CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
THE ,.EFFICACY OF SELF-CONTROL PRINCIPLES
AND THE THERAPIST'S ROLE IN THE TREATMENT OF
HETEROGENIOUS TARGET BEHAVIORS
A graduate thesis submitted as a requirement for partial fulfillment of the Master
of Arts degree in
Psychology
by
Paul A. Gabrinetti
June, 1976
A graduate thesis submitted as a requirement
for partial
fulfillm~nt
of the Master of Arts
degree.
Dr. pee
S~epherd~Lpok
tlr·~ eo
P}156 j ni ko/l'f/ J
Dr. Ronald M. 'ooctd'r 1chairman)
i
DEDICATION
I would like to take a moment out to pay special
tribute to those who have augemented my personal endeavors
these last three years.
a lot of experiences.
This work is a culmination of
What I have ultimately gotten as
a result of my contact and experiences with
~vents,
is far more than their sum total.
peo~le
and
The truth for
--
me lies beyond the lable or the title that usually appears
on the package or book.
So to those who herein I acknow-
ledge, that is what you have given me, and for that I am
grateful.
I would like to thank my committee chairman, Ron
Doctor, who has
gi~en
guidance over the last three years.
Also I would like to thank Dee Shepherd-Look who combined
joviality and frankness so well.
A special thanks goes
to Leo Pirojnikoff and Nora Weckler who validated and
supported me at the most important times, when I really
needed it.
To the entire staff at the Institute for Human
Studies, Art LeBlanc, Scott Westmoreland, Joe McNair, Ken
Lott, Gil Freitag, Bill Greuber, Judy Battles, and Lynn
Kurzynic.
I need to give special recognition to my parents
and my brothers, they have always been far more important
than I let them know.
ii
A special thanks to Tammy Gabrinetti, my sister-inlaw whose expertise has been invaluable in preparing this
manuscript.
Also thanks to Mrs. Elkin who typed this final
manuscript.
It is to all of you that I dedicate this work.
Paul A. Gabrinetti
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication
i i ;
Table of Contents ................................. iv
Abstract .....
v
tn trod uc t i o n
1
Problem.
5
Method Section ...•
5
Results and Discussion ...........••••.....•.••..•. 12
Bibliography.
Appendix I . . .
17
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
••••••••••••••••••••
Appendix I I. ...
19
25
....
Appendix III
'
26
Appendix I V...... .
27
Appendix V.
59
Appendix VI ....................................... 60
i v
ABSTRACT
THE EFFICACY OF SELF-CONTROL PRINCIPLES
AND THE THERAPIST'S ROLE IN THE TREATMENT OF
HETEROGENIOUS TARGET BEHAVIORS
by
Paul A. Gabrinetti
Master of Arts
Three treatment groups were used to test the
efficacy of a specific set of self-control principles on
subjects who chose behaviors to work on from a heterogenious list, and the effects of the therapist's role aiding
in the application of these principles.
the use of self-control principles for
heterogenious behaViors within a group.
Results support
t~e
treatment of
Results did not
give evidence to any additional effects as a result of
the th.erapist aiding subjects in the application of these
principles.
The implications of this research and recom-
mendations for
th~ir
application and further
discussed.
v
r~search
are
INTRODUCTION
Operant and respondent theories of learning have
provided a f:amework from which specific behavioral techniques have evolved for behavior change (Lazarus, 1971;
Ullman & Krasner, 1969; Wolpe & Lazarus, 1966).
Tradi-
tionally, behavioral techniques place the therapist in an
active role as change agent for inappropriate behavior.
Such techniques have effectively alleviated problem behaviors across a wide range of diagnostic categories
(Bandura, 1969;, Yates, 1975).
In the clinical use of behavioral techniques, the
therapist takes responsibility for teaching new behavior
(Fisher, 1973).
A drawback in the use of such techniques
theoretically is that without the therapist to teach new
behavior, the change process for each individual can at
best only be brought about by trial and error learning.
Traditional behavioral techniques do not necessarily make
provisions for individuals to plan
program of behavior change.
or direct their own
Consequently, the development
of new techniques that wou_ld minimize the therapist•s role
as change agent and give the individual a more active role
in his own change process would be of great benefit.
Recently, data based study by psychologists such
as Cautela,(l966), Mingler and Wolpe (1967), and Rehm and
Marston (1968) ·have indicated that substantial behavior
1
2
changes can occur as the result of self-directed programs
that use minimal therapist contact.
For
example~
Cautela (1966) presented two case
studies using a method called covert sensitization.
He
taught avers1ve therapy techniques to an obese subject and
to an alcoholic.
Cautela reported that his obese subject
met and maintained her weight loss goal and maintained the
loss at a seven month follow-up.
The subject who was treat-
ed for alcoholism stopped drinking and maintained her temperance at an eight month follow-up.
Mingler and Wolpe
(1967) taught a subject with a severe anxiety reaction to
public speaking situations to self-administer an automated
program of systematic desensitization along a hierarchy of
anxiety producing situations in his own home.
The subject
completed his desensitization hierarchy in seven home
sessions, reported no anxiety while he delivered a· long
speech at a work meeting which disagreed with all previous
speakers, and maintained these gains at an eight month
follow~up.
Rehm and Marston (1968) taught self-reinforce-
ment to 23 male subjects who reported anxiety in social
situations involving females.
Each subject
work~d
syst~ma­
tically up a hierarchy of in-vivo social situations.
Using
several dependent measures, the results indicated a significant.reduction of social anxiety in verbal report of heterosexual social situations.
Generalization to a reduction
of overall anxiety was also reported.
Along with these early studies in self directed
3
behavior change, Goldiamond (1965) presented a ratiunale
for the use of self control techniques within an operant
framework.
He states:
..... behavior is not an emergent property
of an organism or a propertY of its environment but is described by a functional
relation between the two. More technically,
given a specified behavior B and a specified
environmental variable x, a lawful relation
can be found, such that B=f(x), under certain
empirical constraining conditions c. This
implies that when the constraints c are set
up, and x is set at a stipulated value, then
B will have a stipulated value, given by the
value of B=f(x). When E sets x at that value,
he will get the B stipulated. This defines
the experimental control of behavior which
has been demonstrated repeatedly in operant
and other laboratories. When S himself sets
x at that value, he will get his own B, as
stipulated. This defines ·self-control.
11
Goldiamond also defines two types of self-control procedures.
The first procedure is to give each subject i·nstructions
how to change his own environment, thereby bringing his own
behavior under control.
The second procedure is to train
each subject in the functional analysis of behavior, and
have him determine the procedures to use.
The more recent studies in self-directed behavior
change have demonstrated the efficiency of self-directed
techniques in dealing with diverse behavioral problems
such as sadistic fantasy (Davison, 1968~
& Baker, 1968), smoking
(McFall~
phobias (Kahn
1970); Nolan, 1968),
psychotic behavior (Rutrier & Bugle, 1969) and overeating
(Harris, 1969; Stuart, 1968).
ture review, see Appendix 1).
(For a more complete litera-
4
The studies on self-directed behavior change since
Goldiamond•s (1965) definition, as well as the present
study have concentrated on teaching subjects to change
their own environment.
on one type
~f
These studies have also focused
behavior per study (e.g. anxiety) and indi-
c a ted that a t 1 e a s t mi n i ma l t he r a p i s t i ns t r uc t i o n wa s
needed in the application of self-directed techniques.
