The effects of sleep extension on the athletic performance of collegiate basketball players

The effects of sleep extension on the athletic performance of collegiate basketball players

by | Aug 26, 2020 | Time Management

The effects of sleep extension on the athletic performance of collegiate basketball players

Cheri D Mah 1, Kenneth E Mah, Eric J Kezirian, William C Dement
Affiliations

Free PMC article excerpt:

Abstract

Study objectives: To investigate the effects of sleep extension over multiple weeks on specific measures of athletic performance as well as reaction time, mood, and daytime sleepiness.

Setting: Stanford Sleep Disorders Clinic and Research Laboratory and Maples Pavilion, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Participants: Eleven healthy students on the Stanford University men’s varsity basketball team (mean age 19.4 ± 1.4 years).

Interventions: Subjects maintained their habitual sleep-wake schedule for a 2-4 week baseline followed by a 5-7 week sleep extension period. Subjects obtained as much nocturnal sleep as possible during sleep extension with a minimum goal of 10 h in bed each night. Measures of athletic performance specific to basketball were recorded after every practice including a timed sprint and shooting accuracy. Reaction time, levels of daytime sleepiness, and mood were monitored via the Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and Profile of Mood States (POMS), respectively.

Results: Total objective nightly sleep time increased during sleep extension compared to baseline by 110.9 ± 79.7 min (P < 0.001). Subjects demonstrated a faster timed sprint following sleep extension (16.2 ± 0.61 sec at baseline vs. 15.5 ± 0.54 sec at end of sleep extension, P < 0.001). Shooting accuracy improved, with free throw percentage increasing by 9% and 3-point field goal percentage increasing by 9.2% (P < 0.001). Mean PVT reaction time and Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores decreased following sleep extension (P < 0.01). POMS scores improved with increased vigor and decreased fatigue subscales (P < 0.001). Subjects also reported improved overall ratings of physical and mental well-being during practices and games.

Conclusions: Improvements in specific measures of basketball performance after sleep extension indicate that optimal sleep is likely beneficial in reaching peak athletic performance.

Keywords: Sleep extension; athletes; athletic performance; basketball; collegiate; extra sleep; fatigue; mood; reaction time; sports.

 

INTRODUCTION

Sleep deprivation has traditionally been the major approach to illuminating the role of sleep in human functioning. This research has documented the detrimental consequences of sleep restriction and the sleep debt that subsequently accumulates on cognitive function, mood, daytime sleepiness, and traditional performance indices such as reaction time and learning and memory tasks.– Several studies have also demonstrated the negative impact of sleep restriction on physical performance including weight-lifting, cardiorespiratory functioning, and psychomotor tasks that require accuracy and consistent performance.– In general, our understanding of sleep via a sleep deprivation model has been fairly well documented and characterized.

Very few investigations have studied the converse: the impact of extended sleep over multiple nights to weeks; of the few that have, the study designs and results are inconsistent. Many of the limited number of previous sleep extension studies support the idea that obtaining additional sleep is beneficial to human functioning. For example, sleep extended to 10 h/night for 4 days resulted in decreased daytime sleepiness as assessed by the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT). In undergraduate students, extending sleep resulted in faster reaction time, improved mood, and improvements in MSLT scores. The results from these 2 studies are supported by young adults who experienced improvements in both MSLT and mood testing after extended sleep independent of preexisting sleep debt. Additionally, obtaining sleep through napping after sleep loss has been shown to improve reaction time, sprinting times, and performance on vigilance tasks.– However, on the other hand, other previous studies have shown that 2 nights of extended sleep resulted in decrements in vigilance performance tasks and 4 days of sleep extended to 10 h in bed did not result in significant changes in cognitive performance tests. These variable results underscore that the effects of sleep extension have yet to be thoroughly investigated.

While sleep extension studies have begun to examine the relationship between obtaining extra sleep and cognitive functioning, minimal research has investigated the effects of sleep extension over relatively longer periods of time and on physical performance. Furthermore, little if any research has addressed how sleep extension specifically affects athletic performance, rather than just traditional indices of physical performance measured in the laboratory. To our knowledge, there are no studies to date that document sleep extension and the athletic performance of actively competing athletes.

The aim of the current study was to extend the nocturnal sleep duration of collegiate basketball players for a number of weeks and to examine the effects on specific indices of athletic performance as well as the traditional measures of reaction time, daytime sleepiness, and mood. With a better understanding of the relationship between total sleep time and athletic performance, athletes may be able to optimize training and competition outcomes by identifying strategies to maximize the benefits of sleep.

METHODS

Subject Selection Process

This study was conducted over 2 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) seasons (2005–2008) at Stanford University, where there are 35 varsity sports, 19 for women, 15 for men, and 1 coed, with approximately 800 total student athletes. During any given quarter of the academic calendar, approximately 11 sports are in-season although various sports’ schedules span multiple quarters. Subjects were selected from a pool of undergraduate athletes that were currently participating in a varsity sport at Stanford University. The full roster of men’s and women’s sports whose main competitive season occurs during the collegiate winter quarter from January to March, when this study was initiated, received a general solicitation email. A sport was examined if ≥ 5 athletes responded in the 2005 season. Inadequate numbers, such as only 1–2 athletes per sport, would not be sufficient to draw generalized conclusions from because each sport investigates specific athletic performance measures not comparable across sports.

Next, a detailed screening questionnaire was administered to athletes who responded to the solicitation email inquiring about their current and past medical health as well as sleeping habits. Subjects were included if they were healthy, did not report current difficulties with their sleep, and were “in season” for their sport, regularly practicing, and competing in games or competitions. Subjects were excluded if they had existing injuries that prevented them from regular practice or games. Subjects were also excluded if they had a history of a sleep or psychiatric disorder, took medications with sleep related side effects, or had illicit drug use or other health concerns. Finally, athletes were excluded if they no longer had interest in participating, or were unwilling to or did not feel that they could comply with the study’s protocol after the details were explained to them. The Stanford Panel on Human Subject Research approved the study and written informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

Study Design

Subjects maintained their habitual sleep-wake patterns for a 2–4 week baseline period during the NCAA basketball season and stayed within the limits of 6–9 h of subjective sleep time each night. Subjects then extended their nocturnal sleep duration for 5–7 weeks during which they obtained as much extra sleep as possible with a minimum goal of 10 h in bed per night. The baseline and sleep extension periods occasionally varied in length across subjects because of the academic schedule. Some subjects were allowed to enroll slightly later due to changes in their academic courses and schedule at the beginning of the quarter, which coincided with the study’s initiation. During sleep extension, subjects were assigned final exams on different days which prevented some subjects from continuing the sleep extension protocol. These slight variations in subjects’ schedules resulted in the differences in baseline and sleep extension periods.

A regular sleep-wake schedule was strongly encouraged as well as daytime naps. Sleep duration, athletic performance, reaction time, daytime sleepiness, and mood measures were recorded throughout the baseline period and sleep extension. Subjects were required to sleep alone in their regular bedroom, except when traveling, during which subjects shared a hotel room with another teammate but slept in separate beds. Subjects were also required to refrain from alcohol and caffeine consumption throughout the study. The study was terminated when subjects could no longer obtain additional sleep each night or the academic quarter which they were enrolled in the study ended, preventing them from continued participation.

Traveling

Subjects frequently traveled to compete at other universities throughout the study which occurred during the regular NCAA basketball season. Travel duration typically was 3–5 days, occurring once to twice a month. Subjects traveled by bus and plane often within Pacific Standard Time zone, and occasionally crossed into Mountain and Central Standard Time zones. Most trips included travel to play games at 2 universities in different cities within the same state. The team’s travel schedule included fluctuating times for flights, bus rides, practices, games, and team meetings. Consequently, subjects had less control over their sleep-wake times when traveling and thus frequently had atypical sleep-wake schedules for these 3–5 day periods. When subjects were not able to obtain 10 h of nocturnal sleep due to travel, they were encouraged to nap during the day.

Sleep-Wake Activity, Daytime Sleepiness, and Mood Measurements

To monitor daily sleep-wake activity, actigraphy was utilized in addition to subject reported daily sleep logs and journals. Actigraphy is an accepted method used to quantify sleep-wake activity based on subject movement. Actigraphy devices were worn on the wrist corresponding to the subject’s dominant hand 24 h/day except during practices and games (AW-64, Philips Respironics, Andover, MA). The raw actigraphy data (1-min epoch length) was reviewed to remove periods of device malfunction. The nocturnal sleep and napping periods were manually determined from subject recorded sleep journals. Nocturnal sleep was defined as the period between subject reported bedtime and awakening time. Manually setting the nocturnal sleep periods to account for time zone changes during travel was also performed. Actigraphy sleep data was scored by a validated proprietary algorithm within the commercial software (Actiware software, Philips Respironics, Andover, MA). Subjects reported sleep-wake activity in sleep journals including time in bed, awakening time, minutes awake during the night, and hours napping during the day.

To assess the level of daytime sleepiness and monitor changes in mood states, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) was administered during the baseline and at the end of sleep extension, while the Profile of Mood States (POMS) was recorded weekly. The ESS measures sleep propensity on a 0–3 scale in 8 standardized daily situations. Possible scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores reflecting greater sleepiness. The POMS questionnaire is a psychological assessment commonly used to monitor and compare distinct mood states. Subjects report on 65 identifiable mood states over the previous 7 days, which are categorized into 6 mood subscales: tension, depression, anger, vigor, fatigue, and confusion. The POMS questionnaire was hand-scored.

Athletic Performance Measures and Testing

Indices of athletic performance specific to basketball were measured after every practice to assess changes in performance. Practices were typically in the afternoon and athletic measures were correspondingly recorded typically between 12:00–15:00. The indices measured, including a timed sprint and shooting accuracy, were chosen because of their routine use during most practices and strong reflection of individual performance in basketball games. The first athletic performance measure was a timed 282 feet sprint (baseline to half-court and back to baseline, then to full-court and back to baseline) and was timed after each practice by the same person. The second and third performance indices were free throw and 3-point shooting accuracy. Specifically, shooting accuracy was assessed by a subject’s successful attempts of 10 free throws (15 feet) and 15 three-point field goals (5 in the right corner of the court, then 5 directly facing the basket, and finally 5 in the left corner of the court). It is important to note that the official men’s NCAA 3-point field goal line was extended from 19 feet 9 inches (6 subjects) to 20 feet 9 inches (5 subjects) from the basket starting in the 2008–2009 NCAA season. In addition, subjects’ subjective mental and physical well-being were assessed after every practice and game by soliciting how they felt during the practice or game on a 10-point rating scale.

