CONCEPTUAL ARTICLE

Connecting Positive Psychology

and Organizational Behavior Management:
Achievement Motivation and the Power
of Positive Reinforcement
Douglas M. Wiegand
E. Scott Geller

ABSTRACT. Positive psychology is becoming established as a reputable sub-discipline in psychology despite having neglected the role of
positive reinforcement in enhancing quality of life. The authors discuss
the relevance of positive reinforcement for positive psychology, with
implications for broadening the content of organizational behavior management. Specifically, literature in achievement motivation is discussed,
and ways to promote success-seeking over failure-avoiding are entertained. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery
Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com>
Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc.
All rights reserved.]

Douglas M. Wiegand and E. Scott Geller are affiliated with the Department of Psychology, Center for Applied Behavior Systems, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA 24061 (E-mail: dwiegand@vt.edu).
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 24(1/2) 2005
Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JOBM
2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J075v24n01_02

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

KEYWORDS. Organizational behavior management, reinforcement,

success, failure, achievement, positive psychology

As evidenced by the recent accumulation of literature surrounding

the movement, positive psychology has gained considerable attention
over the past several years. So much, in fact, it seems to be creating its
own sub-discipline in psychology, complete with a recently published
handbook (Snyder & Lopez, 2002), and several conferences dedicated
explicitly to this emerging field.
Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) describe positive psychology
as a science of positive subjective experience, positive individual
traits, and positive institutions (which) promises to improve quality of
life and prevent the pathologies that arise when life is barren and meaningless (p. 5). The focus is on positive features of life, such as factors
that enable hope, wisdom, creativity, future mindedness, courage, spirituality, and responsibility. By understanding the factors that establish
such positive human characteristics, Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi
(2000) predict that positive psychology will set the foundation for a
more perfect world.
What positive psychology is missing is an emphasis on the principles
of applied behavior analysis, particularly positive versus negative reinforcement. When performing a PsycINFO search on April 29, 2003 using the keywords positive psychology, the senior author received 152
entries. Among the abstracts, only two articles addressed positive reinforcement (i.e., Catania, 2001; Follette, Linnerooth, & Ruckstuhl,
2001). Catania (2001) notes this lack of attention to positive reinforcement and urges advocates of positive psychology . . . to embrace behavior analysis, its applications, and positive reinforcement in particular by
learning more about it, by teaching it to their students, and by promoting
it in our culture and in the world at large (p. 87).
The issue raised here is comparable to the disappointment expressed
by Geller (2002) regarding the American Psychological Associations
lack of attention to applied behavior analysis in their campaigning for
the Decade of Behavior: 2000-2010. Researchers, teachers, and practitioners in the fields of applied behavior analysis and organizational behavior management (OBM) should heed these instances of neglect.
Apparently within our own field of psychology, the power of positive
reinforcement has yet to be completely understood and/or integrated to
the extent warranted, let alone disseminated to the masses.

Douglas M. Wiegand and E. Scott Geller

This presentation addresses this predicament, and discusses achievement motivation as an example of how applied behavior analysis can be
used to promote a success-seeking orientation within organizations and
our educational system.
BROADENING THE CONTENT OF OBM
Recently, Geller (2002) discussed the importance of expanding the
content of OBM so as to attract more students, teachers, researchers,
and practitioners to the field. He stated that industrial-organizational
(I/O) psychologists have a promotional edge over OBM in that they
. . . draw on the broad range of sub-disciplines in psychology, from
physiological and cognitive to personality and social psychology, to
develop their theories, design their applications, and analyze and interpret empirical findings (p. 14).
Not only would broadening the content of OBM make the field more
marketable (Bailey, 1991; Lindsey, 1991), it would also gain attention
and credibility by forming a reciprocal relationship with other disciplines (including various sub-disciplines within psychology). Being unaware of the research of our counterparts in other disciplines may create
confusion and waste resources by reinventing the wheel.
One example of such an unfortunate journey in science is Malotts
(2002) What OBM Needs Is More Jewish Mothers, which addresses
the topic of achievement motivation. Malott wrote this article in response to Gellers (2002) expansion piece, which served as the inspiration for the present paper.
Enter the Jewish Mother and Negative Reinforcement
Malott (2002) uses the metaphor of a Jewish mother to explain why
he believes children reared using negative reinforcement are more successful than those reared using positive reinforcement. He states, a
highly successful person must be very self-critical; a highly successful
[person] must have heavy fear, guilt, and/or shame ( italics in original).
According to Malott, successful individuals acquire this sense of fear,
guilt, and/or shame early in life, and are highly motivated to avoid such
feelings (and the inevitable disappointment of their Jewish mother) by
working extremely hard and never being satisfied with their achievements. He claims that such negative person states are more effective
motivators than Gellers actively-caring states of self-esteem, self-ef-