Since then, studies have focused on the application
of specific principles to individual behavior problems.
The question arises as to whether the same principles can
be used to change different behaviors within a group of
subjects.
The present study was designed to test the
efficiency of a set of self-directed behavior change principles in changing a variety of subject behaviors in a
single program.
In addition, the present study investigated
therapist effects in the application of these principles.
As previously mentioned, all studies to date employed at
least minimal help from the
exp~rimenter
in the application
of techniques to problems.
However, recent self-help books
by Foster (1974) and Watson and Tharp (1972) attempted to
totally
eliminat~
therapist contact when there was no
supportive data in the literature.
The implied assumption
of these types· of self-help books is that principles alone
are adequate to bring about change and a therapist is not
needed to aid in the application of such principles.
The
present study has helped to empirically test that assumption.
5
Problem:
The present study focused on two sets of variables.
The first set of variables tested the effects of a specific
set of self-control principles in modifying a heterogenous
set of target behaviors within a group of subjects.
The
second set of variables had to do with the therapist's role,
in particular, whether a therapist would be needed to aid
in the application of behavioral principles to change subject behaviors.
This was done by giving one group the
principles alone, and another group the principles with
:a therapist's help in applyini these principles.
The results of this study will point out important
!treatment variables in the application of self-directed
'behavior change principles.
They will also point out
whether or not a given set of behavioral principles can
I
:have a significant effect on a heterogeneous set of bel
I
i
ihaviors and whether or not a therapist significantly
i
'augments the effects of such principles when he is employed
'to aid in their application.
Method:
Design:
A three group comparison design was used with pre
iand post assessment of target behaviors.
. 1
i
This is similar
Jto Campbell and Stanley's (1963) design 4.
j
I
.I
I
L - - - - - - - - - - - - · - - - - - - - - - · · - -·-- --------·---
~-----------!
6
Subjects:
Subjects were selected from the undergraduate
population of California State University at Northridge.
These Ss were
in an
recruit~d
"Innov~tive
under the auspices of participating
experiment in behavior change''.
received a form letter prior to the first group.
II).
In the letter,
~s
All Ss
(Appendix
were informed that they would be
required to participate in weekly one hour sessions for a
period of six weeks.
Those Ss who could not participate
in all six sessions were excluded.
It was also explained
in the letter that each S would be required to choose one
of ten behaviors from a list, and work ori that behavior
during the forthcoming six weeks.
The list of target be-
haviors was selected from the current self-help literature
mentioned in the introduction.
The use of these behaviors
tested the hypothesis that specific set of self-coritrol
principles could be used in the modification of a heterogeneous set of target behaviors in·a group.
The list of
potential target behaviors was enclosed along with other
required information (See Appendix II) and collected prior
to the start of the first group
m~etings.
Ss were then
randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions.
A total of 63 Ss were assigned to one of three
groups.
The final data analysis was based ortly on those
Ss who completed all six
~ess{oris,
There were 12 males and 36 females.
and
~hese
totaled 48.
7
Measures:
During the first session of all three groups,
each S was once again given the list of the ten behaviors
(See Appendix III).
However this time Ss were asked to
rank order each behavior in terms of subjective difficulty
from 0-9 (0 being the easiest, 9 being the most difficult).
This list of rank ordered behaviors was collected from each
~·
Subsequently, I matched the behavior that each S had
previously chosen to work on with the subjective difficulty
score that each S gave to that behavior from the rank ordering.
The subjective difficulty score was used to determine
if the three groups chose behaviors that were of equal
difficulty.
A one-way analysis of variance was run be-
tween groups using these subjective difficulty scores.
No
significant differences were found.
The data for the analysis of the main effects were
obtained from
behavior.
~·s
self-monitoring the frequency of their
All groups were taught to self-monitor their
behavior and these data were collected weekly.
Raw data
for each s•s first (pre), and final (post) week were converted to a 7 point scale for statistical analysis.
The
first week•i frequency data was used as the baserate or
pre-score.
This data wai affixed at the zero point on the
scale (see scale below).
After the collection of the first
week•s ·data, is were asked to speculate upon how.the frequency of their behavior would be effected·if the treatment
~ad
a positive effect on their baserate behavi6r (e.g. w{th
8
a baserate of ten arguments with spouse per week, a goal
may be four per week over the following five week period).
This goal was then affixed to the +3 positive change from
baserate end of the scale.
~s
were also asked to speculate
on how the frequency of their behavior would be affected
from baserate if the treatment had a negative or detrimental
effect (e.g. arguments increase from 10- 16).
This goal
was then affixed to the -3 or negative change from baserate
end of the scale.
The analysis of main effects between and
within groups were based on the final weeks data that were
converted to a scaled score.
RAW SCORES
SCALED SCORES
16 Arguments with spouse
-3 Neg. Change from
Base rate
.:.2
14 Arguments
12 Arguments
10 Arguments
8 Arguments
6 Arguments
4 Arguments
with
with
with
with
with
with
spouse
spouse
spouse
spouse
spouse
spouse
-1
0 Baserate
+l
+2
+3 Pas. Change from
Base rate
Groups:
The behavioral principles employed in the experimental groups are similar to those principles mentioned by
Kanfer (1970).
(For a more detail~d outline and d~s~ription
of group protocols, see Appendix IV.)
The first session and a half, as well as the sixth
session were identical for all groups.
The beginning of
the first session was used to have each S rank
~rder
the
9
list of ten behaviors in terms of subjective difficulty.
(See Appendix III).
It was then announced to all Ss that
the purpose of the sessions would be to help each S make
progress in dealing with the target behavior.
All behaviors
were then checked to make sure the proper behavior was recorded for each S.
Ss were then instructed to define the
observable aspects of their behavior.
Ss were also in-
structed how to define and count their behavior.
This was
done to facilitate self-monitoring (McFall, 1970), by all
Ss.
Ss were given an assignment to begin gathering base-
rate data, which was a weekly assignment for all
out th€ experiment.
~s
through-
Data was collected weekly at the be-
ginning of each session.
The first half session nf the second meeting was
used for goalsetting.
On the basis of the first week's
data, each S was asked to speculate on the goals he might
set for the following five week period.
Ss were asked to
speculate on two goals for their behavior:
1)
The fre-
quency of the behavior they hoped to attain, and 2) The
frequency of behavior they may attain if all went badly
and the treatment had a detrimental effect.
This data,
~s
mentioned previously, was turned into scaled goals for
each subjects target behavior.
The sixth session for all Ss was used to collect
the final week's data, and to debrief all Ss as to the specific nature of the experiment.
10
Group I:
Group I was the control group for this study.
The
remainder of session two was spent discussing what each S
had discovered about his behavior as a result of the observation the previous week.
Ss were asked to continue look-
ing at the patterns of behavior that surrounded their performance of the target behavior they no longer wanted to
perform.
In addition if subjects·were trying to perform
a:new target behavior, they were asked to look at the behavior patterns that occurred in place of their new behavior.
In session three E asked Ss to discuss the patterns that
they had found, and to focus on the subjective feelings
associated with these patterns.
