The 34" International Conference of the System Dynamics Society walee
17 - 21 July, 2016; Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
Running head: CONCEPTUAL MODEL ON PERFORMANCE DYNAMICS
A Conceptual Feedback Model of
Performance Dynamics
Alexandra R. van den Berg
Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Alexandra. vandenberg@outlook.com
Hakan Yasarcan
Industrial Engineering Department
Bogazici University
Bebek, Istanbul 34342, Turkey
hakan.yasarcan@boun.edu.tr
Abstract
Human behavior is extremely complex and influenced by a large variety of factors.
Psychologists are given the challenge of constructing models that do justice to this
complexity. In this study, we constructed a conceptual model of performance dynamics. We
specifically focused on how the GPA of a student changes over time. In constructing the
model, we utilized the existing theories in psychology and feedback perspective of systems
thinking/system dynamics. As most psychologists still lack the language they need to
accurately portray human behavior, this model serves the purpose of promoting the use of
systems thinking/system dynamics within psychology. This is done by combining several
theories concerning motivation and goal directed behavior into a conceptual model of
performance dynamics. The model variables are explained and the feedback loops were
discussed in detail. In future studies, we plan to use this conceptual model in explaining
different modes of behavior observed in performance dynamics.
Keywords: ability; education; performance; psychology; satisfaction; self-efficacy; task
difficulty; valence; goals.
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ON PERFORMANCE DYNAMICS, -2-
1. Introduction
Human behavior is extremely complex and influenced by a large variety of factors.
Especially fields such as developmental psychology that concern both short-term
processes, as well as long-term processes, are given the challenge of generating models
that can capture this complexity. In contrast, many models in psychology fail to do justice
to this complexity. Consequently, researchers might overlook important long-term effects
on behavior and interactions between variables. Only recently researchers have started to
delve into developing models containing feedback links. Examples of these in Industrial
and organizational psychology are goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 2002) and action
theory (Frese & Zapf, 1994). However, most psychologists still lack the language they
need to accurately portray human behavior. This model serves the purpose of promoting
the use of systems thinking/system dynamics within psychology. This is done by
combining several theories concerning motivation and goal directed behavior into a
conceptual model of performance dynamics. Our model ignores cognitive dissonance and
the specifics behind goal-setting. The aim of this model is to explain goal striving behavior
using a feedback perspective.
2. The Conceptual Model and the Key Variables
In this part of the paper, we will define the variables that we used in the conceptual
model and elaborate on their effects on other variables. The general model will be
illustrated by an example concerning Grade Point Average (GPA).
2.1. Target GPA
Target GPA concerns the goal one is committed to, in this case a particular GPA
one desires to obtain. Thus, Target GPA is the performance goal in this context. This target
is assumed to have an objective difficulty level (as described through task difficulty) and
higher targets (i.e., target GPA values closer to 4) are assumed to have a positive effect on
this difficulty level. In this study, we take Target GPA as a given. Thus, the process of
setting a target GPA will not be considered.
Aside from its objective difficulty level, target GPA is also assumed to have a
subjective difficulty level (perceived difficulty level). Namely, the higher the target an
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ON PERFORMANCE DYNAMICS, -3-
individual sets, the more likely it is that one regards the goal as difficult
(Stamatogiannakis, 2013).
Efforts towards
obtaining the goal
; —~
Perceived Self-efficacy
+ difficulty evel
te)
TargetGPA a, Zz
Perceived ““-—~
success Current GPA.
+
+
Cs
OT a Expected Level of
be Satisfaction
+
Satisfaction
CA
a
Valence of
the goal
Fig. 1 A Conceptual Feedback Model of Performance Dynamics
Furthermore, target GPA is assumed to have a positive influence on the valence of
the goal. Research on mastery and performance goals has indeed shown that students
attach more value to goals that correspond to higher standards of achievement (Dompnier,
Darnon, Meier, Brandner, Smeding, & Butera, 2015; Darnon, Dopmnier, Delmas, Pulfrey,
& Butera, 2009). Lastly, target GPA could be a moderator of the relationship between
Current GPA and Perceived success, which will be elaborated upon in a later section.
