Gregory S. Smith a, Ramona Houmanfar a & Melany Denny a a University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, USA. Available online: 07 Mar 2012

Transcription

1 This article was downloaded by: [University of Nevada - Reno] On: 3 May 212, At: 13:5 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: Registered office: Mortimer House, Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Organizational Behavior Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: Impact of Rule Accuracy on Productivity and Rumor in an Organizational Analog Gregory S. Smith a, Ramona Houmanfar a & Melany Denny a a University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, USA Available online: 7 Mar 212 To cite this article: Gregory S. Smith, Ramona Houmanfar & Melany Denny (212): Impact of Rule Accuracy on Productivity and Rumor in an Organizational Analog, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 32:1, 3-25 To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

2 Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 32:3 25, 212 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: print/ online DOI: 1.18/ FEATURED RESEARCH ARTICLE Impact of Rule Accuracy on Productivity and Rumor in an Organizational Analog GREGORY S. SMITH, RAMONA HOUMANFAR, and MELANY DENNY University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, USA This study examined the effects of inaccurate rules on generation of rumor among participants and their productivity in an organizational analog setting. Dyads of participants were given an explicit rule that described a contingency (i.e., number of points earned for correct responses). Experiments 1 and 2 utilized quasirandom and counterbalanced alternating treatments designs, respectively, in which conditions alternated such that participants were exposed to the rule-stated contingency (accurate condition) or a variation of the contingency that was stated in the rule (i.e., different number of points awarded, inaccurate conditions). Results indicate that exposure to inaccurate rules increases frequency and duration of rumor behavior. Participants exposed to alternating rules and only inaccurate rules exhibit lower correct responding on work tasks relative to those exposed to only accurate rules. KEYWORDS accurate rules, communication, inaccurate rules, organizational behavior management, productivity, rules, rumor Organizational rules are used to describe to employees those contingencies that operate in the organizational environment and that are presumably intended to govern employee behavior. To date, however, we have a limited understanding of how different means of transmission and delivery of Melany Denny is now at ReStart in Reno, Nevada, USA. The authors wish to thank Anil Shankar for his assistance with data analyses. Address correspondence to Gregory S. Smith, Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Reno, Mailstop 296, Reno, NV 89557, USA. gscottsmith@unr.edu 3

3 4 G. S. Smith et al. organizational information, as well as the content of the information, may differentially affect the performances of employees. In this regard, it is helpful to consider how the content of the information that is transmitted may influence behavior. Further, it is important to consider the potential influence of these variables on other employee behavior aside from job performance. Specifically, it has been theorized that ambiguity or lack of organizational information may occasion rumor behavior among employees (Allport & Postman, 1947; Houmanfar & Johnson, 23; Rosnow, 198, 1991). While there has been little behavior analytic research into this phenomenon, social psychologists have suggested that rumors within an organization can drain productivity, reduce profits, produce stress, and waste time. The power of verbal behavior lies in its ability to evoke rule-following behavior among humans. The function of verbal behavior as a rule is to specify, either implicitly or explicitly, the contingent relationship between antecedents, responses, and consequences in a given context (Pelaez & Moreno, 1998). Rule following has been observed even in instances in which the consequence relevant to the response has never been experienced by the listener and is stated as occurring in another place or time, with a possibly very long delay between response and consequence. Pelaez and Moreno (1998) summarized the probability that a listener will behave according to a rule as dependent upon three factors: (a) the contingencies specified in the speaker s rule, (b) the context within which the rule is provided, and (c) the listener s history with that or other similar rules. In order to better analyze rule-following behavior among humans, in terms of the content of rules themselves, Pelaez and Moreno (1998) developed a taxonomy of rules by which to categorize different rule statements, based on four dimensions. The first dimension relates to the explicitness of the rule; specifically, the explicitness and detail of the exact antecedents, responses, and consequences described in the rule. The second dimension of rule classification in these authors taxonomy is the accuracy of the rule. Accuracy is determined by the congruence of the contingencies stated in the rule and the contingencies actually experienced in the environment. An accurate rule specifies contingencies that match the environmental response consequence relationship. The third dimension of Pelaez and Moreno s taxonomy is the complexity of the rule, regarding the number of dimensions of the antecedent stimuli and their relations. A more complex rule draws on a relation between two or more dimensions of the stimuli (e.g., size and shape in a simple match-to-sample procedure). The fourth dimension relates to the observed phenomenon of self-generation of rules or instructions. Self-generated rules refer to those rules that are formulated by the listener; in the instance of self-generated rules, the individual is both the speaker and listener. The source of the rule (i.e., provided by others or self-generated) is the fourth dimension of rule classification found in Pelaez and Moreno s taxonomy. If an individual is not aware of or does not

