When knowing you are doing well hinders performance: Exploring the interaction between rules and feedback

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management

Volumn 26, Issue 1-2, 2006, Pages 91-111

  Haas, Joseph R ^a,c   Hayes, Steven C ^b  

^a Washoe County Juvenile Services   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^c Washoe County Department of Water Resources   (United States)

Author keywords

Relational Frame Theory; Rule following feedback; Task performance feedback

Indexed keywords

EID: 33751345812     PISSN: 01608061     EISSN: 15408604     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J075v26n01_04     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Agnew, J. L., & Redmon, W.K. (1992). Contingency specifying stimuli: The role of "rules" in organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational & Behavioral Management, 12, 7-19.
2. Alvero, A. M., Bucklin, B.R., & Austin, J. (2001) An objective review of the effectiveness and essential characteristics of performance feedback in organizational settings (1985-1998). Journal of Organizational & Behavioral Management, 21, 3-29.
3. Austin, J., Carr, J. E., & Agnew, J. L. (1999). The need for assessment of maintaining variables in OBM. Journal of Organizational & Behavioral Management, 19, 59-87.
4. Balcazar, F., Hopkins, B. L. & Suarez, Y. (1985/1986). A critical, objective review of performance feedback. Journal of Organizational & Behavioral Management, 7, 65-89.
5. Baron, A., & Galizio, M. (1983). Instructional control of human operant behavior. The Psychological Record, 33, 495-520.
6. Baron, A., Kaufman, A., & Stauber, K. A. (1969). Effects of instructions and reinforcement feedback on human behavior maintained by fixed interval reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 701-712.
7. Goodman, J. S., & Wood, R. E. (2004). Feedback specificity, learning opportunities, and learning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 809-821.
8. Haas, J. R. (1992). The effects of verbal consequences for rule-following on sensitivity to programmed contingencies of reinforcement (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52 (10-B), 5521.
9. Hayes, S. C. (Ed.). (1989). Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies and instructional control. New York: Plenum.
10. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publisher.
11. Hayes, S. C., Brownstein, A. J., Haas, J. R., & Greenway, D. E. (1986). Instructional control, multiple schedules, and extinction: Distinguishing rule-governed from schedule-controlled behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 46, 137-147.
12. Hayes, S. C, Brownstein, A. J., Zettle, R. D., Rosenfarb, I., & Korn, Z. (1986). Rule-governed behavior and sensitivity to changing consequences of responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45, 237-256.
13. Joyce, J. H., & Chase, P. N. (1990). Effect of response variability on the sensitivity of rule-governed behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 251-262.
14. Malott, R. W. (1992). A theory of rule-governed behavior and organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational & Behavioral Management, 12, 45-65.
15. Normand, M., Bucklin, B., & Austin, J. (1999). The discussion of behavioral principles in JOBM. Journal of Organizational & Behavioral Management, 19, 45-56.
16. Shimoff, E., Catania, A. C., & Matthews, B. A. (1981). Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity of low rate performance to schedule contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36, 207-220.
17. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts.