Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Individual differences in children’s response to self- and externally-administrated reward Tiedemann, Georgia Louise 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A8 T53.pdf [ 6.23MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095729.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095729-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095729-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095729-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095729-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095729-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095729-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095729-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095729.ris

Full Text

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES I N CHILDREN'S  RESPONSE  TO S E L F - AND EXTERNALLY-ADMINISTERED REWARD  by  GEORGIA LOUISE TIEDEMANN B.Sc,  University  of Toronto,  1978  A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS  FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department o f P s y c h o l o g y )  We a c c e p t t h i s  t h e s i s as conforming  to the required  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H  COLUMBIA  S e p t e m b e r 1983 ©  G e o r g i a L o u i s e T i e d e m a n n , 1983  In p r e s e n t i n g  this thesis  r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an of  British  it  freely available  agree t h a t for  that  Library  s h a l l make  for reference  and  study.  I  f o r extensive copying of  h i s or  be  her  g r a n t e d by  shall  not  be  Psychology  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 1956 Main Mall V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1Y3  Date  September 2 6 , 1 9 8 3  of  further this  Columbia  thesis  head o f  this  my  It is thesis  a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  permission.  Department o f  the  representatives.  copying or p u b l i c a t i o n  f i n a n c i a l gain  University  the  s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may  understood  the  the  I agree that  permission by  f u l f i l m e n t of  advanced degree a t  Columbia,  department or for  in partial  written  i i  Individual  D i f f e r e n c e s i n C h i l d r e n ' s Response t o S e l f Externally-Administered  Behavioral have  self-control  practice  in recent  particular  have  known a b o u t  the  developmental indicate  to of  been  that  certain age,  be  usefully  The  examine whether age  sex  of  yet  in  little  efficacy.  is  Both  in self-reinforcement of  the  child,  the  the  present  child  study  was  were p r e d i c t i v e opposed  reinforcement.  Experimental a  sessions  children  in  recruited  through  three  assigned  to  of  (scoring  their  External  reinforcement  awarded  tokens),  work but  no  years  and  s t u d i e d a.s p r e d i c t o r s of  p u r p o s e of  and  research  r e s p o n s e t o a s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n t e r v e n t i o n , as  to e x t e r n a l  11  research  characteristics  may  to treatment.  their  children  procedures  extensively,  influencing  applied  with  in c l i n i c a l  Self-reinforcement  studied  factors and  particularly response  years.  Reward  interventions  become i n c r e a s i n g l y p r e v a l e n t  and  school  one own  took  tutorial  place  work  schools  and  randomly  conditions: Self-reinforcement  and  awarding  (the -experimenter  and  individual  room. S i x t y c h i l d r e n were  elementary  three  with  Control  themselves scored  tokens),  the  (the experimenter  work  and  scored  the  8  or  t o k e n s were a w a r d e d ) . C h i l d r e n were e i t h e r old,  and  sex  was  balanced  between c o n d i t i o n s .  a brief,  academic-like  task.  one  three  B a s e l i n e data  were c o l l e c t e d  on  Children  worked on  task  then  this  under  of  the  conditions,  and  Questionnaire  subsequently completed  to  conditions.  Data  assess  subjective  on  task  both  were c o l l e c t e d . L o c u s of data  control  number  were  baseline  the  to E x t e r n a l  different  between  condition  showed  generalization  task.  predictor  of  differently reinforcement of  to  the  achievement  the  experimental  covariance,  covariate.  Age  conditions.  Control;  girls'  generalized  Boys  of  outcome. more  or  system.  a  Girls  overall  in  the  reponses  less  in  a  child  is  not  Directions  self-reinforcement  for  an  of  future  procedures are  on  a not  responses.  brief  control  not  did  analogue important  b o y s , however, may  adult  as  External  performance  that,  and  showed  condition  p e r f o r m a n c e or q u e s t i o n n a i r e  age  not  p e r f o r m a n c e was  Children  Questionnaire  indicate  using was  immediate or  Self-reinforcement  superior  results  intervention,  and  of  either  conditions.  with task  The  the  i n the  the  generalization  academic  r e s p o n s e s on  as  to  child.  reinforcement  performance  temporal  analysis  p r e d i c t i v e of  compared  research  by  performance  response' to  correlate  correct  examined  differentially  superior  of  response  and  were a l s o c o l l e c t e d f o r e a c h The  tasks  and  a Child Satisfaction  a  react token  parametric  discussed.  Advisor: Robert  J . McMahon,  Ph.D.  iv  Table of Contents  Page  Introduction  1  Method  41  Results  59  Discussion  89  References  101  Appendices  120  Appendix A  121  Appendix B  123  Appendix C  126  Appendix D  133  Appendix E  136  Appendix F  139  Appendix G  141  V  List  of T a b l e s  Table 1. 2.  Page Means o f t h e " C h e a t i n g " D a t a Condition The A n a l y s i s Correct  in Self 54  of C o v a r i a n c e of  Arithmetic  Scores  56  3.  A d j u s t e d Means o f t h e A r i t h m e t i c  4.  The A n a l y s i s  5.  A d j u s t e d Means o f t h e E r r o r  6.  The A n a l y s i s o f C o v a r i a n c e o f S u b s t i t u t i o n Correct Scores A d j u s t e d Means o f t h e S u b s t i t u t i o n C o r r e c t D a t a  63 64  The A n a l y s i s Errors  66  7. 8. 9. 10.  of C o v a r i a n c e  of V a r i a n c e  Means o f t h e S u b s t i t u t i o n  Correct  of E r r o r  61  of S u b s t i t u t i o n Task E r r o r  17.  67  The M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f S a t i s f a c t i o n and P r e f e r e n c e S c o r e s  The M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e S a t i s f a c t i o n Questionnaire Scores  16.  Task  Data  12.  15.  57 60  Scores  Means o f t h e S a t i s f a c t i o n and P r e f e r n c e  14.  ..  Scores  11.  13.  Data  69 Data  ...  70  of C h i l d 72  Mean Item S c o r e s on C h i l d S a t i s f a c t i o n Questionnaire P a r t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n s o f S a t i s f a c t i o n and P r e f e r e n c e Scores w i t h Performance Measures  73 ....  75  P a r t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n s of C h i l d S a t i s f a c t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Item S c o r e s w i t h Performance Measures  76  P a r t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n s of Locus of C o n t r o l Scores and Academic R a t i n g s w i t h P e r f o r m a n c e M e a s u r e s .  78  P a r t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n s - o f Locus of C o n t r o l S c o r e s and Academic R a t i n g s w i t h C h i l d S a t i s f a c t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Responses  79  vi  Acknowledgement  For  their  non-contingent parents,  consistent  support,  reinforcement, I am  encouragement  deeply  indebted  and  to  my  f e l l o w students, and f r i e n d s . I would p a r t i c u l a r l y  l i k e to thank Gerry, Gunny, Judy and Gus. T h i s p r o j e c t was made p o s s i b l e through and  generousity  the hard  of many people. I am s i n c e r e l y g r a t e f u l t o  my a d v i s o r , Robert McMahon; my committee, Merry B u l l o c k Ken  Craig;  work  and  and the s t a f f and students of S t . Joseph's, S t .  F r a n c i s de S a l e s , and S t . P a t r i c k ' s Schools.  1  Behavioral techniques  self-control  to  modify  increasingly prevalent recent 1978;  years  one's  (Karoly  child  reviews  of  appeared  &  since  1974  O ' L e a r y & Dubey, 1979;  and  First,  typically  expected  teacher  and/or  successfuly  children acting by  in  eight  literature  have  & Kanfer,  1982;  Meichenbaum,  1979;  Karoly  parent  the  his  culture. may  not  or  her  own  the c h i l d  self-controlling  behave e f f e c t i v e l y Finally,  to  control  teaching  when a d u l t  always  Workman  &  Behavioral  other  their  own  valued  and  the  child's  capable  Third,  important  is  supervision  able i s not  c h i l d r e n to c o n t r o l their  e x t e r n a l means o r  be  major  own  of  when  behavior w e l l , adults  child  t o more d u r a b l e b e h a v i o r a l  is  Second,  implementing e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l s .  controls  Fourth,  how  independently  our  s p e n d more t i m e t e a c h i n g  for  apparent  where a t l e a s t  1976;  in  Arnkoff,  Dubey (1979) s u m m a r i z e d some of t h e  behavior.  on  is  become  practise  Rosenbaum & Drabman, 1979;  reasons for teaching  lead  has  Mahoney &  self-control  McLaughlin,  -and  trend  1977;  behavioral  1978).  O'Leary  child  1982;  well,  (Karoly,  1974;  of  research  1976). T h i s as  use  behavior  Kanfer,  behavioral  Masters & Mokros,  Hector,  own  psychology  the  the  in c l i n i c a l  Thoresen & Coates,  clinical  —  a can  skills.  to learn  and  available. behavior  may  changes than r e l y i n g s o l e l y  influence.  self-control interventions  have  a v a r i e t y of c h i l d r e n ' s p r o b l e m s , i n c l u d i n g  been  used  aggression,  2  s o c i a l withdrawal, school phobia, a n o r e x i a , and f a c i a l  tics  ( O l l e n d i c k & Cerny,  1981). The vast m a j o r i t y of s e l f - c o n t r o l  studies,  have  (see  however,  McLaughlin,  Workman  &  1976;  Hector, the  have  both  used  s c h o o l - r e l a t e d behaviors  Rosenbaum  1978,  interventions in been  involved  for  &  Drabman,  reviews  classroom).  of  1979;  and  self-control  Self-control  procedures  as treatment s t r a t e g i e s f o r c h i l d r e n  with b e h a v i o r a l or academic d i f f i c u l t i e s , and  as  classroom  management s t r a t e g i e s with non-problem c h i l d r e n . Self-Control A  variety  of  Techniques  s e l f - c o n t r o l procedures which have been  s t u d i e d with c h i l d r e n w i l l be b r i e f l y  outlined.  One important area i s that of s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g . Because t e a c h i n g c h i l d r e n t o set performance has  not  (e.g.,  proved  to  Sagotsky,  Patterson,  have  goals  Felixbrod  White-Blackburn,  Lepper,  in i s o l a t i o n 1978),  most  Semb,  & &  O'Leary, Semb,  the  ways  1973;  1977). in  A  Lovitt, great  which  1973; d e a l of  children  may  p e r s o n a l standards f o r rewarding or p u n i s h i n g t h e i r  own performance direct  &  themselves  added a consequence f o r a c h i e v i n g these  r e s e a r c h has focused on develop  for  be p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f e c t i v e  investigators (e.g.,  goals  either  by  observing  a  model  experience with d i f f e r e n t performance  Masters £ Mokros, 1974). developed  effective  particular criteria  ways  A  number of  of  teaching  f o r e a r n i n g rewards,  or  through  standards (see  investigators children  have  t o adopt  ranging from simple  3  cues or prompts to use the a p p r o p r i a t e performance (e.g., Brownell, Wilson,  1977;  Colletti, Glynn  &  Ersner-Hershfield, Hershfield, Thomas,  Spitalnik,  Ironsmith,  Crow  &  Mahew,  & O'Leary, 1973; Turkewitz,  contrasting  the  performance  O'Leary, &  under  standards  imposed by others, was reviewed by in  self-determined  of  working  1979.  criteria,  as  children  opposed  Rosenbaum  have c o n s i s t e n t l y performed at l e a s t  as,  frequently  and  externally-imposed demonstrate  the  better  criteria; efficacy  than,  recent of  self-determined  self-assessment,  self-monitoring behaviors) quantity  continues  (observing  and/or or  and  of  the  with to  1982).  which has been used with  which and  may  consist  recording  self-evaluation  quality  well  performance  (Dickerson & Creedon, 1981; McLaughlin,  is  as  children  research  Another s e l f - c o n t r o l technique children  to  C h i l d r e n who set t h e i r own standards f o r  reinforcement  standards  1976;  1975).  Research  Drabman  &  1974, McLaughlin, 1982) to  e x t e n s i v e t r a i n i n g programmes (e.g., Drabman,  standards  (deciding  behavior  of  particular whether  the  meets a p a r t i c u l a r  c r i t e r i o n ) . Recent reviews  (O'Leary & Dubey, 1979; Rosenbaum  &  indicated  Drabman,  researchers  1979) have  self-assessment, short-lived The  have  this  found  that,  undesirable  procedure  generally  e f f e c t s on c h i l d r e n ' s behavior  optimal use of self-assessment  although effects has  weak  no from or  when used alone.  tends t o be as an adjunct  4  to  other  techniques,  to  a i d in  the  maintenance  and  g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of behavior changes (e.g., B o l s t a d & Johnson, 1972;  Rhode, Morgan, & Young, 1983; Turkewitz  et a l . ,  1975;  W a r r e n f e l t z e t a l . , 1981; Wood & F l y n n , 1978). Teaching appropriate  children  to  consequences  provide  themselves  f o r t h e i r behavior  a b l e t o assess i t a c c u r a t e l y ) i s a  with  (once they are  self-control  technique  common to many i n t e r v e n t i o n s (see O'Leary & Dubey, 1979). In the  case  of  p o s i t i v e one — the  child  self-reinforcement,  i s taught  to  take  the  kind  is a —  and  a p p r o p r i a t e amount of  or no s u p e r v i s i o n . T h i s  has shown c o n s i d e r a b l e promise,  with  consequence  a reward or p r i v i l e g e of some  r e i n f o r c e r s , under minimal  to  the  technique  although there i s much yet  be l e a r n e d about the f a c t o r s governing  i t s effectiveness  children. Self-punishment  consequence,  when  behavior does not meet the r e q u i r e d standard. Although  there  is  very  little  i s the  alternative  r e s e a r c h on c o n t i n g e n t self-punishment  c h i l d r e n , the a v a i l a b l e  evidence  self-punishment  does  behavior  & Kuczyinski,  1976).  (Grusec Two  lead  to  seems a  to  decrease  1977;  indicate  with that  i n the punished  Masters  &  Santrock,  s t u d i e s i n classroom s i t u a t i o n s have found that  s e l f - a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of  response  technique  withholding  involving  reinforcers) i s effective  in  cost  (another or  initiating  punishment  removing and  positive  maintaining  d e s i r e d behavior changes (Humphrey & K a r o l y , 1978; Kaufman &  5  O'Leary, A  1972). number  of other l e s s common s e l f - c o n t r o l  have been explored with thinking an  about  irrelevant  children.  stimulus h e l p s c h i l d r e n to cope with  alone  in  the  of  gratification  dark  1973;  Yates  &  obsessive/compulsive Friedman, pulling Robin,  Mischel  Mischel,  difficult  experiments  thoughts  i t s shell,  &  1979),  relaxing,  Ebbesen, or  or behaviors  1980). The " t u r t l e technique" into  by  or  (e.g., Graziano & Mooney, 1980;  Kanfer, K a r o l y , & Newman, 1975; Weil,  oneself  something p o s i t i v e , r e l a x i n g , or l o o k i n g at  s i t u a t i o n s such as delay being  Distracting  techniques  to  1970;  eliminate  (Campbell,  1974;  (imitating a turtle  and  problem-solving;  Schneider, & D o l n i c k , 1976), and p r a c t i c e with coping  self-statements promise  in  classroom.  (Goodwin  reducing Having  tantrums  a child  "When I f i n i s h t h i s , useful  & Mahoney, 1976), have shown some and  I get a token") may a l s o prove  working  time  permitting  1976;  &  to be  a  Snyder  &  White,  c h i l d r e n to schedule t h e i r own  (provided c e r t a i n achievement c r i t e r i a are met)  may l e a d to improved academic performance (Bushell  the  1974; MacPherson, Candee, &  Hohman, 1974; P a t t e r s o n t M i s c h e l , Finally,  in  r e s t a t e the c o n t i n g e n c i e s (e.g.,  s t r a t e g y (Kanfer & Z i c h ,  1979).  aggression  and  B u s h e l l , 1976; George & K i n d a l l ,  work  habits  1976; Uhlman &  Shook, 1976). A number of comprehensive programmes  combine  some  of  the above-mentioned techniques with other s k i l l s designed t o  6  alleviate Piatt,  particular  & Shure,  self-control  1976). Such programmes as  training  (Meichenbaum  &  behavior  modification  procedures  1982;  Gross,  successfully  of  training  Drabman,  generalization  1979;  O'Leary  &  instruction  1980;  1974)  variety  of  of  done  1979;  1976)  have  been  situations, i n the  self-control  Dubey,  (Gross,  Stark,  & Shure,  in  area  responses  Rosenbaum  &  1979).  S e l f - R e i n f o r c e m e n t : An In a r e c e n t children,  O'Leary  self-control e c h o e d by  Important  review  of  Self-Control  self-control  and  "self-reinforcement  Dubey  is clearly  procedures"  one  Karoly,  indicated  1977).  of  It  self-control  t h a t i t may these noted  be  is  a  t h a t the  (e.g., Gross standard  necessary  is  s o m e t h i n g of a misnomer;  term  literature. surrounding  the  &  part  with that  powerful has  been  Drabman, of  many  some r e s e a r c h  component  & Birkimer,  been u s e d  has  for  the  1978).  "self-reinforcement"  i t has  t h e more a p p r o p r i a t e t e r m  most  sentiment  i n t e r v e n t i o n s (Nelson  s h o u l d be  discussion  a  this  used  concluded  the  programmes, and  (It  behavioral  of  (p.454);  Technique  techniques  (1979)  a number of o t h e r a u t h o r s  comprehensive  with  a  Spivack,  principles  a good d e a l of work r e m a i n s t o be  (Meichenbaum,  success  in  (see  self-instructional  1971), and  (Spivak  implemented  m a i n t e n a n c e and  1982;  Goodman,  B r i g h a m , Hopper, & B o l o g n a ,  or p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g  although  problems  here  interchangably  " s e l f - r e w a r d " throughout  Essentials i s s u e of  of  the  the  theoretical  s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t as  a  7  process  and  a  Brigham,  1978;  construct Catania,  may  1976;  be  found  i n Bandura,  Goldiamond,  1976;  and  1975;  Mahoney,  1976.) Theoretically, particularly behavior  valuable  change  especially  in  between  performing  the  that  external  reinforcement,  positive  initiated),  as  a  new  time  receiving  gap  external  1978). K a z d i n  the  the  through  of  (1980)  followed  by  the  (Redd  or  is  availability  of  are  absent  readily  reinforcer 1973). her  in  of  the  or  not  Birnbrauer,  a reinforcing  procedure  by  development  Martin,  the  contingencies  likelihood  &  more  that  a  t a r g e t response  the  agents  the  his  the  for  a conditioned &  possibility  managing t h e  stimuli  produce  Johnson  self-reinforcement  is  f o r the  externally  decreasing  evaluation  consistently  and  in  teachers)  reinforcers  self-evaluation  there  Rachlin,  namely,  when  gains  1965;  was  managed  S e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t may  Homme,  it  generalizing  inherent  thus  administering  or  f o r performance of  occurring  treatment  how  and  avoid  (e.g.,  cues  1969)  1978;  becoming d i s c r i m i n a t i v e  response  of  behavior  systems;  agents  become  maintaining  be  self-administered contingencies  difficulty  reinforcement  may  (Bandura,  (Brigham,  suggested  major  should  i n s t a n c e s where e x t e r n a l s u p p o r t  i s weak  reinforcement  in  (regardless  behavior  has  self-reinforcement  1969).  generalizable of  covert  (Bandura, When t h e  1969; child's  own  behavior  event  (i.e.,  effect),  then  is  when a the  8  self-evaluation  process  qualities  becomes  and  self-evaluation desired  itself a  begins  "glow  of  consequence  which  the  certain  success") child  becomes  a  to a t t a i n  by  Harter,  that  s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n t e r v e n t i o n s promote g e n e r a l i z a t i o n  of  behavior  change  self-efficacy  and  on  behavior of  this  society,  secondary  education  Karoly,  enhanced  1977;  & Gilovich,  ability  in general  and  one  of  rely  on  punishment  t o keep t h e i r  (Brigham,  Hawkins,  t o be —  (Dewey,  of  1939;  1981). "self-motivated"  Gagne,  1976).  of  and  1976;  burden  of  classroom  from  the  leaving  him  or h e r  Lovitt,  1973;  beneficial for  their  Drabman,  Parks,  for own  the  children  behavior  1979,  classroom).  Fine & Hopkins,  for  There  discussions is  1976);  i t can  1977, on  considerable  and  task  the  teacher, (e.g.,  also  be  responsibility Rosenbaum  self-management evidence  or  of  energy to teach  t o assume more  (see K a r o l y ,  most  Silberman,  some  and  Harter,  on  take  w i t h more t i m e  primary  1965;  1970). S e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t s y s t e m s c o u l d away  valued  reinforcement  McLaughlin,  management  a  However,  c l a s s e s under c o n t r o l &  of  external  is certainly  externally-imposed  Scott,  suggested  feelings  t h e major a i m s  McLaughlin,  teachers  have  perceptions  (Lepper  self-controlled  i n our  1982;  through minimized  development  and skill  and  p r o c e s s ) . Others  1982,  a  The  this  (see  Positive  for  constraints  of  reinforcing  then  tries  performance c r i t e r i a  discussion  on  conditioned reinforcer.  (the  achieving  to take  that  &  i n the the  9  increased  sense  of c o n t r o l or c h o i c e  facilitator  for c h i l d r e n  Brigham  Sherman,  &  1973;  1976). Some r e s e a r c h e r s a  self-reinforcement  agent  (Farnum,  Kazdin  (e.g.,  Brigham  Lovitt  have a l s o n o t e d  s y s t e m t o one  raised  contingencies  may  the  &  as  out  a of  certain  instance  a c l a s s of  Training  managed  by  1977;  be  be  the  delinquent  with  behavior  case with  1973;  Craighead  & Thomas,  1971;  Thoresen  dysfunctional is  reinforce extent Walters, for  research  accurate  do  self-concept  easily  i n one  child  & Mahoney, available  with  training low  1979;  acts  may  1978;  Felker  in children,  to a  may Bond,  is of  there  problems  much 1973;  or  1971;  treatment  (Bandura, verbal  &  as  aggressive  severe behavior  self-esteem  (Hauserman, M i l l e r ,  spontaneous  Bandura,  the  systems  in  be  1974). A l t h o u g h t h e r e on  children  may  or d i s t u r b e d ,  & Wilcoxon-Craighead,  for a n t i s o c i a l  normal  1959), t h a t  children  than  may  whose  low-self-concept,  that c h i l d r e n with  themselves  than  behavior  children  self-reinforcement  some e v i d e n c e  1974).  self-managed  self-reinforcement  i n d i v i d u a l s (Ames & F e l k e r ,  little  external  Felixbrod,  more  is deficient  depressed,  Bandura,  very  Taffel,  an  that  of a t a r g e t  appropriate  useful  self-reinforcing  1973;  30.  in  particularly  response  children prefer  e x t e r n a l l y - m a n a g e d t o k e n s y s t e m s ; a busy t e a c h e r miss  a  Bushell,  that  point  even  act  & C u r t i s s , 1968;  Brigham, & Johnson,  (1980)  may  greater Bandura  &  self-reinforcement lead  t o an  1976),  improved and  that  10  self-reinforcement children  may  behavioral  bring  improvements on  measures  Research Most into  i n t e r v e n t i o n s with  studies  one  of  process),  of  two  and  independent  broad as  The  surrounding  the  as  well  as  Children with  categories:  using  (or  "spontaneous"  and  a c q u i s i t i o n and  as  behavior  studies  the  modification  an  change  is generally  examines  fall  examining  self-reinforcement  group of  literature,  children  those  (self-control  former  developmental  with  a dependent v a r i a b l e  those  disturbed  1976).  self-reinforcement  variable  technique).  personality  in Self-Reinforcement  self-reinforcement  the  (Stark,  emotionally  from  conditions  of  children's  self-reinforeing  r e s p o n s e s . The  latter  group a d d r e s s e s  applied  concerning  use  self-reinforcement  the  issues  acquisition  behaviors. has  the  most d i r e c t  researchers w h i c h may  the  influence  may  of  is  and  but  1976;  the  both  particular  for behavioral also  be or  needed  self-reinforcement  r e s u l t s have  and  been  target  research  which  interventions, alerting  environmental  variables  at with  useful  processes. this  Such  stage  children 1979;  of  a our  (Copeland,  Rosenbaum  &  research  in  e x i s t s a l a r g e body of  independent  in  in  O ' L e a r y & Dubey,  1978). T h e r e now  area,  of  self-reinforcement  approach  McLaughlin,  widely,  relevance  studies  understanding  of  i t i s t h i s more a p p l i e d  to p a r t i c u l a r subject  parametric  Drabman,  maintenance  Although  developmental  1982;  and  the  more  dependent v a r i a b l e s inconsistent.  A  vary  closer  11  parametric some the  examination  of the l i t e r a t u r e  of t h e r e a s o n s f o r c o n f l i c t i n g  may h e l p  to c l a r i f y  f i n d i n g s , and p o i n t o u t  v a r i a b l e s w h i c h need t o be more s y s t e m a t i c a l l y  T h e r e a r e a number o f d i m e n s i o n s a l o n g d a t e may  partly  in  (which w i l l  outcomes  among  be o u t l i n e d  in  self-reinforcement  detail  below)  may  was  applied  i n the s e t t i n g  conducted  situation  2.  The  artificial  conditions  in a laboratory  such as a c l a s s r o o m  target  response  —  setting, or  studied  one s u c h a s b u t t o n - p u s h i n g  whether the o r i n a more  residence. may  be  a  purely  or w h e e l - c r a n k i n g , or  s o m e t h i n g more n a t u r a l i s t i c  s u c h as o n - t a s k b e h a v i o r  study p e r i o d s ;  behavior  to  be  due t o :  1. D i f f e r e n c e s study  which the r e s e a r c h t o  be e x a m i n e d .  Differences studies  studied.  whether  decreased  the targeted  i t  (e.g.,  is  t o be i n c r e a s e d  aggression),  is  contingent  upon a c h i l d ' s  or  the products of that  may a l s o v a r y (e.g.,  and whether  (e.g.,  according  p r o d u c t i v i t y ) or  self-reinforcement  a c t u a l behavior  behavior  during  (e.g.,  number  of  on-task) problems  solved). 3.  T h e r e have been d i f f e r e n t  both verbal 4.  The  and m a t e r i a l . reinforcement  s c h e d u l e and c r i t e r i a  whether t h e s e a r e determined also  vary 5.  among d i f f e r e n t A  types of r e i n f o r c e r s used,  number  of  by t h e c h i l d  or  u s e d , and  someone  else,  studies.  subject  v a r i a b l e s such as sex, race,  12  age, the  and  previous  outcome of  Experimental  reinforcement  self-reinforcement  v a r i a b l e ) has  laboratory  situations,  investigations  of  as  been m o s t l y there  Bandura  t h e s e has  found  performance  externally-reinforced  studied  to  a  process  in  controlled  few  laboratory  behavior  1967;  change  Liebert,  1970).  immediate d i f f e r e n c e s i n  self-reinforced  children; of  group  as  & Perloff,  significant  maintenance  "spontaneous"  have been v e r y  between  self-reinforced  a  self-reinforcement  (e.g.,  superior  relevant  research.  self-reinforcement  (dependent  None of  be  Setting  Although  technique  h i s t o r y may  some,  however, have shown  treatment  (e.g.,  Best,  and  effects  1973;  for  Johnson  &  the  Martin,  1973). The  majority  of  behavior-change classroom.  the  over b a s e l i n e  no  or  significant  externally-reinforced Glynn,  Thomas,  superiority a l . , 1976;  has  obtained  effects;  &  i n the  et  self-reinforcement  have  been  self-reinforcement  r e s u l t s have been a b o u t  showing  using  technique  Here,  advantage  studies  shows  no-reinforcement evenly  divided  difference  subjects  Shee,  (e.g.,  1973)  and  self-reinforcement  T u r k e w i t z e t a l . , 1975). f o r m a i n t e n a n c e and  approximately  conducted  half  a  those  the  conditions, between  but  those  self-  and  & Goss,  1978;  showing a c l e a r  condition  (e.g.,  Parks  similar  division  g / e n e r a l i z a t i o n of  treatment  of  A  in  a  consistent  between  Epstein  as  the  results  show  no  13  difference  between s e l f -  ( e . g . , Drabman e t 1976), and  half  and  a l . , 1973;  indicate  that  parametric  might account  external  reinforcement  Although  applied settings  external  validity,  to  of  any  laboratory  to explore  the  variables  self-reinforcement i n some s t u d i e s ,  and  such clear  between  methodologically  sound s t u d i e s  McLaughlin,  investigations  teachers with basic mechanisms w h i c h may self-reinforcement Although in be If  the  taken one  for  reviewers &  concerning  relevant  t o make t h e  to  to  of  r e s u l t s as  views a l l treatment  of  t e s t of  the  to  in  the  and  parametric controlled,  interventions  (e.g.,  Jeffrey,  1979).  Such  clinicians the  turn  and  variables  and  effectiveness  of  situations.  easier  environment  terms  Dubey,  information  be  in  self-control  O'Leary  in applied  in  tightly  researchers,  be  others.  experimental control  more  to  conducted  necessary  necessary  of  in  ultimate  provide  i t may  controlled  the  a number of  1976;  can  the  studies  need  by  advantage  for  superior  not  those  i t i s often  gain  being  but  as  provide  analogues to  1981).  analyses  The  1974;  & Israel,  need  have t h e  been e x p r e s s e d  self-reinforcement  the  investigations.  has  Neilans  Landers,  indicate  intervention,  comparability  for  &  children  findings  studies  classroom  utility  for  reinforced  Neerincx,  advantage  1981;  conflicting  finer-grained,  Panyan,  an  (e.g., F a n t u z z o & Clement Such  externally-  improve  the  internal  laboratory,  generalizable  research  as  an  validity  care as  analogue  must  possible. of  the  14  situation then an  to  the q u e s t i o n analogue  External  the i n v e s t i g a t o r  i s the extent  of  the  can  situation  wishes t o  t o w h i c h an  clinical  validity  experimental one  which  be  as c l o s e  generalize,  investigation  situation  (Kazdin,  enhanced  by  as p o s s i b l e  1978).  keeping  to the  the  clinical  on a number of d i m e n s i o n s , s u c h as t h e t y p e of t a s k s  subjects  used,  reinforcers,  and  Task and T a r g e t Most  of  location, so  (Bandura Perloff, the  the  tasks as  Kupers,  1980).  a  1964)  little  t h e r e a r e some i n d i c a t i o n s children  unsupervised 1968;  are  frequently desk, Bolstad  such  not  calling  & Johnson,  increasing  been  number  has  that  "on-task"  1972; of  as  tasks  done  &  Drabman e t a l . , investigators  area,  task  &  impact  on  1973). have  working  behavior  most at  (e.g.,  1972). However,  have  for  Duerfeldt,  of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t  targeted  Evans,  in this  Reschly & Mittman,  the  used  arithmetic  t h e m s e l v e s has an  (e.g.,  games"  have  the nature of the  behavior  been  (Bandura £  Jones  behavior (Kanfer  1974;  out)  "bowling  of s o l v i n g  work  of  have  researchers  1973;  applications  involved  as  & O'Leary,  self-reinforcing  Classroom  of  studies  variable  or c r a n k - t u r n i n g  rewarding  Masters & C h r i s t y ,  in  dependent  meaningful task  (e.g., F e l i x b r o d Although  which  employed  1967), a l t h o u g h some r e c e n t  more e c o l o g i c a l l y  problems  type  Response  laboratory creations, &  instructions,  and  forth.  self-reinforcement artificial  setting  is  heeded Winett  an and  15  Winkler's at  (1972) c a l l  academic  therefore  and  social  have  & Karoly,  behavior  (e.g.,  seem  1978;  to  1978;  improvements o v e r  conditions  (e.g.,  are  rather  employed  Mayo,  Ballard  Whether  approximately  (e.g.,  1980)  choice  of  the  produce data  procedures  Butman, F a n t u z z o , is  the  between and  &  appropriate results  those  are  showing  self-reinforcement  indicating  1973;  an  Anderson, Fodor,  tasks  be  potentially  1976),  &  Shapiro  advantage Alpert,  & for  1976;  1969).  i s an  for  Thomas,  behavior  from e x t e r n a l  (e.g.,  r e s u l t s in  self-control  target  those  behaviors  remedying d e f i c i e n c i e s i n  divided  self-reinforcement suitable  1975;  Knapczyk & L i v i n g s t o n ,  and  & Curtiss,  The  at  &  no-reinforcement  or a c a d e m i c p e r f o r m a n c e ,  improvements  self-reinforcement Loyitt  the  equally  contingencies Klein,  better  these  or  Glynn,  t h a n e x c e s s e s when  behavior  equivalent  be  or p r o - s o c i a l  consistently  baseline &  (e.g.,  self-reinforcement  (Clement, Anderson, A r n o l d ,  1978).  classroom  to  and  Montgomery,  1978). A l l of  self-reinforcement  a l t h o u g h c h i l d r e n may  improvement  Seymour,  responsive  aimed  than d o c i l i t y ,  Panyan e t a l . , 1976)  significant  behavior  academic  & Flynn,  equally  contingencies;  on  programmes  rather  Sanson-Fisher, Wood  be  growth  focussed  Humphrey  Stokes,  f o r self-management  responsive which are  for  important  analogue  one.  They must  p a r t i c u l a r experimental to  reinforcement  generalizable  studies not  procedure  contingencies,  to r e a l  world  of only and but  behaviors  16  (Kendall  &  artificial  Williams, tasks  may  procedures  (e.g.,  Montgomery  &  has  be  Liebert,  tasks  similarly  self-reinforcement  as  &  Hall,  performance  vocabulary  (Mischel, Coates,  responsive;  advantage of enhancing  to  Spiegler,  1970),  such  1979) o r mazes  been  responsive  Parton,  academic-like Fincham,  1982). A l t h o u g h p e r f o r m a n c e on p u r e l y  brief  (Barling &  Raskoff,  such t a s k s  the e x t e r n a l  on  tests &  1970;  validity  1968)  have t h e added of the study.  Rewards A number o f l a b o r a t o r y child's  magnitude  self-reward involved  is  of  "spontaneous"  unrelated  (Masters,  analogue s t u d i e s  to  1969,  1972,  1971).  When  self-reward  certain  level  of performance,  reward  may have an e f f e c t  to or deviate particular  which  are  lenient 1967) may  (i.e., value  1973;  Peskay  i s made c o n t i n g e n t however,  stricter  value  of  set  (Winston, Torney, & Labbee,  themselves material  stricter rewards  ( B a r l i n g & Fincham, is  little  research  the  t o adhere  D e p e n d i n g on t h e  children  for less-valued  rewards Masters,  working  i n c e n t i v e s may impose upon t h e m s e l v e s  self-administering  There  &  on t h e c h i l d ' s t e n d e n c y  procedure,  as c h i l d r e n working  than p r a i s e  the  on a c h i e v i n g a  the  ( L i e b e r t & O r a , 1968), o r t h e same  also  unrestricted)  of  from t h e p r e s c r i b e d c r i t e r i a .  experimental  highly-valued  the  i n d i c a t e that a  for  criteria  1978), more  (Liebert & Allen, rewards.  standards (e.g.,  Children  i f they a r e  Smarties)  rather  1979). available  concerning  the  1 7  effects  of d i f f e r e n t  children's to  types of s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d  performance. L i e b e r t  to  result  in  of  tangible  self-administration clearly  needed  demonstrating modifying O'Leary,  Simmons,  reinforcement have  applied  or  (e.g.,  Johns  1962), in led  and  laboratory most  situations  back-up  the  games aspects  to  (Brigham &  their  Sherman,  1973;  1976)  (Dresner,  has  externally-managed Performance  Quay,  who  to  1962;  effects  in  many social  Levin of  situations  from  (Morris,  the  and  incentives.  candy  t o t i m e s p e n t on  &  social  both l a b o r a t o r y  interventions  own  and  and  toys  educational  self-management by  permitting  r a n g e of back-up  reinforcers  Brigham  &  l e d t o improved  Stoerzinger,  1976;  v a l u e of the  tokens  performance  o v e r more  systems.  Criteria  Children  &  a n d d e t e r m i n e t h e exchange  1976)  1977,  conduct d i s o r d e r s  1976). E n h a n c i n g  choose  systems i n  of r e s p o n s i v e n e s s by  ranged  1972)  than  literature  Kazdin,  weakened  of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t  children  Taffel,  Taffel,  of  t o k e n s o r p o i n t s as  r e i n f o r c e r s have  (e.g.,  (see  researchers  ( e . g . , Kaufman & O ' L e a r y ,  body  analogue  t o employ  (1973) f o u n d  of t o k e n o r p o i n t  lack  children  performance  large  learning  alone  Best  on  r e w a r d s . More r e s e a r c h i s  behavior  the r e l a t i v e  with  rewards, better  a r e a . The  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s  1978),  reinforcement  1980)  in this  children's  individuals  The  e t a l . (1970) f o u n d  work h a r d e r f o r more v a l u a b l e  self-praise  rewards  and R e i n f o r c e m e n t set  their  Schedules  own  standards  for  18  self-reinforcement better  than,  criteria often  children  (Rosenbaum  set f a i r l y  (Bandura an  generally  equitable  particular  &  in  difficulties  amount of  inappropriate  1968). time  in  Even  average  the  absence  (Felixbrod phenomenon that  &  been  found  maintenance 1977;  of  level  and  but  .performance  et  in light  1977;  and  of  Weiner 1979,  over  otherwise 1978).  the  This  evidence and  frequently  &  and  Dubanowski,  found a  self-imposed  positive standards  self-administering between  children  for  with  (e.g., Brownell et a l . ,  a  criteria  do  s h o r t - t e r m performance  of  a  Duerfeldt,  s t a n d a r d s have  clearly  self-reinforcement  &  of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t  & Mahoney s u g g e s t e d .need  of  standards drop  relationship for  first  a considerable  (Kanfer  p r a i s e . As T h o r e s e n still  in  for children  no  at  children  al.,  & Fincham,  performance  rewards,  1974),  Parks  effects  between t h e l e n i e n c y  children  demands  to  performance  in superior  often  standards in  incentive  schedules  Furman, & B a r d e n ,  increased  material  1973;  Barling  the  l e t their  any  treatment  (However,  correlation and  to r e s u l t  Masters,  1975).  of  stricter  to  self-reward  children  lean  adjust these  engage  u n d e s i r a b l e one,  relatively  progressively  to  Although  themselves  Christy,  tend  O'Leary,  i s an  can  response  (Masters &  academic  for  a s , and  externally-imposed  1979).  standards and  as w e l l  under  Drabman,  1967),  manner  task  working  strict  & Perloff,  perform  criterion  self-administering in  1974,  research  schedules  for  there  on  is  optimum  fading  out  19  reinforcement). Fortunately, indicating  there  that  criteria  is  a  children's  are  either  learning  (see M a s t e r s & Mokros,  (e.g.,  Drabman  Santogrossi, Subject  al.,  1974)  1973;  observational  &  instruction  O'Leary,  1974;  1973).  Variables variability  in  i n t e r v e n t i o n s has  area  despite  of  research,  reviewers  behavior  f o r the  and  Kazdin, O'Leary  a concern  not  optimum  would not minimal  be  general  (Craighead  Furman,  1980;  research 1982;  Harris  in  &  J e f f r e y , 1974;  but  identifying  and  crucial,  effort. as  the  increasingly Clark,  1976;  worth These  use  of  widespread  Karoly,  behavioral  Evans, & Hamerlynck,  Ollendick  &  Cerny,  normal 1972;  who  whose  teacher's are  is  with  those c h i l d r e n  issues  &  1977;  1979). T h e r e  the  in  &  (Cole  s u i t a b l e f o r p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r v e n t i o n s , or be  in  Ferrari,  particular  Rosenbaum & Drabman,  treatment,  increasingly  O'Leary,  in  improvements w o u l d n o t  1972;  arguments  for matching p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l s  time  (Brown,  convincing  research  1978;  therapist's  becoming  neglected  variables  1979;  only  and  sorely  subject  Copeland,  & Dubey,  been a  to  of  self-control  1980;  repeated  responsiveness  inclusion  modification  Wilcoxon-Craighead,  the  literature reinforcement  or d i r e c t  Price  self-reinforcement  1983)  of  through  O ' L e a r y , Romanczyk, & Kaufman,  Individual  from  body  self-determined  modifiable,  et  large  or  becoming  methods  is  classrooms O'Leary  1981). In t h e i r  &  recent  20  review  of  behavior  O'Leary about  (1976)  modification  commented  behavior  that  modification,  procedure  quite  Self-control  procedures  in  large in  and  in  years  ever-increasing  behavioral  is  recent  needed  match  from w h i c h t h e y a r e  10-20%  Developmental  systematically"  particular  have  (McLaughlin,  number of  likely  studies.  the  have  The  to  children  heard  used  some  (p.  475).  increased  being  normative  in  to  a  involved information  the  approach  benefit.  large  relationship  and  1976). W i t h such  individual children  most  O'Leary  t e a c h e r s have  programmes, more p r e c i s e  to h e l p  concerning  schools,  "most  and  behavioral  popularity  in  of  body  of  subject  literature  variables  to  "spontaneous," unsupervised  self-reward  o f f e r s some  insight  into  w h i c h m i g h t u s e f u l l y be  examined  in  the  k i n d s of  applied  race,  for  Sex,  self-reinforcement instance,  reactions rewards  when  (e.g.,  Colle  frequently (e.g., or  behavior  turn  up 1973;  experimental  variables  1967;  to  & Mittman,  Masters,  Menlove,  & Bee,  in  Social  predictive  opportunity  to &  have  little  direct  (e.g.,  Lepper,  with  conditions 1972).  (e.g., A  shown t o c o r r e l a t e w i t h  &  on  Mailer,  differences variables  & Parke,  of  1972).  effect  other  Bandura,  variety  child's  Peskay,  sex  and  administer  Sagotsky,  although  interaction  a  self-  Masters  1973),  class  of  1968;  Stouwie, H e t h e r i n g t o n ,  Masters,  have been  studies.  been  the  seems  self-reinforcing Reschly  have  given  however,  1975;  variables  1970)  Grusec,  &  personality  standard-setting  21  or  self-rewarding  motivation (Switzky  (Colle  (Stouwie &  1973), and  1968;  t o be  importance  of  of  exposure 1969;  lack  public versus  L e p p e r e t a l . , 1975)  to s e l f - r e i n f o r c i n g effect  of p r i o r  socialization  do  not  behavior.  experiences  processes  i n the  standards  emphasize  development  and  behavior.  1974)  modelled  self-reward  in their  1964)  have  e f f e c t s on  been  Thoresen  direct  (e.g.,  & Mahoney, on  that  there  in  Kazdin,  the  will  children's 1980;  1974), t h e r e typical  a knowlege of age  l e a d t o more p r e c i s e p r e d i c t i o n s a b o u t  of  particular  i n t e r v e n t i o n s . W h i l e age  moderator v a r i a b l e to study, be  well  Masters  is a  &.  curious  pattern  of  time.  applied situation,  cannot  & Liebert,  self-rewards.  progression  information  et  prior  particularly  i t i s g e n e r a l l y well accepted  behavior  and  (e.g., A l l e n  can  age  parochial  Moore,  development over  efficient  I.Q.  Rosenhan, Underwood, &  1974;  In an  Verbal  1966;  developmental  of  1977).  & Mittman,  (e.g., Mischel  self-reinforcing Mokros,  (Reschly  (Kanfer,  Bandura & Kupers,  a  motivation  states  Although be  of  affective  to  documented  locus  achievement  and  Experimentally-induced 1968;  are  1972)  self-reinforcement  al.,  1970),  (Perry & Bussey,  the  of  al.,  them  Eisen,  related  Studies  among  1974), s e l f - e s t e e m  aggression  school attendance  the  et  Haywood,  & Bee,  appear  behavior:  used  to  "explain"  by  differences  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s  can  be  a useful  itself,  differences.  and  however, If  age  22  differences  are found,  concomitant age  of  (Kanfer,  1966;  1960;  Ditrichs  of  different  &  showed  that  Parton  some  from of  in  these  note  self-reinforcement  that  1968)  these  dealt  with  rewards  which  the  incidence  Hildebrandt,  Feldman,  study,  as  first-grade pilot  not  p r o c e d u r e . Montgomery  and  pilot  work  children  work  did  revealed a positive  number of t r i a l s  of  the  younger  the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t  (1970)  Two  passing that  their  f o r these  self-reinforeing  (taking  w i t h age.  -the  1973).  In b o t h s t u d i e s ,  mention  were e x c l u d e d  explore  account  ages.  Duerfeldt,  undeserved).  (1973)  to  which  Wohlwill,  self-reinforcement  children  the  changes  "cheating" declined  understand  then begin  have l o o k e d a t t h e  Kanfer  knew t o be  such  and  studies  children  inappropriate  of  (Kessen,  a few  behavior  child  must  developmental  differences Only  one  with  unsupervised  relationship  between  s e l f - r e w a r d e d on an ambiguous t a s k  and  age. Two  s t u d i e s e x a m i n e d age  directly.  S w i t z k y and Haywood  performance  s t a n d a r d s between  (age  7 through  set  a  4)  their  older  children  4-year-olds  (age was  self-reinforcement  children  of  children  difference  different  10). M a s t e r s  (1973) a l s o  ( a g e s 7 and  t o be more g e n e r o u s 7)  counterparts.  found  older  than  Self-reinforcement t o an  8)  younger  with self-reward  a l s o much more s e n s i t i v e  in  ages  s c h e d u l e of r e i n f o r c e m e n t than d i d the  (ages 9 and  (age  in  (1974) f o u n d no  10); however, y o u n g e r  denser  children  trends  by  experimental  23  manipulation  involving  7-year-olds.  Younger  manipulation  than  social  girls-  t h e young  s e l f - r e w a r d were o b t a i n e d Behavior-change relatively  few  variables situations, the The  sorts  growing  of  a  relative may  Glynn,  be  partially  self-reinforcement intensive  and  children  than  & Dubey,  1979;  al.,  such  have of  been  subject  self-reinforcement  becoming 1968)  reinforcement  1970; &  history  is  (Mischel,  Gross Dubey,  &  interventions  the  evident:  and  prior  contingencies  1979)  have  1982;  positively  procedures.  The  i n some c h i l d r e n ' s l i v e s for need  supervised  other c h i l d r e n  on  Drabman,  self-management  responsible  Rosenbaum &  the  finding  to with  be  more  behavior-problem  (McLaughlin,  Drabman,  much  that  1979;  1976;  O'Leary  Santogrossi  et  1973). Motivation  probably  self-management p r o c e d u r e s have  there  in  experiences  carefully with  children.  developmental  O'Leary  outcome of  d e a r t h of  in  studies.  consistent  1976;  differences  relationship  self-reinforcement  1982;  the  h i g h l i g h t e d in developmental  child's  with  the  sex  to  examining  experiences  success  for  researchers are  both  influenced  of t h e  than  responsive  Although  number of  of  McLaughlin,  no  f o r the o l d e r  effectiveness  (Copeland,  boys;  studies.  of v a r i a b l e s  experience  more  responsiveness  a  impact  were  investigations  to  comparison  noted  that  plays a role as  well;  in responsiveness  several  highly-motivated individuals  to  investigators are  the  most  24  responsive Jeffrey,  to 1974;  Clinicians no d e s i r e to  these  use  Masters  self-management of c o n t r o l " ; in  a l . , 1977; M c L a u g h l i n ,  1976).  with c h i l d r e n  variable  situations  life  attributional  to  child  their  style,  perceived  some  with  to  demonstrate  least  to  which  own  initially  that  control  that,  treatments  (1982)  dealing  with  "there i s q u i t e a  internalized  perceptions  to treatments  self-regulation. appears  attribute  Copeland  literature  to  controlled  in  or " l o c u s  children  to responding well of  motivation style,  efforts.  and c o n c l u d e d  degree  external  favorably  at  related  self-control  are conducive  involve  who  behavior are advised  i s attributional  of c o m p e l l i n g evidence  control  1982;  procedures,  i . e , the degree  the  &  1982).  personality  reviewed  (Gross  a t a l l t o change a p a r t i c u l a r externally-based  A  events  et  Drabman,  or t e a c h e r s working  ( G r o s s & Drabman,  bit  procedures  In  which  contrast,  interact  by  of  other  more people"  (p.223). Five affects Baron and  self-reinforcement  and Ganz Haywood  Copeland's from  s t u d i e s have d e a l t  with locus  a l l found  conclusion:  self-reinforcement and  children.  Barling  with older  (11-year-old) c h i l d r e n ,  (1978),  and S w i t z k y  than  (1980) f o u n d b u t no  it  particular.  congruent  children  procedures  as  in  results  "internal"  Patz  control  interventions  ( 1 9 7 2 ) , M o r r i s and M e s s e r (1974)  of  benefitted did  with more  "external"  t h e same p a t t e r n internal-external  25  differences Gordon and  were f o u n d among y o u n g e r Bolick  control  to  However,  only  adjusted  their  (1979) f o u n d no  persistence the  self-reinforced  children  of  were  conditions  were  found  in  responsive  in only  longer about sex  events.  externally-managed treatment  did  of  task.  children  match 8)  their  children  in  few  were  most  have  under & to  their  reinforcement  Henker,  1977).  No  sex  Sex have  differences  (1973) or W i n s t o n e t a l .  (1973) f o u n d g i r l s  task  to  be  (thinking  whereas  boys  responsiveness  to  system. not  significantly  (1967) a  Although  about  think  examined  self-  versus  an  the  sex  by  significant, more r e s p o n s e s  Gordon and  more  persisted  when i n s t r u c t e d t o Perloff  self-reinforcement.  a  external  studies.  boys,  was  to  medicated  self-reinforcement  Martin  been  hyperactive  responsive  B a n d u r a and  token  produced  variables  self-reinforcement  interaction  reinforcement than  a  experimental  differences  to (age  while  Whalen,  covert  the  negative  the  best  Santrock  e v e n t s ) than on  be  J o h n s o n and  to  level  subject  responsiveness  by  "internal"  younger  intervention,  ( 1 9 7 8 ) . M a s t e r s and  positive  to  performed  been a d d r e s s e d  11)  s t u d i e s . Non-medicated  (Bugenthal,  differences  self-reinforcement  (age  other  found  self-management  locus  contingently.  in isolated  counterparts  a  " e x t e r n a l " and  less  number  investigated  older  children.  r e l a t i o n s h i p of  self-reinforcement  performance; older  A  on  (7-year-old)  Bolick  external in  boys  (1979)  found  26  the o p p o s i t e p a t t e r n : persisted  age  be a c r u c i a l  or d e v e l o p m e n t a l variable  competencies  participate procedure 1977;  in  and  (Craighead  behavioral  level  in place, benefit  &  or c a u s a l  sufficiently  Harter,  discussions  an 1982;  young  and  demonstrates  the  mediating  In a s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t  time-on-task  appeared  to  to  the  during phasing-out The  degree  self-evaluation  the  a  variety  of  necessary  for  may  not to  (see  time be make  Copeland,  for in  detailed behavioral  Barkley, Copeland, of  and  cognitive  effectiveness procedure  of  an  introduced  for  mental both  children  age  during  to  be  of more  treatment  and  reinforcers.  t o which is  to  Karoly,  attention,  1977,  trend  verbal  procedure, of  which  i n a c l a s s r o o m of h y p e r a c t i v e boys, be  increasingly-advanced responsive  are  importance  intervention.  there  A  involved  in  improve  1978?  children  Karoly,  variables  to  to  self-reinforcement  procedure  development  to  a  p r o c e d u r e s ) . A s t u d y by  (1980)  extent  selective  in  girls.  permit the c h i l d  skills  effective  of c o g n i t i v e  self-control  which  boys  is likely  reasoning, for instance,  developed  self-reinforcement  the  1981).  cognitive  self-management;  perception,  of a c h i l d  from  Cerny,  out,  task than d i d  Wilcoxon-Craighead,  &  gradually-developing  Sivage  partialled  in determining are  Ollendick  1982;  ability  longer at a s e l f - r e i n f o r c e d  The  certain  with  children  hypothesized  are r e i n f o r c e d to  be  by  a major  positive factor  in  27  determining  the  generalizability  self-reinforcement  effects  self-evaluation  has  been  childhood  (Bandura,  years  suggesting benefit  that  from  children  older  (see  more  self-controlling  individuals  1982;  of  a  Kanfer,  1962). I t s h o u l d  child's  w h i c h has  perceived  been  shown t o  self-reinforcement f o u n d t o be 1981;  Strickland,  1982;  they  (Harter,  1982;  "wherever  there skill  Despite  1979;  that  with  c o n t r o l and  a  favorable page 24)  and 1974;  Mischel  "internality"  of  age  Certainly  Emmerich,  noted  c o r r e l a t e d with  motivation, response  is  to  frequently  (Feldman & R u b l e ,  Zeiss, & Zeiss,  e x p e c t e d even  perspective:  in behavioral  age-related  1981;  a l s o be  (see  lasting  autonomous  & Wilcox,  locus  the  1980),  concerned  become  (Brehm,  predict  d i f f e r e n c e s are  gradually  learned  more  of  1974;  Nowicki  &  1973).  behavioristic involved  and  Kendall  Mischel,  Kazdin,  interventions.  they  programmes  positively  Harter,  Age  1966;  importance  derive  of  of  throughout  1982;  may  aware  r e s p o n s e s , as  & Metzner,  Harter,  children  self-controlling  Harter,  increase  self-reinforcement  become  maintenance  page 7 ) . The  shown t o 1971;  and  the  Karoly,  from  limits  basic  to  the  evidence  learning occur"  suggesting  (p.  its  the  skills that  competencies  (1975)  in learning  strictest  suggests  basic  Staats  to l e a r n i n g w i l l  a l l the  procedures  more  1977).  is a progression is  the  complex n a t u r e o f  self-control  developed  from  noted  that  --  where  one  of  another  --  356). possible  role  28  as a m o d e r a t i n g studies  of  variable,  age  self-reinforcement  Parton  (1970) a s k e d  children  lever  every  they  time  lever  however,  caused told  Montgomery constitute  Parton  a rewarding c u e . No  probability  of  previously  judged  (1974)  on  (the degree  intrinsic  on  7 through a  two  incentive  advantage significant The  in  conditions comparion  to  activities  and  bottom were  task  emerged due  self-reinforcement  condition  age  to  Subjects quartiles  given  for  self-  Although performance  differences  Haywood  motivational  procedures.  various  had  variable  and  concerns)  an  later  they  choose  motivation  showed  a  of s e l f - r e w a r d .  Switzky  s c o r e d i n t h e t o p and  rewards.  i n the  which  of  t o work on a w h e e l - c r a n k i n g  externally-controlled  pennies.  as  to which c h i l d r e n  of  were,  its definition  relationships  locus  i n an  would  effect  self-reinforcement  10 who  they  a dependent  s t u d y by  a  pulling  the  were f o u n d  w h i c h was  versus e x t r i n s i c  measure . of  opportunity  of  and  lever-pulling  responses  reinforcing  the  four  pull  children,  keep  that  differences  less a r t i f i c i a l  responsiveness . to age  age  to  i n t o a box;  not  because  correct,  examined  orientation based  event  11  been c o r r e c t  some  could  subjects emitting  A somewhat  t h e y had  to drop  assumed  t o measure t h e  8 through  task. For  they  in only  i n t e r v e n t i o n s . Montgomery  aged  penny  that  and  correctness  designed  a  been e x a m i n e d  thought  ambiguous b u t t o n - p u s h i n g the  has  the or  i n these  equivalent  overall  control  groups,  t o l o c u s of m o t i v a t i o n . elicited  the  most  29  productivity while  the  10)  Barling  (age  was  also  more  8  and  younger  rather  but  on  no  reported. A  not  with  word  worked  to  luck  (older  low  on  scorers  a  measure  "internal"  children  adjusted  to  performances, while  their  most y o u n g e r c h i l d r e n Although age yet  trends to  (1970)  learned  study  was  question,  and  7)  the  by  interaction for  older  ones.  out,  older  to  were u n a f f e c t e d  were a l s o of  either  control:  skill by  the  high  or  the  self-reinforcement "external"  the  children,  attributed  older level  children  and  non-contingently. some i n f o r m a t i o n  procedures,  d o e s not  replication  partialled  provide  to  with  rewarded  i n t h i s a r e a . The designed  age  which they  older  studies  of  younger  for  s e l f - r e w a r d e d more  four  did  children  locus  their  in self-reinforcement  be  theoretical  these  of  and  compared  children  s e t ) . These c h i l d r e n  (ages 9  control  (age  than  instructional  main  (1979)  games,  longer  of  when t h e i r p e r f o r m a n c e was  than  than  most A  similar  f o r younger Bolick  the  children.  recent  locus  children,  was  interaction  they chose. With a b i l i t y  children  particularly  is  Gordon and 11  t h e m s e l v e s as  but  condition  subjects,  Finally, ages  8)  overall  (1980) d e m o n s t r a t e d a  reinforcement 11)  condition  present. Older c h i l d r e n  responses  conditions Patz  motivated  externally-motivated  (ages 7 and  and  intrinsically  reinforcement  the  produced  incentive  of  for  f o r age  children  the  external  productive effect  from  there  is  Montgomery and  investigate  a  oh  much Parton  particular  provide a useful  analogue  30  to  the  typical  remaining Bolick, their  three  self-reinforcement  studies  1979;  (Barling  Switzky  &  generalizability  interventions  for  a  extreme s c o r e r s  on  measures,  lack  the  criteria, Age results ages  and  the  trends of  of  may  of  of a r t i f i c i a l  the  children  studied.  performance  under  with  c h i l d ' s own  previous  period,  or  with  the  any  report  ages o f  the  from t h e  reported  the  estimated ranging  i n age  systematic  from  approximately  5  9  self-reinforcement  (e.g., Birkimer,  Ballard 1978;  D a t a on studies  the  which  grade 18  s y s t e m has  performance to b a s e l i n e &  laboratory  A  Sanson-Fisher  of  externally-adminstered  by  of  of  control reward  the  to  studies  the have  conditions a  baseline  children  The  studies  where  ages  not which  may  be  l e v e l ) - have u s e d c h i l d r e n  In  with these  uniformly  1975;  only  comparing  other  (or  or  the  mean  resulted in  Gross,  age  studies,  1982;  the  superior  non-reinforced  peers  Nelson  &  e t a l . , 1978).  ages of c h i l d r e n are the  in  tasks.  number of  years,  conditions  Glynn,  compare  locus  reinforcement.  years.  limited  use  performance during  children  to  the  self-reinforcement  performance  receiving  &  interventions according  compared the  Gordon  in appropriate  investigated  self-reinforcement  be  The  self-reinforcement  or  instruction  a l s o be  may  reasons:  of m o t i v a t i o n  of  1980;  1974)  classroom  number  use  Patz,  Haywood,  to  locus  &  intervention.  a v a i l a b l e for over  relative  reinforcement  efficacy  of  self-  programmes. The  ages  30 and of  31  subjects 10  range  years.  from  (Age  than  Santogrossi procedures  et  and  training  phases of  the  a  condition.  self-reinforcement  of  12-to-15-year-old procedures  contingencies  however, t h e r e  type  self-reward no be  was  measure  generally  slightly  for  substantially  the  other  a  inaccurate to  during  still  to  with  inferior  behavior  no  , Riner,  intervention  consequences  was  used  s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . O'Brien  system;  study  the  the  self-reinforcement  reinforcement  behavior;  p e r i o d of  to  externally-managed  any  d i s t u r b e d boys. These  (with  self-evaluation)  the  classroom  accurate  boy  in  which  to t e a c h e r - a d m i n i s t e r e d  (1983) f o u n d  6-year-old  in  by  these s t u d i e s ) .  introduced  disruptive  students  Budd  special  emotionally  controlling  teach  (1973)  approximately  somewhat o b s c u r e d  studies  external-  al.  inferior  introductory  two  the  into a  were c l e a r l y  be  performance  in  hospitalized,  in  only  poorer  condition  averaging  i n c l u d e d w i t h i n many of  are  indicates  15 y e a r s ,  d i f f e r e n c e s may  wide span of a g e s There  5 to  an  self-reward  improved  over  baseline. In  all  of  self-reinforcement effectively studies  did  i n d i c a t e no  measures Bandura  as  produced  of &  Frederiksen  Perloff, &  behavior  external  d i f f e r e n c e on  between  1967;  Frederiksen,  change  reinforcement.  significant  performance  studies  the  Bolstad 1975;  two &  reviewed, at A  least  as  number  of  some  or  all  s t r a t e g i e s (e.g., Johnson,  Kaufman & O ' L e a r y ,  1972; 1972;  32  Rhode e t a l . , 1983). S u b j e c t s from  6  to  15  additional investing system  effort  to  of  be  studies  of  terms  a  an  introducing  trend  have  i n these  found  condition  found  no  self-administered behavior,  with  between  system w i t h  post  hoc  a  (age  7)  only,  the  self-  of  presented  the  four  advantage,  external  6)  who  f o r both  to  one  9)  of  a  working disturbed and  (on-task  number of no  but items  overall  externally-monitored children; sessions  in  were  reinforcement,  performance data  on  the  accuracy),  found  the  s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t group.  young c h i l d r e n (age than  (1973)  second-grade  performance  for  task  an  comparisons  only  the  in 6  t h r e e measures  and  of  externally-  in a greater  Martin  (age  (1980),  between  and  There  superiority  Klein  self-  significant  with  result  and  to  superior  Two  emotionally  s y s t e m s on  behavior,  did  Johnson  token  behaviors  procedure.  younger  and  differences  token  self-reinforcement  differences  no  situations.  some  retarded,  disruptive  attempted.  indicate  self-reinforcement  done so c o n s i s t e n t l y , but  6-to-9-year-old  children,  a  age  economy.  number.of m e a s u r e s u s e d . S h a p i r o with  target  self-reinforcement  age  that  have n o t  of  would  in  s t u d i e s have, however, o b t a i n e d  self-reinforcement children  in  s t u d i e s ranged  studies  f u n c t i o n i n g token  from u s i n g  appears three  the  number  results  These  advantage  into a  A  years.  i n these  In  more Parks  however,  revealed  third the  a  session  third  responsive  study to  et  a l . (1976)  conditions,  indicating  33  some  s u p e r i o r i t y i n the  statistical Aside  the  these data  rather  eight  children.  advantage  for  Birkimer  and  al.,1973 Goodlet (age  Brown,  (ages 9 and and  12);  Goodlet, Neilans  a l . , 1975  (age  12.8)  equally  reinforcement decreased  Farnum  1969  (age  Israel, 11).  used:  al.,  1977  (age  (age  eighth  to  and  7 to  study  retarded  13);  1969  Turkewitz  (Frederiksen  external-  (mean and  but  the  10);  Curtiss,  children  behavior, in  measures  Drabman e t  1981  more  significant  10);  Lovitt  on-task  somewhat  and  10);  The  younger  of a  all  9  responsive  significantly  showed  et  found m i l d l y  for  groups  on  (ages  10);  7 to  1975)  be  1979  and  Frederiksen, to  these  self-reinforcement  with  revealing a superiority  involved  of  no  reported.  indicators  studies  have  Seven  were  weak  other  self-reinforcement  older  et  of  from t h e s e  children, for  analyses  s e l f - m a n a g e d c o n d i t i o n . However,  & age  self-  disruptions  self-reinforcement  condition. Immediate results  that  behavior  previously, has  changes  the  been t h a t  the  in target  modifiers  expectation c h a n g e s may  external-reinforcement  are  change  from s e l f - r e i n -  Of  any  the  age  generalize  studies  was  may  be  better  the  only  mentioned systems  than  w h i c h have examined t o  in g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y  forcement  not  self-reinforcement  systems. Studies  trends  are  hope f o r . As  with  some f o r m of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n d a t a there  behaviors  of  with  reported see  if  behavior  programmes.  examining  self-reinforcement  34  interventions reinforcement, data.  The  1978  al.,  twelve  have  reported  are  mixed;  or  7  to  Wolter,  1983  Drabman,  (age 1979  and  (age  9);  Kanfer  Clement,  6 to (age  (ages  7  (ages 8 and and Thomas are  10); 5 to  and  (1974,  with  some  10 t o  positive  results  (ages  Robertson,  effects  (ages  8);  1980  10 and Simon,  (age  but not by  a g e s 7 and  were  5 and  Pachman,  8 ) . No  and  and  1978  6 t o 9 ) ; and  Ballard  6);  1 1 ) ; Rhode e t  11); S a n s o n - F i s h e r e t a l . , Klein,  for  1 2 ) ; Humphrey and K a r o l y ,  e t a l . , 1975  1982  external  generalization  treatment  9 ) ; B a r k l e y e t a l . , 1980  (age  Thomas,  Glynn,  (age 6 t o  10); or  particular  age  1975 Glynn  trends  apparent. Results  for  of  1982  14 t o 18); S h a p i r o and 1976  comparison  maintenance  by G r o s s ,  (age  Prater,  no  results  generalization obtained  with  self-  mixed  and  as  different older  compare g e n e r a l i z a t i o n  externally-managed However,  s t u d i e s would be  and  younger  (e.g., Glynn  children  selected  "problem"  children  Johnson,  1972;  studies  involving  et  for  vary  age  the  i n normal  children  &  on  a  six  9 and  under  1973;  purposes classrooms Clement,  over  in  The  al.,  Fantuzzo  comparisons  inappropriate  as w e l l .  children  contingencies  age  children  dimensions  involving  children  s t u d i e s which  well.  significant group  from  been  between  this  the  case,  number  as  of o t h e r  studies  in  a l l used  "normal"  Johnson, of  have  data  this  1970),  or  t h e s t u d y as  the  (e.g., 1981).  9 y e a r s of age,  Bolstad Of  &  the nine  seven  (e.g.,  35  Neilans  & Israel,  subjects  from  either  Wood & F l y n n ,  clinical  homes, e t c . ) . literature  1981;  It  is  cannot  populations  unfortunate give  us  an  possible  age  the  present  differences  externally-administered This  study  i n a number of reviewed  present  A  concerning  intervention  conducted classroom  trends  for  experiment  was  responsiveness  to to  examine self-  and  upon p r e v i o u s  account  the  factors likely s t u d i e s . The  to  research  information influence  the  p a r a m e t e r s of  the  follows:  Setting  laboratory  c o n t r o l . To  age  Design  into  self-reinforcement  Experimental  generalization  children.  improved  ways, t a k i n g  s t u d y were as  the  group  reward.  e x t e n d e d and  above  outcome of  in  their  classes,  i n d i c a t i o n of  H y p o t h e s e s and p u r p o s e of  recruited  (special  that  " n o r m a l " or c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d  The  1978)  was  analogue used  in  of  order  a  to maximize  enhance e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y , in  a  school,  applications  of  and  self-reinforcement  designed  the to  experimental  experiment resemble  self-reinforcement  as  was  typical much  as  possible. T a s k and The  Target  Response  experimental  tasks  w h i c h b o r e some r e s e m b l a n c e topography, encounter  to in  the  the  kind  were p a p e r - a n d - p e n c i l  in of  classroom.  content,  and  activities The  target  at a  measures least  child behavior  in  might was  36  productivity  rather  accelerating  than  r a t h e r than  Normative  information  equivalent  difficulty  on-task  behavior,  and i n v o l v e d  d e c e l e r a t i n g the r a t e of was  used  to  select  f o r t h e two age  groups.  behavior.  task  items of  Rewards T o k e n s were u s e d  as r e i n f o r c e r s ,  c h o i c e of a g e - a p p r o p r i a t e Performance C r i t e r i a In o r d e r experimental classroom  A  back-up m a t e r i a l  and R e i n f o r c e m e n t  to maintain  and  interventions,  fairly  schedules  performance  ratios  are  reinforcement  Task  contingencies  items  normative  differed  commonly  (e.g., Gelfand  for  the  information concerning  the e x p e r i m e n t a l  to  two  o f most  criteria  by t h e  of reinforcement salient  introducing  reinforcers.  follow the procedure  t o make t h e c o n t i n g e n c i e s of  a  Schedules  were d e t e r m i n e d  dense schedule  children  c o n s i s t e n c y between age g r o u p s and  conditions,  reinforcement  allowing  and  experimenter.  was s e t , i n o r d e r  the  children;  used  when  initially  & Hartmann,  age g r o u p s ,  differential  high  1975).  reflecting  p e r f o r m a n c e on  task.  Subject V a r i a b l e s Children  i n regular classrooms  were u s e d  i n e a c h age g r o u p ,  academic  level  balanced  same  grade  and c o g n i t i v e m a t u r i t y . Sex o f t h e c h i l d control  i n f o r m a t i o n was a l s o c o l l e c t e d  two  the  t o g a i n a rough e q u i v a l e n c e f o r  a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s . Locus of  achievement The  and i n  and  f o r each  age g r o u p s s t u d i e d were 8 - y e a r - o l d s  was  academic child. (Grade 3)  37  and  11-year-olds  chosen  for  (Grade  a  approximate  number  age  investigations & Patz,  Parton,  1970;  age  1980;  the  self-reinforcement  advantage children  two be be  over older  &  than  or  of  of  the  a  increase  i n the  these  of age,  of  8 and  in  & Duerfeldt,  and  would  include  indicates  the that  immediate  in studies  while  in  Third,  t o have an  & Ruble,  1981;  reinforcement  on  involving  children  under  handling  delay-of-reward  Reese  1980;  & Lipsitt, of  adults  a  on  shift  to may  in  the  paper-and-pencil  task  Harter,  1979);  mastery  1978);  situations  on  the  self-reward  & Wilcox,  of  1970;  9  self-reinforcement  1968);  value  seem  dimensions that  of  Kendall  skill  impact  11  & age  children  studies.  self-control  (Furman,  i n the  previous procedures  inappropriate  feedback  decline  the  Montgomery  of  literature  accuracy  1962;  10)  reinforcement  decline  increased  (Feldman  Metzner,  1979;  age  effectiveness  Kanfer  measures  in  four  major d e v e l o p m e n t a l a d v a n c e s  years  the  interventions:  direction  70%  is  show d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r f o r m a n c e between  to  1966:  (9  9 years  this  were  1974). Second, t h i s  i s much more l i k e l y  made between t h e  (Kanfer,  Haywood,  studies  of  ages  self-reinforcement  mean  s t r a t e g i e s . Fourth,  relevant  the  Gordon & B o l i c k ,  external  u n l i k e l y to  First,  in "  approximate  review  self-reinforcement  particular  reasons.  and  in approximately  preceding  These  studied  Switzky  range b r a c k e t s  are  of  range of  (Barling  subjects  6).  and  increasing (Mischel  Stevenson,  child  an  &  1965); a  behavior,  and  38  corresponding Lefrancois, reliance 1971).  increase 1973,  peer  Stevenson,  on  external  Fifth,  more  significant  in  1965);  feedback general  changes d u r i n g  of c o n c r e t e  the  transition  formal  The  child's  transitivity, along  with  1979;  of  and  attention,  logical  activity  operations  and  ends  (Ginsburg  for  L e f r a n c o i s , 1973;  symbolic  Liebert,  with  & Opper,  decentration  skills,  (Ginsburg  show  i n P i a g e t i a n terms,  operations  motor  in  (Meid,  also  example, u n d e r g o c o n s i d e r a b l e and  1970;  decrease  skills  years:  capacities  sensory  allocation planful  for  a  for self-evaluation  these  spans the y e a r s  1969).  and  cognitive  this  to  -influences (Hartup,  and  expansion,  the  efficient  representation, & Opper,  Poulos,  1969;  & Strauss,  and Lane,  1974).  Design The  present  experiment  external  reinforcement,  children  f r o m e a c h age  condition,  with  the  collected  the c h i l d r e n .  A  groups control.  r a n g e were r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d proviso and  f o r each c h i l d .  Task  three  s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t , and  c o n d i t i o n s . L o c u s of c o n t r o l were  involved  was  that  sex  be  academic Two  to  balanced  achievement  presented  once  under  was  reinforcement administered fourth  procedure. with  parallel  A  reinforcement form  was  to  standard  of  administered  data  t a s k s were p r e s e n t e d  to o b t a i n b a s e l i n e d a t a . A second p a r a l l e l  A  each  between  conditions, Task  Ten  form  during  training  in  the  third  parallel  form  was  contingencies  administered  the  in  effect.  A  f o l l o w i n g day  39  under  standardized  generalization presented time  conditions  of  manipulation, effects.  reinforcement  the  contingency  was  of  temporal  Task  conditions; second  to assess Child  test effects.  standardized  to obtain baseline data,  reinforcement  a  reinforcement  t w i c e under  reinforcement  as  time  was  the  first  f o l l o w i n g the  task g e n e r a l i z a t i o n  satisfaction  also  B  with  of the  assessed.  Hypotheses 1.  The  result  two  reinforcement  i n s u p e r i o r performance  the c o n t r o l effect  group, w h i l e  (third  2.  reinforcement  (number  self-  and  in  3. over  Generalization  non-reinforced  A)  a generalization  was  not  of  self-reinforcement  to  differ  8-year-olds,  but  condition  problems  task  effects  correctly  a  for  ( F o u r t h a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of (Second  to  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of  differ  8-year-olds,  the C h i l d  with  (increase  solved)  but  between  the  reinforcement  Satisfaction  self-  a superiority  c o n d i t i o n f o r 1 1 - y e a r - o l d s was  Satisfaction  m e a s u r e d by  reinforcement  expected  reinforcement  trials  expected  externally-reinforced  4.  in  expected.  later  B)  not  while  self-reinforcement  b a s e l i n e i n number of  and  that  A).  externally-reinforced  the  1 1 - y e a r - o l d s was  was  to  c o n t i n g e n c i e s were i n  correct)  c o n t i n g e n c i e s were i n e f f e c t  superiority  (number c o r r e c t ) t o  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of T a s k  Performance  between  c o n d i t i o n s were e x p e c t e d  in  Task Task and the  expected.  procedure  Questionnaire)  to  was  (as not  40  expected  to  differ  8-year-olds,  but  condition  1 1 - y e a r - o l d s was  5.  by Sex  a  between s e l f -  was  included  exploratory  basis.  nature  the  of  preference  Due  relevant  were made c o n c e r n i n g girls  to 6.  the  conditions.  expected  show  the  were  expected  7. variable  was  v a r i a b l e on  and  no  an  contradictory  specific  hypotheses  r e s p o n s i v e n e s s of  to  show external  investigate conditions.  included  More  Academic achievement  experimental  sparse  as  possible  superior  f o r , the  to  self-reinforcement  independent  literature,  self-reinforcement  preference  an  the  investigate  experimental  for,  the  boys  and  experimental' c o n d i t i o n s .  to  to  externally-reinforced  expected.  differential  L o c u s of c o n t r o l  variable  for  as  to  and  "internal"  condition; superior  children  i n , and  performance  included  with were  preference  "external"  reinforcement  possible  exploratory  interactions  performance  was  an  children in,  and  condition. as  an  exploratory  interactions  with  41  Method S u b j e c t s and Sixty  children  participants 8  years,  participated  were 8 - y e a r - o l d  8  months)  and h a l f  6 (mean age = 11 y e a r s ,  boys  and  in  each  i n the study. Half  students  grade  girls  Setting  were  i n grade  11-year-old  range  the  3 (mean age = students i n  9 m o n t h s ) . An e q u a l  age  of  number  participated  of  i n each  condition. S u b j e c t s were r e c r u i t e d schools first (see be  i n t h e Lower M a i n l a n d  to respond Appendix  in  regular  from  one  to a l e t t e r  A ) . In o r d e r of  of  a r e a . These  a  schools  sent t o a l l l o c a l  to p a r t i c i p a t e ,  t h e two age and g r a d e  classroom,  permission  three parochial  fluent parent  in  English,  (see  Appendix  the  boards  child  had t o  enrolled  and B  were  school  each  ranges,  elementary  in a  have  the  f o r permission  forms). A total parents School The  permission  #2, a n d 35 a t S c h o o l  parents  students  of  eight  four at School remaining, (2 a t S c h o o l  School  and  #3)  total  of  sent  (22 a t S c h o o l  home #1,  to  46 a t  refused  permission  #1 and f o u r a t S c h o o l  to  #2. Of t h e  23 s t u d e n t s were e l i m i n a t e d on t h e #1,  15 a t  School  #2,  and  6  at  2 s t u d e n t s were e l i m i n a t e d on t h e b a s i s o f  of f l u e n c y i n E n g l i s h A  were  #3). A l l o f t h e s e were r e t u r n e d .  