2.2. Task Difficulty
The objective difficulty level of a goal can be defined either as a function of the
ratio of the individuals who accomplish the goal to the total number of people who
attempted the goal or as a function of the ratio of the total successes of an individual to the
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ON PERFORMANCE DYNAMICS, -4-
total number of trials of that individual. Accordingly, the difficulty level of a goal that is
solely accomplished by 10% to 20% of individuals who attempted to obtain the goal, or
that could only be accomplished by an individual 10% to 20% of the time is considered to
be high (Landy & Conte, 2014). Task difficulty is, therefore, presumed to have a negative
effect on Current GPA.
2.3. Current GPA, Target GPA, and Perceived Success
Current GPA is defined as the GPA an individual has attained following goal
directed behavior to obtain the target GPA. Accordingly, current GPA is the main
performance variable in our conceptual model. It is assumed that individuals engage in
comparison processes in which they compare their current GPA to their target GPA, in
order to determine whether they have obtained their goal or whether they have improved.
Perceived success therefore relates to the evaluative component in action theory (Frese &
Zapf, 1994). Together with valence of the goal, perceived success predicts satisfaction with
the outcome (Locke, 1969).
2.4 Target GPA, Current GPA, and Valence
As previously stated, target GPA is presumed to have a positive effect on valence
of the goal. Conversely, current GPA has a negative effect on the valence of the goal.
Furthermore, this negative effect is only assumed to occur in a very gradual way. This
works through a comparison process in which current GPA is compared to target GPA.
When discrepancy is high (i.e., target GPA is higher than current GPA), the valence of the
goal will increase over time. However, as Locke (1969) proposed, one will not indefinitely
be satisfied with the same standard. Hence, the valence of the goal will start to decrease
when one has obtained the goal several times.
2.5. Valence of the goal and Satisfaction
Valence of the goal is defined as the value individuals ascribe to their intended
goal. Together with perceived success, valence of the goal is assumed to determine
satisfaction. This is because when one does not attain a goal that is highly valued, one is
likely to be dissatisfied, whereas when one does attain that goal, one is likely to be satisfied
(Locke, 1969; Brown, Venkatesh, Kuruzovich, & Massey, 2008). Moreover, borrowing
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ON PERFORMANCE DYNAMICS, -5-
from VIE (valence, instrumentality, expectancy) theory, it is assumed that valence of the
goal has a positive effect on efforts towards obtaining the goal (Vroom, 1964).
2.6. Expected level of satisfaction
It is assumed that satisfaction with the previous outcome sets learning processes in
motion, akin to those specified in reinforcement theory. This would mean that satisfaction
will be associated with goal attainment. Therefore, expectancies are formed that future goal
attainment will also lead to satisfaction (Landy & Conte, 2014). These learning and
expectation formation processes cause a delay between satisfaction and its effect on
expected level of satisfaction. Thus, the change in expected level of satisfaction is more
gradual compared to changes in satisfaction itself.
It is assumed that higher expectancies will lead to the investment of more energy in
obtaining the goal. Studies have indeed pointed to a positive influence of expectations on
efforts (Levi, Einav, Ziv, Raskind, & Margalit, 2014; Domina, Conley, & Farkas, 2011;
Sommerfeld, 2015).
2.7. Efforts towards obtaining the goal
Efforts towards obtaining the goal corresponds to a component in goal-setting
theory. Goal-setting theory states that goals “direct attention and action (direction),
mobilizing energy expenditure or efforts (efforts), prolonging efforts over time
(persistence) and motivating the individual to develop relevant strategies for goal
attainment (strategy)” (p. 145) (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). In this model,
efforts is not solely understood as energy expenditure, but the other components (direction,
persistence and strategy) are considered to be elements of efforts as well. These processes
concern the actual behavior one engages in when trying to obtain the goal. It is therefore
assumed to have a positive influence on current GPA. Furthermore, we propose an
interaction effect between efforts, ability, and task difficulty on current GPA. Landy and
Conte (2014) proposed a simple model portraying performance as a function in which
motivation and ability are multiplied and its product is subtracted by situational
constraints. Our conceptual feedback model (see Figure 1) considers performance to be a
similar function in which motivation, which is embedded in efforts towards obtaining the
goal, and ability have positive effects on the performance (i.e., current GPA). Meanwhile,
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ON PERFORMANCE DYNAMICS, -6-
task difficulty, which is akin to situational constraints, has a negative influence on current
GPA. It is important to note that a lack of ability could dominate the effect of the efforts on
the level of current GPA. Similarly, the lack of efforts can dominate the effect of ability on
the level of current GPA. Thus, a high GPA is a result of both high ability and high efforts.
