Schedules of Monetary Reinforcement in Organizational Behavior Management Latham and Huber (1992) Revisited

In an article recently published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Latham and Huber (1992) reviewed a series of eight articles published from 1972 through 1982 that examined the effects of scheduling incentive pay in various ways. They used the results of these studies to support...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of organizational behavior management Vol. 16; no. 1; pp. 71 - 91
Main Authors Dickinson, Alyce M., Poling, Alan D.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Binghamton, NY [etc.] Taylor & Francis Group 20.05.1996
Haworth Press [etc.]
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Subjects
Answer Sheets
Behavioral Science Research
Behavioral sciences
Coding
Employees
Feedback (Response)
Field Studies
Incentives
Laboratories
Operant Conditioning
Organizational behavior
Questionnaires
Reinforcement schedules
Resistance (Psychology)
Response rates
Response Rates (Questionnaires)
Schedules
Scheduling
Studies
United States > US
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:In an article recently published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Latham and Huber (1992) reviewed a series of eight articles published from 1972 through 1982 that examined the effects of scheduling incentive pay in various ways. They used the results of these studies to support the contention that "the operant principles developed through basic research can be utilized in applied settings to design reinforcement schedules that evoke desired behavior from individual employees or employee groups" (p. 146). The present paper provides further analysis of the eight studies reviewed by Latham and Huber. In contrast to those authors, we contend that the results are quite ambiguous and relate superficially, if at all, to the results of basic research.
ISSN:0160-8061
1540-8604
DOI:10.1300/J075v16n01_05