4 Impact of Rule Accuracy 5 understand a given rule, then the individual may engage in self-derivation of a rule. In turn, this may result in failure to behave according to a given rule. Behavior analytic studies have shown that instructions often compete with programmed (actual) contingencies and may produce an insensitivity to the programmed contingencies (e.g., Buskist, Bennett, & Miller, 1981; Catania, Matthews, & Shimoff, 1982; Hayes, Brownstein, Haas, & Greenway, 1986; Shimoff, Catania, & Matthews, 1981). Wulfert, Greenway, Farkas, Hayes, and Dougher (1994) suggest that this may be caused by insufficient contact with programmed contingencies, due to strict rule following that results in less variable behavior. They also suggest that this insensitivity effect may be due to social contingencies that are produced with the delivery of instructions, which may then compete with the programmed contingencies. In relation to the first dimension of rule classification found in Pelaez and Moreno s (1998) taxonomy, Joyce and Chase (199) and LeFrancois, Chase, and Joyce (1988) found that more explicit and specific instructions produced a greater insensitivity of behavior change with respect to programmed contingencies. Martinez-Sanchez and Ribes-Inesta (1996) conducted a study relating to the second dimension of Pelaez and Moreno s (1998) taxonomy whereby participants were given alternating instructions for a task that either matched the consequences and feedback (true instruction) or did not match the consequences and feedback (false instruction), while the consequences for responses remained the same throughout. Results showed that when participants were first exposed to true instruction conditions followed by a false instruction condition, they began to respond incorrectly according to the new instructions presented in the false condition, rather than remain under control of the consequences and feedback provided. A common feature of the studies cited above is that rate of responding with respect to varying instructions and programmed schedules of reinforcement was typically the dependent measure of interest. In the majority of studies cited above the purpose was to observe whether participants would continue to respond incorrectly according to the rule, which had become inaccurate, or whether they would adapt to the programmed contingencies and adjust their responses in some differential manner. The present study differed from these prior studies in that the rule became inaccurate as a result of a change to the programmed contingency; however, the changing contingency did not promote a change in any dimension of task responding (e.g., rate, latency, topography, intensity, etc.), nor extinction of the task response. The present study also differed from the aforementioned empirical work in that not only were frequency and rate of correct and overall responding captured as primary dependent measures, but frequency, duration, and content of vocal verbal behavior emitted by participants as a function of rule accuracy/inaccuracy were also primary dependent measures.

5 6 G. S. Smith et al. Much of individual behavior in organizations is rule-governed and controlled by indirect-acting contingencies, since often time organizational contingencies are too delayed to reinforce or punish targeted behavior directly (Malott, 1992). Rules are stimuli that specify when and where particular responses are to occur. However, when a rule does not adequately describe the components of the specified contingencies (i.e., incomplete or inaccurate information), the rule may exert little or no stimulus control over employee behavior. In such a circumstance the stimulus control of the rule can be distorted or reduced and, in the presence of such a rule, desired responses may vary or fail to occur. In a recent conceptual article, Houmanfar and Johnson (23) addressed the potential distortion of stimulus control that may be occasioned by incomplete or inaccurate information, regarding work-related matters, that lacks a clear description of contingencies in the appropriate contexts (i.e., inaccurate or unclear rules and instructions). The authors suggest that this potential breakdown of stimulus control by organizational rules can stimulate the generation and spread of rumor behavior among employees. Houmanfar and Johnson describe rumor as a cultural practice that involves interindividual transmission of organizational information. Further, from a behavior analytic standpoint, they define rumor as [l]earned interactions with institutionalized stimuli (e.g., rules, policies, mission statements, other organizational members, etc.), acquired under group auspices, and shared among members of a given organization (p. 127), and as psychological events in which an individual engages in verbal problem solving under the antecedent and consequential control of an apparent absence of effective rules and implementation of the associated contingencies (p. 128). The psychology of rumor has been discussed for decades. A substantial portion of empirical research on rumor (including all of the following studies cited in this section) has come from the social psychological field. Furthermore, a majority of this research has been of an anecdotal and subjective sort (Pendleton, 1998). One of the most widely cited discussions of rumor comes from social psychologists Allport and Postman (1947). In their work, they define rumor as a specific (or topical) proposition for belief, passed along from person to person, usually by word of mouth, without secure standards of evidence being present (Allport & Postman, 1947, p. ix). Similar definitions describe rumor as information that (a) is not verified, (b) is of local or current interest or importance, and (c) is intended primarily for belief (Knapp, 1944; Rosnow, 1974, 1991, 21). Social psychological research on rumor has consistently reported that people generate rumors in an attempt to make sense of ambiguous or uncertain situations (Allport & Postman, 1947; DiFonzo, Bordia, & Rosnow, 1994; Esposito, 1987; Rosnow, 198, 1991; Shibutani, 1966). Presuming that ambiguity serves as a primary antecedent factor in the generation and transmission of rumor, it is important to identify conditions that may contribute to this apparent ambiguity.