Without either ability, efforts, or both, performance level will be low. Over time, however,
repeated practice and the accumulation of experience (efforts towards obtaining the goal) is
also likely to increase the ability level (Kraige, Ford, & Salas, 1993).
2.8. Self-efficacy, Ability, and Perceived Difficulty
Self-efficacy regards the confidence one has that he or she can actually obtain the
goal. Self-efficacy is assumed to increase by mastery experiences (situations in which the
goal has been achieved), modeling (when someone similar to oneself attains the goal, this
is likely to raise one’s own confidence), social persuasion (others convincing an individual
that he or she can obtain the goal) and physiological states (experiencing physiological
stress reactions and therefore assuming the goal is too difficult) (Bandura, 1986).
As mentioned above, mastery experiences can positively increase self-efficacy.
This role is portrayed by the link between perceived success and self-efficacy (see Figure
1). Furthermore, perceived difficulty level (subjective task difficulty) is likely to negatively
influence self-efficacy as higher goals are more difficult to obtain and one would feel less
confident in obtaining more difficult goals. However, when the goal has a high task
difficulty, but one does not actually perceive it as difficult, this is assumed to have no
effect on self-efficacy. Conversely, ability (which is defined as individuals’ competence
levels relative to others’ capacities) can have a positive influence on self-efficacy as more
competent individuals are more likely to have higher confidence levels about
accomplishing the goal.
Self-efficacy is assumed to have a positive influence on efforts towards obtaining
the goal. This is because individuals who are self-efficacious are more likely to attempt
difficult tasks than individuals who perceive themselves as incompetent (Bandura, 1997;
Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000). In other words, individuals who have a low level of self-
efficacy would be more inclined to give up. The relationship we captured in our model is
in accordance with the literature. Namely, a study by Asseburg and Frey (2013) has shown
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ON PERFORMANCE DYNAMICS, Yon.
that a balance between individuals’ abilities and task difficulty positively influences
efforts.
3. Feedback-Loops in the Model
In this section, we will provide insight in the feedback loops of the conceptual model
given in Figure |. For this purpose, we will isolate the feedback loops and explain in what
ways they could potentially influence the dynamics of the variables that are in the loop. In
a causal-loop diagram (i.e., conceptual feedback model), the arrows define the direction of
the causal effect of a variable on another one. A positive sign on the arrow implies a
tendency in the linked variable to move in the same direction with variable causing the
effect and a negative sign implies a tendency in the linked variable to move in the opposite
direction of the variable causing the effect.
A feedback loop is a complete circle of casual effects. The polarity of the feedback
loop is determined by the directions (i.e., positive or negative) of the effects. An odd
number of negative effects result in a negative feedback loop and an even number of
negative effects (or no negative effect) result in a positive feedback loop. Note that if
everything else is kept constant, a positive feedback loop will reinforce an initial change in
a variable, causing a similar change in the same direction and a negative feedback loop will
counteract an initial change and either completely eliminate or eliminate only some part of
the initial change. Sometimes, negative feedback loops counteract stronger than the initial
change, causing over correction, which may eventually result in growing oscillations. In
our diagrams, loop-polarity is shown in the middle of the diagram.
4 Self-efficacy —_j
Efforts towards
4+) obtaining the goal
Perceived
<——__
success Current GPA.
ue
Fig. 2 Boost or collapse in confidence
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ON PERFORMANCE DYNAMICS, -8-
In all our analysis, we will assume ceteris paribus. The first important positive
feedback loop is depicted in Figure 2. If, for some reason, there is an initial increase in
self-efficacy, this will increase the efforts towards obtaining the goal. This will either
contribute to the ascent of current GPA or slow down its decline. In the following part, the
effects on self-efficacy when current GPA is increasing, will be elaborated upon. Perceived
success will then tend to increase, which in turn will result in a further increase in self-
efficacy, causing all variables to continue to increase over time. Thus, we will end up with
a boost in self-efficacy. Similarly, if, for some reason, there is an initial decrease in self-
efficacy, this will decrease the efforts towards obtaining the goal. This will consequently
either slow down the ascent of current GPA or cause it to decline. When focusing on the
latter, perceived success will tend to decrease. This will lead to a further decrease in self-
efficacy in turn, causing all variables to continue to decrease over time. Thus, we will end
up with a collapse in self-efficacy.
