerney, D. (2000). Helping kids achieve their best. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability:

An unexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89,710-718.

Miller, I. W., III, & Norman, W. H. (1979). Learned helplessness in humans: A reviewand attribution-theory model. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 93-118.

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.


Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1986a). Anticipating and post hoc cushioning strategies:Optimism and defensive pessimism in “risky” situations. Cognitive Therapy andResearch, 10, 347-362.

Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1986b). Defensive pessimism: Harnessing anxiety as moti-vation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1208-1217.

Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1990). Cognitive strategies, coping and perceptions ofcompetence. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian Jr. (Eds.), Competence considered(pp. 190-204). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive ef-forts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65, 129-144.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduc-tion. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organiza-tion. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden two. New York: Macmillan.Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of positive psychology. Lon-

don: Oxford University Press.Thompson, T. (1994). Self-worth protection: Review and implications for the class-

room. Educational Review, 46, 259-274.Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Watson, D. C., & Tharp, R. G. (1997). Self-directed behavior: Self-modification for

personal adjustment (7th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.Weick, K. E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American

Psychologist, 39, 40-49.White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psycho-

logical Review, 66, 297-333.


Documents

Connecting Positive Psychology and Organizational Behavior Management