6 Impact of Rule Accuracy 7 While the investigations cited from within the field of social psychology have been informative, they do not provide an analysis of the antecedent and consequential variables related to the generation and maintenance of rumor behavior in a complex environment such as an organization. Recently there have been a few studies that have attempted to shed more light on this area of investigation. Two studies (Goulding, 22; Johnson, Houmanfar, & Smith, 21) examined the effects of implicit versus explicit rules (i.e., first dimension of Pelaez & Moreno s [1998] taxonomy of rules) on performance of employees in work settings. The results of both studies indicated that an explicit rule delivered by management generated a more immediate and longer-lasting increase in the desired behaviors specified in the rule, while an implicit rule transmitted among employees via rumor exhibited a more latent effect on productivity that was shorter lived. Both of these studies utilized participant self-report questionnaires upon conclusion of the experiments, and in both studies participants reported the self-generation of rules during the implicit rumor conditions only. No selfgeneration of rules was reported for any participants in either study during the explicit rule condition. Since the explicitness of a rule has been shown to differentially affect employee performance, and the inaccuracy of a rule has been suggested as a variable that may weaken the stimulus control exerted by a rule (and thereby occasion ambiguity ), the purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between exposure to inaccurate rules and the generation of rumor behavior, as well as the impact of these conditions on participant productivity (Experiment 1). A second experiment investigated the effects of varying magnitudes of inaccurate consequences, relative to the consequences stated in an inaccurate rule, on rumor behavior and productivity measures (Experiment 2). Method EXPERIMENT 1 PARTICIPANTS, SETTING, AND MATERIALS Participants in Experiment 1 were 2 female undergraduate students in an introductory psychology course at the University of Nevada, Reno, ranging from 18 to 2 years in age, who earned extra course credit for participation. Participants also received monetary compensation for participation, as will be discussed in the procedures section. Participants were prescreened for talkativeness using the extrovert/introvert scale of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter II. The Keirsey Temperament Sorter II is a standardized measure, commonly used in the field of psychology, to classify individuals according to their personality type. This prescreening procedure measured

7 8 G. S. Smith et al. self-reporting of extroversion of participants (which for the present study was defined as likelihood to interact with other, perhaps unfamiliar, individuals) and was incorporated into participant recruitment in order to maximize the probability that participants would engage in verbal communication during the study, since one of the primary dependent measures was vocal verbal behavior between participants. A sample question from the survey reads, At a party, do you (a) interact with many, even strangers; (b) interact with a few friends? Given the 1-question survey, those participants who scored six or more answers as extrovert were selected for inclusion in the study. The cut-off score of six or higher was chosen arbitrarily by the investigators as sufficiently extroverted for inclusion in the study. As a result of the prescreening procedure, 13 participants did not qualify for inclusion in the study. Each experimental session was conducted with two participants at a time (dyad), for a total of 1 experimental groups. It is worth noting that two pilot dyads consisting of male participants, who met the prescreening criterion, were conducted. It was observed that the male participants were much less likely to verbally interact with one another, regardless of high self-reports of extroversion. Thus, with respect to the present study, it was concluded that male participants, for reasons as yet unknown, were not as sensitive to the experimental arrangements. Based on this observation the study was conducted with only female participants. A laboratory containing two desktop computers that faced one another, such that participants had direct sight of each other, was utilized. A computer program designed to resemble simple work tasks presented either mathematical (addition or subtraction) or memory tasks to the participants. During the memory task, a string of seven letters was presented for 5 s and then disappeared, followed by the appearance of a single letter and a yes/no question asking whether the single letter was present in the previous string. This particular analog work task was utilized based on its resemblance to other organizational analog work tasks employed in the OBM literature (e.g., Bucklin, McGee, & Dickinson, 23). Given the relatively simple nature of the work tasks, no attempt was made to control for task difficulty across dyad groups, as the difficulty from trial to trial did not appear to vary in any substantial manner. Participants earned points for each correct response, and in the upper corner of the screen participants were provided with a running total of their individual points earned, as well as the cumulative team points earned. Participants also wore microphones that recorded their vocal verbal interactions. DEPENDENT VARIABLES AND RELIABILITY The dependent variables were the number of instances of rumor participants engaged in, the duration of these instances, the percentage of correct