Psychomotor Vigilance Task

Subjects performed the Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, MD) on a personal digital assistant (PDA) (Palm Pilot, Palm USA, Sunnyvale, CA) twice daily throughout the study. The PVT is a standard measure of reaction time and is commonly used to monitor changes in performance., Each 10-min trial consisted of stimuli occurring at intervals ranging from 2 to 12 sec. Subjects responded to the stimuli by pressing a button on the PDA using their dominant thumb. Due to differences in each subject’s daily schedule (including academic classes, practices, and team meetings), subjects aimed to complete the 2 PVT trials during the same 1-h periods each day (e.g., 10:00–11:00 and 18:00–19:00 daily) to minimize the effects of circadian rhythms. On days that subjects were traveling, PVT trials continued to be conducted during the same 1-h time intervals based on the time zone in which subjects were located. Subjects also completed an additional PVT trial during their weekly meeting with study investigators. The PVT primary outcome of interest was mean reaction time; secondary outcomes were minimum, maximum, and median reaction times, and number of lapses > 500 millisec.

Data Analysis

Subjective and objective sleep times were examined during the baseline and sleep extension periods. Total sleep time included nocturnal sleep as well as daytime naps. The initial 2–4 week period established baseline measures of sleep-wake activity, athletic performance, reaction time, daytime sleepiness, and mood. Sleep times during sleep extension were compared to the mean sleep time for each subject to determine the change in sleep time.

Fixed-effects linear regression models examined the association between the day of the study and outcome measures including total sleep time, athletic performance measures, mean PVT reaction time, ESS, and POMS global and subscale scores. These models were necessary to compare outcome measures during baseline and sleep extension due to the repeated measures testing of individual subjects. All baseline data (considered as day 0) for outcome measures were incorporated into the regression analysis. Descriptive statistics for baseline and sleep extension periods are reported for all outcomes, with P-values determined using the regression models. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

Study Population

Men’s basketball was the only sport that satisfied the subject selection criterion of ≥ 5 athletes responding to the solicitation email during the 2005 season, and therefore was the sport examined in the present study. In total, 13 men’s basketball players responded with interest, and ultimately 11 healthy undergraduate students (aged 18–22 y) on the Stanford men’s varsity basketball team (mean age 19.4 ± 1.4 y) were enrolled in the study. Two were excluded because they were unwilling to or did not feel that they could comply with the protocol. Table 1 lists subjects’ demographics and demonstrates no statistically significant difference between basketball players who enrolled in the study and those who did not participate, with the exception of weight. Body mass index, which accounts for both height and weight, was not significantly different between the 2 groups.

Similar articles

Cited by:

Grant support

Evidence-Based Productivity Improvement: A Practical Guide to the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System

Evidence-Based Productivity Improvement: A Practical Guide to the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System

by | Aug 19, 2020 | Time Management

Evidence-Based Productivity Improvement – Robert D. Pritchard

Evidence-Based Productivity Improvement: A Practical Guide to the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES)

This new book explains the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement system (ProMES) and how it meets the criteria for an optimal measurement and feedback system. It summarizes all the research that has been done on productivity, mentioning other measurement systems, and gives detailed information on how to implement this one in organizations. This book will be of interest to behavioral science researchers and professionals who wish to learn more about the practical methods of measuring and improving organizational productivity.

Robert D. Pritchard, Sallie J. Weaver, Elissa Ashwood
Routledge, 04-May-2012 – Psychology – 316 pages

Edition: 1st Edition
First Published: 2012
eBook Published: 4 May 2012
Pub. location: New York
Imprint: Routledge
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203180341
Pages: 316 pages
eBook: ISBN9780203180341
Subjects: Behavioral Sciences, Economics, Finance, Business & Industry

About the author

Robert D. Pritchard received his bachelor’s degree in Psychology from UCLA in 1966 and his Ph.D. in 1969 from the University of Minnesota, specializing in Industrial-Organizational Psychology. He was Assistant and later Associate Professor of Psychology at Purdue University from 1969-1977. He was Professor of Psychology at the University of Houston from 1977-1988 where he also served as the Director of the Industrial and Organizational Psychology Program. He was Professor of Psychology and Management at Texas A&M University from 1988-2003 and was the Director of the Industrial and Organizational Psychology there from 1988-1997. From Fall of 2003 to the present, he has been Professor of Psychology and Management at the University of Central Florida. He has received several research awards such as the SIOP dissertation award and the SIOP Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award. He is a Fellow in SIOP, the American Psychological Association, and in the American Psychological Society, has been Chairman of the Society of Organizational Behavior and President of the Houston Association of Industrial and Organizational Psychologists. He has been on the editorial boards of professional journals, and was the Editor of the SIOP Organizational Frontiers book series. He was a member of the Commission on Incentives and Productivity for the state of Texas for five years and has been appointed to the Board of Directors of the International Foundation for Research in Performance Management Systems. His primary interests are measuring and improving organizational effectiveness and understanding and assessing motivation. He has worked on enhancing productivity and effectiveness with organizations in the United States and abroad. He was a member of a National Research Council panel reporting on organizational productivity. He has published in the areas of motivation and productivity, including numerous articles and nine books. He has given workshops, symposia, and other presentations on his productivity work in the US, Canada, England, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Spain, the Czech Republic, Sweden, New Zealand, and Russia.

 

Sallie J. Weaver completed this work as a doctoral candidate in the Industrial and Organizational Psychology program at The University of Central Florida (UCF). She earned a B.S. in Psychology with a certificate in Performance Management from The Florida State University and an M.S. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from UCF. Sallie is a senior graduate research associate at the Institute for Simulation and Training where her stream of research focuses on team performance processes, team effectiveness, and performance measurement, with an emphasis in healthcare and patient safety. Sallie is also the recipient of the 2009 Thayer & Joyce Graduate Fellowship awarded by the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology and the 2009 Doctoral Scholarship awarded by the National Training and Simulation Association via the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference. Sallie is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. She also holds an appointment with the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality.

Elissa L. Ashwood is president and Chief Strategist of Strategy 42, a private practice specializing in personal and management strategy. Named for the ultimate answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything in Douglas Adam’s Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, 42 is short for the unique mix of things that really matter to her clients. Her combination of award-winning performance research, structured problem-solving and operational design expertise – with a heart – helps individuals and organizations identify and achieve their priorities. Elissa’s breadth of leadership experience includes roles as a Finance and HR executive at Citibank, American Express and AIG, as a McKinsey & Co. consultant and as a published author. She is often described as a role model of work-family balance. Her success in developing leaders and improving some of the best organizations in the world makes her a valued career and management advisor.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=hzaia0WL_oQC

Further Reading

The Distracted Mind: Ancient Brains in a High-Tech World
Gazzaley, A., & Rosen, L., 2016

Managing Motivation: A Manager’s Guide to Diagnosing and Improving Motivation
Pritchard R.D., & Ashwood, E.L., 2008

Evidence-Based Productivity Improvement: A Practical Guide to the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System
Pritchard, R.D., Weaver, S.J., & Ashwood, E.L., 2012

Future Time Perspective and Promotion Focus as Determinants of Intraindividual Change in Work Motivation
Kooij, D.T., Bal, P.M., & Kanfer, R., Psychology and Aging, 2014

Books and Papers

practical guide. New York: Praeger, pp. 248.

Pritchard, R. D., Kleinbeck, U. E., & Schmidt, K. H. (1993). Das Management-system PPM: Durch Mitarbeiterbeteiligung zu höherer Produktivität. (The PPM Management System: Employee participation for improved productivity.) Munich, Germany: Verlag C.H. Beck.

Pritchard, R. D., Editor (1995). Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. New York: Praeger, pp. 380.
Chapters from 1995 Book

Roth, P., Watson, M.D., Roth, P.G. & Pritchard, R.D. (1995). ProMES in an electronic assembly plant. In Pritchard, R.D. (Ed.), Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. New York: Praeger, pp. 11-42.

Janssen, P., van Berkel, A. & Stolk, Jan. (1995). ProMES as part of a new management strategy. In Pritchard, R.D. (Ed.), Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. New York: Praeger, pp. 43-61.

Przygodda, M., Kleinbeck, U., Schmidt, K. & Beckmann, J. (1995).Productivity measurement and enhancement in advanced manufacturing systems. In Pritchard, R.D. (Ed.), Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. New York: Praeger, pp. 62-80.

Jones, S.D. (1995). ProMES in a small manufacturing department: results of feedback and user reactions. In Pritchard, R.D. (Ed.), Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. New York: Praeger, pp. 81-93.

Jones, S.D. (1995). ProMES with assembly line work groups: it is more than just a technology. In Pritchard, R.D. (Ed.), Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. New York: Praeger, pp. 94-116.

Bonic, I. (1995). ProMES and computer service technicians: an Australian application. In Pritchard, R.D. (Ed.), Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. New York: Praeger, pp. 119-139.

Kleingeld, A. & van Tuijl, H. (1995). Individual and group productivity enhancement in a service setting. In Pritchard, R.D. (Ed.), Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. New York: Praeger, pp. 140-169.

Howell, C., Jones, S.D. & Hood, R.L. (1995). ProMES in a service setting. In Pritchard, R.D. (Ed.), Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. New York: Praeger, pp. 170-189.

Watson, M.D., Hedley A., Clark, K., Paquin, A., Gottesfeld, N. &Pritchard, R.D. (1995). Using ProMES to evaluate university teaching effectiveness. In Pritchard, R.D. (Ed.), Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. New York: Praeger, pp. 190-208.

Miedema, H. & Thierry, H. (1995). ProMES in a Bank. In Pritchard, R.D. (Ed.), Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. New York: Praeger, pp. 209-228.

Miedema, H., Thierry, H. & van Oostveen, F. (1995). ProMES in a small oil distribution company. In -Pritchard, R.D. (Ed.), Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. New York: Praeger, pp. 229-242.

Schmidt, K., Przygodda, M. & Kleinbeck, U. (1995). Development of a productivity measurement and feedback system in a firm of commercial painters. In Pritchard, R.D. (Ed.), Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. New York: Praeger, pp. 243-262.

Algera, J.A. & van den Hurk, A. (1995). Testing the feasibility of ProMES before implementation: a case study in the Dutch steel industry. In Pritchard, R.D. (Ed.), Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. New York: Praeger, pp. 265-273.

Hedley, A., Sawyer, J.E. & Pritchard, R.D. (1995). Development of a new performance appraisal instrument: an application of the ProMES methodology. In Pritchard, R.D. (Ed.), Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. New York: Praeger, pp. 274-298.
Jones, S.D. & Ourth L. (1995). Linking training evaluation to productivity. In Pritchard, R.D. (Ed.), Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. New York: Praeger, pp. 299-311.

Borg, I., Staufenbiel, T. & Pritchard, R.D. (1995). Identifying strategic objectives in productivity management: combining features of HISYS and ProMES. In Pritchard, R.D. (Ed.), Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. New York: Praeger, pp. 312-324.

