1

PSY 6450 Unit 7

Performance and Satisfaction

The Hawthorne Studies

Intrinsic “Motivation” & Extrinsic Rewards

Schedule: Monday and Wednesday, Lecture Monday, 12/01, Exam

2

SO1: Two major speculations about the relationship between performance and

satisfaction Most correlational studies have found low to

moderate positive relationships between performance and satisfaction Satisfaction causes performance

Most common one If workers are satisfied, they will perform well If workers are not satisfied they will not perform well

Performance causes satisfaction If workers perform well, they will be satisfied If workers do not perform well, they will not be satisfied

In either case, it is hypothesized that there is a causal relationship between the two

3

SO2: Causal vs. correlational analyses and Coke example

Most studies that have examined the relationship between performance and satisfaction have been correlational. However, you cannot determine causality from

correlational research and therein lies much of the problem with respect to this topic

Three potential interpretations of a strong correlation between two variables

A B

B A

CA

B

4

Coke example, analysis and diagrams Early 1950s, polio epidemic Studies found that coke consumption was highly

related to incidences of polioA B

Coke causes polio

B APolio causes people to drink Coke

CA

BWarm, moist climate caused both polio and people todrink coke, resulting in a high correlation between cokeand polio

(polio virus; exactly what happened with p&s: third variable, way rewards are delivered, headed)

5

Performance

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low

Low

High

High

High positive, high negative relationship between performance and satisfaction

High positive relationship People who perform well are satisfied People who don’t perform well are not

satisfied

High negative relationship People who perform well are not satisfied People who don’t perform well are

satisfied

(Before going on, I just want to make sure you understand what is meant by - set the stage for SO3, click for line; performance on x axis)

Performance

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low

Low

High

High

6

SO3: Zero relationship - 3 situationsBe able to draw diagrams for the exam

Random relationship Some who perform well are satisfied, some

are not Some who don’t perform well are satisfied,

some are not

Satisfaction is the same for all, performance differs

All are relatively satisfied or None are relatively satisfied

Performance is the same for all, satisfaction differs

All are relatively high performers or All are relatively low performers

(Both sides of the same coin - be careful!!))

Performance

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low

Low

High

High

Performance

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low

Low

High

High

Performance

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low

Low

High

High

Performance

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low

Low

High

High

Performance

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low

Low

High

High

7

SO4: Skinner’s analysis 4A: Feelings and emotions are accompaniments of

behavior, not causes of behavior 4B: Both operant behaviors and feelings/emotions are

the products of the same environmental variables/causes

4C: Satisfaction does not cause operant behavior (performance); rather it simply occurs at the same time because it is a conditioned response elicited by the same environmental variables (in this case, rewards) that are responsible for the operant behavior (performance)

(same pt and analysis as self-eficacy, U3)

8

SO4D: Skinner’s analysis of feelings; relevance to satisfaction/performance

B: Performance A: Satisfaction

Most traditional I/O psychologists maintain that there is a causal relationship between satisfaction and performance:

A: Satisfaction B: Performance

Skinner’s analysis would suggest, instead:

C:A

B

Satisfaction

PerformanceEnvironmental stimuluse.g., receipt of reward

9

SOs 5&6: What determines the relationship according to the authors? (SO5) The type of reward system (SO6) Describe reward systems and hypothesis

about relationship between performance and satisfaction A random reward system will result in zero relationship

between performance and satisfaction A positively contingent reward system will result in a high

positive relationship between performance and satisfaction What we usually refer to just as a “contingent relationship” between

performance and rewards A negatively contingent reward system will result in a high

negative relationship between performance and satisfaction

(the answer to this sets the stage for the entire article; state the answer to SO5, but come back to it after we do SO6)

10

SO7: Behavioral analysis: Learn diagrams Key to the analysis

Rewards cause/elicit satisfaction This is no different than what Skinner said about

piece rate pay: Piece rate pay may evoke feelings of confidence,

certainty of success, and enjoyment He could well have added “evoke feelings of

satisfaction”

R (working) –––> Sr (rewards) CS (rewards) –––> CR (satisfaction)

(very important diagram; what you want to keep in mind is that rewards cause satisfaction, don’t forget the CSCR!!)

11

SO7, behavioral diagrams, cont. Positively-contingent rewards should lead to a high

positive relationship Good performers are rewarded Poor performers are not, Hence, the good performers who receive rewards will be

satisfied and the poor performers who do not will not be satisfied

No CS (rewards), hence no CR (no satisfaction)Poor performers ––> No Sr (rewards)

Good performers ––> Sr (rewards: sustain good performance)CR (satisfaction)CS (rewards)

(note both diagrams are important!!)

12

SO7, behavioral diagrams, cont.

Negatively-contingent rewards: negative relationship Poor performers are rewarded Good performers are not, Hence, the poor performers who receive rewards will be

satisfied and the good performers who do not will not be satisfied

No CS (rewards), hence no CR (no satisfaction)Good performers ––> No Sr (rewards)

Poor performers ––> Sr (rewards: sustain poor performance)CR (satisfaction)CS (rewards)

13

SO7, behavioral diagrams, cont. Random rewards: No relationship

Equal number of good and poor performers are rewarded and Equal number of good and poor performers are not rewarded Hence, the good and poor performers who receive rewards

will be satisfied and the good and poor performers who do not receive rewards will not be satisfied

No CS (no rewards), hence no CR (no satisfact)1/2 good and 1/2 poor performers ––> No Sr (no rewards)

1/2 good and 1/2 poor performers ––> Sr (rewards: sustain performance, good or bad)CR (satisfaction)CS (rewards)

14

SO8: Why is it that real high correlations btwn performance & satisfaction are unlikely?

Some (many) rewards in the work setting are not going to be contingent upon performance:

• Health benefits• Retirement plans• Flexible work hours• Day care availability• Good social relationships with coworkers• Responsibility• Independence

(Click; provide at least some examples; survey of why staff work at WMU; remember thecomponents of a compensation system from last unit - security)

15

Cherrington et al., brief overview

Participants: 90 undergraduates (groups of 7-9) Task: Scoring tests Sessions: Two back-to-back one hour sessions Procedures

Ps were told they would be paid $1.00 an hour (1971 wages) and that the top 50% in the group would receive an additional $1.00 bonus

Es picked up the tests every 10 minutes so they had a measure of performance by the end of the session

The Ps were paid after the first hour. They were told the top performers received the $1.00 bonus

The Ps also completed a self-report satisfaction questionnaire

16

Cherrington et al., brief overview Procedures, cont.

Although Ps were told the top performers received the bonus and the bottom performers did not, in fact the bonus was given to 1/2 of the top performers and 1/2 of the bottom performers. This means that: 50% of the top performers received rewards while 50% did not 50% of the bottom performers received rewards while 50% did not

After a 5-min break, the whole procedure was repeated At the end of the second hour, the monetary bonus was given to

the same individuals who received it after the first hour Ps once again completed a self-report satisfaction questionnaire

(SO12) Note that the total group represents a random reward group or system Rewards: 1/2 of top performers and 1/2 of bottom performers No rewards: 1/2 of top performers and 1/2 of bottom performers

17

Cherrington et al., brief review

The authors then did several comparisons by dividing the Ps into different groups after the study was over (between grp) They compared the (a) performance and (b) satisfaction of:

Rewarded group vs. Nonrewarded group Appropriately rewarded group vs. Inappropriately rewarded group

They then compared the relationship between satisfaction and performance for the: Total group = random reward system Appropriately rewarded group = positively contingent reward system Inappropriately rewarded group = negatively contingent reward

system

18

SO9: Results for satisfaction forReward vs. Nonreward groups Reward group

21 top performers 21 bottom performers

Nonreward group 21 top performers 21 bottom performers

Knowing nothing else but: Rewards (CS) ––> Satis (CR) What would you predict the results would be? Would satisfaction be:

Equal for the two groups? Greater for the reward group than the nonreward group, or Greater for the nonreward group than the reward group?

Why?

(42 Ps who performed above md, 42 below, threw out 6 who fell at the md; answer not on click)

19

SO10A: Explain sub groups that comprised the appropriately and inappropriately rewarded groups.

Appropriate Reward Group 21 top performers: rewards 21 bottom performers: no rewards

Inappropriate Reward Group 21 top performers: no rewards 21 bottom performers: rewards

Appropriate Reward Group?