In summary, the first important positive feedback loop depicted in Figure 2 explains
how self-efficacy either increases or collapses over time. When this loop is in charge,
success brings further success and failure brings further failure. This loop acts very quickly
as it involves no delayed causal effects.
Efforts towards
obtaining the goal
+ +
Perceived “~~
success Current GPA
+
~ CG
Satisfaction
“es Expected Level of
” Satisfaction
Fig. 3 Associative learning
The second important loop in our conceptual model is also a positive feedback loop
(Figure 3). Thus, it will either produce a build-up or collapse behavior. If a person believes
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ON PERFORMANCE DYNAMICS, -9-
that one’s efforts are bringing success (e.g., an increase in GPA), this will increase the
expectancy that one will experience satisfaction when the goal is attained again, which will
result in an increase in the efforts towards obtaining the goal. In time, increased efforts
bring further success. Thus, the person learns in time that one’s efforts bring success. On
the contrary, if a person believes that one’s efforts are not bringing success (e.g., a
decrease in GPA), this will decrease the efforts, which in time will result in a further
decrease in success. Thus, the person learns in time that one’s efforts do not bring success.
Similar to the first loop (Figure 2), when this second loop (Figure 3) is in charge, success
brings further success and failure brings further failure. However, its effect on the
dynamics is slower compared to the first loop as it involves a delayed effect (i.e., the effect
of satisfaction on the expected level of satisfaction; delayed effects are represented with
two short parallel lines on the casual link between variables).
Efforts towards
obtaining the goal
Current GPA
Ba
Valence of
the goal
CG,
Fig. 4 Value of the goal (first loop)
The third important loop in our conceptual model is a negative feedback loop (Figure
4). An increase in GPA will decrease the value of the goal (i-e., valence) in time. A
decrease in the valence of the goal will decrease the efforts toward obtaining the goal,
which in turn have a negative effect on the GPA. However, a decrease in GPA will
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ON PERFORMANCE DYNAMICS, -10-
increase the valence of the goal in time. An increase in the valence of the goal will increase
the efforts toward obtaining the goal, which in turn has a positive effect on the GPA.
Therefore, if this third loop (Figure 4) is in charge, both an improvement or a deterioration
in GPA will be counteracted. If the person is adjusting one’s behavior relatively fast, this
loop may possibly produce growing oscillations and if the person is adjusting one’s
behavior relatively slowly, this loop may possibly cause damping oscillations.
Efforts towards
obtaining the goal
ats
A Satisfaction
Expected Level of
+ pe
Valence a he Satisfaction
the goal
Fig. 5 Value of the goal (second loop)
The fourth important loop in our conceptual model also concerns a negative feedback
loop (Figure 5). Similar to the negative feedback loop depicted in Figure 4, it will produce
a counteracting behavior. This feedback loop (Figure 5) shares four variables with the
previous negative feedback loop (Figure 4). Therefore, it generates a similar kind of
behavior when it is in charge. However, its effect on the dynamics is slower as it involves
two delayed effects instead of just one.
ee
Ability
ee
Self-efficacy ——_j
Efforts towards
obtaining the goal
Fig. 6 Knowledge and skills acquisition (main loop)
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ON PERFORMANCE DYNAMICS, -ll-
The fifth important feedback loop in our model (Figure 6) is a positive feedback
loop. The efforts that one spends towards obtaining the goal will improve one’s ability in
time, which in turn improves self-efficacy and consequently increases efforts towards
obtaining the goal. On the other hand, a decrease in efforts results in less practice and will
produce a decline in ability over time, which in turn deteriorates self-efficacy and
consequently decreases efforts towards obtaining the goal. Similar to the first and second
loops (Figure 2 and Figure 3), when this loop (Figure 6) is in charge, success brings further
success and failure brings further failure.
The delayed effect of efforts towards obtaining the goal and ability introduces three
more feedback loops; one positive and two negative loops. Thus, there are four feedback
loops passing through this single causal link (Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9),
where two of these feedback loops are negative and two are positive. If there were no
causal effects between efforts towards obtaining the goal and ability, all of these feedback
loops would vanish. Accordingly, these feedback loops are weak because (1) when positive
and negative loops pass through the same causal link, they cancel out each other’s effects;
(2) they share almost all of their variables with the aforementioned feedback loops.
+
Ability VAN
Efforts towards
obtaining the goal
"4 +
Perceived “~~ -
success Current GPA“
at . .