Ss were told these feelings
were blocks to their new behaviors.
S~
were asked to con-
tinue this exploration for the following week•s therapy.
Session four was used fat art therapy (Rhyne, 197j).
and crayons were used to facilitate each
their feelings onto paper.
projection of
Ss explained their drawings to
the group when they finished.
s~ssion
~s
Paper
Art therapy continued in
five using magazines, paper, scissors and glue to
make collage of their feelings.
At the close of session
five Ss described their collage to the group.
The control
group, then, received contact and therapy was focused primarily on their feelings.
Group II:
This was the first experimental group.
The second
half of session two was identical for groups II and III.
ll
A lecture was presented on principles of reinforcement.
Ss were also given three basic principles for behavior
change:
1) to reinforce a desired behavior; 2) to rein-
force a behavior that is incompatible with the behavior
that is bein~ changed, and 3) to change the discriminatory
stimulus for a behavior.
In session three members of
group II reviewed the principles from ·the previous week
and began to have each
on their own.
~develop
an intervention program
Ss were encouraged to use small steps to-
ward their terminal behavior.
E did not aid Ss in the
construction or implementation of their change programs.
Session four was used to review each Ss change program.
E did not aid in the construction or implementation of
these programs, rather he encouraged them to follow the
principles that were outlined.
Session five included a
review of programs and a short lecture on
of behavior.
generali.zatio~
Ss were asked if their behavior had general-
ized across settings and told that these principles could
be of use with other problem behaviors.
Group III:
This was the second experimental group.
In session
three members of group III received a review of the basic
principles of reinforcement from the previous week.
experimenter then began to help each
tion program.
~develop
The
an interven-
Subjects were encouraged to use small steps
toward their terminal behavior.
The experimenter was of
aid toSs in the construction and implementation of their
12
change programs.
change program.
Session four was used to review each Ss
Once again I aided in the implementation
and construction of these change programs.
Session five
-
included a review of programs and a short lecture on generalization across settings and told that these principles
could be of use with other problem behaviors.
Results and Discussion:
Results were analyzed on the basis of the 48 Ss who
completed the study by attending all six sessions.
broke down to 15 Ss in the control group, 16
first experimental group, and 17
mental group.
~s
~s
This
in the
in the second experi-
(A frequency table of the behaviors selected
by subjects may be found in Appendix VI).
With the present study it was of particular importance to determine whether or not the three groups, chose
behaviors that were of equal difficulty.
To determine this,
a one-way analysis of variance was run between groups using
the subjective difficulty score that
havior that he was going to work on.
found.
each~
No
gave to the be-
significan~e
was
An inqui·ry was made to determine if there was any
relationship between subjective weights and outcome using
a Pearson correlation coefficient.
found here .either.
No significance was
It can therefore be assumed that the
groups chose behaviors that were of equal difficulty thus
fa~ilitating
the unbiased analysis of data between groups.
It can be further assumed that the level of subjective
.
~
:.
.
'13
difficulty did not have a significant effect on the efficiency of the procedures used, as indicated by outcome
measures.
To test the two main hypothesis, a one-way analysis
of variance was run between the three groups using outcome
scores on the seven point scale.
(Pre-test scores had
been assigned zero weight so post-test or outcome scores
represented change).
(2,45)
=
A significant effect was found, F
4.277, p<.025.
A Duncan's multiple range test
was used to find out where the main effects were in order
to determine which hypothesis were supported.
The Duncan's
was run between groups; I + II = 1.08, p (.025; I+ III =
1.03; P<-025; and II+ III= .05 N.S.
These results support
the first hypothesis that the use of behavioral principles
significantly effected both experimental groups.
These
results fail to support the notion that a therapist could
significantly augment the effects of the principles that
were used.
Two analyses were run to determine the effects of
homework.
First a one-way analysis of variance was run be-
tween groups to find out if homework assignments were done
significantly more in any one group.
found here.
No significance was
Second, to determine if any correlation
existed between the number of homework assignments done and
outcome, a Pearson was run.
found.
Again no significance was
It appears that homework was done in relatively
equal amounts between the three groups and that the amount
14
of homework each S did, did not correlate with the outcome
results.
To test for possible experimenter effects, two
analysis were run.
A two-way analysis of variance was used
to compare the Is with the outcome scores in groups II +
fii.
No significance was found.
A
T~analysis
group I comparing Is with outcome scores.
was found here either.
was used in
No significance
No direct comparison was possible
between the Es in group I and the fs in groups II + III.
However, on the basis of the analysis run it is highly
unlikely that the Is from groups II + III accounted for
the significant variance obtained in these groups.
It is of interest to note that only one S out of
the 48 in the
outcome.
This
st~dy
~was
regressed from the baserate measure at
in the control group.
None of the Ss
;
in either experimental group regressed from their original
baserate measures.
This indicates that beside the fact
that the principles are significantly effective, there is
no data that would substantiate a claim that the experimental procedure had any detrimental effects from baseline.
The present study indicates that it is possible to
treat Ss with topologically dissimilar behaviors within a
group using a single set of behavioral principles.
The
mean change scores from a baserate of 0 for each of the
three groups, reflect the impact of the principles; .73,
1.81, and 1.76, for groups one, two, and three respectively.
Further these results tend to support the implied claim of
15
books like Watson and Tharp (1972) and Foster (1974) that
a given set of principles can be used to treat topologically
dissimilar behaviors.
The results of this study would in-
dicate that if individuals are given relevant information
on self-monitoring and principles of change, such as we
find in many recent self-modification, behavior change
equivalent to therapist guided applications can be produced.
It is necessary for the f to aid
these principles.
~s
in the application of
This finding tends to support what Rehm
and Marston (1968), Harris (1969), and others have found;
that when using behavioral principles, Ss modifying their
own behavior only need minimal aid from a therapist.
Various forms of rational may be forwarded as to
why these principles work and why it is that a therapist
does not appear to be of any help in application of such
techniques.
It however remains the task of future analogue
studies to tease out the effective variables tn these procedures.
The population for this study was young adults,
motivated to change and able to understand abstract principles.
It would be important to determine to what extent
these characteristics also
pr~vail
in individuals who
attempt to utilize self-modification procedures in popular
books.
It may also be argued that techniques such as art
therapy (Rhyne, 1S73} or more traditionally orientated
techniques may have equal effectiveness over a more protract~d
period of time.
However, such methads and techni-
16
ques do not lend themselves to the ready and simple application along with significant results as the ones studied
here.
There is the additional advantage that these princi-
ples can be applied in a short period of time using minimal
therapist contact.
Generalization of these results as mentioned above
is of course limited by the extent to which
~s
in this
sample are represented in the total population.
With this
limitation considered, such results should enjoy broad
application within the population they represent.
By this
method a large number of people can readily be taught coping
skills that enhance their ability to resolve problems in
living.
It has also been shown that these techniques seem
not to be adversely effected when the behavior being dealt
with is subjectively evaluated to be difficult.
Future
research might probably focus on determining generalization
and persistence of
results~
17
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Band u r a , A. The Pr i nc i p 1e s of Be h av i or Modi f i cat i on , New
York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1969.
Bergin, A.E.. A self-regulation technique for impulse control disorders. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 1969, 6, 113-118.