SO10B: What type of reward system is represented by each of the above?

Inappropriate Reward Group?

Positively contingent reward system

Negatively contingent reward system

20

SO11: Results for satisfaction of Appropriate Reward Group vs. Inappropriate Reward Group

Appropriate Reward Group 21 top performers: rewards 21 bottom performers: no rewards

Inappropriate Reward Group 21 top performers: no rewards 21 bottom performers: rewards

Knowing nothing else but: Rewards (CS) ––> Satis (CR) What would you predict the results would be? Would satisfaction be:

Equal for the two groups Greater for the appropriate reward group than the inappropriate

group, or Greater for the inappropriate group than the appropriate group?

Why?

(answer not on click!)

21

SO13A: The relationship between performance and satisfaction for the three reward systems

Total group of Ps = random reward system Zero relationship between performance and satisfaction

Appropriately rewarded group = positively contingent reward group Positive relationship between performance and satisfaction

Inappropriately rewarded group = negatively contingent reward system Negative relationship between performance and

satisfaction

13B Why the results make sense referring to subgroups

22

Random reward group21 low performers who did not receive rewards

21 low performers who received rewards

21 high performers who did not receive rewards

21 high performers who received rewards

Equal number of performers in each quadrant, that is:

21 low performers who did not receive rewards: not satisfied21 low performers who received rewards: satisfied21 high performers who did not receive rewards: not satisfied21 high performers who received rewards: satisfied

Performance

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low

Low

High

High

21 21

21 21

13B Why the results make sense referring to subgroups

23

Appropriately Rewarded Group21 low performers who did not receive rewards

21 high performers who received rewards

Performance

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low

Low

High

High

21

21

Inappropriately Rewarded Group21 low performers who received rewards

21 high performers who did not receive rewards

Performance

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Low

Low

High

High

21

21

(last slide on this – next Hawthorne studies)

24

Hawthorne studies, intro

As I indicated in U1, the Hawthorne studies are often cited as one of the most important episodes in the history of I/O psychology and management – putting the “O” in I/O

Article by Parsons, published in Science in 1974, required reading for all behavior analysts, certainly for those in OBM

You have probably heard about the “Hawthorne effect” as it relates to experimental psychology -

Lest you think this is “passe,” people talk about this effect all the time

(but, it wasn’t the intention of researchers to do that; for the most part, they were looking at the same type of variablesthat had been examined in past: work breaks and duration of work )

25

SO14: The “Hawthorne Effect” Changes in the behavior of participants in a

study that are NOT due to the IV being examined, but instead are due to the fact that the participants know they are in a study

(study objectives are pretty straightforward, thus I am only going to cover a few in lecture)

26

SO15: How many studies and the dates of those studies? Most textbooks only refer to the “light

illumination” study in the relay assembly test room - that was only a minor study in the series of studies

Seven studies conducted between 1924 and 1932 at the Chicago plant of Western Electric (located officially in Hawthorne, IL)

Relay Assembly Test Room Study

27

What are relays?

Electromagnetic switches used in telephone circuits so calls could be automatically directed to the correct place (very basic and unsophisticated definition!!). They have been replaced by computer chips.

Relays had from 26-52 parts; most had between 34 & 38.

Consider it a complex assembly task.

28

SO18: First Relay Assembly Test Room: Incentive system and how it was altered

Prior to the study, the assemblers were paid a base salary and received group monetary incentives There were 100+ workers in the unit When group performance exceeded a specified standard,

then each assembler received the same amount of incentive based on the group’s productivity

(absolutely critical to mention the group incentive plan)

29

SO18: First Relay Assembly Test Room: Incentive system and how it was altered

During the study, the pay system itself was not altered But, the five workers who were participants were moved to a

separate room, and their group incentives were based on only the performance of the five workers - now their performance contributed 20% to the group’s performance rather than 1%

And, in fact, the wages of these five workers (because of their increased productivity) went from $16.00 a week to $28-$50.00 a week.