students  b a s i s o f age  lack  forms  of p r o s p e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s  participate: 95  o f 103  70  (both a t School  students  were  #2).  thus  eligible  to  42  participate and  i n the study;  29 a t S c h o o l  this  sample  School  by  #1),  interrupted  required  from  School  #1,  testing alarm,  19 from  second  table  child's  table  close  to  and  chair  so t h a t  the  child  session  and r u l e r  Each  student  compensation that  would b e n e f i t small at  in  individual  $2  #2)  was  discarded.  School  i n a quiet  in  table,  and a  A  to the  either  of p l a s t i c  12  #3.  room  angles  could  towards  a  class  ( t h i s procedure  who  were u n a b l e  In a d d i t i o n ,  "prize"  (at  sit  tokens pencil,  provided.  the c l a s s  as w e l l ) .  day  were p r o v i d e d f o r t h e c h i l d .  f o r h i s or her time  children  were  #2, and 29 from  o r t u r n away. A d i s h  earned  testing  o b t a i n e d as f o l l o w s :  experimenter  were a l s o  were  #1 and f i v e a t  were p l a c e d a t r i g h t  the  girls  (at School  data  was p l a c e d on one c o r n e r o f t h e c h i l d ' s eraser,  eight  on t h e  individually  s c h o o l . A t a b l e and c h a i r  #2,  over-represented in  so  so t h o s e  School  was t e s t e d  25 a t S c h o o l  (three at School  60 s u b j e c t s were t h u s  Each c h i l d the  boys),  draw  one  by a f i r e  The  31  s t u d e n t was a b s e n t  and  #1,  were s l i g h t l y  to  random  #2). One  School  #3. G i r l s  (39 g i r l s  eliminated  16 a t S c h o o l  each  was  as  used  so  to participate  child  (e.g., s t i c k e r s ,  fund  gum,  was g i v e n or note  a  pad)  t h e end of the e x p e r i m e n t a l s e s s i o n s . Experimenter The  author  author  is a  experience  served as experimenter  graduate in  testing  student  with  and b e h a v i o u r  f o r a l l s e s s i o n s . The 2  years  therapy  of  clinical  with  children,  43  and  has  with  previous  children  possible  research in  these  experimenter  condition identical  were  experience age  bias,  printed  in  groups.  In o r d e r  procedural  on  index  f a s h i o n t o each c h i l d  similar  settings  to  protocols  cards,  and  (see Appendix  minimize for  each  repeated  in  C).  Measures Four children,  paper-and-pencil and  one  m e a s u r e s were a d m i n i s t e r e d  t o the c l a s s r o o m  to  the  teachers.  L o c u s of C o n t r o l S c a l e The  Nowicki-Strickland  Children  (Nowicki  40-item, to  Strickland,  generalized  in children.  beliefs  about  Items i n t h i s  intellectual  and  parents'  indicate scores This  friends'  t h e number of  i n d i c a t e more is  t y p e , and its  and  reliability  utility  Strickland,  and  (Copeland, 1977),  framework  The  s c a l e was  chosen;  attributions  particularly  social  Scores  used  efficacy as  and on  this  thus, of  &  for  have  well  control scale higher  control.  instrument  research  Kendall  is a  designed  reflect  superstition  validity  l o c u s of c o n t r o l  D)  for  internal/external  scale  most w i d e l y  r e l a t i o n s h i p of learning  of  behavior.  1982;  Appendix  questionnaire  " e x t e r n a l " items  the  Scale  academic b e h a v i o u r s ,  "external"  currently  Control  1973;  perceptions  as g e n e r a l p e r c e p t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g over  of  forced-choice, self-report  assess  control  &  Locus  of i t s  confirmed  Williams, examining  1982; the  to other v a r i a b l e s w i t h i n a  ( L e f c o u r t , 1982).  administered  i n a group s i t u a t i o n  to a l l  44  participants  in  experimenter  read  followed own  along  same  grade  each q u e s t i o n  and c i r c l e d  at  aloud  their  each  school.  twice,  while  The  children  p r e f e r r e d a n s w e r s on  their  sheets. A  to  the  locus  o f c o n t r o l measure was i n c l u d e d  i n v e s t i g a t e the  responsiveness  to  Locus of c o n t r o l been  relationship the  of  different  locus  in this  of  control  reinforcement  in  detail  in  the  to  conditions.  i s t h e one p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e  examined  study  which  has  self-reinforcement  literature. Task A  (Arithmetic)  The  Mathematics Computation  Achievement series the  Tests  of simple,  purpose  into  four  problems, level  (Tiegs  of  the present forms  by  balancing  for  type  grade  each  so t h a t  age  long  was d i v i d e d  allocation  of computation  For  of  the  i n v o l v e d and were g i v e n  3  a s many c o r r e c t answers a s p o s s i b l e . "  8-year-old  Although  from t h e s t a n d a r d  used  the  rather  random  6 forms were p i l o t  and 11-year-old  t h e t e s t s were o f e q u i v a l e n t  group.  California  problems.  the subtest  (see Appendix E ) . C h i l d r e n  departure in  the  arithmetic  3 forms and g r a d e  in classrooms with  of  1970) c o n s i s t s o f a  study,  shorter  minutes t o " c i r c l e  adjusted  & Clark,  multiple-choice  of d i f f i c u l t y  The  subtest  present  such  changes  administration,  children,  Therefore  and  difficulty for constituted the  test  i n v e s t i g a t i o n a s an e x p e r i m e n t a l  t h a n as an a s s e s s m e n t d e v i c e .  tested  the  a was  task  absolute  45  or normed l e v e l s This reasons. both kind  particular As  a  speed of  of p e r f o r m a n c e a r e was  a  accuracy, child  contingencies  p e r f o r m a n c e of  normal c h i l d r e n  brief  standardized  1971;  Clingman,  Hobbs,  1979;  tests  a  number  task  in  on  (e.g.,  a  the  number  to  improve  of  (e.g.,  Dunham,  Barling  &  Welchert,  1971),  Fincham,  the  similarly  Bowman, & P a r r i s h , 1977; &  the  classroom.  B e r g a n , McManis, &  Witmer, B o r n s t e i n ,  of  requiring  some r e s e m b l a n c e  have been shown t o  Auerbach,  self-reinforcement  for  encounter  Reinforcement  interest.  arithmetic  i t bears  might  of  chosen  paper-and-pencil and  task  test  not  Holt as  &  has  1979;  Best,  1973) . The  primary  equivalent It  had  difficulty  t o be  supervision, score  their  procedure  experimental  a task and own  task  designed  on  had  use  of  discrete,  the  number of  with  the  amount of work a c c o m p l i s h e d .  was  desirable,  from  to  performance  reinforcement  Sattler,  1974). The  or  contingencies  into  four  parallel  times  to each s u b j e c t  a l s o had  forms, because  likely  motivation  be  the so  correspondence  were  i t was  (the p a r t i c u l a r  in  speeded  (e.g., to  easily  simple  levels  attention  task  groups.  response u n i t s  a clear A  of  minimal  reinforcement  t o k e n s awarded had  increased  age  work w i t h  small  that  sensitive  the  forms  enough t h a t c h i l d r e n c o u l d  a n s w e r s . The  necessitated  have  f o r e a c h of  which c h i l d r e n can  simple  as  to  task to  resulting  Oakland, easily  be  1969;  divisible  administered  forms a d m i n i s t e r e d  four to  46  any  one  child  were  presentation). Finally, made i t p r e f e r a b l e in  the l o c a l The  fulfilled  that  t o be  very  subtest.  Computation  subtest  likely  to  sustain  #7 ( S u b s t i t u t i o n ) (Babcock,  similar For  to  the  a  available  which  sufficiently  child's  o f t h e Babcock  more  widely  g r o u p s would  of  t h e number  items  the  interest  t i m e . The s u b s t i t u t i o n this  task-generalization  provided) according becasue  task  effects twice  Coding  s t u d y , a few m i n o r time  limit  f o r an e q u a l  to  2  These  would  be  was  used  to  of the e x p e r i m e n t a l (using  amount  of  i n A p p e n d i x F. probe  This  for  conditions,  t h e two p a r a l l e l  t o standard procedures.  i tfulfills  T a s k A, i n c l u d i n g  WISC-R  which  c o m p l e t e d , a n d t h e two age  i s presented  task  administered  task,  t h e p e r f o r m a n c e measure  correctly  of Mental  of items p r e s e n t e d .  be e x p o s e d t o t h e t a s k  Because  Test  used  the purpose of the p r e s e n t  and i n c r e a s i n g  number  chosen  of the C a l i f o r n i a  1965) i s a s p e e d e d c o d i n g  c h a n g e s were made s o t h a t  was  used  administrations.  c h a n g e s were made, s u c h a s r e d u c i n g  it  i s not widely  (Substitution)  Efficiency  the  of  system.  the four  Subtest  minutes  order  considerations  a l l t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s , a n d y e t was  throughout  is  school  to  and p r a c t i c a l  T e s t s was one o f t h e few t a s k s  challenging  Task B  ethical  assigned  t o employ a t e s t  Mathematics  Achievement  randomly  task  forms was  many o f t h e same r e q u i r e m e n t s a s  the e s s e n t i a l  requirements of  suitability  47  for  both  age  responsive  to  resemblance forms, Child  groups,  and  t o academic  as  behavioral  satisfaction  with  Forehand,  two  G)  was  reinforcement) particular  in  rating interest  for  assessment interventions Satisfaction  to assess  the  children.  of t h e c h i l d ' s like  the c h i l d  of  your  (McMahon  i s asked  to  reply  of  examines  a  situation  a  t h e major c o m p a r i s o n  of  children  by  way  giving  in  the  questionnaire  questions concerning two  the  external  c o n s i s t e n c y i n the p r o c e d u r e  r e p l a c e d by  &  Questionnaire  work t o be marked t h i s  a l s o a d m i n i s t e r i n g the  were  item  and  children's  p e r c e p t i o n of t h e  s c a l e . Although  conditions,  s u b j e c t s . Two  procedures  1978),  the a c c e p t a b i l i t y  Each  i s between t h e a n s w e r s from  by  Wolf,  social  in applied  c o n d i t i o n s ( s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t and  on a 5 - p o i n t  maintained  parallel  of  variable  1977;  Child  would you  reinforcement  control  a  recognition  dependent  behavioral  to  s c h o o l ? " ) and  of  of  school psychologists.  growing  need  designed  aspect  "How  by  (Kazdin,  1983),  experimental  (e.g.,  the  research the  degree  t a s k s , the a v a i l a b i l i t y  important  particularly  a  being  Questionnaire  with  an  of p e r f o r m a n c e  procedures,  i n f r e q u e n c y of use  In k e e p i n g  (Appendix  likelihood  reinforcement  Satisfaction  validity  the  the  to  two was the  reinforcement  alternate questions  i n the  control condition. Teacher  Rating  After  of Academic  a l l the  testing  Level s e s s i o n s were c o m p l e t e  i n any  one  48  school, a  the  rating  rating  on  a  teachers  s c a l e of  of  problems, "4"  classroom  "1"  "2"  to give  1 to 5 f o r general  indicated  below a v e r a g e  above a v e r a g e , and  were a s k e d  "5"  students students,  academic  with "3"  outstanding  each  level.  some  average  child A  academic achievers,  students.  Procedure Overview Pilot the  testing  course  of  recruitment. parental met  to c o l l e c t of  several  Once  permission  with  of Task A  the  scale.  The  and  individual  was  for  trial.  and  seen  the  the  school,  the  and the  30  then  minutes for a  sessions  experimenter  each p a r t i c i p a t i n g  grade locus  f o l l o w i n g day  testing  the  sessions  for approximately  When a l l  in a particular  administer testing  5 m i n u t e s on  and  experimenter  information  a d e b r i e f i n g s e s s i o n with  were  then  held  class.  Testing Pilot  conducted  testing i n the  elementary participate class  returned,  over  subject  completed  demographic  generalization  Pilot  was  with  p a r t i c i p a n t s i n each s c h o o l  day  completed  concurrent  testing  forms were  conducted  prospective  control  one  weeks,  pilot  commenced. E a c h c h i l d on  ( A r i t h m e t i c ) was  school i n the  quiz  the  Task A  G r a d e 3 and  volunteered  arithmetic  of  (Arithmetic) materials  G r a d e 6 c l a s s r o o m s of  (children  from  this  main s t u d y ) . A l l o f to  help  t h a t ' s not  too  the hard  the  school  not  local  did  children in  experimenter and  a  too  was  not each  develop  "an  easy,"  by  49  attempting Only  several different  the data  were  used  versions the  for children  difficulty  the  to  make at  p o s s i b l e . On t h e f i n a l correctly  (SD=8.8), and  on  and f i v e  o f some i t e m s  completed  items  appropriate  were a d m i n i s t e r e d  level  i n order  correctly  of  in  (eleven 8-year-olds  of the t e s t  each time  v e r s i o n s o f t h e 3-minute q u i z .  the each  groups  11-year-olds).  t o each  being  class,  slightly  average age  age  with  adjusted  number  of  as  similar  level  v e r s i o n of the t e s t ,  Four  t h e mean  items as  number  c o m p l e t e d on t h e G r a d e 3 form was 28.4  the  Grade  6  form  the  mean  was  31.8  (SD=5.1). Subject  Recruitment  As  outlined  participate first  do  on  schools  s c h o o l s were i n v i t e d  the  experimenter  visited  pool  of  60  were r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d for  sex  within  e a c h age r a n g e p a r t i c i p a t e d I n t r o d u c t o r y Group Before  testing  participating study  and c o l l e c t e d  would  by  children to  the  the  the students to  o f how G r a d e 3 and G r a d e 6  the students  subject  balancing  the  by l e t t e r t o  students  some l e a r n i n g e x e r c i s e s . " L e t t e r s o f p e r m i s s i o n  children  the  The  t o r e p l y , and i n v i t e d  i n "a s t u d y  s e n t home w i t h Once  above,  i n the p r o j e c t .  three  participate  and S e l e c t i o n  the  were  teacher.  was e s t a b l i s h e d , three  conditions,  e a c h age g r o u p . Ten c h i l d r e n i n i n each c o n d i t i o n .  Session began  i n each s c h o o l ,  c l a s s e s were t o l d  leave  the  classroom  the  children  that those and  work  in  involved in with  the  50  experimenter every  for  s t u d e n t would do  confidentiality was  stressed,  asking  The  Locus  happen class.  answers"  and  the c h i l d r e n  minutes,  thing.  The  were a s k e d  about  of C o n t r o l to f i n d  the  t o you", Children  on  and  not  importance  of  to  then  the  help  study  by  not  sessions,  or  themselves.  introduced  as  o p i n i o n s on d i f f e r e n t  a  things  a d m i n i s t e r e d to a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s  were a s k e d  sheets  that  testing  s c a l e was  out y o u r  and  secrecy throughout  the s e s s i o n s i f they p a r t i c i p a t e d  "questionnaire  the  of r e s u l t s  and  30  t h e same  participants  discussing  that  approximately  to f i l l  in t h e i r  "own  in  private  p r o v i d e d , as the experimenter  read  the  room a t  the  questions aloud. Baseline  Measures  When t h e c h i l d beginning  of  reminded learning or  your  him  then the  or h e r  that,  p a r e n t s how  you  do  experimenter in front  read  understood and  minutes...  