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

ficacy, personal control, optimism, and sense of belonging (Geller,

1995, 2001a, c).
Further, Malott recognizes that some people are raised in the absence
of a Jewish mother, and are therefore not particularly motivated by fear,
guilt, and/or shame. These are the individuals he believes need OBM intervention. He proposes that to effectively control the productive behavior of these individuals, three rules surrounding delayed-outcome
performance management contingencies need to be met: (a) response
consequences must be sizable and certain, (b) deadlines must be specified, and (c) the contingency must be reflected in a specific rule. His
point here is that if one does not have an inherent sense of fear, guilt,
and/or shame, contingencies need to be arranged and deadlines set so
the individual is essentially driven to avoid failure. As deadlines
approach, the need to avoid failure becomes more prominent.
It is surprising to learn of such strong support for negative reinforcement from an astute and experienced behaviorist. Such a stance flies in
the face of radical behaviorism (as well as basic OBM philosophy), and
as Geller (2002) states, sends a potentially dangerous message about
negative reinforcement that could cause serious societal harm. B. F.
Skinner himself warned against the use of negative reinforcement, stating it interferes with ones sense of freedom (Skinner, 1971). Skinner
envisioned a utopian society where positive reinforcement is the most
widely used method of control (Skinner, 1948). Malotts perspective
advocates the opposite approach, justifying the use of negative
reinforcement in our homes, industry, and educational systems.
Malott believes the person motivated by a Jewish mother perceives
the experience of guilt as inescapable, and as a result will continue to
work harder to achieve. This idea runs contrary to basic theory in applied behavior analysis (Daniels, 2000; Geller, 2001c, d), which proposes that when people are working under the guise of negative
reinforcement, they will tend to engage in only the minimum amount of
behavior necessary to avoid the aversive consequences. Further, research has shown that one typically will not perform avoidance/escape
behavior if they perceive the aversive consequences are beyond their
control (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Berglas & Jones,
1978; Maier & Seligman, 1976).
Malott seems to be unaware of a wealth of literature (primarily in the
field of education) spanning several decades of research on achievement motivation. This literature addresses the very issue of personal
characteristics among successful versus non-successful individuals, as
well as their motivation to achieve versus avoid failure. The lack of ref-

Douglas M. Wiegand and E. Scott Geller

erence to this literature in Malotts commentary implicates an important

lesson for all of us in the fields of applied behavior analysis and OBM.
Previous empirical studies on many topics of direct relevance and importance to OBM are available, awaiting consideration and relevant follow-up research. This will happen when behavior analysts look beyond
the boundaries they have seemingly created for themselves.
This paper provides a summary of the literature surrounding individuals motivation to approach success versus avoid failure. While this research is predominantly focused in education, we argue it is of direct
relevance to OBM. Understanding this information is important for behavioral scientists to consider adopting as a rationale for their positive
reinforcement approach to behavioral intervention. This not only sets
the stage for integrating the principles of applied behavior analysis with
research conducted in education and other fields, but also provides an
example of how positive reinforcement can claim its rightful position in
positive psychology.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
Need Achievement Theory
Much of the recent literature on achievement motivation is rooted in
the context of need achievement theory (Atkinson, 1957; see also
McClelland, 1965). This theory posits that individuals can be characterized in general terms of their relative motivation to approach success
versus avoid failure. Atkinsons original theory proposed that human
achievement is the product of a conflict between ones motive to strive
for or approach success (i.e., expectancy for success) versus avoid failure (i.e., fear of failure). He credited differences in emotional anticipation for the reason why some individuals approach tasks readily while
others are inhibited and withdrawn (Atkinson, 1957, 1964).
As depicted in Figure 1, Atkinsons theory can be represented by an
orthogonal, two-dimensional matrix, categorizing individuals with respect to their tendencies to approach success versus avoid failure. Using
this model, individuals can be classified as either low or high in successseeking (or achievement) and low or high in failure-avoiding. The four
quadrants allow for the representation of individuals who have conflicting motives (e.g., someone who simultaneously approaches success yet
is fearful of failure) as well as people who are more straightforward in
their motivation (e.g., those low in avoidance and high in approach).

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

FIGURE 1. Quadripolar Model of Need Achievement
High
Success Seeking

Success Seeker

Overstriver
High
Failure Avoiding

Low
Failure Avoiding
Failure Acceptor

Failure Avoider

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

Unfortunately, much of the research exploring Atkinsons theory has

dismissed the quadripolar model in favor of a simplified one-dimensional continuum of approach versus avoidance (Covington, 1992;
Covington & Roberts, 1994). This perspective lumps the approach and
avoidance tendencies of individuals together so everyone fits on a continuum between approach and avoidance. As a result, the possibility of
conflicting tendencies of approach versus avoidance is ignored, and indifference or lack of motivation is not considered.
Returning to Atkinsons original quadripolar model, recent research
in education expands on need achievement theory by focusing on the
question of why some college students are driven in their academic
work by something other than the desire to learn and/or achieve. This
research reflects the views of McClelland (1961, 1965), who put a
somewhat different spin on need achievement theory by describing the
motive to achieve as primarily competitive in nature. McClelland proposed that those who are motivated to achieve do so in an attempt to outshine their peers or compete with a certain standard of excellence.
Further, those who are driven to avoid failure do so to avoid being per-