8 Impact of Rule Accuracy 9 responses on work tasks, the duration of work tasks, and overall productivity (number of correct responses per minute). In addition, participants were asked to complete self-report questionnaires upon completion of the experiment, which evaluated whether participants self-generated any rules on their own with respect to the experimental conditions to which they were exposed. Rumor was defined as vocal problem-solving behavior among participants associated with the specified contingencies, money, points, and expected outcomes. For example, the following would be coded as rumor: I wonder if these points are messed up on purpose and that is what they are looking at. Whereas the following would not: I am so bored with these tasks. The computer program collected data for productivity measures (correct responses and trial duration), while frequency and duration of rumor were independently coded using transcriptions of the audio recordings of sessions. Interobserver agreement (IOA) data were collected for 3% of each experimental session. The method used for recording IOA consisted of event recording of the instances and duration of rumor. IOA was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the total number of agreements plus disagreements, multiplied by 1. Interobserver agreement for Experiment 1 was 81.1% (range = 7.3% 91.4%). Data were graphed and inspected visually for the identification of clear, differentiated effects within and between each experimental dyad. In addition, statistical analyses were conducted between groups in order to identify statistically significant differences and determine general effect sizes. DESIGN AND PROCEDURE A quasirandom alternating treatments design was utilized for those dyads that were exposed to alternating rule conditions (Dyads 1 6). More specifically, each of these dyads was exposed to two rule conditions, accurate (A) and inaccurate (B), such that each condition was equally presented four times during the experimental session, yielding a total of eight conditions. The computer program assigned the sequence of accurate and inaccurate rule conditions for each dyad. Based on this quasirandom computer sequencing, there was no limitation on identical consecutive conditions (e.g., all four accurate conditions could be consecutive); the only limitation was that each condition be presented an equal number of times (four times each). The length of each experimental session was based on the completion of 1,44 total tasks; 18 tasks per condition. Participants were not forced to complete equal numbers of tasks (i.e., if one participant was working faster, it was possible for that participant to complete more trials per condition relative to the other dyad participant). Based on the computer-generated, quasirandom condition sequencing, the following orders of exposure to conditions resulted: Dyad 1 ABABBAAB;

9 1 G. S. Smith et al. Dyad 2 BBBABAAA; Dyad 3 BBABABAA; Dyad 4 ABBAABAB; Dyad 5 BBBBAAAA; Dyad 6 ABABBBAA. In addition to those dyads that were exposed to alternating rule conditions, there were two dyads that were exposed to only accurate rule (A) conditions, as well as two dyads that were exposed to only inaccurate rule (B) conditions. It was theorized that the alternation of rule conditions could in itself have effects on participant behavior beyond the effects that may obtain simply from periodic exposure to inaccurate rules. Therefore, these nonalternating condition dyads (accurate-only and inaccurate-only) were included for comparison with the alternating condition dyads, in order to evaluate any such effects. The accurate-only dyads were exposed to only accurate rule conditions throughout their respective experimental sessions, while the inaccurate-only dyads were exposed to only inaccurate rule conditions throughout. Prior to the beginning of the experimental session the experimenter read instructions to participants that introduced the participants to the computer program, asked that they speak and think aloud throughout the experiment, and specified how they could earn the monetary bonus ($3) at the end of the study (i.e., how many total points needed to be earned). Aside from the experimenter asking participants during the initial instructions to freely speak and think aloud, there were no additional rules, instructions, nor contingencies in place to control participant communication. Thus, it was possible that participants could complete the entire study without speaking to one another (as was mostly the case with the aforementioned male pilot dyads). At the beginning of the session participants were presented with a rule on the computer screen. The rule informed participants that they would earn five points for each correct response and that they had to earn 7,2 total points, as a dyad, in order to earn the monetary bonus. In order to move on from the rule screen and begin the session, each participant had to click OK on their respective screen. Once participants began the session they were presented with one of two conditions, either accurate or inaccurate, as determined by the computer program. During the accurate rule condition, participants earned five points for each correct response, as stated in the rule. No points were awarded for incorrect responses. During the inaccurate rule condition participants were awarded between one and 1 points for each correct response, but never five points. Again, incorrect responses earned zero points. The delivery of points corresponding to the different conditions (i.e., independent variable) was controlled by the computer program and checked for accuracy. Upon completion of the experimental session participants were given a questionnaire regarding the study. Items included in the questionnaire asked participants what, if anything, affected their rate of responding, as well as whether they self-generated any rules throughout the session.

10 Impact of Rule Accuracy 11 Results and Discussion RUMOR Results for occurrence of rumor for the alternating condition dyads (Dyads 1 6) are shown in Figure 1. Visual inspection of the data revealed the majority of occurrences of rumor were observed during the inaccurate rule conditions for five out of the six dyads. Results for Dyad 4 show the one Occurrences of Rumor Dyad 1 Accurate Inaccurate Dyad Dyad Dyad 2 Dyad 4 Dyad Phases FIGURE 1 Occurrences of rumor interactions for alternating rule dyads, Experiment 1. Note. The ordinate axis scale for Dyad 3 has been adjusted to more clearly depict differentiation of results.