will  experimenter  be d o i n g  i t ' s just  of the c h i l d ,  answers.  some  different  your  teacher  between y o u and  After  how  many On  s a y i n g , "The  standard  C ) , showing  the i n s t r u c t i o n s ,  Ready?  the  not g o i n g to t e l l  e x e r c i s e . " The  see  the t e s t i n g  me."  t h e n p l a c e d a sample s h e e t o f Task  (see Appendix  correct  —  into  session,  "We  I am  arithmetic  time you  individual  but  (Arithmetic) an  brought  exercises,  The  is  the  was  first  thing  instructions  were  the c h i l d  checking  how  to  that  the  the experimenter  said,  you  your  can mark,  A  do get  circle child "I  correctly set,  go!"  will in  3 The  51  experimenter collected  stopped  the t e s t  The  exercise." were r e a d  told, in  standard  (see Appendix  figures  t i m e you  2 minutes...  and  minutes  gave  the  child  "Now  we  have  said,  instructions  C ) , showing  and  A r e you  experimenter  minutes,  of- 3  from  the c h i l d  w i t h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e number. The  "I'll  The  then  s h e e t , and  The  a t t h e end  and  form.  experimenter  (Substitution)  the  the c h i l d  see how  r e a d y ? On  stopped  collected  a  how  B  matching manual  to f i l l  child  was  do  y o u r mark, g e t at  Task  the t e s t  many you c a n  the c h i l d  the t e s t  a  in  then  correctly  set,  go!"  end  of  the  2  form.  Experimental Manipulation The  three  conditions  reinforcement,  and  the second  third  and  Children at  this  work one  point  done token  that  control) differed  i n the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t that  they c o u l d  on t h e n e x t a r i t h m e t i c f o r each  item c o r r e c t l y  the tokens c o u l d  be e x c h a n g e d  tokens  could  s e l e c t . U s i n g t o k e n s and backup  they earned,  prizes  self-reinforcement Mischel  et  the a c t u a l  earn  external  i n t h e manner  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s o f Task  more  the  (self-reinforcement,  A took  condition  tokens  in  which  place. were  told  f o r t h e amount  task. Children could completed. later  t h e more d e s i r a b l e leaving  earn  They were  for prizes,  told  and  the  the p r i z e  the exact  of  they  nature  of  u n d e f i n e d i s a p r o c e d u r e common t o many studies  a l . , 1968;  ( e . g . Bandura  Switzky  & Haywood,  &  Perloff, 1974).  This  1967; keeps ' .—  items g i v e n d u r i n g the task c o n s t a n t f o r c h i l d r e n  52  of d i f f e r e n t  ages  (and p r e f e r e n c e s ) ,  the  that  token  finding  standardized (e.g.,  laboratory  Bergan  and  r e i n f o r c e r s may t a s k s than  e t a l . , 1971;  takes  account  be more e f f e c t i v e  are  Clingman  into  candies  or  e t a l . , 1977;  on  praise Klugman,  1944). Children told  that  i n the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t  t h e y were  administering the  et  the c o r r e c t  procedure  appropriate  used  in  standards  a l . , 1975),  to check  i n charge  their  of c h e c k i n g t h e i r  applied  the c h i l d r e n  The  children  scoring  template  and  practiced  calculated  each  the  average minutes  of  3.2  minutes  child  exercise  was  (Task  familiarity  "practice"  trial  otherwise  rather  give  the c h i l d  reinforcement  form with  was  work  to  i t was  take only  the  shown how  "calculating items per  the line),  correctly  and with  maintain Turkewitz important number  of  t o use  the  number  of  until for  This  training  for  the Grade 3 c h i l d r e n  told  that  2) w o u l d be the  procedure  the  next  "just  they three  took  an  and  2.8  to increase  the  arithmetic  for practice",  self-scoring  experimental  experience with procedure.  that  were t h e n  (nine  included  brief  also  children.  then  A,  and  of - tokens  lines.  f o r the Grade 6  The  gain  line  number  c o n s e c u t i v e example  situations  were t o l d  work c a r e f u l l y  on  own  ( e . g . , Drabman e t a l . , 1973;  earned.  earned  were  number o f t o k e n s . In k e e p i n g  tokens  tokens  condition  procedure. the  This of  an  m a n i p u l a t i o n , and  to  actual  salience  to  evaluation  and  53  Task  A  (form 2) was  3-minute p e r i o d . The number  of  tokens  then a d m i n i s t e r e d f o r the s t a n d a r d  child  was  earned  and  a c c o r d i n g l y . The  experimenter  table  point  at  this  prompted  and  herself  t u r n e d away  to  appeared  i n order to minimize  perceived  by  test  counting  and  experimenter returned time  these  taken  both  to  the  "practice"  that  A  ( f o r m 3) was  "this  i s t h e one  and  the  q u i z and  for  taken, the c h i l d me  we'll  children dish  and  t o d a y , but  (Average this  minutes  counted  was  expressed  told,  satisfaction removed  experimental  reinforcement  condition  and  average  minutes  for  time  again  was  "I  don't  get  number o f  the  f o r them,  prizes you  got,  OK?"  All  arrangement.  the c h i l d ' s in  identical  minutes  children).  many t o k e n s  with t h i s  from  have  The  desk.  the to  the  to score  1.4  f o r Grade 6  trial  by  taken  a l o u d the t o t a l  procedure was  reminder  experimental  trial  I ' l l w r i t e down how  then  (The 1.5  followed  see tomorrow what y o u c a n  o f t o k e n s was The  1.6  had  was  c o u n t s . " The  t o k e n s on  the experimenter  tokens  and  out  the  i n t r o d u c e d , with the  procedure.  Grade 3 c h i l d r e n  After  with  count  line,  number o f t o k e n s  test  t h e a r i t h m e t i c q u i z t h e n began,  self-reinforcement  the  the Grade 6 c h i l d r e n ) .  then that  in other  scoring  each  t o the d i s h .  s c o r e the p r a c t i c e  adjacent  supervision  finished  the t o t a l  tokens  the  of  for  the  or h i m s e l f  engaged  amount  tokens  aloud  the Grade 3 c h i l d r e n Task  of  counted  the  t o be  When t h e c h i l d  out  calculate  reward  activities  the c h i l d .  to  that  external in  the  54  self-reinforcement  condition,  rather  child  than  the  tokens. Children later, and  that  the how  prizes)  were t o l d  for their  of  that  they c o u l d  performance  tokens  earned  the  for  (Task  child  A,  was then  form  correct  appropriate number  2)  and  on  number  calculated  the  example l i n e s .  (The  was y o k e d  that  line,  to  same-sex s u b j e c t  to  the  given 3 minutes  each  of the  "practice"  quiz  t o work on i t . The  p h a s e by c a l c u l a t i n g t h e  giving  the  child  the  o f t o k e n s , and c o u n t i n g a l o u d t h e t o t a l  of t o k e n s earned. yoked  and  demonstrated  condition).  introduced  (The amount o f t i m e t a k e n  was  children  i n the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t  t o t h e amount o f t i m e  work and s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r  for  this  t a k e n by same-aged  condition  t o check  t o k e n s . ) The " p r a c t i c e "  their  t o k e n s were  r e t u r n e d t o the d i s h . Task  "this  A  ( f o r m 3) was  i s t h e one  period,  the  calculated of  task,  tested  process  then  on t h e a r i t h m e t i c  several  experimenter concluded the t r a i n i n g number  (and  explanation  most r e c e n t l y  out the  s c o r e t h e q u i z and c a l c u l a t e  same age i n t h e s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t The  experimenter  earn tokens  t e m p l a t e w o u l d be u s e d  amount o f t i m e t a k e n by t h i s by  the  o f t o k e n s e a r n e d . The e x p e r i m e n t e r  the s c o r i n g  taken  that  s c o r e d the q u i z and counted  t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r would  number  number  except  tokens  that  i n t r o d u c e d w i t h the reminder  counts."  experimenter  again  After  checked  t h e t o k e n s e a r n e d , and c o u n t e d aloud. (Scoring  the  3-minute  the c h i l d ' s the  total  t i m e was a g a i n yoked  that work work,  number  t o the time  55  taken  by c h i l d r e n The  the  child  number  chosen  removed  told  tokens  the  satisfaction then  was t h e n  of  on  i n the self-reinforcement  earned,  following  with from  that  this  a r e c o r d would be made and t h a t  day.  A l l  the p r i z e  children  a r r a n g e m e n t . The d i s h  the c h i l d ' s  In t h e c o n t r o l  condition).  The  forms,  of tokens  second  about  form  the c h i l d r e n  no m e n t i o n  o f Task A  also  worked  was made o f t o k e n s  was  preceeded  by  " t h e b e s t way t o mark t h e s e a r i t h m e t i c  the use of t r a n s p a r e n c i e s f o r s c o r i n g , an  equivalent  amount o f t i m e  i n order  to the t r a i n i n g  marking  t r a n s p a r e n c i e s , " a n d was a s k e d exercise, given, child  "just  for practice."  and t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r  for  scoring  self-reinforcement The  a  Task  exercise,  then  take  up  told  that with  second  the these  arithmetic  A ( f o r m 2) was t h e n  s c o r e d t h e form a n d i n f o r m e d t h e  was  tone  yoked  asked  of v o i c e .  to  the c h i l d  informing the c h i l d  be s c o r e d , and t h a t  that  "this  to  that  in  (Time the  do  this  a  third  one would  one c o u n t s . " Task A ( f o r m 3)  then a d m i n i s t e r e d , and the experimenter  the c h i l d  to  condition).  experimenter  arithmetic  was  do  of h i s or her score i n a n e u t r a l  taken  also  to  discussion  procedures i n  experimenter  practice  or p r i z e s .  e x e r c i s e s " and  was  "to  on  s c o r e s on  a  t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s . The c h i l d wanted  was  desk.  condition,  but  c o u l d be expressed  forms 2 a n d 3 o f Task A a n d were i n f o r m e d o f t h e i r these  of  again  informed  of t h e s c o r e o b t a i n e d , i n a n e u t r a l , tone  of v o i c e .  56  (Scoring  time  was  self-reinforcement the  arithmetic  from t h e Child  child  saying,  was  to  fill  the  dish  of  taken  in  p r o c e s s of t o k e n s was  Task B manner as  the  collecting also  removed  the  about  the  questionnaire  some more t h i n g s , the  exercise her  we  I'd  the  the  like  just did."  a n s w e r s on  questionnaire  to  to The  scales  p r i v a t e l y , with  the  away.  Trial  of  2)  Task B  was  first  (Substitution)  then given  t o the  child  i n the  same  f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g , and  told  administration.  Instructions  The  child  there  before  out  (form  do  the  t o mark h i s or  turned  Generalization  Interim  think  shown how  asked  was  prizes  "not  to  until  a l l the  child  was  "a  were  few  anyone  entering was  t o do  told  "one  of the  that  more of  things  had  to  and  tomorrow"  about  a s k e d him  the  or  testing  the  Task A  (Arithmetic)  the her  sessions  a chance to p a r t i c i p a t e .  back t o  The  classroom.  t e s t i n g room on the  do  experimenter discussed  child,  anything"  c h i l d r e n had  Trial  quick  with the  then e s c o r t e d  Upon  thanked  c h o s e n . The  secrecy  tell  Generalization  child  then  would be  i m p o r t a n c e of  child  the  " B e f o r e we  what you  experimenter  the  sheets,  experimenter presented  out  that  c o n d i t i o n ) . In  that  S a t i s f a c t i o n Quesionnaire  child,  and  to  c h i l d ' s desk.  The  find  yoked  experimenter  those a r i t h m e t i c  the  following  would  like  exercises,  day, the  because  57  I'm i n t e r e s t e d days,  and  i n seeing  I'd  like  i f k i d s do d i f f e r e n t l y  on d i f f e r e n t  t o see how y o u do on i t t o d a y . " T a s k A  ( f o r m 4) was t h e n g i v e n i n t h e same manner a s  the  baseline  administration. Closing  Discussion  The  experimenter  asked about with  and P r i z e s  him  then  the t e s t i n g  asked  session  or discussed  "any o t h e r k i d s  were  children  indicated  experiment  w i t h anyone, and t h a t  the o t h e r c h i l d r e n child  was t h e n t o l d ,  you c a n c h o o s e  You  may  choose  (e.g.,  The to  from  stickers, child  any p r i z e  a  was t h a n k e d  asked  discussed  private  the  ones  The c h i l d of  for helping until  any  of  I've  brought. give  them  then  made  h i s or  several  small  "prizes"  o u t , and a g a i n  everyone's  asked  f i n i s h e d . " The  Level  t o g i v e an o v e r a l l  the c h i l d  the  to the classroom.  s t a n d i n g , on a s c a l e  obtained a f t e r  A l l  i t either.  c l a s s r o o m teacher of each p a r t i c i p a t i n g  in  academic  not  i t . "  gum).  back  R a t i n g s o f Academic  The  about  "You d i d so w e l l y e s t e r d a y ,  display  notepads,  was t h e n e s c o r t e d  Teacher  t o any q u e r i e s ,  they d i d not t h i n k  from  finished."  "keep e v e r y t h i n g a s e c r e t  child  had  experiment  t h e one y o u want t o d a y , and I ' l l  out when e v e r y o n e ' s selection  they  were d i s c u s s i n g  that  her  that  talking  i f anyone had  the  o r h e r , how he o r she had r e p l i e d  and whether  Each  the c h i l d  rating  o f 1 t o 5. T h e s e  completed  the t e s t i n g  s t u d e n t was  of the c h i l d ' s ratings sessions.  were  58  - Debrief ing Where a l l c h i l d r e n the  testing  experimenter to  sessions,  with the donation and  cooperation.  the  gave a b r i e f  each p a r t i c i p a t i n g  fund,  in a particular  the  were  o f $2.00 p e r  The t e a c h e r  was  the  The  experiment  then  presented  the  classroom  were t h a n k e d  for their  subject  and t e a c h e r  completed  distributed.  p r e s e n t a t i o n about  class.  students  prizes  s c h o o l had  for  59  Results Preliminary All  Analyses  p a p e r - a n d - p e n c i l d a t a were s c o r e d and  undergraduate  research  assistant  who  was  checked blind  by  to  an the  c o n d i t i o n s and h y p o t h e s e s of t h e s t u d y . Baseline four  performance  forms o f Task  one-way a n a l y s i s equivalence correct  of  A  (number  ( A r i t h m e t i c ) was  of  variance  f o r m s . No  at baseline  Baseline  (Substitution) equivalence 3 and Grade correct  were f o u n d  was  two-way  Grade  examined  the  by  a  6 c h i l d r e n ) . No  at baseline  was  multivariate  two  ensure  i n number 3  on t h e two  forms of Task to  analysis  6)  equivalence  ensure  effects  for  W i l k ' s Lambda C r i t e r i o n , F(4,106)=1.66, p>.l0  difference  (School:  tasks  (A  ensure  W i l k ' s Lambda C r i t e r i o n .  B)  by  a n a l y s e d by a with  two  1 v s . 2 v s . 3; G r a d e :  3 vs.  between  School,  variance  s c h o o l s . T h e r e were  F(4,1 06) = 1 .85,  o r t h e S c h o o l by G r a d e  f o r Grade, To  Grade  i n number  and  by W i l k ' s Lambda C r i t e r i o n .  main e f f e c t  B  £>.10.  