Pritchard, R.D. (1995). Lessons learned about ProMES. In Pritchard, R.D. (Ed.), Productivity measurement and improvement: Organizational case studies. New York: Praeger, pp. 325-365.

Pritchard, R.D., Watson, M. D., Kelly, K., & Paquin, A. (1998). Helping teachers teach well: A new system for measuring and improving teaching effectiveness in higher education. San Francisco; New Lexington Press, pp. 277. Description of a major project applying ProMES to teaching in a university setting.

Holling, H., Lammers, F., & Pritchard, R. D. (1999). (Eds.) Effektivität durch partizipatives Produktivitätsmanagement. (Effectiveness through participative productivity management). Hogrefe: Göttingen, Germany, pp. 186. German book of ProMES applications and essays around important ProMES issues.

Kleinbeck, U., Schmidt, K.-H. & Werner, W. (2001). (Hrsg.) Produktivitätsverbesserung durch zielorientierte Gruppenarbeit. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Pritchard, R. D., Holling, H., Lammers, F., & Clark, B. D. (Eds.). (2002). Improving organizational performance with the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System: An international collaboration. Huntington, NY: Nova Science.
Chapters from 2002 book

Pritchard, R. D., Paquin, A. R., DeCuir, A. D., McCormick, M. J., & Bly, P. R. (2002). Measuring and improving organizational productivity: An overview of ProMES, The Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System. In R. D. Pritchard, H. Holling, F. Lammers, & B. D. Clark, (Eds.) Improving organizational performance with the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System: An international collaboration. Huntington, New York: Nova Science, pp. 3-50.

Agrell, A. & Malm, K. (2002). ProMES in a Swedish traffic police department and its effects on team climate. In R. D. Pritchard, H. Holling, F. Lammers, & B. D. Clark, (Eds.) Improving organizational performance with the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System: An international collaboration. Huntington, New York: Nova Science, pp. 53-68.

Jones, S. D., McCarthy, P. M., Wagner, S. L. & Hein, M. B. (2002). Effectiveness measurement for a knowledge work group of industrial and organizational psychologists. In R. D. Pritchard, H. Holling, F. Lammers, & B. D. Clark, (Eds.) Improving organizational performance with the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System: An international collaboration. Huntington, New York: Nova Science, pp. 69-88.

Minelli, M., Walliser, F., Tschan, F., Herzog, W., & Semmer, N. K. (2002). ProMES in a Swiss school: Effects of priority information in feedback. In R. D. Pritchard, H. Holling, F. Lammers, & B. D. Clark, (Eds.) Improving organizational performance with the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System: An international collaboration. Huntington, New York: Nova Science, pp. 89-106.

Fuhrmann, H. & Schmidt, K. H. (2002). Development and implementation of a ProMES system for top managers. In R. D. Pritchard, H. Holling, F. Lammers, & B. D. Clark, (Eds.) Improving organizational performance with the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System: An international collaboration. Huntington, New York: Nova Science, pp. 107-124.

Fuhrmann, H., Kleinbeck, U., & Boeck, L. (2002). The compatibility of ProMES with performance based pay systems. In R. D. Pritchard, H. Holling, F. Lammers, & B. D. Clark, (Eds.) Improving organizational performance with the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System: An international collaboration. Huntington, New York: Nova Science, pp. 125-136.

Algera, J. & de Hass, M., (2002). Performance management at different organizational levels. In R. D. Pritchard, H. Holling, F. Lammers, & B. D. Clark, (Eds.) Improving organizational performance with the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System: An international collaboration. Huntington, New York: Nova Science, pp. 139-148.

Semmer, N. K., Tschan, F., Keller-Schuhmacher, K., Minelli, M., & Walliser, F. (2002). The dark side of accurate feedback: Some side effects of a tailor-made system for measuring work performance. In R. D. Pritchard, H. Holling, F. Lammers, & B. D. Clark, (Eds.) Improving organizational performance with the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System: An international collaboration. Huntington, New York: Nova Science, pp. 149-166.

Ramstad, P. M., Pritchard, R. D., & Bly, P. R. (2002). The economic validity of ProMES components. In R. D. Pritchard, H. Holling, F. Lammers, & B. D. Clark, (Eds.) Improving organizational performance with the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System: An international collaboration. Huntington, New York: Nova Science, pp. 167-194.

Bly, P. R. & Pritchard, R. D. (2002). A classification system of ProMES indicators and contingencies. In R. D. Pritchard, H. Holling, F. Lammers, & B. D. Clark, (Eds.) Improving organizational performance with the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System: An international collaboration. Huntington, New York: Nova Science, pp. 195-216.

Lammers, F. The stability of contingencies in ProMES. (2002). In R. D. Pritchard, H. Holling, F. Lammers, & B. D. Clark, (Eds.) Improving organizational performance with the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System: An international collaboration. Huntington, New York: Nova Science, pp. 217-224.

Holling, H., Schulze, R., Jütting, A., & Grossmann, H. (2002). Enhancing ProMES contingency development with conjoint measurement. In R. D. Pritchard, H. Holling, F. Lammers, & B. D. Clark, (Eds.) Improving organizational performance with the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System: An international collaboration. Huntington, New York: Nova Science, pp. 225-240.

Grossmann, H., Pifczyk, A., Holling, H., & Kleinbeck, U. (2002). Improving the generation of ProMES contingencies using conjoint analysis. In R. D. Pritchard, H. Holling, F. Lammers, & B. D.

Clark, (Eds.) Improving organizational performance with the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System: An international collaboration. Huntington, New York: Nova Science, pp. 241-254.

Swift, T. A., & Pritchard, R. D. (2002). Measuring and reporting corporate social performance with ProMES. In R. D. Pritchard, H. Holling, F. Lammers, & B. D. Clark, (Eds.) Improving organizational performance with the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System: An international collaboration. Huntington, New York: Nova Science, pp. 257-284.

Pritchard, R. D. (2002). Other applications of ProMES. In R. D. Pritchard, H. Holling, F. Lammers, & B. D. Clark, (Eds.) Improving organizational performance with the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System: An international collaboration. Huntington, New York: Nova Science, pp. 285-297.

Pritchard, R. D. & Ashwood, E. L. (2008). Managing motivation: A manager’s guide to diagnosing and improving motivation. New York: LEA/Psychology Press.

Pritchard, R. D., Weaver, S. J. & Ashwood, E. L. (2012). Evidence-based productivity improvement: A practical guide to the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Dissertations (Chronological order)
Jones, S. D. (1985). Mediating mechanisms of the feedback-performance rela¬tionship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston.

Hedley, A.L. (1993). The development and evaluation of the “Performance Dimension Checklist”: An executive, professional and managerial job performance taxonomy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station Texas.

Watson, M. D. (1993). The development and evaluation of a new approach to student ratings of teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University.

Kleingeld, P.A.M. (1994). Performance management in a field service department: Design and transportation of a Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. pp. 255.

Miedema-van den Heuvel, H.. (1994). De achterkant van het salaris. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Doctoral dissertation (Dutch) focusing on pay. Used ProMES as a method of doing pay for performance.

Przygodda, M. (1994). Die Förderung der Effektivität in Arbeitsgruppen: Eine Evaluation des Managementsystems PPM. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Aachen: Shaker-Verlag.

Paquin, A. R. (1997). A meta-analysis of the productivity measurement and enhancement system. Dissertation Texas A&M University.

Fuhrmann, Hartwig (1999). Produktivitätssteuerung für Arbeitsgruppen. Wirkungen des Managementsystems PPM. Dissertation, Universität Dortmund.

Kelly, K. (1999). Applying ProMES to strategic planning approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University.

Bly, P.S. (2000). Understanding the effectiveness of ProMES: An analysis of indicators and contingencies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University.
David, J. H. (2003). Identifying the factors that contribute to the effectiveness of the productivity measurement and enhancement system (ProMES). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University.

Wicks, K.K. (2008). Using a contingency-based method for combining individual assessment center dimension ratings into overall assessment ratings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida.

Roth, C. (2007). Partizipatives Produktivitätsmanagement (PPM) bei Spitzentechnologie nutzenden und wissensintensiven Dienstleistungen [The Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES) among Knowledge Intensive High-Tech Services]. Hamburg: Verlag Dr.Kovac.

Van der Geer, E. (2008). Let’s reflect on processes: Task uncertainty as a moderator for feedback effectiveness. Unpublished dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands.
Articles and Chapters (Chronological order)
Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. D., Roth, P. L., Stuebing, K. K., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1988). The effects of feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology Mono¬graph Series, 73(2), 337-358.

Pritchard, R. D., Roth, P. L., Jones, S. D., and Galgay, P. J. (1988).Utilization of goal setting systems to enhance productivity. Organizational Dynamics, Summer, 69-78.

Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. D., Roth, P. L., Stuebing, K. K., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1989). The evaluation of an integrated approach to measuring organizational productivity. Personnel Psychology, 42(1), 69-115.

Pritchard, R. D. (1989). Enhancing work motivation through productivity measurement and feedback. In U. Kleinbeck, H. Thierry, H. Hacker and H.H. Quast (Eds.) Work motivation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 119-132.

Kleingeld, P.A.M. & H.F.J.M. van Tuijl (1990). ProMES. In: A.L.M. Knaapen, W.J.M. Meekel & R.J. Tissen (Eds.) Methoden, Technieken en Analyses voor Usereelmanagement. (Methods, Techniques, and Analyses for Personnel Management.) Deventer: Kluwer, p 201-221.

Jones, S. D., Powell, R., & Roberts, S. (1990/91, Winter). Comprehensive measurement to improve assembly-line work group effectiveness. National Productivity Review, 10(1) 45-55.

Pritchard, R. D. (1990). Organizational productivity. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of In-dustrial/Organizational Psychology (2nd ed.) Vol. 4. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychol¬ogists Press.

Pritchard, R. D. (1990). Measuring organizational productivity. In European perspectives in psychology, Volume 3. P. Drenth, J. Sergeant, and R. Takens(Eds). West Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons. pp. 79-87.

Pritchard, R. D., Weiss, L. G., Hedley-Goode, A., & Jensen, L.A. (1990). Measuring organizational productivity with ProMES. National Productivity Review, 9(3).

Tuijl, H.F.J.M. van, P.M. Janssen & J.A. Algera (1990). ProMES, meten en bevorderen van produktiviteit. (ProMES, measuring and enhancing productivity). Gids voor Usereels management, Vol. 69(2), 28-32.

Tuijl, H. F. J. M. van, Janssen, P. M., & Algera, J. A. (1990). ProMES, measuring and enhancing productivity. Personnel Management Guide, 69(2), 28-32. (in Dutch)

Pritchard, R. D., & Roth, P.J. (1991). Accounting for non-linear utility functions in composite measures of productivity and performance. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 50, 341-359.