Douglas M. Wiegand and E. Scott Geller

ceived as inferior in ability when compared to their peers or other standards. Self-worth theory expands on McClellands views and sheds
light on the issue of failure avoidance.
Self-Worth Theory
According to self-worth theory, the greatest concern for students is
the need for self-acceptance or protection of self-esteem (Beery, 1975;
Covington, 1984a, b, 1992, 1997; Covington & Beery, 1976; Covington &
Roberts, 1994). Failure holds implications for individuals self-esteem
because it is often perceived to be indicative of low ability, which is often considered the cornerstone of low self-esteem (Covington, 1984b,
1992). Therefore, students go to great lengths to protect their sense of
personal value, even if it means sacrificing good grades to do so. Two
strategies for protecting ones perception of ability have been examined
in the achievement literature, namely, self-handicapping and defensive
pessimism.
Self-handicapping (Berglas & Jones, 1978) refers to actively placing
barriers in the way of success (e.g., procrastination, reduction of effort,
taking on too much at once), so if failure were to occur, the individual
could blame these external impediments as opposed to personal attributes such as ability or competency. These individuals find external
causes of failure less threatening because they do not have implications
for their self-worth. For example, people who go to a party and stay out
late the night before taking a test may be self-handicapping. Such behavior (going to a party instead of resting and studying) would most
likely compromise performance on a test, giving these individuals a
readily available excuse for earning a poor grade.
Defensive pessimism (Norem & Cantor, 1986a, b) refers to setting
unjustifiably low expectations of performance and considering a variety
of potential outcomes in which one can be evaluated. By having unfounded low expectations, an individual is bracing for the worst possible outcome. Then, by comparison, the actual outcome will seem better
than expected (Norem & Cantor, 1986a, b). This technique is self-protective in that people set safer standards against which their ability
will be judged, thereby lowering the bar for acceptable performance
(Baumgardner & Brownlee, 1987).
As an example of defensive pessimism, consider a reasonably good
student telling herself she is going to fail a test. She is convinced failure
is inevitable, and thinks of a variety of ways the situation will play itself
out (e.g., thinking she will not remember anything she studied, thinking

10

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

the questions will be too difficult for her to understand, and/or thinking
she will not have enough time to finish the test). Then, taking the test
and earning a grade of C will be considered satisfactory, since it is
much better than the expected grade of F. Defensive pessimism may
work to alleviate some anxiety, however, research has shown that in the
long run, such a negative outlook can minimize potential feelings of
success, and will ultimately lead to poorer outcomes (Norem & Cantor,
1990).
Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism are ultimately self-defeating in that they often influence the negative outcomes a person is
trying to avoid (Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001a). By attributing poor
outcomes to either external (or situational) circumstances or by comparing ones performance to an even lower expectation, individuals protect
their self-worth by distancing failure from their perceptions of personal
competence. It is important to note that these techniques are not aimed
at increasing personal ability, but instead protecting peoples perception of their competence as is. Self-worth theory therefore proposes an
alternative view of motivation to Whites (1959) competence theory.
White (1959) described the desire for competence as a primary
source of human motivation. He posited that this desire is self-initiating
and self-rewarding, and the behaviors related to a sense of competence
are highly focused activities that are intrinsically reinforcing. It is important to realize that in the quest for competence, some form of failure
is inevitable as experience is gained at whatever task is being mastered.
It is part of the learning process.
Conversely, self-worth theory states that protecting ones self-esteem is more motivating to some individuals than gaining competence.
These individuals are unwilling to risk their sense of self-worth, even to
learn new skills or to improve deficient ones.
Research shows that individual differences in motivation exist, lending support to both self-worth theory and competence theory (e.g.,
Covington & Omelich, 1991). Recognizing these differences has lead to
the identification of distinct achievement typologies, described as
follows.
Achievement Typologies
Based on the quadripolar model of need achievement and self-worth
theory, Covington and Omelich (1991) identified four distinct achievement typologies. These typologies have been the focus of recent literature attempting to explain differences in how people approach success

Douglas M. Wiegand and E. Scott Geller

11

and/or avoid failure. The four typologies describe individuals who are:
(1) success seekers, (2) overstrivers, (3) failure avoiders, or (4) failure
acceptors. Again, while a majority of this research was conducted using
academic samples, it is clearly adaptable to organizations.
Success Seekers. Success seekers (SS) have been referred to as the
resilient typology (e.g., Martin, 2002a), because they seem to be exempt from the self-protective tendencies described by the self-worth
perspective. They also respond to setbacks (e.g., negative feedback) in a
proactive and adaptive manner, persisting with optimism and energy
(Covington & Omelich, 1991; Martin, 1998; Martin et al., 2001a). In
terms of Atkinsons model, these individuals show high expectancy for
success and low fear of failure.
These individuals display exemplary achievement behaviors
(Covington & Omelich, 1991, p. 86) in that they are self-confident and
willing to take risks, as opposed to being avoidant due to a fear of failure. Research has shown that SS individuals succeed by focusing on
success instead of failure (Covington & Omelich, 1991; Martin, 1998;
Martin et al., 2001a). Martin (2002b) found that those classified as SS
reported high self-efficacy, high personal control, and low fear of failure. As students, they tend to exhibit the highest quality study skills and
habits (Covington & Omelich, 1991).
Covington and Roberts (1994) surveyed 220 undergraduates to investigate personality variables related to achievement typology. Results
from the California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1987) indicate that SS individuals tend to be healthy and psychologically well-adjusted. They score above average on norm adherence, extraversion,
conscientiousness, and tolerance. They also tend to be concerned with
the impression they make on others, and describe themselves as
sensitive to the needs of others.
Overstrivers. Individuals classified as overstrivers (OS) avoid failure
by working in excess to succeed (Covington & Omelich, 1991; Martin &
Marsh, 2003; Martin et al., 2001a). They fit into the quadrant of
Atkinsons model that reflects both high expectancy for success and
high fear of failure. These people are diligent, academically successful,
meticulous, and at times optimistic. However, they maintain a level of
self-doubt about their abilities and experience high levels of evaluation
anxiety, driving them to avoid failure by succeeding (Covington, 1992;
Covington & Omelich, 1991; Martin et al., 2001a). Their dual tendency
to contemplate potential success and failure leads these individuals to
failure avoidance because they are particularly vulnerable to threats to
their perceived competence (Covington, 1992, as cited in Martin et al.,