11 12 G. S. Smith et al. dyad in which there was no differentiation of occurrence of rumor across conditions. Results for duration of rumor occurrences were highly correlated with occurrences of rumor and are thus not shown, as the figures were nearly identical to those in Figure 1. The results for rumor occurrence of the four nonalternating condition dyads (Dyads 7 1) are shown in Figure 2. Among the four nonalternating condition dyads a greater frequency of rumor was found in both of the inaccurate rule dyads, relative to the accurate rule dyads. Though two of the dyads were not as obviously differentiated (Dyads 8 and 9), the mean group differences in frequency of rumor per condition were significantly different between the accurate-only and inaccurate-only dyads (between-group statistical analyses reported below). As previously mentioned, duration of rumor figures are not included as they were highly similar to, and correlated with, occurrence of rumor data. Figure 3 shows the frequency of nonrumor type interactions for each dyad, per condition. Visual inspection of the data for alternating rule dyads (top panel) indicated that most dyads (Dyad 2 being the exception) exhibited a downward trend in nonrumor interactions throughout the experimental session, which lasted approximately 2 hr on average. No clear difference in the frequency of nonrumor interactions was evident across accurate and inaccurate rule conditions for the majority of dyads, with Dyad 5 being the exception (the quasirandom sequencing of conditions for Dyad 5 resulted in this particular dyad contacting all of the inaccurate rule conditions prior to contacting any of the accurate rule conditions). The bottom panel of Figure 3 presents the number of nonrumor interactions for the nonalternating condition dyads (Dyads 7 1). Inspection of these data reveals that the inaccurate-only dyads tended to emit more nonrumor interactions than the accurate rule-only dyads. An interpretation of this result is provided in the following discussion section. Occurrences of Rumor Dyad 7-Acc Dyad 8-Acc Dyad 9-Inacc Dyad 1-Inacc Phases FIGURE 2 Occurrences of rumor interactions for nonalternating rule dyads, Experiment 1.

12 Impact of Rule Accuracy Accurate Inaccurate 2 15 Number of Nonrumor Interactions Dyad 1 Dyad 2 Dyad 3 Dyad 4 Dyad 5 Dyad 6 Dyad 7 Dyad 8 Dyad 9 Dyad 1 FIGURE 3 Number of nonrumor verbal interactions for alternating rule dyads (top panel) and nonalternating rule dyads (bottom panel), Experiment 1. PRODUCTIVITY Figure 4 displays the results for correct responding of both alternating rule dyads (top panel) and nonalternating rule dyads (bottom panel), for purposes of comparison. The results for Dyads 1 6 (alternating rule dyads) did not reveal any clear differentiation within dyads with respect to accurate and inaccurate rule conditions. Rather, performances for all dyads were sometimes higher during accurate rule conditions and at other times higher during inaccurate rule conditions, while exhibiting variability throughout the experimental session (top panel). The results for the nonalternating rule dyads (Dyads 7 1, bottom panel) exhibited clear differentiation between accurate rule-only dyads and inaccurate rule-only dyads; the accurate rule dyads displayed almost identical performances with respect to each other and performed better than the inaccurate rule dyads. The inaccurate rule dyads also displayed performances that were similar to each other and were lower than the accurate rule dyads. These differences in average correct responding between accurate- and inaccurate-only dyads were significantly different.

13 14 G. S. Smith et al. 1% 95% Percentage Correct Responses 9% 85% 8% 75% 1% 95% 9% 85% 8% 75% Phases Dyad 1 Dyad 2 Dyad 3 Dyad 4 Dyad 5 Dyad 6 Dyad 7-Acc Dyad 8-Acc Dyad 9-Inacc Dyad 1-Inacc FIGURE 4 Percentage of correct responses for alternating rule dyads (top panel) and nonalternating rule dyads (bottom panel), Experiment 1. Results for trial duration did not reveal any differentiation between accurate and inaccurate rule conditions. Instead, all dyads displayed consistent downward trends in average trial duration, suggesting a practice effect, perhaps resulting from familiarity with the tasks. In conjunction with this measure, overall productivity, expressed in terms of correct responses per minute, displayed a general upward trend as trial durations decreased. Comparable to the correct responding measure, there were no clear differences across accurate and inaccurate rule conditions within each dyad for the alternating rule dyads (Dyads 1 6). However, between dyad comparisons of the nonalternating rule dyads (Dyads 7 1) revealed that the accurate rule dyads exhibited greater levels of productivity throughout their sessions relative to the inaccurate rule dyads. These differences were statistically significant (statistical analyses reported below). Table 1 presents a between-groups comparison of the accurate-only, inaccurate-only, and alternating rule condition dyads of Experiment 1. A single-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted between all groups for each dependent measure listed in Table 1. Results of the analyses revealed a significant difference for average correct responses per condition,