Pritchard, R. D., Roth, P. L., Jones, S. D., & Galgay Roth, P. J. (1991). Implementing feedback systems to enhance productivity: A practical guide. National Productivity Review, 10, 1, 57-67.

Pritchard, R. D., & Watson, M.D. (1991). Measuring group productivity. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 251-275). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pritchard, R. D. (1992). Organizational productivity. Handbook of Industrial/Organizational Psychology (2nd Edition). Volume 3. M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough, Editors. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, pp. 443-471.

Tuijl, H. F. J. M. van (1992). The application of a performance management system in hospitals: A hypothetical example. Work and Stress, 6(3), 311-326.

Tuijl, H.F.J.M. van and Pritchard, R.D. (1992). Aasndact voor productiviteit; een gedragsgerichte benadering. (Productivity from a behavioral perspective). In J.W. Hoorn et al. (Eds.) Sturing van Zorgprocessen, effectief veranderen. (Management of Health Care Processes). Lochem: De Tijdstroom.

Gude, D. & Schmidt, K.-H. (1993). Preventive maintenance of advanced manufacturing systems: A laboratory experiment and its implications for the human-centered approach. International Journal of Human Factors in Manufacturing, 3, 335-350.

Jones, S. D., Buerkle, M., Hall, A. Rupp, I. & Matt, G. (1993). Work group performance measurement and feedback. Group and Organization Management, 18(3) 269-291. Quantitative and qualitative results of ProMES with a manufacturing department of a retail corporation. Includes analysis of time-series data and control group as well as users responses to the measurement system.

Przygodda, M., & Schmidt, K. H. (1993). Development and evaluation of a productivity management system for autonomous work groups in advanced manufacturing systems. In M. J. Smith & G. Salvendy (Eds.), Human Computer Interaction: Applications and Case Studies. Advances in Human Factors/Ergonomics. Vol. 19A (pp. 38-43). Amsterdam: Elsevier

Algera, J.A., H.F.J.M. van Tuijl & P.M. Janssen (1994). Prestatiesturing en teamvorming. Gids voor Usereelsmanagement (Performance management and team building). Personnel Management Guide, Vol. 73(6), 86-89 (in Dutch).

Pritchard, R.D. (1994). Decomposing the productivity linkages paradox. In Harris, D.H. (Ed.) Organizational linkages: Understanding the productivity paradox. Committee on Human Factors, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 161-192.

Roth, P. L. (1994). Multi-attribute utility analysis using the ProMES approach. Journal of Business and Psychology, 9(1), Fall, 69-80.

Roth, P.L., Pritchard, R.D., Stout, J. & Brown, S. (1994). Estimating the impact of variable costs on SDy in complex situations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8 (4), Summer, 437-454.

Przygodda, M., Beckmann, J., Kleinbeck, U. & Schmidt, K. H. (1995). Produktivitaetsmessung und- management: Eine UEberpruefung des Managementsystems PPM. (Measuring and managing productivity: An examination of the management system PPM). Zeitschrift fuer Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 39, 157-167. (Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology).

Tuijl, H.F.J.M. van, P.M. Janssen & J.A. Algera (1995). Prestatiemeting en beloning: contextaf¬hankelijk ontwerpen. (Performance measurement and pay for performance: context dependent designing. Gedrag en Organisatie, Vol. 8(6), 419-438.

Tuijl, H. F. J. M. van, Kleingeld, P. A. M., & Algera, J. A. (1995). Performance measurement and pay for performance: Context dependent designing. Behavior and Organization, 8, 419-438. (in Dutch)

Fuhrmann, H. & Schüder, H. (1996). Motivation und Fehlzeiten als Meßgrößen für produktives Führungsverhalten. Ein Integrationsversuch mit dem Management-system PPM. (Motivation and Absenteeism as Measures of Productive Leadership. An Integrative Attempt by Means of the ProMES-System). Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 40, 209-213.

Maesen, P. van der (1996). Front-end evaluatie van bedrijfstrainingen (Frond-end evaluation of industrial training). Gids voor Usereelsmanagement, 75, 36-40. Tuijl, H.F.J.M. van and Pritchard, R.D. (1996). Aasndact voor productiviteit; een gedragsgerichte benadering. (Productivity from a behavioral perspective). In J.W. Hoorn et al. (Eds.) Sturing van Zorgprocessen, effectief veranderen. (Management of Health Care Processes). Lochem: De Tijdstroom.

Werthebach, M. & Schmidt, K.-H. (1996). Partizipatives Produktivitaetsmanagement (PPM): Ein neues Instrument zur zielbezogenen Unterstuetzung von Gruppenarbeit. (Participative productivity management -PPM: A new instrument for supporting work groups in performing their functions). In P. Knauth & A. Wollert (Eds.), Human-Resource Management – Neue Formen betrieblicher Arbeitsorganisation und Mitarbeiterfuehrung. (Human resource management: New forms of work organization and leadership) (pp. 1-33). Koeln: Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst.

Roth, P. L. & Bobko, P. (1997). A research agenda for multi-attribute utility analysis in Human Resource Management. Human Resource Management Review.

Tuijl, H. F. J. M. van (1997). ProMES, a method for ‘accepted control loops’. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 18(6), 295-303.

Tuijl, H. F. J. M. van (1997). Critical success factors in developing ProMES: will the end result be an ‘accepted control loop’? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 18(7), 346-354.

Tuijl, H. F. J. M. van, Kleingeld, P. A. M., Schmidt, K. H., Kleinbeck, U.. Algera, J. A., & Pritchard, R. D. (1997). Measuring and enhancing organizational productivity by means of ProMES: Three practical implications. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 6(3), 279-301.

Pritchard, R. D. & Grossmann, H. (1999). Messung und Verbesserung organisationaler Produktivität: Das Partizipative Produktivitätsmanagement (PPM). (Measuring and improving organizational productivity: participative productivity management). In Holling, H., Lammers, F., & Pritchard, R. D. (1999). (Eds.) Effektivität durch partizipatives Produktivitätsmanagement. (Effectiveness through participative productivity management). Hogrefe: Göttingen, Germany.

Sawyer, J. E., Latham, W. R., Pritchard, R. D., & Bennett, W. R., Jr., (1999). Analysis of work group productivity in an applied setting: Application of a time series panel design. Personnel Psychology, 52, 927-967.

Pritchard, R. D. (2003). Motivation maximieren: Von der Theorie zur Praxis. (Maximizing motivation: From theory to practice). In: Hamborg, Kai-Christoph & Holling, Heinz (Eds), Innovative Personal-und Organisationsentwicklung, Göttingen: Hogrefe, pp. 207 – 224.

Pritchard, R. D. & Payne, S. (2003). Performance management practices and motivation. In Holman, D., Wall, T. D., Clegg, C. W., Sparrow, P. & Howard, A., (Eds.) The New Workplace: People, Technology and Organisation: A Handbook and Guide to the Human Impact of Modern Working Practices. John Wiley, pp. 219-244.

Pritchard, R. D. (2004). Productivity. In Spielberger, C. D. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology, San Diego: Elsevier Science (USA), pp. 121-126.

Pritchard, R. D. & Sargent, M. J. (2005). Productivity management in service settings. In Herrmann, T., Kleinbeck, U. & Krcmar, C. (Eds.) Konzepte für das Service Engineering: Modularisierung, Prozessgestaltung und Produktivitätsmanagement (Concepts for service engineering: Modularization, process design and productivity management). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag, 101-114.

Roth, C. & Moser, K. (2005). Partizipatives Produktivitätsmanagement (PPM) bei komplexen Dienstleistungen. (The Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES; Management system PPM) with complex service tasks.) Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie, 4 (2), 66-74.

DeNisi, A. S. & Pritchard, R. D. (2006). Performance appraisal, performance management and improving individual performance: A motivational framework. Management and Organization Review, 2(2), 253–277.

Watrous, K. M., Huffman, A. H., & Pritchard, R. D. (2006). When coworkers and managers quit: The effects of turnover and shared values on performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 103-126.

Pritchard, R. D., Youngcourt, S. S., Philo, J. R, McMonagle, D. C., & David, J. H. (2007). Priority information in performance feedback. Human Performance, 20, 61-83.

Pritchard, R.D., Harrell, M.M., DiazGranados, D. & Guzman, M. J. (2008). The Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 540–567.

Pritchard, R. D., Culbertson, S. S., Agrell, A., & Malm, K. (2009). Improving performance in a Swedish police traffic unit: Results of an intervention. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 85-97.
Presentations (Chronological order)

Pritchard, R. D. (1988). Chair of symposium: Measuring and enhancing orga¬nizational productivity: The development and application of a new ap¬proach. Society for In¬dustrial and Organizational Psychology meetings, Dallas.

Pritchard, R. D. (1988). The development of a methodology to measure and enhance or¬ganizational productivity. Paper presented at Society for In¬dustrial and Organi¬zational Psychology Meetings Symposium, Dallas.

Pritchard, R. D. (1989). Measuring organizational productivity. Paper pre¬sented at the symposium: Work Motivation: The Role of Productivity Measurement and Feed¬back. Jen A. Algera, Chair. European Congress of Psychology; Amsterdam, the Nether¬lands, July.

Pritchard, R. D. (1990). The measurement and improvement of organizational productiv¬ity: A practical approach. International Society for the Study of Work and Organi¬zational Values, Prague, Czechoslovakia, August, 1990.

Roth, P. J., Pritchard, R. D., Stout, J., and Brown, S. (1991). Including estimates of variable costs in the standard deviations of job performance in dollars in complex situations. Paper presented at the So¬ciety of Industrial and Organizational Psychologists meetings, St. Louis, MO, April.

Clark, K. K. and Pritchard, R. D. (1991). Evaluating and improving teacher effectiveness using the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES). Paper presented at the Association for Institutional Research meetings, San Francisco, CA, May.

Pritchard, R.D. (1991). Productivity measurement and improvement: An international collaboration. Symposium chaired by Pritchard at the Academy of Management meetings, Miami, FL, August. Participants: J. Algera and P. Janssen of Eindhoven Technical University (Netherlands), U. Kleinbeck of the University of Dortmund (Germany), and H. Thierry, University of Amsterdam (Netherlands).

Hedley-Goode, A., Sawyer, J.E., & Pritchard, R.D. (1991). Obtaining overall performance appraisal scores: Linear combination methods vs. the ProMES non-linear method. Paper presented at the Academy of Management meetings, Miami, FL, August.

Thierry, H., & Miedema, H. (1991, August). ProMES in Dutch banks: Performance, productivity and compensation issues. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Miami, FL.

Tuijl, H. F. J. M. van (1991.) Productivity measurement and improvement in photocopier maintenance Personnel. Development and implementation of ProMES with varying degrees of participation. Paper presented at the Second European Congress of Psychology, Budapest, Hungary, July.