12

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

2001a). Covington and Omelich (1991) found these individuals to be

comparable to SS individuals with regard to personal estimates of ability and study skills. Although OS students reported spending more time
studying than those reflecting the other typologies, a fair portion of this
time was spent engaging in counterproductive wishful thinking (e.g., I
wish I didnt have to take this test; Covington & Omelich, 1991).
Covington and Roberts (1994) found OS individuals to have a disposition toward meticulous over-preparation. In other words, they are preoccupied with perfection. On the CPI, they score relatively low on
tolerance and well-being, and high on anger towards self and others.
They often show signs of skepticism, arrogance, and aggression, as well
as a lack of emotional control. They are also described as being less than
willing to comply with the wishes of others (Covington & Roberts,
1994).
These individuals are driven by negative reinforcement. They work
hard to escape aversive feelings of guilt, shame, incompetence, and
anxiety. While this seems to be a useful strategy for these individuals
(i.e., they are generally successful), the process is unpleasant for them
(Martin & Marsh, 2003). They report high anxiety, low perceptions of
personal control, and unstable self-esteem (Martin, 1998; 2001; Martin,
Marsh, & Debus, 2001b). Further, failure affirms OS individuals suspicions that they are incompetent, which may impede their progress if
they cope by engaging in the kind of counterproductive behavior displayed by failure-avoidant individuals (Covington, 1992; Covington &
Omelich, 1991; Martin & Marsh, 2003; Martin et al., 2001a).
In his paper on the Jewish mother syndrome, Malott (2002) seems to
be describing OS individuals as most successful. While he believes
these individuals are ideal employees, they do not seem to be the type of
person we would want on our work team, given the negative characteristics demonstrated by the research cited above.
Failure Avoiders. Individuals classified as failure avoiders (FAV) do
not avoid failure per se, but rather the implications of failure (Covington, 1992; Martin & Marsh, 2003; Martin et al., 2001a). They are motivated by fear of failure, and do whatever it takes to protect themselves
from implications they are incompetent. In Atkinsons model, they are
defined by low expectancy for success and high fear of failure.
These individuals are most likely to use techniques such as self-handicapping and defensive pessimism to protect themselves from potential
failure (Covington, 1992). They report significantly lower estimates of
ability than the SS, as well as a high level of certainty regarding these estimates (Covington & Omelich, 1979, 1991). In fact, relative to the other

Douglas M. Wiegand and E. Scott Geller

13

typologies, these students show the lowest levels of academic achievement (Martin, 2002b). They avoid challenges, and are debilitated by a
setback because it confirms their doubts about their lack of competence,
personal control, and/or self-efficacy (Covington & Omelich, 1991; Martin, 1998; Martin et al., 2001a). Martin (2002b) described these individuals as avoidant, anxious, and pessimistic, and having low self-belief and
low perceptions of control.
Failure avoiders tend to be unsure of themselves, and are described as
being preoccupied with worries about the future, including their physical
and mental health (Covington & Roberts, 1994). They have difficulty finishing what they begin, dislike direct competition, and generally have low
compliance with others wishes or opinions. Finally, they score low on
psychological mindedness, meaning they focus more on behaviors than
feelings (Covington & Roberts, 1994).
Failure Acceptors. The final typology represented by Atkinsons
model describes individuals low in both expectancy for success and fear
of failure. Covington and Omelich (1985) label these individuals failure
acceptors (FAC). These individuals have been described as being former FAVs who decided their excuses were no longer plausible, and accepted their failures as implications of low ability (e.g., Covington &
Omelich, 1991; Martin & Marsh, 2003).
Failure acceptors withdraw from academic competition, and are generally typified by indifference (Covington & Omelich, 1991). They display
a pattern of motivation analogous to learned helplessness (Abramson et
al., 1978; Covington, 1992; Maier & Seligman, 1976), embracing the belief that no matter how hard they try they will inevitably fail (Coyne &
Lazarus, 1980; Miller & Norman, 1979). Martin (1998, 2002b) found
these individuals report school as a low priority and noted that they lack
both academic motivation and resilience (Martin, 2002a).
While their competence estimates fall between the SS and FAV, they
are not worried about their ability (Covington & Omelich, 1991). In
terms of self-protective behaviors, some have considered these individuals to be the epitome of self-handicappers in that they do not try at all
(Martin et al., 2001a). However, when faced with failure, they are the
least likely to blame outside or situational factors for their failure. They
take personal credit for their failure (Covington & Omelich, 1991).
When examining FAC individuals scores on the CPI, Covington and
Roberts (1994) found interesting and unexpected results. These individuals, typically described as unmotivated and indifferent, are actually
more psychologically adjusted than the two failure-avoiding groups.
They score high on well-being, tolerance, self-control, and social pres-