30

SO19: The other important difference in the Relay Assembly Test Room To accurately measure performance, the researchers

implemented a new measurement system that also provided feedback to the workers Chutes were located at each of the assembler’s work

station. When an assembler completed a relay, she would put it in the chute which automatically incremented a counter. The counters displayed both individual and group performance and were readily in view of the assemblers at all times

Readings from the counters were taken by the supervisor every 1/2 hour

At the end of the day, a report was issued and posted indicating the number of relays each worker had assembled and the total group’s productivity

Relay Assembly Test Room

31

32

SO22: Bank Wiring Room According to Homans, what factor made workers

maintain rather than increase their performance and also made them punish members who worked too fast even though workers were paid incentives? Workers believed that management would “lower the piece

work rate” if they increased performance; and thus They would have to work harder to get the same amount of

pay they were currently getting What does “lower the piece work rate mean?”

Decreasing the amount of incentive that is paid for each part that is completed.

(so ever since the days of the Hawthorne we have known that workers will restrict their outputif you increase the standards (lower the piece rate), yet this is still the #1 error mgrs. make with goalsand incentives)

33

SO23: Cohesive groups People often believe that “cohesive” groups will perform

better than “non-cohesive” groups. The results from the Bank Wiring Room dispel that myth.

While it is true that “cohesive” groups are likely to control/affect the performance of group members more effectively than non-cohesive groups, cohesive groups can perform better or worse than non-cohesive groups.

What determines whether cohesive groups will perform better or worse than non-cohesive groups? (for the exam) The types of social/group contingencies that members

implement within the group. Do members reinforce or punish high levels of productivity?

(that is, members in cohesive groups act more similarly; “peer pressure”, social reinforcers/punishers are more potent; but that does not mean be more productive or “do the right thing” – fraternities – alcohol poisoning; continues on the next slide)

34

SO23: Cohesive groups, cont. Note that the group contingencies were very different

in the Bank Wiring Room than in the first Relay Assembly Test Room study. In the Bank Wiring Room, workers punished individuals who

performed either too well or too poorly In the Relay Assembly Test Room – first study, the top three

workers ostracized and punished the two poor performers, leading to their replacement in the study

35

When cohesive groups go wrong Hollywood Division of the Los Angeles Police

Department, early 1980s Many division officers and detectives were extensively

involved in property crimes They would break into retail stores and then radio in that

they were responding to the ringing of burglar alarms The placed the stolen goods in the trunks of their cars and

the proceeded to “investigate” the break-ins The officers later met at specific locations to hide and sell

the stolen merchandise Officers who were not involved knew about it, but did not

report them

(aamodt example)

36

The “Real” Hawthorne Effect (NFE)

“Generalizing from the particular situation at Hawthorne, I would define the Hawthorne effect as the confounding that occurs if experimenters fail to realize how the consequences of subjects’ performance affect what subjects do.”

To avoid such a confound, “Don’t let subjects see the data or reward them according to their performance. But such precautions are not the same thing as keeping subjects ‘unaware’ that they are in an experiment.”

Parsons, p. 930

INTRINSIC “MOTIVATION” AND EXTRINSIC REWARDS

37

(This area of controversy, by the way, is one of the reason I believe that every single person trainedin applied fields, including OBM, should have a very strong conceptual/theoretical background in BA;otherwise, a person might well be led astray by these type of issues when they come up; and/or notbe able to respond adequately)

Intro, Intrinsic “motivation” I am including this material because of a book

that was published by Daniel H. Pink in 2010: Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us

It’s become very popular in business and industry Bestselling list: NY Times, Wall Street Journal,

Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle & Publishers Weekly

Bestseller in Japan and United Kingdom Being translated into 32 languages

38

(has anyone read it?, former speechwriter for Al Gore, BA from Northwestern, JD from Yale Lawwritten 3 other best sellers; speaker circuit for corporations, associations & universities on economic transformation and the new workplace )

Intro, Intrinsic “motivation” Articles have appeared in the NY Times, Harvard

Business Review, Wired, Fast Company and The Sunday Telegraph

Appeared on CNN, CNBC, ABC, NPR, etc., etc., etc. In 2011, Thinkers50 ranked him as one of the 50

most influential business thinkers in the world

My consulting colleagues in OBM say the same thing as I: He is “driving them crazy”

(to paraphrase Aubrey Daniels)

39

(his publicity material states that he uses “50 years of behavioral science to overturn the conventionalwisdom about human motivation and offer a more effective path to high performance.”; felt it necessaryto talk about this a bit; I’m afraid it is not going to go away for a while and it may get worse before better)