Paquin, A. R., Jones, S. D., & Roth, P. L. (1992, April). The Hawthorne Effect when evaluating productivity gains. Paper presented at the meeting for the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Montreal, Canada.

Pritchard, R.D., Clark, K.K., and Clark, D.R. (1992). Faculty involvement in developing a teaching evaluation system using the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES). Paper presented at the Southern Association for Institutional Research Conference, Myrtle Beach, SC, October.

Pritchard, R.D. (1992). Measuring and improving productivity: A practical method. A presentation for the workshop: Leistungs und Produktivitätsmanagement Bad Homburg, Germany, Sponsored by the Institute for International Research. November.

Pritchard, R.D. (1992). Understanding, measuring and improving organizational productivity A presentation to the Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen, Mannheim, Germany. November.

Pritchard, R.D. (1993). Understanding the productivity measurement and enhancement system. Paper presented as part of a symposium with Dutch and German colleagues: Measuring and improving organizational productivity: Results from an international collaboration. Third European Congress of Psychology, Tampere, Finland, July.

Pritchard, R.D. (1993). Using ProMES to measure and evaluate university teaching. Paper presented as part of a symposium with Dutch and German colleagues: Measuring and improving organizational productivity: Results from an international collaboration. Third European Congress of Psychology, Tampere, Finland, July

Pritchard, R.D. (1994). Improving organizational productivity: What, why and how. Keynote address to the IPMAAC Conference, Charleston, South Carolina, June.

Pritchard, R.D. (1994). ProMES: The first 10 years. Presentation in the symposium: ProMES: Motivational and managerial conditions. Chaired by Jen Algera, 23rd International Congress of Applied Psychology, Madrid, Spain, July.

Pritchard, R.D. (1994). Measuring and improving organizational productivity. Talk at National Institute of Management, Moscow, Russia, October.

Pritchard, R.D. (1995). Promes at Previa: A workshop for Previa consultants. A 7-day workshop on ProMES. Stockholm, Sweden, February, 1995.

Pritchard, R.D. (1995). Measuring and improving organizational productivity. University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany, February.

Pritchard, R.D. (1995). Overview of the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System. Presentation given to staff of the Battelle Institute and Department of Energy, June.

Pritchard, R. D. (1996). The Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES) for measuring and improving quality and effectiveness. Presentation to the International Conference on Performance Management in Public Sector Police Work. Stockholm, May.

Pritchard, R. D. (1997). Measuring and improving organizational productivity: 15 Years with the Productivity Measurement And Enhancement System (ProMES). Presentation at the London Business School, London, England, June.

West, M.A. & Pritchard, R. D. (1998). Symposium co-chairs. Organizational behavior and ultimate outcomes. SIOP, April, Dallas.

Swift, T. A. & Pritchard, R. D. (1999). Engaging Stakeholders. Paper presented to the Centre for Social and Environmental Research, Dundee Scotland. September, 1999.

Pritchard, R. D. (2000). Understanding and Improving Productivity with the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System. Presentation as part of a symposium Ergonomics Conference, San Diego, August, 2000.

Pritchard, R. D. (2000). Symposium Discussant: New Perspectives in HRM and Performance. Academy of Management Conference, Toronto, August, 2000.

Pritchard, R. D. (2000). Measuring and Improving Organizational Productivity, Presentation given to the Change@Work Institute, Lund University, Sweden, December, 2000.

Pritchard, R. D. (2001). Productivity and Organizational Effectiveness. Presentation to the Department of Psychology, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, July, 2001.

Pritchard, R. D. (2001). Measuring and Improving Productivity: An International Collaboration. Presentation to the Department of Psychology, Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand, July, 2001.

Pritchard, R. D., Philo, J. R. & Youngcourt, S. S. (2003). Responses to feedback: An international comparison. Paper presented as part of the symposium: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on the Feedback Giving and Responding Process, Lyman Porter (Chair) at the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.

Pritchard, R. D. & Sargent, M. J. (2003). Productivity management in service settings. Paper presented at the conference: Concepts for the Service-Engineering: Modularization, Process Design and Productivity Management, Munich, Germany, October.

Watrous, K. M., Huffman, A. H., & Pritchard, R. D., (2003, April). The turnover-performance link: A multi-level, multi-organization examination. A poster presented at the annual conference of the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychologists, Orlando, FL.

Wright, J. A., Philo, J. R., & Pritchard, R. D. (2003). Participation, procedural justice, and performance: A multi-organizational study. Paper presented at the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.

Leiva, P. I., Youngcourt, S. S., & Pritchard, R. D. (2004). Empirical test of an innovation implementation model. Paper presented at the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.

Philo, J. R., Youngcourt, S. S., & Pritchard, R. D. (2004). The effects of reactions to feedback on team performance. Paper presented at the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.

Pritchard, R. D., Philo, J. R., McMonagle, D. C., David, J. H., & Youngcourt, S. S. (2004, April). Using priority information in performance feedback for strategic alignment. A poster presented at the annual conference of the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychologists, Chicago, IL.

Youngcourt, S. S., Philo, J. R., McMonagle, D. C., David, J. H., & Pritchard, R. D. (2004). Using priority information in performance feedback for strategic alignment. Paper presented at the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.

Watrous, K. M., Huffman, A. H., & Pritchard, R. D. (2004). Shared values as a moderator of the turnover-performance relationship. Paper presented at the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.

DeRouin, R. E., Littrell, L. N., & Pritchard, R. D. (2005). Team stability, team outcomes, and department performance: An empirical investigation. Paper presented at the 20th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.

DiazGranados, D., Bencaz, N., & Pritchard, R. D. (2005). Improving the productivity of organizational interventions through proactive measures. Paper presented at the 20th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.

Garofano, C., Kendall, D., & Pritchard, R. D. (2005). Group interdependence, type of feedback, and changes in productivity. Paper presented at the 20th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.

Irving, S., Feldman, M., & Pritchard, R. D. (2005). The effect of agreement on managerial expectations and performance change. Paper presented at the 20th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.

Moroge, J., & Pritchard, R. D. (2005). The effects of organizational structure and environmental uncertainty on performance. Paper presented at the 20th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.

Sargent, M. J.,& Pritchard, R. D. (2005). The relationship between organizational centralization and productivity improvement. Paper presented at the 20th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.

Van der Geer, E., Van Tuijl, H. F. J. M., & Rutte, C. G. (2005). Performance management in services: Standardized versus customized service. Paper presented at the 12th European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP), Istanbul, Turkey.

Pritchard, R. D., Sargent, M. J., & DiazGranados, D. (2006). Co-chairs, Applications of conjoint analysis in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Symposium presented at the 21st annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.

Sargent, M. J. (2006). Applications of Conjoint Analysis in I/O Psychology I. In Robert D. Pritchard, Sargent, M. J., & DiazGranados, D. Applications of Conjoint Analysis in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Symposium at the 21st annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.

DiazGranados, D. (2006). Applications of Conjoint Analysis in I/O Psychology II. In Robert D. Pritchard, Sargent, M. J., & DiazGranados, D. Applications of Conjoint Analysis in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Symposium at the 21st annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.

Pritchard, R. D. (2006). Implementing the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System. Presentation in the Professional Practice Forum: Measuring Organizational Productivity Using ProMES (Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System) at the meeting of the Society of Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Dallas, Texas.

Greenbaum, R. L., Folger, R. G., Pritchard, R. D., DiazGranados, D. Nakano, K. M., Grossmann, H. (2007). Unethical Acts in Organizations: What’s the Cost? Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, April 28, New York City.

Harrell, M., and Pritchard, R. D. (2007). Trust and Productivity Improvement: A Cross-Cultural Analysis. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, April 28, New York City.

Van der Geer, E., Van Tuijl, H. F. J. M., & Rutte, C. G., DiazGranados, D., Harrell, M. M., & Pritchard, R. D. (2007). The moderating effect of task uncertainty on the effectiveness of feedback: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the 13th European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP), Stockholm, Sweden.

DiazGranados, D.,Harrell, M. M., Pritchard, R. D., Rutte, C., van der Geer, E., & van Tuijl H. (2008, April). Task uncertainty as a moderator for ProMES effectiveness: A meta-analysis. A poster presented at the annual conference of the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychologists, San Francisco, CA.

Fullick, J., Bedwell, W., Weaver, S. J., & Pritchard, R. D. (2008, April). I need you, you need me: Interdependence, representation, productivity. A poster presented at the annual conference of the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychologists, San Francisco, CA.

Geer, E. v. d., Tuijl, H. F. J. M. v., Rutte, C. G., DiazGranados, D., Harrell, M. M., & Pritchard, R. D. (2008). Task uncertainty as a moderator for ProMES effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, California.

Thornson, C. A., Wicks, K., & Pritchard, R. D. (2008, April). Perceived instrumentality of an intervention: How important is metacognitive feedback?. A poster presented at the annual conference of the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychologists, San Francisco, CA.

Wright, N. E., & Pritchard, R. D. (2008). The Relationship between Empowerment and Productivity Gain. Poster presented at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.

Weaver, S. J., Bedwell, W. L., Fullick, J. M., & Pritchard, R. D. (2008, April). The Impact of task significance, autonomy, value congruence on productivity gain. A poster presented at the annual conference of the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychologists, San Francisco, CA.

Van der Geer, E., Van Tuijl, H. F. J. M., Rutte, C. G., DiazGranados, D., Harrell, M. M., & Pritchard, R. D. (2008). Task uncertainty as a moderator for ProMES feedback effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual SIOP Conference, San Francisco, United States of America.

Van der Geer, E., Van Tuijl, H. F. J. M., Rutte, C. G., DiazGranados, D., Harrell, M. M., & Pritchard, R. D. (2009). Task uncertainty as a moderator for ProMES feedback effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the EAWOP Small Group Meeting, Dresden, Germany.

Pritchard, R. D., van Tuijl, H., Bedwell, W. L., Weaver, S. J., Fullick, J. M., & Wright, N. (2010, April). Maximizing controllability in output measures. Poster Session at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, Georgia.