14 Impact of Rule Accuracy 15 TABLE 1 Experiment 1: Between-Dyads Group Analyses of Dependent Measures Dependent Measures Accurate-only dyads Inaccurate-only dyads Alternating dyads Average correct responses per a b b condition Average trial duration (sec) Productivity (correct responses/minute) Average occurrence of rumor per condition 2. a 7.6 b 3.3 a Note. Means in the same row sharing a subscript do not differ significantly at p.5. p.5. F(2, 77) = 13.34, p <.5, η 2 =.26. A post hoc test (Scheffé test) revealed that differences between the accurate rule-only group were significantly different from both the inaccurate-only and alternating rule groups, while the latter two groups did not differ significantly. The Scheffé test was chosen since it is generally considered one of the safest post hoc tests, and the data sets for each group were not identical in size (Gravetter & Wallnau, 27). Values for average trial durations between groups did not differ significantly. Significant differences were found for overall productivity (expressed as rate of correct responses per minute), F(2, 77) = 3.22, p <.5, η 2 =.8. Post hoc tests indicated that productivity of accurate-only and inaccurate-only groups differed significantly, while productivity values for the alternating-dyad group fell between those of the other groups and did not differ significantly from either group. The ANOVA procedure for the average frequency of rumor per condition revealed a significant difference, F(2, 77) = 9.62, p <.5, η 2 =.2. Post hoc tests indicated that the inaccurate-only group differed significantly from both the accurate-only group and the alternating rule group, while the latter two groups did not differ significantly. SELF-GENERATION OF RULES Upon completion of the experiment, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire, which inquired whether they always received points as stated in the rule. If the answer to this question was No, participants were then asked to describe what they believed was occurring with respect to delivery of points during the session. Nine of the 16 participants who were exposed to inaccurate rules reported self-derivation of a rule with respect to delivery of points, as indicated in the self-report questionnaire. Two rules were selfgenerated among the nine participants who formulated a rule; specifically, (a) faster completion of the task would earn a greater number of points; and (b) the greater the (perceived) difficulty of the task, the greater number of points would be awarded for a correct response.

15 16 G. S. Smith et al. The results indicated that when participants were exposed to the alternation of accurate and inaccurate rule conditions, they were likely to engage in a higher frequency of rumor type interactions during inaccurate rule conditions, relative to accurate rule conditions. Further, it was observed that participants exposed to alternating rules, as well as those exposed to only inaccurate rules, engaged in a greater number of rumor interactions than those participants exposed only to accurate rules. Results also showed that not only did alternating rules and inaccurate-only rule conditions occasion greater occurrences of rumor behavior, they also resulted in lowered levels of productivity, in terms of average correct responses and rate of correct responses per unit of time. An important point to consider is the overall level of verbal interactions between participants. If greater levels of communication in general were present during inaccurate rule conditions relative to accurate rule conditions, then it would be difficult to determine whether the independent variable manipulation (i.e., inaccurate rules) was responsible for increased levels of rumor interactions, or whether other variables affecting rumor and nonrumor type interactions alike were controlling participants behavior. The latter possibility, however, does not appear to be supported by the data presented in Figure 3 (top panel). Frequencies of nonrumor interactions in the inaccurateonly dyads were typically greater than those observed in the accurate-only dyads (Figure 3, bottom panel). This finding could be interpreted in two ways: either the increased emission of rumor responses occasioned greater frequencies of nonrumor responses in general, or some other variables were responsible for the elevated levels of both rumor and nonrumor responses. Though the between-groups analyses of the nonalternating rule dyads (Dyads 7 1) revealed significant differences between accurate-only and inaccurate-only dyads emission of rumor behavior, two of those dyads (Dyads 8 and 9) exhibited less clearly differentiated levels of rumor behavior relative to the other dyads exposed to their respective manipulations (Dyads 7 and 1). While the experimental conditions each group was exposed to remained constant, some uncontrolled variables, possibly relating to histories and idiosyncrasies of individual participants, likely influenced the divergence of results exhibited by Dyads 8 (accurate-only) and 9 (inaccurate-only). The results of Experiment 1 showed that exposure to inaccurate rules occasioned greater frequencies of rumor interactions between participants and lower levels of productivity (at the dyad level), relative to exposure to accurate rules. From this manipulation, however, it was not possible to determine whether rumor behavior between participants would be differentially affected by the magnitude of programmed consequences with respect to those consequences explicitly stated in the inaccurate rule (i.e., programmed consequences greater-than or less-than that specified in rule). Thus, the purpose of Experiment 2 was to systematically expose participants to different

16 Impact of Rule Accuracy 17 inaccurate rule conditions in which experienced magnitude of reinforcement was consistently either greater-than or lesser-than that specified in the rule, in order to determine any differential effects of such a manipulation on rumor and productivity measures. Method EXPERIMENT 2 PARTICIPANTS, SETTING, AND MATERIALS Participants were eight female undergraduate psychology students at the University of Nevada, Reno, ranging in age from 18 to 19 years, who did not participate in Experiment 1. Participants earned the same extra course credit and monetary incentive as those in Experiment 1. Prescreening procedures, setting, and materials were identical to those described in Experiment 1. Only one participant did not qualify for inclusion, based on prescreening criterion. DEPENDENT VARIABLES AND RELIABILITY The dependent variables and their operational definitions in this experiment were the same as those described in Experiment 1. The same procedures for collection of dependent measures and interobserver agreement, as outlined in Experiment 1, were employed for Experiment 2. IOA measures were collected for 3% of all sessions; IOA for Experiment 2 was 94.4% (range 85.2% to 96.2%). DESIGN AND PROCEDURE Prior to the beginning of the experimental session participants were read instructions that were identical to those used in Experiment 1. At the beginning of the session participants were presented with a rule on the screen, which was also identical to that of Experiment 1. In order to move on and begin the session, each participant had to click OK on her respective screen. Counterbalanced sequences of alternating treatments were implemented for the four dyads in Experiment 2. There were three conditions that participants were exposed to (A, B, and C), and a total of eight phases per experimental session. Condition A was the accurate rule condition, in which the number of points awarded for a correct response was five points, as stated in the rule given to participants. Condition B was labeled the inaccurate low rule condition, during which participants earned anywhere from one to four points per correct response. Lastly, Condition C was labeled