Intro, Intrinsic “Motivation”

Motivation 1.0: The ancient human drive to survive

Motivation 2.0: Rewards and punishment Motivation 3.0: Intrinsic, innate rewards that

come from autonomy, mastery, and purpose

40(clearly, I am not going to do justice to his position; 2.0 replaced 1.0 and is where we are now)

Intro, Intrinsic “Motivation” Carrots and sticks: The seven deadly flaws (p. 57)

They can extinguish intrinsic motivation They can diminish performance They can crush creativity They can crowd out good behavior They can encourage cheating, shortcuts, and unethical

behavior They can become addictive They can foster short-term thinking

41

(his term: pejorative; déjà vu all over again – channeling Deci & Ryan, and Alfie Kohn; we dealt withthese issues 20 years ago; dissertation, 1989 paper, 2 studies, 1995 paper and talks, Cameron’s work;instead of reinventing the wheel, use articles that I wrote back then – it doesn’t address all of these, butcomes close enough; romantic view of behavior; also realistic – rewards can cause problems; but reward systems are to blame, not the rewards themselves – make this point in both articles)

SO27: Why the concern that extrinsic rewards may decrease intrinsic motvn Two types of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic

and person’s behavior is primarily motivated one or the other

Intrinsic motivation is innate, and intrinsically motivated behavior (which is self-initiated) is believed to be more creative, spontaneous, and flexible than extrinsically motivated behavior

Thus, the concern that extrinsic rewards decrease much highly valued behavior

42(two articles, written for behavior analysts, the other for a lay audience; study objectives over thescholarly one; Pink’s position is that autonomy, mastery, and purpose are innate drives)

SO29: Define “intrinsic motivation behaviorally”; give an original example Intrinsically controlled behavior is behavior

maintained by consequences that are the natural and automatic results of responding

In contrast, extrinsically controlled behavior is behavior controlled by consequences that are external to the task (often programmed by our social environment)

From a behavioral perspective, no functional difference between these types of behaviors – they are still controlled by rewards

43(traditionally, int motvn has been defined by default; that is behaviors that occurs in the apparentabsence of extrinsic rewards has been and is still said to be “intrinsically motivated.”; automatic pun)

SO29: Examples of automatic reinfmt Painting: when you paint a picture, your painting

behavior is automatically reinforced as the picture begins to form by each brush stroke

Jigsaw puzzle: when doing a puzzle, your behavior is automatically reinforced by pieces fitting together and by progress toward completing the puzzle

44

SO29: Examples of automatic reinfmt Skinner, a complex example: when learning how to write,

or writing a paper, “the important reinforcers are largely automatic: a sentence comes out right, it says something interesting, if fits another sentence.”

“If these automatic reinforcers are powerful enough, the student may continue to write and improve his writing even though he receives few if any comments”

“Money, grades, and honors must be husbanded carefully, but the automatic reinforcement of being right and moving forward are inexhaustible.”

45(Holland & Skinner, 1961, page 160; Skinner, Technology of teaching, 1968, p. 158; learning to read;Harry Potter books – thick, long books – The hunger games)

SO30: Innate vs. innate or learned Traditional accounts generally assume that

intrinsic motivation is innate* Thus, signs of self-determination (autonomy),

competence (mastery), and control over the environment function as unconditioned reinforcers

Behavioral interpretation makes no such assumption: Intrinsic reinforcers, like extrinsic reinforcers, may be unconditioned or conditioned reinforcers, or generalized conditioned reinforcers

46(this is Pink’s position for autonomy, mastery, & purpose – his motivation 3.0; exception, Lepper & Greenewho talk about intrinsic interest, not intrinsic motivation and maintain that interest in a task might be learned)

Innate or learned, cont. but this slide NFE

For example, Skinner stated (SHB, 1953)

Behaviors that occur in the absence obvious rewards may be maintained by control over the environment, and that control may function as either generalized conditioned or generalized unconditioned reinforcement

Instrinsic reinforcers could also be a simple form conditioned reinforcement in which stimuli associated the task have been correlated with approval, praise, or some other form of reinforcement