14

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

ence. They report being self-assured and self-disciplined, and experience a passive lifestyle relatively free of worry. These individuals can
be described as creative, eccentric, individualistic, and unconventional
(Covington & Roberts, 1994).
It is possible the achievement measures do not tap the constructs necessary to describe the FAC person. As Martin (1998) found, school is
not particularly important to failure acceptors, which reflects negatively
on them when they complete the achievement measures. He believes
they might render more positive, achievement-related characteristics if
their assessment referenced tasks other than academics.
Given the research summarized above, it is clear the SS individuals
are motivated by positive reinforcement, while the OS and FAV individuals are driven by negative reinforcement. The principles of OBM
could be applied to help these failure-avoiding individuals reach the
ideal of a success-seeking orientation, mainly by arranging environmental contingencies in terms of positive versus negative reinforcement. Restructuring the environment to make positive reinforcement
the salient contingency may increase positive person states (e.g., the
psychological well-being and conscientiousness qualities of the SO
individuals) as well as increase productivity.
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
AND ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION
Personality Traits vs. Personality States
Pertinent to this discussion is whether person-based variables can be
influenced. A personality trait is thought to be stable and persistent over
time and therefore difficult to influence. This is the stance typically taken
by I/O psychologists who study personality factors as determinants of behavior.
Conversely, other researchers and scholars (including those in OBM)
view personality factors as fluctuating states under the influence of the
environment and the three-term contingency. In this case, person states
are examined as dependent variables. With this view, research is conducted to increase positive person states through environmental conditions and contingencies, which then affect a persons motivation
orientation.
A major focus of OBM is to create environments in which productivity
and quality are high and workers are generally satisfied, happy, healthy,

Douglas M. Wiegand and E. Scott Geller

15

and safe. Thus, it can be deduced that OBM aims to promote a successseeking orientation. As described above, success seekers are generally
well-adjusted, work towards being the best they can be, and experience high
self-worth or self-efficacy, perceptions of personal control, and low fear of
failure (Covington & Omelich, 1991; Covington & Roberts, 1994; Martin,
1998, 2002b; Martin et al., 2001a). As college students, they exhibit the
highest quality study skills, and obtain relatively high grades. It seems
these are the ideal person states to cultivate when creating effective academic or organizational climates.
PROMOTING A SUCCESS-SEEKING ORIENTATION
Numerous scholarly works have addressed ways to enhance motivation by creating success-focused environments (e.g., Covington, 1992;
Covington & Roberts, 1994; Martin, 2001; Martin & Marsh, 2003).
While a comprehensive review of this literature is beyond the scope of
this presentation, one recent set of recommendations is discussed which
emphasizes the importance of increasing positive person states and decreasing negative person states when shaping ones achievement motivation. By gaining awareness of the scholarship that has been produced
by change agents in education and other disciplines, the field of OBM
can begin to make its own contributions, from filling gaps in the research to developing new approaches to develop success-seeking
motivation.
Martins achievement model (2001, 2002a, in press) categorizes cognitive and behavioral determinants of motivation as boosters, guzzlers,
or mufflers. Boosters are those factors that enhance motivation, including self-efficacy, school appreciation, a learning-focused mindset, goal
persistence, planning, and self-monitoring. In contrast, guzzlers reduce
motivation, including low personal control and self-protection (i.e.,
self-handicapping and defensive pessimism). Finally, mufflers have the
potential of limiting motivation, yet are not as debilitating as guzzlers.
Examples of mufflers are anxiety and failure avoidance.
Martin and his colleagues have described techniques for increasing
boosters and decreasing guzzlers and mufflers in academic settings
(Martin, 2001, 2002a, 2002b, in press; Martin & Marsh, 2003; Martin et
al., 2001b). These techniques are summarized below as supported by research conducted in applied behavior analysis and OBM.
Self-Efficacy. Martin and Marsh (2003) describe self-efficacy (a.k.a.,
self-belief) as students confidence they will understand and succeed in

16

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

what they plan to do, while performing to the best of their ability. Self-efficacy is one of the strongest predictors of achievement (Bandura, 1986,
1997; Marsh, 1990; Martin & Debus, 1998). Thus, it is a crucial booster
to increase among students and workers alike.
Perceptions of self-efficacy can be increased using techniques developed by Watson and Tharp (1997). One method is to choose a task the
person can complete successfully. This may involve breaking a job assignment into smaller, more manageable components (McInerney,
2000). By increasing the opportunities to experience success or small
wins (Weick, 1984), self-efficacy will increase. Also, individuals
should set goals within their knowledge and capability range, and their
view of success should focus on personal bests and improvement as opposed to competing against others (Covington, 1992; Martin, 2002a).
One way to accomplish this is to create a hierarchy of things one would
like to accomplish, ranging from easiest to most difficult. Once easier
tasks have been accomplished, self-efficacy can build successively to
help one conquer more difficult tasks.
School Appreciation. This refers to students belief that what they
learn in school is important and practical to them and society in general
(Martin, 2001). This is comparable to Banduras notions of response efficacy (1997) and outcome expectancy (1986). Response efficacy refers to
the belief that certain behaviors will produce a desired outcome (e.g., If I
study hard, I will succeed). Outcome expectancy refers to the results (or
consequences) people anticipate from engaging in certain behaviors, and
whether or not these outcomes are perceived as worth the effort (e.g.,
Succeeding in school is important, and it will make my life better). In
this case, these terms pertain to the belief that doing well in school is relevant to future success and worth the effort. This notion is also comparable
to having workers buy in to their job assignment or a behavior management program to increase their competence or motivation.
To increase school appreciation, educators need to link what they are
teaching to students personal lives (including their interests and talents), the real world (including current events and job experiences),
and to other subjects taught in school (Martin, 2001, 2002a; Martin &
Marsh, 2003). In other words, the question Why do I need to know
this? should be addressed specifically and in many ways. This relates
directly to organizational issues regarding workers perceptions of their
job competence and performance outcomes.
School appreciation can also be increased if students understand they
are not only learning what is being taught directly, but are also enhancing important problem-solving skills and such virtues as patience, per-