17 18 G. S. Smith et al. the inaccurate high condition, during which participants earned anywhere from six to nine points per correct response. No points were awarded for incorrect responses during any condition. The sequence of conditions for each dyad was as follows: Dyad 1 ABACABAC; Dyad 2 ACABACAB; Dyad 3 BACABACA; and Dyad 4 CABACABA. Each condition was based on the completion of 18 trials, thus the total experimental session for each dyad was 1,44 trials, as in Experiment 1. Upon termination of the experiment, participants were asked to complete the same questionnaire delivered at the end of Experiment 1. Results and Discussion RUMOR Results for occurrences of rumor are shown in Figure 5. In general, no clear differentiation of results was seen for these four dyads with respect to occurrence of rumor between conditions. One trend did emerge via visual inspection of these data: in five of seven instances (71%) across all dyads in Experiment 2, frequency of rumor increased when conditions changed from Occurrences of Rumor Dyad 1 Accurate Inaccurate-Lo Inaccurate-Hi Dyad Dyad 2 Dyad Phases FIGURE 5 Occurrences of rumor interactions, Experiment 2.

18 Impact of Rule Accuracy 19 No. of Nonrumor Interactions Accurate Inaccurate-Lo Inaccurate-Hi Dyad 1 Dyad 2 Dyad 3 Dyad 4 FIGURE 6 Number of nonrumor verbal interactions, Experiment 2. accurate to inaccurate low, suggesting that when participants were exposed to inaccurate rule conditions in which the magnitude of reinforcement was reduced, the occurrence of rumor was likely to increase. However, when reinforcer magnitude was increased (e.g., change from accurate to inaccurate high condition), frequency of rumor typically did not increase. Figure 6 displays the frequency of nonrumor interactions for each dyad, per condition. A similar downward trend in nonrumor vocalizations as was seen in Experiment 1 was also observed with these results. As was the case with the frequency of rumor measure for these dyads, no clear differentiation of nonrumor interactions across conditions emerged from within the data sets. PRODUCTIVITY Table 2 displays the results for productivity measures summarized across all four dyads by accurate, combined inaccurate, and separate inaccurate (i.e., low and high) rule conditions. Statistical analyses similar to those conducted in Experiment 1 were performed on all of these data; however, none of the results were found to differ significantly. Visual inspection of data for correct responses per condition did not reveal any differentiation or trends in responding within or across dyads. There also did not appear to be any consistent difference in the performances of the two types of inaccurate conditions (high and low) across dyads. Visual inspection of average trial duration also did not reveal any differentiation across conditions, and values exhibited the same downward trend, likely due to practice effect, which was observed in Experiment 1. SELF-GENERATION OF RULES Review of the questionnaires completed upon termination of the experimental session indicated that while most of the participants in Experiment 2

19 2 G. S. Smith et al. TABLE 2 Experiment 2: Within-Dyads Analyses of Dependent Measures Across Rule Conditions Dependent measures Accurate rule Combined inaccurate rules Inaccurate low rule Inaccurate high rule Average correct responses per condition Average trial duration (sec) Productivity (correct responses/minute) Average occurrence of rumor per condition discriminated that points were at times awarded at higher or lower levels than stated in the rule, none reported generating any explicit rules (i.e., if-then statements) regarding the magnitude of points delivered. Several participants in Experiment 2 stated that they believed the differing magnitudes of points were a part of the experiment, but did not specify any explicit response consequence relationships. The results of Experiment 2 were largely inconclusive. Although no statistically significant findings emerged, slight differences were found when inaccurate rule conditions were separated into categories in which consequences were either beneficial (i.e., greater magnitude of reinforcement than stated in the rule) or detrimental (i.e., lesser magnitude of reinforcement than stated in the rule). Specifically, slightly lower levels of productivity were observed in the detrimental category (termed inaccurate low rule condition in the present study). In addition, it was found that slightly higher levels of productivity were observed in the inaccurate high rule conditions, relative to the accurate rule conditions (see Table 2). Again, however, it should be noted that none of these differences were significant, and future research is needed to determine if any such effects with respect to this experimental manipulation exist. GENERAL DISCUSSION Experiment 1 of the present study showed that exposure to the alternation of accurate and inaccurate rules, as well as exposure to only inaccurate rules, sets the occasion for greater occurrences of vocal problem-solving behavior, labeled rumor (see Table 1). In addition, while the alternating rule dyads (Dyads 1 6) displayed relatively more variability in correct responding across conditions, the nonalternating rule dyads (Dyads 7 1) exhibited relatively stable performances across conditions, regardless of accuracy of the rule (see Figure 4, bottom panel). These findings suggest that, with regard to responding on these particular tasks, exposure to only inaccurate rules occasions lower accuracy of performance than exposure to only