Campbell, D.T. & Stanley, J.C. Experimental and QuasiExperimental Designs for Research. Illinois: Rand
McNally & Company, 1963.
Cautela, J.R. Behavior therapy and self-control: Techniques
and implications. In C.M. Franks (Ed.), Behavior therapy:
Appraisal and status. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.
Davison, G.C. The elimination .2f_ ~ sadistic_fantasy Q_y ~
client-controlled counter-conditioning technique: A case
study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 73, 84-90.
Fisher, D. People Helping People. Paper presented at the
be ha vi or modi f i cat i on conference , Los An ge 1e s , Cali f , 1 973 •
Foster, C. Developing Self-Control. Michigan: Behaviordelia,
1974.
Goldiamond, I. Self-control procedures in personal behavior
problems. Psychological Reports, 1965-,-17, 851-868.
Harris, M.B. A self-directed program ·for weight control: A
pilot study.- Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 74,
263-270.
Kahn, M., & Baker, B. _Desensitization with minimal therapist
contact. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 73, 198~200.
Kanfer, F.H; Self-regulation: Research, issues, and specula. tions. In C. Neuringer & J.L. Michael (Eds.), Behavior
modification in clinical psychology. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1970a. Pp. 178-220.
·
Kanfer, F.H. S~lf-monitoring: Methodologic~l limitations
and clinical-applications. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 1970b, 35, 148-152.
LaZarus, A.A. Behavior Therapy and Beyond. New York: McGraw
Hill Book Co.,l971.
Lipinski, D.P., Black, L.L., Nelson, R.O., and Ciminero, A.R.
Influence of Motivational Variables on the· Reactivity and
18
Bibliography Cont.
Reliability of Self--Recording. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 1975, 43, 637-646.
McFall, R.M. Effects Qf self-monitoring on normal smoking
behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
1970, 35, 135-142.
Mingler, B. & Wolpe, J. Automated self-desensitization:
A case report. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1967, 5,
133-135.
Nolan, J.D. Self-control procedures~ the modification of
smoking behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1968, 32, 92-93.
Rehm, L.P. & Marston, A.R~ Reduction of social anxiety
through modification of self-reinforcement: An instigation therapy technique. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
1968, 32, 565-574.
.
Rhyne, J. The Gestalt Art Experience. California: Brooks/
Cole publishing, 1973-.Rutner, I. T., & Bugle, C. ~ experimental procedure for the
modification of psych6tic behavior. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 651-653 ..
Stuart, R.B. Behavioral control of overeating. Behavior
Research and Therapy, 1967, 5, 357-365.
Ullmann L.P., & Krasner~ L. A psychological approach !Q_
abnormal behavior, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1969.
·Watson, D.L., & Tharp, R.G. Self Directed Behavior: SelfMod i f i c a t i o n f o r Pe r s o na 1 ACi}ijSt me n t . Ca 1 i f o r n i a : Br o o ks I
Cole Publishing-co., 1972.
Wolpe, J., & Lazarus, A.A. Behavior therapy techniques:
A guide to the treatment of neuroses. New York: Pergamon
Press, 1966.
.
·
Yates, A. J. Theory and Practice in Behavior Therapy.
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1975.
New
19
APPENDIX I
Recently, data based study by psychologists such as
Cautela (1966), Mingler and Wolpe (1967), and Rehm and
Marston
(196~)
have indicated that substantial behavior
changes can occur as the result Gf self-directed programs
that use minimal therapist contact.
For example, Cautela (1966) presented two case
studies using a method called covert sensitization.
He
taught aversive therapy techniques to an obese subject and
to an alcoholic.
Cautela reported that his obese subject
met and maintained her weight loss goal and maintained the
loss at a seven month follow-up.
The subject who was
treated for alcoholism stopped drinking and maintained her
temperance at an eight month follow-up.
Mingler and Wolpe
(1967) taught a subject with a severe anxiety reaction to
public speaking situations to self-administer an automated
program of systematic desensitization along a hierarchy of
anxiety producing situations in his own home.
The subject
completed his desensitization hierarchy in seven home
sessions, reported no anxiety while he delivered a long
speech at a work meeting which disagreed with all previous
speakers, and maintained these gains at an eight month
follow-up.
Rehm and Marston (1968) taught self-reinforce-
ment to 23 male subjects who reported anxiety in social
situations involving females.
Each subject worked systema-
tically up a hieiarchy of in-vivo social situations.
Using
several dependent measures, the results indicated a significant reduction of social anxiety in verbal report of
heterosexual social situations.
Generalization to a reduc-
tibn of overall anxiety was also reported.
Along with these early studies in self-directed
behavior change, Goldiamond (1965) presented a rationale
for the use of self control techniques within an operant
framework.
He states:
..... behavior is not an emergent property
of an organism or a property of its environment but is described by a functional
relation between the two. More technically,
given a specified behavior B and a specified
environment variable x, a lawful relation
can be found, such that B=f(x), under certain empirical constraining conditions c.
This implies that when the constraints c
are set up, and x is set at a stipulated
value, given by the value of B=f(x). When
E sets x at that value, he will get the B
stipulated. This defines the experimental
control of behavior which has been demonstrated repeatedly in operant and 6ther
laboratories. When S himself sets x at
that value, he will get his own B, as
stipulated. This defines self-control ...
Goldiamond also defines two types of self-control procedures.
The first procedure is to give each subject instructions
how to change his own
environment~
behavior under control.
thereby bringing his own
The second procedure is to train
each subject in the functional analysis of behavior, and
have him determine the procedures to use.
The more recent
studies in self-directed behavior change have demonstrated
the efficacy of self-directed techniques in dealing with
diverse behavioral problems such as sadistic fantasy
21
(Davison, 1968), phobias (Kahn & Baker, 1968), smoking
(McFall, 1970); Nolan, 1968), psychotic behavior (Rutner
& Bugle, 1969), and overeating (Harris, 1969; Stuart,
1967).
Davi~on
(1968) taught a male
21~year
old college
senior to eliminate his sadistic female fantasies.
He
taught his subject to use a self-directed counter-conditioning program in which strong sexual feelings were paired
with pictures of females in non-sadistic contexts.
At a
one month follow-up, Davison•s subject reported that his
sadistic female fantasies no longer proved to be erotic,
and that he had a difficult time conjuring up a sadistic
image.
Erotic arousal was now achieved with non-sadistic
female images.
Kahn and Baker (1968) taught six college
students with what they termed
11
Sub-clinical phobias .. to
plan and carry out desensitization therapy in thefr own
homes without the aid of a therapist.
This group was also
compared to a control group of therapist-directed desensitization therapy.
Kahn and Baker reported that their phobic
subjects using a self-directed home program of systematic
desensitization were able to produce results
equival~nt
that of a standard desensitization control group.
to
AlthOugh
there was not a significant difference between groups, it
appeared that the home group did slightly better than the
control group which had much more therapist contact.
Rutner
and Bugle (1969) reported a self-monitoring procedure for
the reduction of auditory hallucinations in a hospitaliied
22
·schizophrenic subject.
The subject was taught to self-
monitor all auditory hallucinations and to keep a chart of
them.
After three days of private monitoring the chart was
placed in the nursing station where the subject continued
to post the frequency of auditory hallucinations.