Douglas M. Wiegand and E. Scott Geller

17

sistence, and emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995). Similarly,

workers in organizations can be helped to understand their job is part of
a larger network that produces outcomes valued by the organization
and/or society. Thus, ones perspective broadens from an individual to a
systems view (Senge, 1990), which can fuel a sense of belonging (discussed below) and ownership of ones contributions to the larger
outcome.
McInerney (2000) stressed that educators should model school appreciation by expressing their personal value of the topics taught (Martin,
2001, 2002a; Martin & Marsh, 2003). Whereas educators can increase
student interest by modeling genuine interest, work supervisors and managers should model their personal investment in the organization.
Learning-Based Focus, Goal Setting, Planning, Self-Monitoring, and
Persistence. These boosters are rooted in motivation-orientation theory,
which focuses on gaining a sense of personal mastery as opposed to
working to outperform others (Martin, 2001; Nicholls, 1989; Qin, Johnson, & Johnson, 1995). Developing a sense of mastery involves learning
that accomplishment and improvement are based largely on strategy and
effort (Craven, Marsh, & Debus, 1991; Martin et al., 2001b). By cultivating this learning-based focus, students and workers (Senge, 1990) can be
driven to develop problem-solving skills and seek the intrinsic rewards of
learning for the sake of learning (Martin, 2002a; Martin & Marsh, 2003).
Further, once a learning-based focus is adopted, individuals will be more
likely to view setback as a form of corrective feedback that can lead to
personal improvement (Middleton & Midgley, 1997). This reflects a special benefit of positive reinforcement.
Developing a sense of mastery also involves teaching people how to
set goals and accomplish them (Martin, 2001, 2002a; McInerney,
2000). A recommended strategy is to illustrate SMART goals, or goals
that are Specific, Motivational, Achievable, Relevant, and Trackable
(Geller, 2001c). After SMART goals are set, people should be taught
how to: (a) plan towards the completion of their goals, (b) evaluate and
monitor their progress, and (c) work to overcome barriers (Martin,
2001, 2002a; McInerney, 2000). Individuals should also learn to reward
themselves for accomplishing their goals, thereby strengthening desired
behavior with positive reinforcement.
As noted above, it is important to monitor progress toward reaching
goals. Not only does this provide valuable feedback about individual
competence, but it also allows opportunities to re-evaluate goals and
perhaps alter behavior if current techniques are not working. Once

18

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

progress has been tracked, people should be encouraged to focus on

their accomplishments as opposed to their failures (Geller, 2001c, d).
Enhancing a Sense of Personal Control. When individuals lack a
sense of personal control, they are unsure of their ability to achieve success and/or avoid failure (Martin & Marsh, 2003). They may engage in
counterproductive behaviors and thoughts such as self-handicapping
and defensive pessimism (Martin et al., 2001a, 2001b). Peoples sense
of personal control is increased when they see the link between their
strategic efforts and success (Craven et al., 1991; Martin, 2001, 2002a;
Martin & Marsh, 2003; McInerney, 2000). This can be accomplished by
having them monitor their progress, as described above.
Perceptions of personal control can be enhanced within organizations by giving workers some choice in their jobs (within a clear structure), such as assignment content, due dates, evaluation criteria, etc.
(McInerney, 2000). Opportunities to choose lead to increased involvement, which is associated with enhanced perceptions of personal control (Geller, 2001c). When people sense personal control, they are
generally more motivated to become involved and work to achieve
(e.g., White, 1959). Thus, we have a continuous cycle of choice, involvement, and perception of personal control (Geller, 2001c).
Other important ways to increase personal control are to give consistent behavior-based feedback so individuals understand what they can
do to make successive improvements (Craven et al., 1991; Geller,
2001c; Martin et al., 2001b). It is also important to give frequent rewarding and correcting feedback for process behavior instead of only
focusing on outcomes (Geller, 2001c).
Finally, rewards and punishers should be administered in such a way
that individuals clearly understand the three-term contingency. What
behavior is responsible for the positive or negative consequence? Consistent contingencies increase individuals sense of personal control,
and decrease confusion and uncertainty (Thompson, 1994; Martin,
2002a; Martin & Marsh, 2003).
Reducing Anxiety and Fear of Failure. Perhaps the most effective
method for reducing anxiety and fear of failure is to emphasize that success reflects strategy and effort, and is not a reflection of an individuals
worth as a person (Covington, 1992; Martin, 1998, Martin et al., 2001a,
2001b; 2003). Moreover, as stated above, creating an environment that
emphasizes self-improvement and personal bests (Qin et al., 1995; Martin, 2002a) teaches that failure is an opportunity to learn (Covington,
1992).