Bibliographic information

Title Evidence-Based Productivity Improvement: A Practical Guide to the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES)
Applied Psychology Series
Authors Robert D. Pritchard, Sallie J. Weaver, Elissa Ashwood
Publisher Routledge, 2012
ISBN 1136587772, 9781136587771
Length 316 pages
Subjects

›

Psychology / General
Psychology / Industrial & Organizational Psychology
Anticipating Cognitive Effort: Roles of Perceived Error-likelihood and Time Demands

Anticipating Cognitive Effort: Roles of Perceived Error-likelihood and Time Demands

by | Aug 17, 2020 | Psychology of Productivity, Time Management

Anticipating Cognitive Effort: Roles of Perceived Error-likelihood and Time Demands

Article (PDF Available) in Psychological Research 83(8) · November 2017 with 304 Reads

DOI: 10.1007/s00426-017-0943-x
Why are some actions evaluated as effortful? In the present set of experiments we address this question by examining individuals’ perception of effort when faced with a trade-off between two putative cognitive costs: how much time a task takes vs. how error-prone it is. Specifically, we were interested in whether individuals anticipate engaging in a small amount of hard work (i.e., low time requirement, but high error-likelihood) vs. a large amount of easy work (i.e., high time requirement, but low error-likelihood) as being more effortful. In between-subject designs, Experiments 1 through 3 demonstrated that individuals anticipate options that are high in perceived error-likelihood (yet less time consuming) as more effortful than options that are perceived to be more time consuming (yet low in error-likelihood). Further, when asked to evaluate which of the two tasks was (a) more effortful, (b) more error-prone, and (c) more time consuming, effort-based and error-based choices closely tracked one another, but this was not the case for time-based choices. Utilizing a within-subject design, Experiment 4 demonstrated overall similar pattern of judgments as Experiments 1 through 3. However, both judgments of error-likelihood and time demand similarly predicted effort judgments. Results are discussed within the context of extant accounts of cognitive control, with considerations of how error-likelihood and time demands may independently and conjunctively factor into judgments of cognitive effort.
Dunn, T.L., Inzlicht, M., & Risko, E.F. (2019). Psychological Research, 83, 1033-1056.

References

  1. Ackerman, R., & Thompson, V. A. (2017). Meta-reasoning: Monitoring and control of thinking and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(8), 607–617.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Akçay, Ç., & Hazeltine, E. (2007). Conflict monitoring and feature overlap: Two sources of sequential modulations. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(4), 742–748.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alain, C., McNeely, H. E., He, Y., Christensen, B. K., & West, R. (2002). Neurophysiological evidence of error-monitoring deficits in patients with schizophrenia. Cerebral Cortex, 12(8), 840–846.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Apps, M. A., Grima, L. L., Manohar, S., & Husain, M. (2015). The role of cognitive effort in subjective reward devaluation and risky decision-making. Scientific Reports, 5, 16880.

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  5. Ashcraft, M. H., & Faust, M. W. (1994). Mathematics anxiety and mental arithmetic performance: An exploratory investigation. Cognition and Emotion, 8(2), 97–125.

    Article Google Scholar

  6. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47–89.

    Article Google Scholar

  7. Bates, A. T., Kiehl, K. A., Laurens, K. R., & Liddle, P. F. (2002). Error-related negativity and correct response negativity in schizophrenia. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113(9), 1454–1463.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Behrens, T. E., Woolrich, M. W., Walton, M. E., & Rushworth, M. F. (2007). Learning the value of information in an uncertain world. Nature Neuroscience, 10(9), 1214–1221.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Bijleveld, E., Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2009). The unconscious eye opener: Pupil dilation reveals strategic recruitment of resources upon presentation of subliminal reward cues. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1313–1315.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Blain, B., Hollard, G., & Pessiglione, M. (2016). Neural mechanisms underlying the impact of daylong cognitive work on economic decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(25), 6967–6972.

    Article Google Scholar

  11. Boehler, C. N., Hopf, J. M., Krebs, R. M., Stoppel, C. M., Schoenfeld, M. A., Heinze, H. J., & Noesselt, T. (2011). Task-load-dependent activation of dopaminergic midbrain areas in the absence of reward. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(13), 4955–4961.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Botvinick, M. M. (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulate function. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 356–366.

    Article Google Scholar

  13. Botvinick, M. M., & Braver, T. S. (2015). Motivation and cognitive control: From behavior to neural mechanism. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 83–113.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2014). The computational and neural basis of cognitive control: charted territory and new frontiers. Cognitive Science, 38(6), 1249–1285.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Botvinick, M. M., Huffstetler, S., & McGuire, J. T. (2009). Effort discounting in human nucleus accumbens. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 9(1), 16–27.

    Article Google Scholar

  16. Botvinick, M. M., & Rosen, Z. B. (2009). Anticipation of cognitive demand during decision-making. Psychological Research PRPF, 73(6), 835–842.

    Article Google Scholar

  17. Boureau, Y. L., Sokol-Hessner, P., & Daw, N. D. (2015). Deciding how to decide: Self control and meta-decision making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(11), 700–710.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Brown, J. W., & Braver, T. S. (2005). Learned predictions of error likelihood in the anterior cingulate cortex. Science, 307(5712), 1118–1121.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Brown, J. W., & Braver, T. S. (2007). Risk prediction and aversion by anterior cingulate cortex. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 266–277.

    Article Google Scholar

  20. Bryce, D., & Bratzke, D. (2014). Introspective reports on reaction times in dual-tasks reflect experienced difficulty rather than the timing of cognitive processes. Consciousness and Cognition, 27, 254–267.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131.

    Article Google Scholar

  23. Cameron, D., Hutcherson, C., Ferguson, A. M., Scheffer, J. A., & Inzlicht, M. (2017). Empathy is hard work: People choose to avoid empathy because of its cognitive costs. http://psyarxiv.com/jkc4n. Accessed 25 Sept 2017.

  24. Chong, T. T. J., Apps, M., Giehl, K., Sillence, A., Grima, L. L., & Husain, M. (2017). Neurocomputational mechanisms underlying subjective valuation of effort costs. PLoS Biology, 15(2), e1002598.

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  25. Danckert, J. A., & Allman, A. A. A. (2005). Time flies when you’re having fun: Temporal estimation and the experience of boredom. Brain and Cognition, 59(3), 236–245.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Davenport, H. J. (1911). Cost and its significance. The American Economic Review, 1(4), 724–752.

    Google Scholar

  27. Dehaene, S., Posner, M. I., & Tucker, D. M. (1994). Localization of a neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychological Science, 5(5), 303–305.

    Article Google Scholar

  28. Desender, K., Buc Calderon, C., Van Opstal, F., & Van den Bussche, E. (2017a). Avoiding the conflict: Metacognitive awareness drives the selection of low-demand contexts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(7), 1397–1410.

    PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Desender, K., Van Opstal, F., & Van den Bussche, E. (2017b). Subjective experience of difficulty depends on multiple cues. Scientific Reports, 7, 44222. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44222.

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  30. Diede, N. T., & Bugg, J. M. (2017). Cognitive effort is modulated outside of the explicit awareness of conflict frequency: Evidence from pupillometry. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(5), 824–835.

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  31. Dixon, M. L., & Christoff, K. (2012). The decision to engage cognitive control is driven by expected reward-value: Neural and behavioral evidence. PLoS One, 7(12), e51637.

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  32. Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2012). Conflicts as aversive signals. Brain and Cognition, 78(2), 94–98.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  33. Dunn, T. L., Koehler, D. J., & Risko, E. F. (2017). Evaluating effort: Influences of evaluation mode on judgments of task-specific efforts. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(4), 869–888.

    Article Google Scholar

  34. Dunn, T. L., Lutes, D. J. C., & Risko, E. F. (2016). Metacognitive evaluation in the avoidance of demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(9), 1372–1387.

    PubMed Google Scholar

  35. Dunn, T. L., & Risko, E. F. (2016a). Toward a metacognitive account of cognitive offloading. Cognitive Science, 40(5), 1080–1127.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  36. Dunn, T. L., & Risko, E. F. (2016b). Understanding the Cognitive Miser: Cue-utilization in Effort Avoidance. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303543690_Understanding_the_Cognitive_Miser_Cue-utilization_in_Effort_Avoidance. Accessed 01 May 2016.

  37. Eriksen, C. W. (1995). The flankers task and response competition: A useful tool for investigating a variety of cognitive problems. Visual Cognition, 2–3, 101–118.

    Article Google Scholar

  38. Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspective on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.

    Article Google Scholar

  39. Falkenstein, M., Hoormann, J., Christ, S., & Hohnsbein, J. (2000). ERP components on reaction errors and their functional significance: A tutorial. Biological Psychology, 51(2), 87–107.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  40. Feng, S. F., Schwemmer, M., Gershman, S. J., & Cohen, J. D. (2014). Multitasking versus multiplexing: Toward a normative account of limitation in the simultaneous execution of control-demanding behaviors. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 14(1), 129–146.

    Article Google Scholar

  41. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 116–124.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  42. Frank, M. J., Woroch, B. S., & Curran, T. (2005). Error-related negativity predicts reinforcement learning and conflict biases. Neuron, 47(4), 495–501.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  43. Gehring, W. J., & Fencsik, D. E. (2001). Functions of the medial frontal cortex in the processing of conflict and errors. Journal of Neuroscience, 21(23), 9430–9437.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  44. Gehring, W. J., Goss, B., Coles, M. G., Meyer, D. E., & Donchin, E. (1993). A neural system for error detection and compensation. Psychological Science, 4(6), 385–390.

    Article Google Scholar

  45. Gehring, W. J., Himle, J., & Nisenson, L. G. (2000). Action-monitoring dysfunction in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychological Science, 11(1), 1–6.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  46. Gershman, S. J., Horvitz, E. J., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2015). Computational rationality: A converging paradigm for intelligence in brains, minds, and machines. Science, 349(6245), 273–278.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  47. Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 20–29.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  48. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4), 650–669.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  49. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that makes us smart. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar

  50. Gläscher, J., Hampton, A. N., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2009). Determining a role for ventromedial prefrontal cortex in encoding action-based value signals during reward-related decision making. Cerebral Cortex, 19(2), 483–495.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  51. Gold, J. M., Kool, W., Botvinick, M. M., Hubzin, L., August, S., & Waltz, J. A. (2015). Cognitive effort avoidance and detection in people with schizophrenia. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15(1), 145–154.

    Article Google Scholar

  52. Gray, W. D., Sims, C. R., Fu, W.-T., & Schoelles, M. J. (2006). The soft constraints hypothesis: A rational analysis approach to resource allocation for interactive behavior. Psychological Review, 113(3), 461–482.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  53. Griffiths, T. L., Lieder, F., & Goodman, N. D. (2015). Rational use of cognitive resources: Levels of analysis between the computational and the algorithmic. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(2), 217–229.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  54. Hajcak, G., & Foti, D. (2008). Errors are aversive: Defensive motivation and the error related negativity. Psychological Science, 19(2), 103–108.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  55. Hajcak, G., McDonald, N., & Simons, R. F. (2003). To err is autonomic: Error-related brain potentials, ANS activity, and post-error compensatory behavior. Psychophysiology, 40(6), 895–903.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  56. Hajcak, G., McDonald, N., & Simons, R. F. (2004). Error-related psychophysiology and negative affect. Brain and Cognition, 56(2), 189–197.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  57. Hajcak, G., Moser, J. S., Yeung, N., & Simons, R. F. (2005). On the ERN and the significance of errors. Psychophysiology, 42(2), 151–160.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  58. Hernandez-Lallement, J., van Wingerden, M., Marx, C., Srejic, M., & Kalenscher, T. (2014). Rats prefer mutual rewards in a prosocial choice task. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, 443.