Rutner
and Bugle reported that their subject's hallucinations fell
off rapidly over the first three days, and leveled off at
zero on the sixteenth day.
These results were reported
at a six month follow-up.
McFall (1970) and Nolan (1968) used self-directed
behavior change in different ways in the treatment of
smoking behavior.
McFall (1970) tested the reactivity of
self-monitoring on smoking behavior.
His contention was
that the reactivity caused by the self-monitoring may indeed have an effect on smoking.
Sixteen subjects were
asked to self-monitor the number of cigarettes they smoked.
These subjects were not trying to quit smoking, in fact,
they were encouraged to smoke as they normally would.
While
the subjects were monitoring their own smoking behavior,
their smoking was also being monitored by independent
raters before, during and after the self-monitoring procedure.
McFall found that self-monitoring did significantly
decrease smoking behavior for his experimental group.
This
intervention proved to be effective in a population that
was not necessarily committed to stop smoking.
Nolan (1968)
treated smoking behavior by attempting to eliminate the
environmental stimuli which maintained his subject's smoking
23
behavior.
Nolan reported that his subject reduced the
number of cigarettes smoked and eventually stopped smoking.
Abstinence was maintained at a six month follow-up.
In the treatment of avereaters, Harris ·(1969) and
Stuart (1961) used two somewhat different procedures to
effect change in eating behavior.
Harris (1969) instructed
sixteen subjects in the principles of reinforcement and
techniques for stimulus control and gave suggestions concerning the application of such principles and techniques
to eating behavior.
Throughout the program, subjects moni-
tored their own progress in the program.
In addition, half
of the experimental subjects were given aversive conditioning trials similar to Cautela (1966).
~ubjects
Harris found that
who participated in the weight loss program lost
significantly more weight than a similarly motivated control group.
It was also found that
av~rsive
condi.tioning
did not produce any additional significant weight loss.
Stuart (1967) had each subject record the nature, quantity
and circumstance of all food and drink intake.
Weight was
recorded by subjects four times per day, both to remind
subjects of the program and to monitor fluctuations in
body weight.
Each subject was also asked to list behaviors
that could be used as positive reinforcers
est weight related fears.
an~
their great-
From this point, several steps
were outlined including:
1.
taking breaks during meals
2.
removing all food from the house except
24
in the kitchen, and having on hand only those
foods that required preparation
3. making eating a pure experi~nce by not
pairing it with any other activity such as
listening to the radio or watching TV
Stuart showed a uniform and significant weight reduction in
all eight obese subjects that he trained in self-control
procedures.
25
APPENDIX II
This letter is to introduce you to what I hope will
be a very innovative experiment in behavior change. There
will be six sessions, one per week for a period of six
weeks. Each session will last about an hour, and at this
point will p~obably be run on Friday afternoons. If for
some reason you will not be able to participate in all
sessions, I will ask that you exclu~e yourself from this
investigation. You will be contacted as to the specific
time and place of your group.
If you choose to participate in this experiment,
I ~ill ask that you fill in the information asked for below.
You will notice that I have asked you to choose one of the
behaviors listed below to work on. Due to experimental
considerations, the behaviors that you can work on will be
limited to these.
Thank you,
Paul Gabrinetti
Name ____________________________________Sex _______Age ________
Address
------~-----------------------------------------------
Telephone # 1 s
Circle one:
-------------------------Fresh. Soph.· Jr. Sr.
Please circle one of the behaviors listed below that you
think you will want to work on.
Smoking
Decrease anxiety
Weight
Decrease nervousness with
other people
Increase reading time
Incr~ase
exercise time
Decrease arguments
Eliminate a fear
Increasing pleasant behaviors
to friends, spouse or parents
Increase smiling
26
APPENDIX III
Name:
-----------------------------Please rank order each of these behaviors in terms
of how difficult they would be
for~
to change:
0 being
the easiest for you and 9 being the most difficult for
you.
Remember, list these behaviors in terms of how diffi-
cult they would be
for~
to change.
Smoking
Weight
Increase reading time ·
Increase exercise time
Decrease arguments
--· Eliminate a fear
Decrease anxiety
DecreBse nervousness with other people
Increase
parents
~leasant
Increase smiling
behaviors to friends, spouse ot
27
APPENDIX IV
Sessionl.
I.
CI.
Hand out the list of behaviors that will be worked
on by the subjects.
Have each subject rank order the
behaviors listed in the handout, in terms of how
difficult the behaviors would be for each subject to
change.
II.
Announce that the purpose of these sessions will be
to help each individual make progress in dealing with
the behavior he wishes to change.
III.
Find out which behavior each subject will be working
on.
A.
Check to make sure that the behavior that is
recorded for each subject is the behavior that
they wish to work on.
B.
IV.
Make changes on record sheet if necessary.
Defining a situation in terms of behavior.
A.
This is done by specifying the observable aspects of a behavior.
B.
Example: Anxiety or nervousness may be defined
as :
1.
Shaking
2.
Tightening of muscles
3.
Crying
4.
Difficulty in sitting still
28
C.
While observing these behaviors it is important
to observe the situational factors:
o;-..
1•
Where the behavior occurs
2.
When the behavior occurs
3.
How often the behavior occurs
4.
How much the behavior occurs
5.
To whom the behavior occurs
Ask each subject to define his behavior according to the behavioral dimensions given.
V.
Counting the behaviors.
A.
Demonstrate with hand raising behavior; having
each person count the number of hand raisings.
B.
Stress the importance of defining behaviors
being observed prior to the beginning of counting.
C.
Each subject will get coaching on pow to best
define his behavior.
D.
Explain the use of any materials that may be
needed in conjunction with defining and counting
behavior.
E.
Assignment:
Session 2.
I.
Begin gathering baseline data.
CI.
Collect the baseline data; check for accuracy and
possible changes in definitions.
Thank (reinforce)
all subjects for collecting accurate data.
A.
Answer any questions about the data.
B.
Advise subjects on data collection where necessary.
29
II.
Goal setting: setting goals to measure progress in
the group.
A.
Give the example of a person who smoked 40
cigarettes per day during. the first week and
set a goal to
s~oke
20 cigarettes per day . . If
the treatment did. not go well and he had a great
deal of difficulty during the experiment he speculated that his smoking might increase to 55
cigarettes per day.
B.
Ask each subject to set a goal for his behavior
that he thinks would be realistic over the next
five week experimental period.
C.
Ask each subject to speculate on what he thinks
would happen if everything went badly and the
treatment had a detrimental effect.
D.
III.
Record both goals for each subject.
Ask each subject to review what he had found out
about his behavior as a result of observing and recording during the prior week.
Encourage and lead
the discussion.
IV.
Assignment:
Ask each subject to continue self-
monitoring of their behavior.
In addition,
a~
each
subject to observe the patterns of their behavior
that are related to their: 1)
~~rforming
a behavior
that they no longer want to perform, or 2) not performing a behavior that they want to perform.
form subjects that they will be responsible for
In-
30
discussing these patterns of behavior in the following
weeks• group session.
31
Session 3.
I.
CI.
Collect the self-monitoring data; check for accuracy
and possible changes.
Thank (reinforce) all subjects
for collecting accurate data.
II.
Ask eich subject to discuss with the group and the
leader the patterns that they found in their behavior.