Douglas M. Wiegand and E. Scott Geller

19

Martins model and the recommendations summarized above offer a

useful foundation for understanding how to promote a success-seeking
orientation within both academic and industrial settings. Increasing
boosters and decreasing guzzlers and mufflers is comparable to promoting the person states of self-esteem, self-efficacy, personal control, optimism, and belonging that make up Gellers (1995, 2001c, d) activelycaring model as depicted in Figure 2.
Actively Caring
Geller has proposed that the person states listed above affect ones
propensity to actively care, or to go beyond the call of duty to help the
environment (Geller, 1995, 2001a) and/or the safety and health of others (Geller, 1991, 2001b, d). There are several reasons why this model is
applicable to promoting success-seeking over failure-avoiding.
FIGURE 2. The Actively-Caring Model
Personal Control
Im in control
Self-Efficacy
I can do it

Optimism
I expect the best

Empowerment
I can make a difference
1

2
4

Self-Esteem
Im valuable

Belonging
I belong to a team

1. I can make valuable differences.

2. We can make a difference.
3. Im a valuable team member.
4. We can make valuable differences.

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

20

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

First, as described above, research by Covington and Roberts (1994)

found that success seekers scored highly on measures that indicate
genuine concern for others and the environment (e.g., extraversion,
conscientiousness, tolerance, and sensitivity toward the needs of others). It is likely these individuals score relatively high on measures of
the five actively caring person states.
Second, the actively caring model shares several components of
Martins model of motivation (2001, 2002a, in press). Most obvious
are the components of self-efficacy, personal control, and optimism.
Optimism results from thinking positively and expecting the best of
the future. While Martin (2001, 2002a, in press) does not explicitly refer to the term optimism in his suggestions for promoting success-seeking, it clearly resonates with his notions of self-efficacy and
school appreciation. Further, it is interesting to note that self-efficacy,
personal control, and optimism are closely intertwined so that a
change in one will likely influence the other two (Geller, 2001c). The
remaining components of Gellers actively caring model (i.e., self-esteem and belonging) are also relevant to the discussion of promoting a
success-seeking orientation.
Self-Esteem. Geller (2001c) recommends several factors relevant to
increasing self-esteem, such as carefully implemented communication
strategies and consistent behavior-based reinforcement and punishment
contingencies. For example, effective communication strategies include actively listening, while also stating interpersonal agreement, admiration, appreciation, and approval when achievements occur.
Avoiding arguments and criticism is also recommended.
Geller (2001c) also gives advice on how to effectively give corrective feedback so self-esteem is not threatened. It is key to focus on the
behavior instead of the individual, avoiding statements that could be
taken as judgmental, and to stress positive aspects of ones performance as opposed to the negative.
Belonging. Geller (1995, 2001c) believes a sense of community or
interdependence is essential to increasing interpersonal trust and actively caring behavior. When people are collectively oriented, they
tend to adopt a win-win perspective as opposed to the win-lose perspective embraced by those with an individualistic orientation
(Triandis, 1977).
Borrowing from social psychology, Aronson and colleagues jigsaw classroom is exemplary of how a sense of belonging can increase
motivation and performance output (Aronson, 1999; Aronson &
Patnoe, 1997; Aronson, Stephan, Sikes, Blaney, & Snapp, 1978). Cre-

Douglas M. Wiegand and E. Scott Geller

21

ating a sense of interdependency and belonging among participants in

these experiments involved giving students assignments they could
complete successfully only if they cooperated with and learned from
each other. By eliminating the competitive climate and building interdependency and a sense of belonging to a team, jigsaw participants
evidenced lower prejudice, less absenteeism, and greater self-esteem
than did individuals in control groups (i.e., traditional classrooms).
Further, students in the jigsaw classroom showed greater academic
improvement and reported liking school more than those in control
conditions (Aronson, 1999; Aronson & Patnoe, 1997; Aronson,
Stephan, Sikes, Blaney, & Snapp, 1978).
CONCLUSION
This presentation focused on increasing a success-seeking orientation by means of positive reinforcement as opposed to negative reinforcement. Specifically, it was argued that creating environmental
contingencies that enhance and support positive feeling states is a more
effective means to developing well-adjusted, successful individuals.
This runs contrary to Malotts (2002) notion that negative reinforcement is the ideal approach to developing hard-working, productive individuals.
It should be obvious that promoting success-seeking over failureavoiding is a research topic relevant for collaboration between OBM,
applied behavior analysis, and other fields. Many people work to avoid
failure in some, if not multiple, areas of their lives. For instance, people
may work to avoid failure in academics, employment, interpersonal relationships, athletics, or even recreational activities. Thus, research investigating contingencies effective at enhancing a success orientation in
academic, industrial, and interpersonal settings is crucial, and provides
an opportunity for interdisciplinary collaboration.
By expanding the content of OBM and applied behavior analysis, we
can learn from other disciplines, make contributions of our own, and bolster others understanding of the difference between positive and negative
reinforcement. By fulfilling this vision, perhaps positive reinforcement can
begin to gain the recognition it deserves in this Decade of Behavior and in
the development of a positive psychology sub-discipline.

22

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

REFERENCES
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in
humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.
Aronson, E. (1999). The power of self-persuasion. American Psychologist, 54,
875-884.
Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom: Building cooperation in the
classroom. New York: Longman.
Aronson, E., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., Blaney, N., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359-372.
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Bailey, J. S. (1991). Marketing behavior analysis requires different talk. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 37-40.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman & Co.
Baumgardner, A. H., & Brownlee, E. A. (1987). Strategic failure in social interaction:
Evidence for expectancy disconfirmation processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 525-535.
Beery, R. G. (1975). Fear of failure in the student experience. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 54, 190-203.
Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36,
405-417.
Cantania, A. C. (2001). Positive psychology and positive reinforcement. American
Psychologist, 56, 86-87.
Covington, M. V. (1984a). Motivated cognitions. In S. G. Paris, G. M. Olson, & H. W.
Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 139-164). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Covington, M. V. (1984b). The motive for self-worth. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.),
Research on motivation in education (Vol. 1, pp. 77-113). New York: Academic
Press.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation
and school reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Covington, M. V. (1997). A motivational analysis of academic life in college. In R. P.
Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and
practice. New York: Agathon Press. Republished from Covington, M. V. (1993). A
motivational analysis of academic life in college. Higher education: Handbook of
theory and research. New York: Agathon Press.
Covington, M. V., & Beery, R. G. (1976). Self-worth and school learning. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1979). Are causal attributions causal? A path
analysis of the cognitive model of achievement motivation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37, 1487-1504.