20 Impact of Rule Accuracy 21 accurate rules, though performances do remain stable over time. By contrast, exposure to alternation of accurate and inaccurate rules occasions greater variability of responding over time, with no clear differentiation of performance in either accurate or inaccurate rule conditions (see Figure 4, top panel). These findings are consistent with those of other behavior analytic studies that investigated the effects of inaccurate rules and alternating accurate/inaccurate rules on human operant performance (e.g., Martinez-Sanchez & Ribes-Inesta, 1996). A curious difference in findings between Experiments 1 and 2 was that more than half of the participants exposed to inaccurate rules in Experiment 1 reported the self-generation of rules regarding the experimental preparation. Specifically, all nine of these participants self-generated one of two rules (see Results, Experiment 1). Of the eight participants in Experiment 2, however, none reported an explicit if-then statement (rule) regarding the experimental manipulations. It was not possible to determine from the self-report questionnaires why participants in Experiment 2 did not selfgenerate rules; however, it may have been a function of the parsing out of inaccurate-low and inaccurate-high rule conditions into separate conditions. Participants may have been unable to derive a rule to describe why they would consistently earn greater than five points for an extended period of time and then consistently earn fewer than five points for a subsequent extended period of time, or vice versa. By contrast, participants in Experiment 1 experienced only one type of inaccurate condition in which points randomly ranged from one to ten. This arrangement may have facilitated participants derivation of rules relating some aspect of their responding to the experienced consequences, although there was no such relation. Previous research (e.g., Rosenfarb, Newland, Brannon, & Howey, 1992) has shown that participants can rapidly generate accurate self-rules regarding programmed contingencies. Further, the provision of instructions to self-generate rules was found to increase acquisition of effective behavior under control of complex contingencies, relative to participants who did not receive instructions to do so; some of the same effects may have occurred in the present study. While participants were given instructions as to how to respond to the tasks, they self-generated rules regarding other dimensions of their responses (e.g., duration of response) and possible relations to reinforcer magnitude. Although there was no contingent relationship between response duration and magnitude of reinforcement, it is likely that participants who self-generated such a rule behaved with respect to that rule for at least some period of time (i.e., completed trials more quickly). The present study contributes not only to the behavior analytic literature of complex human behavior, but it also provides empirical evidence to support the largely anecdotal claims of the influences on and functions of rumor interactions between individuals, as purported by researchers in the social psychological domain (e.g., Allport & Postman, 1947; Koenig, 1985; Rosnow, 198). Moreover, our results have implications in the applied

21 22 G. S. Smith et al. domain for organizations. Specifically, if employees are given clarification of tasks and clear, accurate rules by which to operate, then they will be less likely to engage in verbal problem-solving behaviors with other employees or self-generate their own rules. In addition to clarifying rules and tasks for individual employees and job positions, management is advised to be as open and forthcoming with organizational information as possible when large company changes occur, as these events are likely to generate conditions that may occasion rumor behavior among employees. Employees of large organizations, especially new hires, may find themselves faced with situations in which there is no clarification of tasks or appropriate behaviors. Once an employee engages in rumor behavior with another employee and that behavior is subsequently reinforced, the employee is more likely to engage in that behavior in the future and to rely more on the informal, cultural practice of rumor. It is worth noting that the behavior analytic definition of behavior labeled as rumor (Houmanfar & Johnson, 23) used in this study is not necessarily how rumor is typically conceptualized in more colloquial terms. Rather, the definition utilized herein follows from a theoretical functional analysis of observable antecedent factors (e.g., ambiguous or unclear rules regarding contingencies) that are likely to establish a circumstance in which a functional class of behavior (i.e., verbal problem solving with other individuals) is reinforced with the provision of greater information relating to the situation, even if the additional information is not necessarily accurate. This definition of rumor is somewhat similar to what has been termed selfrules ; however, the present definition extends beyond the generation of rules on the part of a single individual and necessitates the interactions of multiple individuals, which may include self-generating and providing rules to others, as well as seeking out rules and information from others and the coordinated generation of rules among multiple individuals. The majority of rumor interactions between participants referred to the number of points they received for correct responses and also to which events they referred as affecting the amount of points they received (see results for self-generation of rules, Experiment 1). Rumors as they occur in actual organizational settings are not limited to such instances, however. Rather, the problem-solving behavior may relate to events that are not directly tied to individual job performance and may thus interfere with, and detract from, employee performance. For instance, line-level employees of an organization may engage in rumor behavior with one another regarding a company merger or change of executive personnel organizational events that may not affect their individual job description or duties. One limitation of both of these experiments was that they were analogs intended to simulate a real organizational setting, but they were conducted in a laboratory. In order to gain a better understanding of the generalizability of the results obtained in the present study, a next step could be to analyze