A.
The patterns that surround the performance of
an undesired behavior; or surround the avoidance
of a behavior that they wish to perform.
B.
The leader will then ask each subject to express
the feelings that were associated with these
patterns of behavior.
C.
Explain that the reason for exploring these
feelings, especially the feelings of anxiety
that surround these behaviors, is that the
feelings block the performance of the ·desired
behavior.
So we wish to work on these feelings
that block the behavior.
III.
Assignment:
Have each subject continue collecting
his self-monitoring data.
In addition, ask each sub-
ject to focus on the feeling that surround their
performance or avoidance of their desired behavior.
Explain that this is being done so that in the following two weeks they will be able to participate in
doing art therapy.
These feelings will play a great
part in the function of art therapy.
32
Session 4.
I.
CI.
Have each subject hand in their self-monitoring data
from the previous week.
Thank each subject for
keeping accurate data and answer any questions.
II.
Inform the subject that they will begin art therapy
as was previously announced.
A.
Pass out art materials; paper and crayons.
B.
Ask each subject to commit to paper their feelings, however abstract nr concrete, that surround their: l) inability to stop performing a
behavior that they wish to stop, or 2) their
inability to begin performing a new behavior
that they want.
C.
Allow about 25 minutes for subjects to make
their drawings.
I
D.
When all subjects are finished, have iach subject explain their drawing to the group.
E.
Thank each subject-for their participation.
F.
Assignment:
Ask each subject to continue col-
lecting their self-monitoring data.
Have each
subject stay focused on their feelings surrounding their particular problem behavior and that
we will tontinue art therapy the following
session.
33
Session 5.
I.
CI.
Collect the data from the previous week, and thank
the subjects for keeping accurate data.
II.
Inform the subjects that art therapy will continue
as
A.
pre~iously
announced.
Pass out paper, glue and magazines with
scissors.
These materials will be used in
making a pictorial representation of their
feelings.
B.
Ask each subject to commit to paper; via
pictures, phrases, and other cut-out materials,
his feeling that surround his inabillity to
perform his desired behavior, or his inability
to stop performing an undesired behavior.
C.
Allow about 25 minutes for this.
D.
When subjects are finished, have each subject
explain his picture to the members of the
group.
E.
Assignment:
Have each subject continue col-
lecting their self-monitoring data.
34
Session 6.
CI.
I.
Collect the final week of data from each subject.
II.
Debrief the subjects.
35
Session l.
I.
Ex. I.
Hand out the 1ist of behaviors that will be worked
on by the subjects.
Have each subject rank order
the behaviors listed in the handout, in terms of how
difficult the behaviors would be for each subject
to change.
II.
Announce that the purpose of these sessions will be
to help each individual make progress in dealing with
the behavior he wishes to change.
III.
Find out which behavior each subject will be working
on.
A.
Check to make sure that the behavior that is
recorded for each subject is the behavior that
they wish to work on.
B.
IV.
Make changes on record sheet if necessary.
Defining a situation in terms of behavior.
A.
This is done by specifying the observable
aspects of a behavior.
B.
Example:
Anxietj or nervousness may be defined
as :
c.
1.
Shaking
2.
Tightening of muscles
3.
Crying
4.
Difficulty in sitting still
While observing these behaviors it is important
to observe the situational factors:
36
1.
D.
I
Where the behavior occurs
the behavior occurs
2.
~~hen
3.
How often the behavior occurs
4..
How much the behavior occurs
5.
To whom the behavior occurs
Ask each subject to define his behavior according to the behavioral dimensions given.
V.
Counting the behaviors.
A.
Demonstrate with hand raising behavior; having
each person count the number of hand raisings.
B.
Stress the importance of defining behaviors
.being observed prior to the beginning of
counting.
C.
Each subject will get coaching on how to best
define his behavior.
D.
Explain the use of any materials that may be
needed in conjunction with
d~fining
and counting
behavior.
E.
Assignment:
Begin.gathering baseline data.
37
Session 2.
I.
Ex. I.
Collect the baseline data; check for accuracy and
possible changes in definitions.
Thank (reinforce)
all subjects for collecting accurate data.
A.·
Answer any questions about the data.
B.
Advise subjects on data collection where
necessary.
II.
Goal setting: setting goals to measure progress in
the group.
A.
Give the example of a person who smoked 40
cigarettes per day during the first week and
set a goal to smoke 20 cigarettes per day.
If the treatment did not go well and he had a
great deal of difficulty during the experiment
he speculated that his smoking might increase
to 55 cigarettes per day.
B.
Ask each subject to set a goal for his behavior
that he thinks would be realistic over the next
five week experimental period.
C.
Ask each subject to speculate on what he thinks
would happen if everything went badly and the
treatment had a detrimental effect.
III.
Behavior and hdw it is shaped.
A.
Ex~lain
basic principles of reinforcement.
1.
Behavior that is reinforced will increase.
2.
Behavior that is not reinforced will not
increase.
38
B.
Explain that these principles may be employed
to help shape behaviors that subjects are
working on.
1.
Relate examples of this (avoid examples
that would be the same as behaviors that
subjects may be working on).
2.
Ask the group if they can come up with
any examples.
IV.
Interventions: Three
~ays
to change behavior.
A.
To reinforce a desired behavior.
(Give exampla)
B.
To reinforce a behavior that is incompatible
with the behavior that is being changed. (Give
example.)
C.
Change the discriminatory stimulus for a behavior. (Ex.)
V.
Present subjects with a list of possible rei.nforcers
and discuss them.
VI.
Assignment:
(See Appendix V).
Have each subject consider these princi-
ples and try to come
~P
with a program for themselves
to be discussed at the next session.
lecting self-monitoring data.
Continue col-
39
Session 3.
I.
Ex. I.
Collect the homework data from the previous week
and answer any questions.
II.
Review the basic pri.nciples of reinforcement from
the
pr~vious
week.
A.
To reinforce the behavior that is desired.
B.
Reinforce a behavior that is incompatible to
the one being changed.
C.
Change the discriminatory stimulus for a
behavior.
III.
The development of intervention programs.
A.
Shape the behavior in steps toward the desired
goa 1.
B.
Be sure to reinforce small steps toward the
terminal behavior.
C.
Ask each group member to begin discusiing how
they will apply these principles to help change
their own behavior.
(The Experimenter will
give no assistance other than tn repeat the
principles, and encourage their application by
the subjects to their own behavior!)
D.
Assignment:
out his 6wn
Have each subject begin carrying
inte~vention
havi'oral principles.
program using the be-
Also have subjects con-
tinue to collect self-monitorihg data.
40
Session 4.
I.
Ex. I.
Collect each subject•s data from the previous week.
A.
Thank each subject for keeping accurate records.
B.
Answer any questions about collection of the
data.
II.
Review each subject•s program, and do not give suggestions as how to apply the behavioral principle.
A.
B.
Repeat the three methods of behavior change.
1.
Reinforcing a desired behavior.
2.
Reinforcing an incompatible behavior.
3.
Changing the discriminatory stimulus.
Encourage each subject to consider these principles in their change programs, and let them
know that they can change their programs where
necessary.
C.
Assignment:
own change
data.
Have subjects continue with their
progr~m,
and continue collecting
41
Session 5.
I.
Ex. I.