Douglas M. Wiegand and E. Scott Geller

23

Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1985). Ability and effort valuation among failure-avoiding and failure-accepting students. Journal of Educational Psychology,
77, 446-459.
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1988). Achievement dynamics: The interaction
of motives, cognitions and emotions over time. Anxiety Journal, 1, 165-183.
Covington, M. W., & Omelich, C. L. (1991). Need achievement revisited: Verification
of Atkinsons original 2 2 model. In C. D. Spielberger, I. G. Sarason, Z. Kulcsar,
& G. L. Van Heck (Eds.), Stress and emotion, Vol. 14. New York, NY: Hemisphere.
Covington, M. V., & Roberts, B. W. (1994). Self-worth and college achievement: Motivational and personality correlates. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C. E.
Weinstein (Eds.), Student motivation, cognition, and learning: Essays in honor of
Wilbert J. McKeachie. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coyne, J. C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). Cognitive style, stress perception, and coping. In
I. L. Kutash & L. B. Schlesinger (Eds.), Handbook on stress and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (1991). Effects of internally focused feedback and attributional feedback on the enhancement of academic self-concept.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 17-26.
Daniels, A. C. (2000). Bringing out the best in people: How to apply the astonishing
power of positive reinforcement. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Follette, W. C., Linnerooth, P. J. N., & Ruckstuhl, L. E. Jr. (2001). Positive psychology: A clinical behavior analytic perspective. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,
41, 102-134.
Geller, E. S. (1991). If only more would actively care. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 24, 607-612.
Geller, E. S. (1995). Integrating behaviorism and humanism for environmental protection. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 179-195.
Geller, E. S. (2001a). Actively caring for occupational safety: Extending the performance
management paradigm. In C. M. Johnson, W. K. Redmon, & T. C. Mawhinney (Eds.),
Handbook of organizational performance: Behavior analysis and management
(pp. 303-326). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.
Geller, E. S. (2001b). The challenge of increasing proenvironmental behavior. In
R. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology
(pp. 525-540). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Geller, E. S. (2001c). The psychology of safety handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Geller, E. S. (2001d). Working safe: How to help people actively care for health and
safety (Second Edition). Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.
Geller, E. S. (2002). Should organizational behavior management expand its content?
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(2), 13-30.
Geller, E. S. (2002). Organizational behavior management and industrial/organizational psychology: Achieving synergy by valuing differences. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(2), 111-130.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Gough, H. G. (1987). Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 55, 174-180.

24

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

Lindsey, O. R. (1991). From technical jargon to plain English for application. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 41-50.
Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence.
Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 105, 3-46.
Malott, R. W. (2002). What OBM needs is more Jewish mothers. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(2), 71-87.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77-172.
Martin, A. J. (1998). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: Predictors and consequences from a self-worth motivation perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Western Sydney, Macarthur. As cited in Martin, A. J. (2002).
The lethal cocktail: Low self-belief, low control, and high fear of failure. Australian
Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 12, 74-85.
Martin, A. J. (2001). The Student Motivation Scale: A tool for measuring and enhancing motivation. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 11, 1-20.
Martin, A. J. (2002a). Motivation and academic resilience: Developing a model of student enhancement. Australian Journal of Education. 14, 34-49.
Martin, A. J. (2002b). The lethal cocktail: Low self-belief, low control, and high fear of
failure. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 12, 74-85.
Martin, A. J. (in press). The Student Motivation Scale: Further testing of an instrument
that measures school students motivation. Australian Journal of Education.
Martin, A. J., & Debus, R. L. (1998). Self-reports of mathematics self-concept and educational outcomes: The roles of ego-dimensions and self-consciousness. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 517-535.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe? Australian Psychologist, 38, 31-38.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001a). A quadripolar need achievement
representation of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 583-610.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001b). Self-handicapping and defensive
pessimism: Exploring a model of predictors and outcomes from a self-protection
perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 87-102.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Self-handicapping and defensive
pessimism: A model of self-protection from a longitudinal perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 1-36.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 20, 321-333.
McInerney, D. (2000). Helping kids achieve their best. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability:
An unexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89,
710-718.
Miller, I. W., III, & Norman, W. H. (1979). Learned helplessness in humans: A review
and attribution-theory model. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 93-118.
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.

Douglas M. Wiegand and E. Scott Geller

25

Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1986a). Anticipating and post hoc cushioning strategies:
Optimism and defensive pessimism in risky situations. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 10, 347-362.
Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1986b). Defensive pessimism: Harnessing anxiety as motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1208-1217.
Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1990). Cognitive strategies, coping and perceptions of
competence. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian Jr. (Eds.), Competence considered
(pp. 190-204). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65, 129-144.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden two. New York: Macmillan.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of positive psychology. London: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, T. (1994). Self-worth protection: Review and implications for the classroom. Educational Review, 46, 259-274.
Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Watson, D. C., & Tharp, R. G. (1997). Self-directed behavior: Self-modification for
personal adjustment (7th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Weick, K. E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American
Psychologist, 39, 40-49.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.