Satisfaction
Pf Expected Level of
Es Satisfaction
Figure 7. Knowledge and skills acquisition (secondary positive feedback loop)
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ON PERFORMANCE DYNAMICS -12-
+
Ability
A
Efforts towards
obtaining the goal
+
Current GPA“).
Satisfaction
. Expected Level of
+ . i"
Valence oo the Satisfaction
the goal
Figure 8. Knowledge and skills acquisition (first of the secondary negative feedback
loops)
+
Ability
A
Efforts towards
obtaining the goal
+
Current GPA“
Valence of
the goal
Figure 9. Knowledge and skills acquisition (second of the secondary negative
feedback loops)
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ON PERFORMANCE DYNAMICS, -13-
4. Conclusions
In this study, we constructed a conceptual model of performance dynamics. We
specifically focused on how GPA of a student changes over time. In constructing the
model, we utilized the existing theories in psychology and feedback perspective of systems
thinking/system dynamics. The model focuses on the variables in the presence of a set
goal, thus excluding the goal setting processes. The model variables are explained and the
feedback loops were discussed in detail. As this paper is not solely directed to an SD
audience, explanations about the meaning of positive and negative causal effects and
positive and negative feedback loops are included as well. In future studies, we plan to use
this conceptual model in explaining different modes of behavior observed in performance
dynamics, such as: “an initial increase followed by a collapse’
‘a sustained high level
performance”, “an initial decrease in performance followed by a success”, “an oscillating
performance around an average performance level”, “an unavoidable, sustained weak
performance”, etcetera.
This model can also support future studies that aim to construct stock-flow model of
performance dynamics. There is a possibility of widening the focus of the paper by
incorporating “goal setting processes” within the model. We also hope that our paper will
set another example of utilizing systems thinking/system dynamics tools in psychology.
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by a Marie Curie International Reintegration Grant
within the 7th European Community Framework Programme (grant agreement number:
PIRGO7-GA-2010-268272) and also by Bogazici University Research Fund (grant no:
6924-13A03P1).
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ON PERFORMANCE DYNAMICS, -14-
References
Asseburg, R., & Frey, A. (2013). Too hard, too easy, or just right? The relationship
between effort or boredom and ability-difficulty fit. Psychological Test and
Assessment Modeling, 55(1), 92-104.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory
(pp. 607). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control (pp. 604). New York, NY: W. H.
Freeman.
Brown, S.A., Venkatesh, V., Kuruzovich, J.N., and Massey, A.P. (2008). Expectation
confirmation: An examination of three competing models. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 2008, 52-66.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of
training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 678-707.
Darnon, C., Dompnier, B., Delmas, F., Pulfrey, C., & Butera, F. (2009). Achievement goal
promotion at university: Social desirability and social utility of mastery and
performance goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(1), 119-134.
Domina, T., Conley, AM., & Farkas, G. (2011). The link between educational expectations
and effort in the college-for-all era. Sociology of Education, 84(2), 93-112.
Dompnier, B., Darnon, C., Meier, E., Brandner, C., Smeding, A., & Butera, F. (2015).
Improving low achievers’ academic performance at university by changing the
social value of mastery goals. American Educational Research Journal, 52(4), 720-
749.
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ON PERFORMANCE DYNAMICS, -15-
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach.
In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & J. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology (Vol. 4, 2nd ed., pp. 271-340.). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychology Press.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and
affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311-328.
Landy, F. J. & Conte, J. M. (2013). Work in the 21" century: An introduction to industrial
and organizational psychology (4th ed., pp. 589). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Levi, U., Einav, M., Ziv, O., Raskind, I., & Margalit, M. (2014). Academic expectations
and actual achievements: The roles of hope and effort. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 29(3), 367-386.
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 4, 309-336.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting
and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G.P. (1981). Goal setting and task
performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.
Sommerfeld, A. K. (2015). Education as a collective accomplishment: How personal, peer,
and parent expectations interact to promote degree attainment. Social Psychology of
Education, doi: 10.1007/s11218-015-9325-7.
CONCEPTUAL MODEL ON PERFORMANCE DYNAMICS, -16-
Stamatogiannakis, A. (2013). The perceived difficulty of attainment versus maintenance
goals: Why ‘reaching for a little more! seems easier than simply ‘holding on'.
Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences,
73(8-A)(E).
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation (pp. 397). New York, NY: Wiley.