Collect the data, and review each subject's progress,
as. in session four.
II.
Generalization.
A.
Check to see if the current behavior has
generalized across settings where applicable.
B.
Make suggestions for applying these principles
to other problem areas of subject's lives.
III.
Discuss the use of additional reinforcers so that
satiation does not occur.
IV.
Discuss the placement of behaviors on intermittant
reinforcement schedules to build resistance to
extinction.
V.
_Assignment:
Have subjects continue collecting their
self-monitoring data.
42
Session 6.
Ex. I.
I.
Collect the final week of data from each subject.
II.
Debrief the subjects.
43
Session 1.
I.
Ex. II.
Hand out the list of behaviors that will be worked
on by the subjects.
Have each subject rank order
the behaviors listed in the handout, in terms of how
difficult the behaviors would be for each subject to
change.
II.
Announce that the purpose of these sessions will be
to help each individual make progress in dealing with
the behavior he wishes to change.
III.
Find out which behavior each subject will be working
on.
A.
Check to make sure that the behavior that is
recorded for each subject is the behavior that
they wish to work on.
B.
IV.
Make changes on record sheet if necessary.
Defiriing a situation in terms of behavior.
A.
This is done by specifying the observable aspects
of a behavior.
B.
Example:
Anxiety or nervousness may be defined
as:
1.
Shaking
2~
Tightening of muscles
3.
Crying
4.
Difficulty in sitting still
44
C.
While observing these behaviors it is important
'
'
to observe the situational factors:
D.
1.
Where the behavior occurs
2.
When the behavior occurs
3·.
How often the behavior occurs
4.
How much the behavior occurs
5.
To whom the behavior occurs
Ask each subject to define his behavior according to the behavioral dimensions given.
V.
Counting the behaviors.
A.
Demonstrate with hand raising behavior; having
each person count the number of hand raisings.
B.
Stress the importance Qf defining behaviors
being observed prior to the beginning of
counting.
C.
Each subject will get coaching on how to best
define his behavior.
D.
Explain the use of any materials that may be
needed .in conjunction with defining and
count~
ing behavior.
E.
Assignment:
Begin
gatheri~g
baseline data.
45
Session 2.
Ex. I L
Same as session 2 experimental group I.
I
J
I
I
L ___. . c · - - - -
-------·---~---- ------------------~--- ____________________________:
46
Session 3, Ex. II.
I.
Collect the homework data from the previous week
and answer any questions.
II.
Review the basic principles of reinforcement from
the previous week.
A.
To reinforce the behavior that is desired.
B.
Reinforce a behavior that is incompatible
to the one being changed.
C.
Change the discriminatory stimulus for a
behavior.
III.
The development of intervention programs.
A.
Shape the behavior in steps toward the desired
goa 1 .
B.
Be sure to reinforce small steps toward the
terminal behavior.
C.
Ask each group member to begin discuss'ing how
they will apply these principles to help
change their own behavior.
(The Experjmenter
will give suggestions and help to each subject
in the design and application of intervention
programs for each subject.
D.
Assignment:
Have each subject begin carrying
out his own intervention program using the
behavioral pririciples.
Also have subjects
continue to collect self-monitoring data.
47
Session 4.
I.
Ex. II.
Collect each subject's data from the previous week.
A.
Thank each subject for keeping accurate records.
B.
Answer any questions about the collection of
the data.
II.
Review each subject's program, and give suggestions
where necessary as how to apply the behavioral principles.
A.
B.
Repeat the three methods of behavior change.
l.
Reinforce a desired behavior.
2.
Reinforcing an incompatible behavior.
3.
Changing the discriminatory stimulus.
Encourage each subject to consider these principles in their change programs, and let them
know that they can change their programs where
necessary.
C.
Assignment:
Have subjects continue with their
own change programs, and continue collecting
data.
48
Session 5.
I.
Ex. II.
Collect the data, and review each subject's progress,
as in session four.
II.
Generalization
A.
Check to see if the current behavior has
generalized across settings where applicable.
B.
Make suggestions for applying these principles
to other problem areas of subjects lives.
III.
Discuss the use of additional reinforcers so that
satiation does not occur.
IV.
Discuss the placement of behaviors on intermittant
reinforcement schedules to build resistance to
extinction.
V.
Assignment:
Have subjects continue collecting their
self-monitoring data.
49
Session 6, Ex. II.
I.
Collect the final week of data from each subject.
II.
Debrief the subjects.
50
GROUPS:
Iach group session met for not more than one hour
per week, for six weeks.
The first
se~sion
was identical for all three groups;
and one half
The list of ten be-
haviors was passed out (See Appendix III) and each S was
asked to rank order these behaviors from 0-9.
The rank
order was based on subjective difficulty that each S would
have in working on each of these behaviors.
These papers
were then collected.
It was then announced that the purpose of the
sessions was to help
each~
make progress toward dealing
with the behavior they wished to change.
E then checked
with each S to make sure that the behavior that was recorded for each S was the behavior that they wanted to
work on.
For p u r p o s e s · of s e 1 f- mon i tori ng ,
then began to instruct the
(r~ c Fa 11
, ·1 9 7 0 ) E
in how to define the obser-
SS~
vable aspects of their behavior.
Ss were told to observe
where their behavior occurs, when it occurs, how often it
occurs, how much the behavior occurs, and to whom the behavior occurs, when applicable.
Each S was asked to define
his behavior according to these dimensions.
instructed how to count their
b~haviors,
Ss were then
stressing the fact
that the behavior needed to be defined, as _previously mentioned, before they could be counted.
Each S was then
coached by I on how to best define his behavior for purpose
of counting.
All Ss were then given the
assi~nment
to
51
begin counting (self-monitoring) the behavior that they
will be working on.
At the beginning of session 2, as in subsequent
sessions for all groups, the baserate data was collected
and Ss were praised for collecting and keeping accurate
data.
(Lipinski, Black, Nelson; 1975).
At this time,
questions were answered and difficulties in data collection were discussed.
On the basis of their first week's data, each S
was asked to speculate on the goal that he might set for
the following five week period.
Ss were asked to specu-
late on two goals for their behavior: 1) the frequency of
behavior that they hope to attain, and 2) the frequency of
behavior they may attain if all went badly and the treatment had a detrimental effect.
corded for a l 1 is by
Both goals were then re-
I. . From t h i s poi n t each g roup v a r i e d
according to the treatment condition.
GROUP I:
Group I is the control
gr~up
for this study.
For
the remainder of Session II, each S was asked to discuss
what each S had found out or discovered about his behavior
as a result of observing and recording that behavior during
the prior week.
E encouraged and led the discussion.
S was then told to continue
self~monitoring
their
Each
b~havior.
In addition, is were asked to observe the patterns of their
behavior related to: l) performing a behavidr that they no
52
longer wanted to perform, or 2) not performing a behavior
that they want to perform.
Ss were informed that they
would be responsible for discussing these patterns of behavior in the following weeks• group session.
Session 3:
Following the data collection, each S was asked
to discuss the patterns that they had found in their behaviors.
I then asked
each~
to focus in on the subjective
feelings that were associated with these patterns of behavior.
E further explained to
~s
that the reason for
exploring these feelings that surround these behaviors is
that the feelings block the desired behavioral performance.