VB – when a child is learning to talk, sounds that mimic the parent or adult are automatically reinforcing: show that when teaching VB to autistic children for whom that may not be true

47

(if you want more detail, you can read my quote in the paper; baby’s rattle – rattle might be unconditioned rft – evolutionary history of “making the world behave”; mn pt – intrinsic motivationIs innate vs. a behavioral position in which intrinsic consequences can be unconditioned or learned )

SO31: Irreversibility of intrinsic motivation and interest? Explanations by Deci & Lepper maintain that once intrinsic

motivation is lost it may never be regained That position assumes that the cognitive and motivational processes

responsible for its weakening are not reversible That is, this position appears to indicate that once intrinsic

motivation or intrinsic interest is lost/damage, it can never be regained: it can be damaged or destroyed but not restored If rewards are removed and the individual engages in the formerly intrinsically-

motivated task (let’s say painting or even reading), intrinsic motivation or intrinsic interest will not be regained

That asymmetry seems odd to me: Are the cognitive and motivational processes associated with the loss of intrinsic motivation and interest so powerful and overwhelming, they won’t reverse?

48

SO32A&B: Type of rewards that does appear to result in post-reward decrmts.

Task contingent: when rewards are provided for simply engaging in a task, irrespective of quality or quantity

This is “of no great social import because rewards are rarely showered on people regardless of how they behave”

Banudra, 1987

49

SO33: Type of rewards that do not result in decrements Success-contingent rewards: when individuals receive

rewards for “success” – performing well Success-contingent rewards sustain or increase

intrinsically controlled behavior This effect is robust and consistent

This is recognized by even strong opponents of performance-contingent rewards; yet they still argue against the use of any type of contingent rewards (i.e., Deci & Ryan, Kohn) This has always seemed strange to me

50(Pink seems to argue a little more specifically, against if-then rewards; rewards after the fact are OKin some cases)

SO34: Deci and my reply to Deci Deci:

Rewards that are appropriately linked to performance, representing positive feedback in an informational context, ought not to be detrimental. The cost to the system, however, in signifying good performance through the use of performance-contingent rewards is that many people end up receiving the message that they are not doing very well and this is likely to be amotivating

51(my reply next)

SO34: My reply to Deci Dickinson

If, under performance-contingent reward systems, “many people end up receiving the message that they are not doing very well”..the fault lies not in the contingent rewards, but with the performance standards upon which the rewards are based

I should have added “or the reward system is a competitive system that divides employees into winners and losers”

52

SO35: What critical difference in nonbehavioral and behavioral studies could account for different results? Nonbehavioral researchers have reported post-reward

decreases; most behavioral researchers have not and in the few cases where decreases occurred they only lasted 1-2 sessions post-reward

Most nonbehavioral researchers have purposely used nonreinforcing rewards, while behavioral researchers have used only reinforcing rewards Williams (1980) demonstrated that “unattractive

rewards” decreased performance, “attractive rewards” did not, however, attractiveness based on survey data

53

(next slide research design, will help you understand. why? Did not want results to be confounded by task exposure, boredom, etc.; Reinforcers less likely to generate feelings of begin controlled and less countercontrol than nonreinforcing rewards )

To understand SO35: Basic research paradigm (nfe) Pre-reward baseline session/phase during which task

performance is measured Reward session/phase during which rewards are provided

for task performance Post-reward session/phase during which rewards are not

provided (return to baseline) If task performance is lower than initial baseline, the conclusion is

that the rewards have damaged intrinsic motivation/interest

54

Why is the post-reward session/phase considered the key phase and determination of whether rewards have decreased intrinsic motivation?

During the second phase, when rewards are being provided, you can’t tell the extent to which task performance is being controlled by intrinsic rewards and extrinsic rewards.

SO36: NFE, Bandura’s quote

Social commentators who decry the use of extrinsic incentives rarely foreswear such rewards for themselves when it comes to salary increases, book royalties, and performance fees, for fear the currency of the realm will sap their interest. Valued rewards are accepted as though innocuous to oneself but harmful to others

55(thus, as I ended the article, this whole area is:)

Much ado about nothing!!

56

(last slide – no sos over the other article; very curious to know whether any of you have encountered this objection to rewards in an applied setting…)

57

Questions?Comments?