    PubMed Google Scholar

  59. Hockey, G. R. J. (2011). A motivational control theory of cognitive fatigue. In P. L. Ackerman (Ed.), Cognitive fatigue: Multidisciplinary perspectives on current research and future applications (pp. 167–188). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar

  60. Holroyd, C. B., & Coles, M. G. (2002). The neural basis of human error processing: Reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity. Psychological Review, 109(4), 679–709.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  61. Inzlicht, M., Bartholow, B. D., & Hirsh, J. B. (2015). Emotional foundations of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(3), 126–132.

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  62. Inzlicht, M., Schmeichel, B. J., & Macrae, C. N. (2014). Why self-control seems (but may not be) limited. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(3), 127–133.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  63. Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar

  64. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar

  65. Jordan, K., & Huntsman, L. A. (1990). Image rotation of misoriented letter strings: Effects of orientation cuing and repetition. Perception and Psychophysics, 48(4), 363–374.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  66. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar

  67. Kahneman, D., & Beatty, J. (1966). Pupil diameter and load on memory. Science, 154(3756), 1583–1585.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  68. Kahneman, D., Tursky, B., Shapiro, D., & Crider, A. (1969). Pupillary, heart rate, and skin resistance changes during a mental task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79(1, Pt 1), 164–167.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  69. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103(3), 582–591.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  70. Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A. W., Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science, 303(5660), 1023–1026.

    Article Google Scholar

  71. Klein-Flügge, M. C., Kennerley, S. W., Friston, K., & Bestmann, S. (2016). Neural signatures of value comparison in human cingulate cortex during decisions requiring an effort-reward trade-off. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(39), 10002–10015.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  72. Kolling, N., Behrens, T. E. J., Wittmann, M. K., & Rushworth, M. F. S. (2016). Multiple signals in anterior cingulate cortex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 37, 36–43.

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  73. Kool, W., & Botvinick, M. M. (2014). A labor/leisure tradeoff in cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 131–141.

    Article Google Scholar

  74. Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(4), 665–682.

    Article Google Scholar

  75. Koriat, A., & Norman, J. (1984). What is rotated in mental rotation? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10(3), 421–434.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  76. Kruschke, J. K. (2013). Bayesian estimation supersedes the t test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 573–603.

    Article Google Scholar

  77. Kurzban, R. (2016). The sense of effort. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 67–70.

    Article Google Scholar

  78. Kurzban, R., Duckworth, A., Kable, J. W., & Myers, J. (2013). An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(6), 661–679.

    Article Google Scholar

  79. Lawrence, M. A. (2015). ez: Easy analysis and visualization of factorial experiments. R package version 4.3. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=ez. Accessed 01 Mar 2016.

  80. Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2013). Bayesian data analysis for cognitive science: A practical course. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar

  81. Lu, C. H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2(2), 174–207.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  82. Luu, P., Collins, P., & Tucker, D. M. (2000). Mood, personality, and self-monitoring: Negative affect and emotionality in relation to frontal lobe mechanisms of error monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(1), 43–60.

    Article Google Scholar

  83. Luu, P., Tucker, D. M., Derryberry, D., Reed, M., & Poulsen, C. (2003). Electrophysiological responses to errors and feedback in the process of action regulation. Psychological Science, 14(1), 47–53.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  84. Ma, Q., Meng, L., Wang, L., & Shen, Q. (2014). I endeavor to make it: Effort increases valuation of subsequent monetary reward. Behavioural Brain Research, 261, 1–7.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  85. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163–203.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  86. Maier, M. E., Scarpazza, C., Starita, F., Filogamo, R., & Làdavas, E. (2016). Error monitoring is related to processing internal affective states. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(6), 1050–1062.

    Article Google Scholar

  87. Marti, S., Sackur, J., Sigman, M., & Dehaene, S. (2010). Mapping introspection’s blind spot: Reconstruction of dual-task phenomenology using quantified introspection. Cognition, 115(2), 303–313.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  88. McGuire, J. T., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Prefrontal cortex, cognitive control, and the registration of decision costs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(17), 7922–7926.

    Article Google Scholar

  89. Miller, J., Vieweg, P., Kruize, N., & McLea, B. (2010). Subjective reports of stimulus, response, and decision times in speeded tasks: How accurate are decision time reports? Consciousness and Cognition, 19(4), 1013–1036.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  90. Milyavskaya, M., Inzlicht, M., Johnson, T., & Larson, M. J. (2017). Reward sensitivity following boredom and cognitive effort: A high-powered neurophysiological investigation. Retrieved from http://psyarxiv.com/2czjv. Accessed 16 Aug 2017.

  91. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  92. Montague, P. R., Dayan, P., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1996). A framework for mesencephalic dopamine systems based on predictive Hebbian learning. The Journal of Neuroscience, 16(5), 1936–1947.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  93. Morey, R. D., & Rouder, J. N. (2015). BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs. R package version 0.9.11-1. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=BayesFactor. Accessed 01 Mar 2016

  94. Naccache, L., Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Habert, M. O., Guichart-Gomez, E., Galanaud, D., & Willer, J. C. (2005). Effortless control: Executive attention and conscious feeling of mental effort are dissociable. Neuropsychologia, 43(9), 1318–1328.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  95. Navon, D. (1984). Resources—A theoretical soup stone? Psychological review, 91(2), 216.

    Article Google Scholar

  96. Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review, 86(3), 214–255.

    Article Google Scholar

  97. Nieuwenhuis, S., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Blom, J., Band, G. P., & Kok, A. (2001). Error related brain potentials are differentially related to awareness of response errors: Evidence from an antisaccade task. Psychophysiology, 38(5), 752–760.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  98. Nishiyama, R. (2014). Response effort discounts the subjective value of rewards. Behavioural Processes, 107, 175–177.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  99. Nishiyama, R. (2016). Physical, emotional, and cognitive effort discounting in gain and loss situations. Behavioural Processes, 125, 72–75.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  100. Niv, Y., Daw, N. D., Joel, D., & Dayan, P. (2007). Tonic dopamine: Opportunity costs and the control of response vigor. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 191(3), 507–520.

    Article Google Scholar

  101. O’Reilly, J. X., Schüffelgen, U., Cuell, S. F., Behrens, T. E., Mars, R. B., & Rushworth, M. F. (2013). Dissociable effects of surprise and model update in parietal and anterior cingulate cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(38), E3660–E3669.

    Article Google Scholar

  102. Pailing, P. E., & Segalowitz, S. J. (2004). The error-related negativity as a state and trait measure: Motivation, personality, and ERPs in response to errors. Psychophysiology, 41(1), 84–95.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  103. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar

  104. Phillips, P. E., Walton, M. E., & Jhou, T. C. (2007). Calculating utility: Preclinical evidence for cost–benefit analysis by mesolimbic dopamine. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 191(3), 483–495.

    Article Google Scholar

  105. Protopapas, A. (2007). CheckVocal: A program to facilitate checking the accuracy and response time of vocal responses from DMDX. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 859–862.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  106. R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org. Accessed 01 Mar 2016.

  107. Rabbitt, P. M. (1966). Errors and error correction in choice-response tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(2), 264–272.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  108. Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9(1), 45–48.

    Article Google Scholar

  109. Rouder, J. N. (2014). Optional stopping: No problem for Bayesians. Psychonomics Bulletin and Review, 21(2), 301–308.

    Article Google Scholar

  110. Schönbrodt, F. D., Wagenmakers, E. J., Zehetleitner, M., & Perugini, M. (2017). Sequential hypothesis testing with Bayes factors: Efficiently testing mean differences. Psychological Methods, 22(2), 322.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  111. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475.

    Article Google Scholar

  112. Schultz, W., Dayan, P., & Montague, P. R. (1997). A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science, 275(5306), 1593–1599.

    Article Google Scholar

  113. Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: An effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 207–222.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  114. Shenhav, A., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2013). The expected value of control: An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79(2), 217–240.

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  115. Shenhav, A., Cohen, J. D., & Botvinick, M. M. (2016). Dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the value of control. Nature Neuroscience, 19(10), 1286–1291.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  116. Shenhav, A., Musslick, S., Lieder, F., Kool, W., Griffiths, T. L., Cohen, J. D., & Botvinick, M. M. (2017). Toward a rational and mechanistic account of cognitive effort. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 40, 99–124.

    Article Google Scholar

  117. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–190.

    Article Google Scholar

  118. Siegler, R. S., & Lemaire, P. (1997). Older and younger adults’ strategy choices in multiplication: Testing predictions of ASCM using the choice/no-choice method. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(1), 71–92.

    Article Google Scholar

  119. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21 Word Solution. Dialogue, The Official Newsletter of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 26(2), 4–7.

    Google Scholar

  120. Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality (Vol. 3): Empirically grounded economic reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  121. Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 1–20.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  122. Taylor, S. F., Stern, E. R., & Gehring, W. J. (2007). Neural systems for error monitoring: Recent finding and theoretical perspectives. The Neuroscientist, 13(2), 160–172.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  123. Van Steenbergen, H., & Band, G. P. H. (2013). Pupil dilation in the Simon task as a marker of conflict processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 215. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00215.

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  124. Vassena, E., Holroyd, C. B., & Alexander, W. H. (2017). Computational models of anterior cingulate cortex: At the crossroads between prediction and effort. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 11, 1–9.

    Article Google Scholar

  125. Vassena, E., Silvetti, M., Boehler, C. N., Achten, E., Fias, W., & Verguts, T. (2014). Overlapping neural systems represent cognitive effort and reward anticipation. PLoS One, 9(3), e91008.

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  126. Verguts, T., Vassena, E., & Silvetti, M. (2015). Adaptive effort investment in cognitive and physical tasks: A neurocomputational model. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 57. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00057.

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  127. Walsh, M. M., & Anderson, J. R. (2009). The strategic nature of changing your mind. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 416–440.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  128. Wang, L., Zheng, J., & Meng, L. (2017). Effort provides its own reward: Endeavors reinforce subjective expectation and evaluation of task performance. Experimental Brain Research, 235(4), 1107–1118.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  129. Westbrook, A., & Braver, T. S. (2015). Cognitive effort: A neuroeconomic approach. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15(2), 395–415.

    Article Google Scholar

  130. Westbrook, A., & Braver, T. S. (2016). Dopamine does double duty in motivating cognitive effort. Neuron, 89(4), 695–710.

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  131. Westbrook, A., Kester, D., & Braver, T. S. (2013). What is the subjective cost of cognitive effort? Load, trait, and aging effects revealed by economic preference. PLoS One, 8(7), e68210.