E instructed Ss to continue collecting self-monitoring
data.
In addition,
~s
were asked to focus on the subject-
ive feelings that surround their performance or avoidance
of desired behavior.
It was further explained that this
was being done so that in the following two weeks they
would be able to participate in art therapy and that their
feelings would play an important part in the function of
art therapy.
Session 4:
Ss were informed as announced in the previous
session, that art therapy would begin.
(Rhyne, 1973.)
Large sheets of paper and crayons were passed out.
Each
S was then asked to commit to paper their feelings, however abstract or concrete, that surround their: l) inability
to
.sto~
performing a behavior that they wish to stop, or
53
2) their inability to begin performing a new behavior that
they want.
Ss were informed that they had about 25 minutes
to make their drawings.
When all Ss had finished, they
were asked to explain their drawings to the group.
were thanked for their participation.
All Ss
Ss were informed
that art therapy would continue in a different mode the
following week, and that they should continue to be aware
of the feeiings that surrounded their particular problem
behavior.
All Ss were asked to continue their self-monitor-
ing data.
Session 5:
Art therapy was continued in session 5.
glue, magazines and scissors were passed out.
Paper,
Each S was
asked to use magazine pictures, phrases, etc. to make a
pictorial representation of their feelings surrounding
their inability to perform a behavior that they would like
ta begin to perform, or a behavior that they no longer wish
to continue performing.
which to do this.
Ss were given about 25 minutes in
When all
~s
finished, each S was asked
to explain his design to the rest of thi group.
Ss were
then asked to continue with their self-monitoring data
for the following week.
Sessidn 6:
The final week's data was collected.
All Ss were
then debriefed as to the specific nature of the experiment.
All questions were answered concerning the experiment at
this time.
All Ss were thanked for their diligence and
54
participation in the experiment.
GROUP II:
This is the first experimental group.
The second
half of the .second session was identical for groups two
and three.
shaped.
A lecture was begun on behavior and how it is
It was explained to all Ss that behavior that is
reinforced would increase and that behavior that was not
reinforced would tend not to be repeated.
It was further
explained that these principles may be employed to help
shape the behaviors that subjects were working on.
Exam-
ples were then related that did not include behaviors
that Ss were currently working on. Ss were then asked to
come up with examples.
It was further explained that
there were three basic ways to change behavior.
The first
principle was to reinforce a desired behavior; the second
was to reinforce a behavior that is incompatible with the
behavior that was being changed; and the third principle
was to change the discriminatory stimulus for a behavior.
All three of these principles were illustrated with
examples.
Ss were then presented with a list of sample
reinforcers.
Ss were then asked to come up with a program
for themselves to be discussed at the next session.
All
Ss were asked to continue collecting self-monitoring data.
Session 3:
E continued by briefly reviewing the three principles
of reinforcement mentioned in the previous session.
E
55
then went on to discuss the development of intervention
programs.
Intervention programs were to be shaped in
steps toward the desired goal.
It was emphasized that
each step toward the terminal behavior as well as the
terminal
beh~vior
needed to be reinforced.
Each S was
then asked to discuss how they would apply these principles to their change program they were working on for their
own behavior.
The E gave no assistance to the Ss other
than to repeat the three principles mentioned in the previous session and earlier in the current session.
All Ss
were asked to begin carrying out their own program using
behavioral principles and to continue collecting selfmonitoring data.
Session 4:
Each S was asked to review the progress and current
status of his program.
I did not give suggestions other
than to repeat the three principles of behavior changes.
Each i was encouraged to consider these principles in
their change programs, and that they could make changes
in their programs as necessary.
Ss were asked to continue
their change programs, and to continue collecting their
self~monitoring
data.
Session 5:
E asked each S to comment on whether or not their
behavioral changes had generalized across settings, where
such a generalization was applicable.
E then gave sugges-
tions and discussed the application of these principles
56
to other problem areas that may be of difficulty in everyday life.
E then discussed the use of additional rein-
forcers in
~s
change programs, so that satiation to a
single reinforcer would not occur.
E also discussed the
efficiency of placing behaviors on intermittant reinforcement schedules to build resistance to extinction.
Ss were
asked to continue to collect their self-monitoring data.
Session 6:
The final week's data was collected.
All Ss were
then debriefed as to the specific nature of the experiment.
All questions were answered concerning the experiment at
this time.
All Ss were thanked for their diligence and
participation in the experiment.
GROUP III:
This is the second experimental group.
Session
three began with I briefly reviewing the three principles
of behavior change which were: 1) to reinforce the behavior
that is desired; 2) to reinforce a behavior that is incompatible with the behavior being changed; and 3) to change
the discriminatory stimulus for a behavior.
E then went
on to discuss the development of intervention programs.
Intervention programs were to be shaped in steps toward
the desired goal.
It was emphasized that each step toward
the terminal behavior as well as the terminal behavior
needed to be reinforced.
Each S was then asked to discuss
how they would apply these principles to the change program
57
they were working on for their own behavior.
The I gave
suggestions and help to each S in the design and. application
of intervention programs for each S.
All Ss were asked to
begin carrying out their own program using behavioral
principles and to continue collecting self-monitoring data.
Session 4:
Each S was asked to review the progress and current
status of his program.
E gave suggestions where necessary
to aid in the application of the behavioral principles to
each
~·s
program.
Each
~was
encouraged to consider these
principles in their change programs, and that they could
make changes in their programs where necessary.
Ss were
asked to continue their change programs and to continue
collecting their self-monitoring data.
Session 5:
E asked S to comment on whether or not their behavioral changes had generalized across settings, where
such a generalization was applicable.
E then gave sugges-
_tions and discussed the application of these principles
to other problem areas that may be of difficulty in
lives.
in
~s
~s
E then. discussed the use of additional reinforcers
change programs so that satiation to a single rein-
forcer would not occur.
I also discussed the· efficiency
of placing behaviors on intermittant reinforcement schedules
to build resistance to extinction.
tinue to
colle~t
Ss were asked to con-
their self-monitoring data.
58
Session 6:
The final week's data was collected.
All Ss were
then debriefed as to the specific nature of the experiment.
All questions were answered concerning the experiment at
this time.
~11
Ss were thanked for their diligence and
participation in the experiment.
59
APPENDIX V
SAMPLE REINFORCERS
1.
Bubble baths
2.
Making· love
3.
Going to the movies or plays
4.
Going to the beach
5.
Extra hobby time
6.
Spending money
7.
Playing records
8.
Listening to the radio
9.
Eating certain foods
10.
Going out for an evening
11.
Playing sports
12.
Spending extra time with a friend
13.
Reading a book or magazine of your choice
14.
Taking long breaks from work
15.
Not going to work
16.
Going to parties
17.
Being alone
18.
Goofing off
19.
Watching TV
60
APPENDIX VI
This distribution indicates the number of subjects
choosing each behavior.
BEHAVIOR
Smoking
NUMBER OF SUBJECTS
0
Weight
16 '
Increase Reading Time
7
Increase Exercise Time
4
Decrease Arguments
2
Eliminate a Fear
2
Decrease Anxiety
10
Decr~ase
others
Nervousness with
Increase pleasant behaviors
to friends, spouse, or
parents
Increase Smiling
5
2
0
48 subjects