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  132. Wickens, C. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 159–177.

    Article Google Scholar

  133. Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 189–217). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbuam.

    Google Scholar

  134. Yeung, N., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural basis of error detection: Conflict monitoring and the error-related negativity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 931–959.

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  135. Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado Boulder, 995 Regent Dr. Koelbel Building 419 UCB, Boulder, CO, 80309, USA

    Timothy L. Dunn

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Michael Inzlicht

  3. Rotman School of Management, Toronto, Canada

    Michael Inzlicht

  4. Department of Psychology, Universiy of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada

    Evan F. Risko

 

Additional information

All data and corresponding code are freely available via the Open Science Framework at http://osf.io/2szy3.

Inner Work Life: understanding the subtext of business performance

Inner Work Life: understanding the subtext of business performance

by | Aug 13, 2020 | Psychology of Productivity

Inner work life: understanding the subtext of business performance
Teresa M Amabile 1, Steven J Kramer
  • PMID: 17494252

Abstract

Anyone in management knows that employees have their good days and their bad days–and that, for the most part, the reasons for their ups and downs are unknown. Most managers simply shrug their shoulders at this fact of work life. But does it matter, in terms of performance, if people have more good days than bad days? Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer’s new stream of research, based on more than 12,000 diary entries logged by knowledge workers over three years, reveals the dramatic impact of employees’ inner work lives–their perceptions, emotions, and motivation levels–on several dimensions of performance. People perform better when their workday experiences include more positive emotions, stronger intrinsic motivation (passion for the work), and more favorable perceptions of their work, their team, their leaders, and their organization. What the authors also found was that managers’ behavior dramatically affects the tenor of employees’ inner work lives. So what makes a difference to inner work life? When the authors compared the study participants’ best days to their worst days, they found that the single most important differentiator was their sense of being able to make progress in their work. The authors also observed interpersonal events working in tandem with progress events. Praise without real work progress, or at least solid efforts toward progress, had little positive impact on people’s inner work lives and could even arouse cynicism. On the other hand, good work progress without any recognition–or, worse, with criticism about trivial issues–could engender anger and sadness. Far and away, the best boosts to inner work life were episodes in which people knew they had done good work and their managers appropriately recognized that work.

Similar articles

Article Excerpt:

if your organization demands knowledge work from its people, then you undoubtedly appreciate the importance of sheer brainpower. You probably recruit high-intellect people and ensure they have access to good information. You probably also respect the power of incentives and use formal compensation systems to channel that intellectual energy down one path or another. But you might be overlooking another crucial driver of a knowledge worker’s performance—that person’s inner work life. People experience a constant stream of emotions, perceptions, and motivations as they react to and make sense of the events of the workday. As people arrive at their workplaces they don’t check their hearts and minds at the door. Unfortunately, because inner work life is seldom openly expressed in modern organizations, it’s all too easy for managers to pretend that private thoughts and feelings don’t matter.

As psychologists, we became fascinated a decade ago with day-to-day work life. But our research into inner work life goes well beyond intellectual curiosity about the complex operations of emotions, perceptions, and motivations. It addresses the very pragmatic managerial question of how these dynamics affect work performance. To examine this question, we constructed a research project that would give us a window into the inner work lives of a broad population of knowledge workers. Specifically, we recruited 238 professionals from 26 project teams and had them complete daily diary entries, in a standard format, for the duration of their projects. Nearly 12,000 diary entries later, we have discovered the dynamics of inner work life and the significant effect it can have on the performance of your people—and, by implication, your entire organization.

It may stun you, if you are a manager, to learn what power you hold. Your behavior as a manager dramatically shapes your employees’ inner work lives. But the key levers in your hands for driving motivation and performance may not be the ones you’d suspect…

Manage with a human touch.

None of this emphasis on the managerial behaviors that influence progress diminishes the importance of the interpersonal managerial events that we mentioned earlier—events in which people are or are not treated decently as human beings. Although such events weren’t quite as important in distinguishing the best days from the worst days, they were a close second. We frequently observed interpersonal events working in tandem with progress events. Praise without real work progress, or at least solid efforts toward progress, had little positive impact on people’s inner work lives and could even arouse cynicism. On the other hand, good work progress without any recognition—or, worse, with criticism about trivial issues—could engender anger and sadness. Far and away, the best boosts to inner work life were episodes in which people knew they had done good work and managers appropriately recognized that work.

Peter Drucker once wrote, “So much of what we call management consists of making it difficult for people to do work.” The truth of this has struck us as our ongoing analyses reveal more of the negative managerial behaviors that affect inner work life. But we have also been struck by the wealth of managerial opportunities for improving inner work life. Managers’ day-to-day (and moment-to-moment) behaviors matter not just because they directly facilitate or impede the work of the organization. They’re also important because they affect people’s inner work lives, creating ripple effects on organizational performance. When people are blocked from doing good, constructive work day by day, for instance, they form negative impressions of the organization, their coworkers, their managers, their work, and themselves; they feel frustrated and unhappy; and they become demotivated in their work. Performance suffers in the short run, and in the longer run, too. But when managers facilitate progress, every aspect of people’s inner work lives are enhanced, which leads to even greater progress. This positive spiral benefits the individual workers—and the entire organization. Because every employee’s inner work life system is constantly operating, its effects are inescapable.

Because every employee’s inner work life system is constantly operating, its effects are inescapable.

Discovering how inner work life affects organizational performance is clearly valuable. But as researchers we hope we have also made progress on another front. Inner work lives matter deeply to the people living them. Studies of the modern workweek show that knowledge workers today, as compared with workers of past eras, spend more time in the office and more time focused on work issues while outside the office. As the proportion of time that is claimed by work rises, inner work life becomes a bigger component of life itself. People deserve happiness. They deserve dignity and respect. When we act on that realization, it is not only good for business. It affirms our value as human beings.

A version of this article appeared in the May 2007 issue of Harvard Business Review.
Managing Motivation A Manager’s Guide to Diagnosing and Improving Motivation

Managing Motivation A Manager’s Guide to Diagnosing and Improving Motivation

by | Aug 13, 2020 | Psychology of Productivity

Managing Motivation
A Manager’s Guide to Diagnosing and Improving Motivation

By Robert Pritchard and Elissa Ashwood

Copyright Year 2008

Book Description

This slim motivation guidebook was written to bridge the gap between the academic research on motivation and to present it in a form that is useful to the practicing manager. In essence, the book presents a theory of motivation and how to use it without ever mentioning the word “theory”. The goal of the book is to give managers a kind of mental model to use in thinking about motivation and to show them how to use this mental model for practical management actions to diagnose and improve motivation of subordinates. The book is written in three sections: Understanding Motivation, Diagnosing Motivation and Improving Motivation. The book incorporates case studies and many examples of how to successfully manage motivation.

Table of Contents

Preface. 1. Motivation and Management. 2. Understanding Needs and Energy. 3. Understanding Motivation. 4. Dynamics of the Motivation Model. 5. Planning a Motivation Improvement Project. 6. Diagnosing Action-to-Results Connections. 7. Diagnosing Results-to-Evaluation Connections. 8. Diagnosing Evaluation-to-Outcome Connections. 9. Diagnosing Outcome-to-Need Satisfaction Connections. 10. Making Improvements. 11. Predicting the Effects of Change. Concluding Comments. References and Bibliography. Appendix 1: Our Approach to Assessing Motivation. Appendix 2: Drawing Connection Graphs. Index.

Author(s)

Biography

Robert D. Pritchard is currently Professor of Psychology and Management at the University of Central Florida. His PhD is from the University of Minnesota in Industrial /Organizational Psychology. He recently won the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award at the SIOP meeting (2002) and is a Fellow of APS and APA .He has been the series editor for the Society for Organizational Psychology Frontiers Book Series since 2003. He is currently a board member of the following journals:

  • Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
  • Motivation and Emotion
  • Journal of Applied Psychology

Elissa L . Ashwood is currently Director , Organizational Development and Training for AIG Retirement Services, Los Angeles. Formerly she was Vice president, Finance for Citibank in New York.

She has an MBA from William E Simon Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Rochester and is currently studying for a Certificate in Organization Design from U of Southern California, Marshall School of Business.

 

Reviews

“The authors have done an excellent job translating the massive scientific literature on motivation into a more concise practical guidebook describing how to identify and address motivation challenges. The literature review is quite current. It is easy to follow and understand, with many examples.” – Rob Ployhart, University of South Carolina

“The proposed book would be appropriate for a lower level college readership and possibly a management development course on work motivation. The principles described are well grounded in scientific research[,] but the book does not read like an advanced text. It is well written, free of jargon, with clear examples, brief overviews of concepts, and helpful charts.” –Craig C. Pinder, Distinguished Professor of Organizational Behavior, University of Victoria, Canada

“Finally, a no nonsense book on motivation that is based on solid scientific principles that HRM can give to their line managers.” –Gary Latham, Secretary of State Professor of Organizational Effectiveness Rotman School of Management University of Toronto

“When it comes to managing motivation, all too often managers rely on fads and half-truths to make critical decisions that can impact the entire organization. This book presents a logical framework for understanding motivation within organizations – one based on years of research and that will stand the test of time. Leaders who want to increase alignment, persistence and intensity will find that they will make better decisions using the insights Pritchard and Ashwood have described.” –Pete Ramstad, Vice President, The Toro Company

“This slim volume provides a literal roadmap for managers to follow, beginning with a lucid discussion of what exactly is meant by motivation. The book then takes managers through a step by step process of how to identify behaviors that need to change, and then how to go about changing those behaviors. The steps are clearly laid out and a continuing case helps make the discussion even more concrete. The suggestions and recommendations are based on years of theoretical development and subsequent research, yet Pritchard and Ashwood discuss conepts clearly and systematically, in terms that any manager can understand and follow. I would recommend this book to any manager who has ever faced a problem trying to motivate employees,or any student who wanted a quick review of the practical side of theories of motivation” –Angelo DeNisi, Dean, A. B. Freeman School of Business, Tulane University

“Bob Pritchard and Elissa Ashwood have done a terrific job in capturing the fundamental truths of what we know about motivating people. Bob Pritchard is a well known expert on motivation in organizations. They provide a very useful roadmap to diagnosing and addressing motivation issues at work. Managers will learn a practical and straightforward approach to motivating people. This book should be included in any course or training program that discusses employee motivation.”       -Rob Silzer, Managing Director, HR Assessment and Development, Inc.

“This excellent book should help first-line supervisors and managers to use concepts in motivation to help their employees and organizations to succeed. The theory and conceptual treatment in the book are sound, but what’s different here is the academic foundation gets nicely translated into highly practical and actionable suggestions.” –Wally Borman, CEO, Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Professor, University of South Florida