s c h o o l s was of  forms,  F(3,26)=1.69,  t-test  found, t(58)=-0.06,  factors  significant  to  t h e Grade  forms,  significant  from t h e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t  significant  grade  differences  6  on  by a s e p a r a t e  o f f o r m s ( t h e same forms were u s e d by b o t h  between-subject to  each  for either  performance  B a s e l i n e performance children  for  on e a c h o f t h e  examined  significant  F ( 3 , 2 6 ) = 0 . 7 6 , p>.10, o r t h e £>.10.  correct)  ensure  the  by  interaction, T h e r e was  F (2, 53) = 18.77, p_<.00l that  no  problem  a by of  60  escalating multiple at  type  a=.05.  Using  the  level  .05/2=.025.  procedure). for  error  r a t e d i d not occur  Bonferroni  procedure,  f o r each u n i v a r i a t e  (See Ramsay,  Univariate  p_<-001,  indicating  (M=77.23) t o t h a t  reach  for  correct  superior  critical  was  computed of  showed a s i g n i f i c a n t  this effect  F(1,54)=37.58,  p e r f o r m a n c e by G r a d e 6 c h i l d r e n  3 children  Grade on b a s e l i n e  significance,  the  1980, f o r a d i s c u s s i o n  F-tests  of Grade  r a t e was s e t  F-test  G r a d e on b a s e l i n e p e r f o r m a n c e of T a s k B,  effect  f o r subsequent  comparisons, the experiment-wise e r r o r  significance as  1  (M=56.77).  The  main  p e r f o r m a n c e o f Task A d i d n o t  F ( 1 , 5 4 ) = 4 . 2 0 , p_=.045.  The  mean  number  was 25.10 f o r G r a d e 6 s t u d e n t s a n d 20.73 f o r G r a d e 3  students.  Task A  (Arithmetic)  Cheating The d i f f e r e n c e solved  and  the  both the p r a c t i c e difference awarded condition  vs.  number and  in  the  experimental  External  was a n a l y s e d  t h e number o f p r o b l e m s c o r r e c t l y  o f t o k e n s awarded was e x a m i n e d f o r  on any o c c a s i o n  w i t h two betweenvs.  between  condition.  "Cheating"  factors  Experimental). Table  no  and t o k e n s  of  variance  ( G r a d e : 3 v s . 6; S e x : M a l e factor  (Trials:  1 p r e s e n t s a summary  were  was  i n the S e l f  by a t h r e e - w a y a n a l y s i s  subject  effects  There  between number c o r r e c t  F e m a l e ) and one w i t h i n - s u b j e c t  significant  trials.  obtained  for  any  of  Practice  means.  of  No  t h e main  61  Table 1 Means o f t h e " C h e a t i n g " D a t a  Practice  in Self  Trial  Condition  Experimental  Trial Boys  Girls  Boys  Girls  Grade 3  0.4(.89)  0.8(.84)  1.2(2.68)  Grade 6  0.6(.55)  -2.8(6.30)  Note. Standard  0.0(0.0)  deviations are i n parentheses.  0.6(1.52) -0.4(2.88)  62  effects Number  or i n t e r a c t i o n s  (p_>.lO  in a l l cases).  Correct  Using analysis  the b a s e l i n e of  covariance  arithmetic  problems  covariance  was  as  was  as  following  a  covariate,  computed  correctly  chosen  r e p e a t e d measures yields  score  on  solved.  the  most  the  The  measure,  information of g a i n  Huck  three  factors vs.  6;  (Trial:  McLean,  (Condition: Sex: M a l e Practice  sphericity  test  assumption  of  1971,  There  Control  v s . Female)  vs.  compound symmetry was  practice,  correlations  measures  and  were h i g h and  scatter plots  than a  it  simple  scores  (see  between-subject 3  factor  indicated  met,  E^ ^  that  covariate .84,  and  and  that  the  .83 f o r  generalization  indicated  the  (see Winer,  1  (r_=.86,  A  trials,  these o v e r a l l  were l i n e a r i n n a t u r e . A t e s t o f h o m o g e n e i t y slopes  assumption  was  r  because  Generalization).  between t h e  experimental,  regression  F (1 1 36') = 1.0,  vs.  of  test, for  and one w i t h i n - s u b j e c t  Experimental  of  v s . S e l f ; Grade:  f o r t h e r e p e a t e d measures  repeated  respectively)  were  vs. External  p. 5 2 3 ) . C o r r e l a t i o n s  three the  1975).  number  analysis  r e p e a t e d - m e a s u r e s ANOVA o r an a n a l y s i s &  four-way  appropriate  a baseline  more r e a d i l y i n t e r p r e t a b l e  a  between  met 0.79,  for and  the  groups  each 0.74,  of  indicated  the  that  three  of  this  trials,  respectively, 2 > «  1 0  i  n  a  1  1  cases. T a b l e s 2 and summary  and  3  adjusted  present means,  the  analysis  respectively.  of The  covariance analysis  63  Table 2 The A n a l y s i s o f C o v a r i a n c e o f A r i t h m e t i c  Correct  Source  .ms  df  Scores  F  Between Condition Grade Sex C o n d i t i o n x Grade C o n d i t i o n x Sex G r a d e x Sex C o n d i t i o n x Grade x Sex Covariate (Baseline) Error  2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 47  228.48 16.30 2.24 70.49 181.27 31 .26 1 .37 8509.69 52.53  5.49** 0.31 0.04 1 .34 3.45* 0.60 0.03 162.01**  2 4 2 2 4 4 2 4 96  311.02 8.78 22.87 1 .40 5.49 8.84 6.96 2.80 1 1 .37  27.36** 0.77 2.01 0.12 0.48 0.78 0.61 0.25  Within Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Error  x Condition x Grade x Sex x C o n d i t i o n x Grade x C o n d i t i o n x Sex x Grade X Sex C o n d i t i o n x G r a d e x Sex  *2<.05 **P_<.01  64  Table  3  Adjusted  Means o f t h e A r i t h m e t i c  Correct  Data  Overall Trials Experimental  Practice Gr.  3  C o n t r o l iC o n d i t i o n girls 22.77 (2.9)  6  Gr.  3  Gr.  6  Gr.  ,3  Gr.  6  24.00 (6.4)  23.57 (4.3)  23.00 (6.7)  26. 77 (7. 5)  27. 00 (6. 9)  25.98 (7.6)  27.83 (8.1)  25.38 (7.0)  31 .03 (9. 0)  26. 58 (9. 3)  Condition 25.53 26. 12 (12.6) (8.5)  28. 13 (15.7)  28. 12 (7.1)  30. 73 (13. 7)  31 . 32 (9. 1)  23.27 (11.9)  23. 10 (7.0)  24.67 (10.3)  23. 10 (6.7)  27. 27 (8. 5)  25. 70 (7. 3)  Condition girls 24.20 (9.2)  29.69 (6.5)  26.60 (9.9)  29.89 (10.2)  30. 20 (13. 8)  32. 49 (11. 8)  29.00 (8.3)  28.52 (3.9)  33. 19 (12.9)  34. 72 (5. 4)  34. 1 9 (10. 9)  boys External girls boys Self  Gr.  Generalization  boys  25.23 (10.1)  25.52 (5.8)  Collapsed  Control Condition girls boys External Condition girls boys Self Condition girls boys Marginal  Over G r a d e  Practice Trial  Experimental Trial  Generalizaton Trial  23.38 25.60  23 .28 26 .60  26. 88 28. 80  24 .51 27 .00  25. 75  25.82 23. 19  28 . 12 23 .89  31 .02 26. 49  28 .32 24 .52  26. 42  26.94 27.26 25.35  28 .25 30 .86 26 .82  31 . 34 34. 46 29. 83  28 .84 30 .86  29. 85  Marginals  N o t e . S t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s a r e i n p a r e n t h e s e s below means.  65  yielded  a  significant  F(2,47)=5.49, significant  p=.007.  main This  Condition  by  effect  effect  Sex  .for  was  Condition,  qualified  interaction,  by  a  F(2,47)=3.45,  2=.04. An a n a l y s i s o f s i m p l e revealed boys,  a significant  (adjusted  test  M=27.0),  p_=.05,  conditions,  than or  effect  for  significant, effects  Condition  significant  p=.05, namely  (adjusted  performance t o boys  the  effect  just  on  for  i n the  M=28.3)  trial  either  main  marginally  2<.01, o r E x p e r i m e n t a l  trials  at  External  only  main one  External,  condition  t o show s u p e r i o r  obtained,  indicated that  (adjusted the  '  overall  M=24.5).  f o r T r i a l s was test  1  between  simple  obtained Sex  0  misses the c r i t i c a l value f o r  trend  (adjusted  Newman-Keuls  Generalization  performance  p ^  difference  only  more  (adjusted  M=24.5),  was  Conditions effect  4.068). T h i s  for girls  A  Control  conditions. A  for girls  F ( 1 , 4 7 ) = 4 . 0 5 , 2<.10 ( t h i s  2<.001.  the  (adjusted  and E x t e r n a l  condition  significantly  was no s i g n i f i c a n t  o f Sex a t t h e t h r e e  A main  in  multiple  i n the Self  completed  those  for. C o n d i t i o n f o r  Newman-Keuls boys  a t Sex  F (2 , 47) = 3.1 1 , P_<.10. An a n a l y s i s o f s i m p l e  marginally  is  of C o n d i t i o n s  effect  A  External  but there  i n the Control  main  that  correctly  overall  effects  p<.01.  indicated  M=30.8)  problems  boys  simple  F(2,47)=5.76,  comparison  main  M=29.8) was  F(2,96)=27.36, p e r f o r m a n c e on higher  than  Practice  (adjusted  M=23.35),  (adjusted  M=26.82), 2 < « 0 5 , b u t  66  t h e r e was  no  overall difference  Experimental  Sex, (in  between  the  Practice  and  trials.  No  significant  and  none of  the  main  effects  remaining  were f o u n d  f o r Grade  i n t e r a c t i o n s was  or  significant  a l l c a s e s p_>.lO).  Errors Data  for  errors  number c o r r e c t ) covariance  on  Task  were a n a l y s e d  with  error  by  and  External one  vs.  vs.  r e p e a t e d measure  factors 6;  factor A  symmetry,  p_=.0l3,  correction  was  to a l l e f f e c t s  factor. of for the  The  epsilon  f r e e d o m was a  discussion  covariate  moderate  and  scatterplots  the  the  practice  used  Control  Male v s .  Female)  Practice  the  a  vs.  for  the  assumption  of  Greenhouse-Geisser involving  to adjust (see  the  Winer,  the  error  trial degrees  1971,  p.523, between  three  low  r e p e a t e d measures and  generalization that  t e s t of indicated  and  covariate.  sphericity test  so  0.856  the  of  t h i s adjustment). Correlations  indicated  groups  as  .38,  in nature. A  between t h e for  of  (r_=.15,  e x p e r i m e n t a l , and  linear  factor  calculated  Sex:  minus  analysis  (Condition:  a v i o l a t i o n of  compound  applied  as  (Trial:  Generalization). indicated  four-way  baseline  S e l f ; Grade: 3 vs.  within-subject  Experimental  (number a t t e m p t e d a  score at  T h e r e were t h r e e b e t w e e n - s u b j e c t vs.  A  .26 trials,  for  were the  to  practice,  respectively),  and  these o v e r a l l c o r r e l a t i o n s  were  h o m o g e n e i t y of that  experimental  this  regression  assumption  trials,  slopes  was  F(11,36)=1.66  met and  67  1.08 r e s p e c t i v e l y , violated  p_>.l0 i n b o t h c a s e s . T h i s  f o r the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n  A t e s t on a l l t h r e e this  assumption  Following that to  was  Glass,  even  result  4  significant  Peckham,  and  None  means,  was  for  indicated  (1972)  the  significant,  than  was  a  that  2>.10.  conclusion are  likely  somewhat  analysis  of c o v a r i a n c e  respectively. Trial,  trial  (adjusted  more  performed.  the  The  only  F ( 2 , 9 6 ) = 4 . 5 , 2=.018. A  (adjusted  M=1.58)  were  M=1.02) t h a n on  and  Generalization  M=1.45), 2<-05 i n b o t h c a s e s . T h e r e was no  between t h e P r a c t i c e  of  other  main  and  Generalization  effects  or  trials.  interactions  was  g>.07 i n a l l c a s e s . Task B  (Substitution)  Correct  Using analysis  indicated  s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer e r r o r s  Experimental  (adjusted  Number  serious  adjusted effect  the  difference  more  was  g=.02.  F(11,36)=1.64,  Sanders'  present  the P r a c t i c e  trials  and  5  Newman-Keuls t e s t  either  overall,  t e s t , the a n a l y s i s  and  on  c o m b i n e d , however,  met  i n nothing  Tables  made  F(11,36)=2.57,  extreme v i o l a t i o n s o f t h i s a s s u m p t i o n  conservative  summary  trials  trial,  assumption  the baseline of  substitution  covariance  score as a was  covariate,  computed  i t e m s c o r r e c t l y marked  at  trial.  T h e r e were t h r e e b e t w e e n - s u b j e c t  Control  vs. External  on the  a  the  three-way number  of  generalization  factors  (Condition:  v s . S e l f ; G r a d e : 3 v s . 6; S e x : Male v s .  F e m a l e ) . The c o r r e l a t i o n o f t h e c o v a r i a t e  and t h e  dependent  68  Table  4  The A n a l y s i s of C o v a r i a n c e o f E r r o r Source  Scores df  ms  F  Between Condition Grade Sex C o n d i t i o n x Grade C o n d i t i o n x Sex Grade x Sex C o n d i t i o n x G r a d e x Sex Covariate (Baseline) Error  2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 47  1.14 0.93 0.27 0.89 5.66 1.21 4.02 24.13 3.61  2 4 2 2 4 4 2 4 96  5.27 0.36 0.42 0.62 0.88 0.63 0.29 2.67 1.16  0.32 0.26 0.08 0.02 1 .57 0.34 1.11 6.68  Within Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Error *p<.05  X X X X X X X  Condit ion Grade Sex C o n d i t i o n x Grade C o n d i t i o n x Sex Grade x Sex C o n d i t i o n x Grade x Sex  4.54* 0.31 0.36 0.54 0.76 0.54 0.25 2.30  Table 5 A d j u s t e d Means o f t h e E r r o r  Scores  Overall Trials Experimental  Generalization  Gr. 6  Gr. 3  Gr. 6  Gr. 3  Gr. 6  1 .52 (1 .3)  1 .12 (1 .1 )  1 .72 (1.1)  1 .52 (1 .5)  1 .92 (1 .8)  1 .32 (1 .1)  0 .72 (0 .9)  0.12 (0.4)  0 .92 (0 .4)  1 .92 (1 .0)  Condition 1 .45 1 .46 (1.5) (1 .5)  1 .26 (1 .1)  0.85 (0.7)  0 .86 (1 .3)  1 .85 (2 .0)  2 .19 (2 .0)  0 .99 (0 .8)  0.59 (0.4)  1 .39 (1 .1)  0 .79 (0 .9)  1 .32 (1 .1 )  0 .92 (1 .8)  0.52 (0.7)  1 .92 (2 .9)  0 .52 (1 .4)  2 .06 (2 .4)  1. 1 2 (1 .0)  2.26 (2.7)  1 .12 (1 .4)  2 .66 (2 .3)  Practice Gr.  3  Control Condition girls 1 .32 (1.1) boys External girls boys >elf  1 .52 (0.5)  1.19 (1.1)  Condition girls 1 .52 (1.7) boys  Marginal  2.12 (1.0)  1.58  Note. Standard d e v i a t i o n s  1.02  1.45  a r e i n p a r e n t h e s e s below  means.  70  measure  was  indicated test  reasonably  that  this  r e l a t i o n s h i p was  6  and  7  present  summary  and  yielded  a significant  P_<.001,  i n d i c a t i n g that  adjusted  more i t e m s a t t h e than  d i d Grade  initial A  main  means,  3  main e f f e c t Grade  effect  nature.  indicated  that  indicated  (adjusted the  trial  that  A  this  The  analysis  F(1,47)=26.85,  a r e taken  into  was  Newman-Keuls  M=61.7)  obtained,  multiple  comparison  i n the  to that  M=54.2),  and  when  account.  also  by c h i l d r e n  (adjusted  completed  M=49.2), even  M=59.4) was s u p e r i o r  Self  of covariance  (adjusted  (adjusted  performance  (adjusted  significant  A  analysis  f o r Grade,  for Condition  test  were a l s o  in  6 children correctly  children  £=.014.  conditions  a scatterplot  respectively.  Generalization  F(2,47)=4.68,  both  linear  slopes  the  performance d i f f e r e n c e s  condition  and  was met, F (1 1 , 36 ) = 1 .1 3 , p_>.10.  Tables  no  (r=.66),  of homogeneity of r e g r e s s i o n  assumption  in  high  External  of c h i l d r e n the  Control  M=52.4), p_=.05 i n b o t h c a s e s . T h e r e was  main e f f e c t f o r Sex,  not s i g n i f i c a n t ,  and  the  interactions  JO>.10 i n a l l c a s e s .  Errors Data  for errors  on  the  Task B g e n e r a l i z a t i o n  (number a t t e m p t e d minus number c o r r e c t )  were a n a l y s e d  four-way  There  analysis  between-subject Self;  Grade:  within-subject  3  of  factors vs. factor  variance.  (Condition:  6;  Sex:  (Trial:  Male  Control vs.  Baseline  trial by  were  a  three  vs. External vs. Female)  and  one  vs. Generalization).  71  Table 6 The A n a l y s i s o f C o v a r i a n c e o f S u b s t i t u t i o n C o r r e c t Source  df  Condition Grade Sex C o n d i t i o n x Grade C o n d i t i o n x Sex Grade x Sex C o n d i t i o n x G r a d e x Sex Covariate (Baseline) Error  2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 47  *2<-05 **P_<.01  ms 244.49 1402. 1 4 24.1 4 44.27 26. 1 4 32.78 67.30 731.60 52.21  Scores  F 4.68 26.85** 0.46 0.85 0.50 0.63 1 .27 14.01  72  Table 7 A d j u s t e d Means o f t h e S u b s t i t u t i o n C o r r e c t Cell Group  Control Girls Boys  Grade 3  48.3 (17.1)  47.5 (9.3)  Grade 6  55.6 (12.0)  59.3 (15.5)  Data  Means External Girls Boys  49.1 ' (17.4) 66.4 (4.7)  Collapsed  Self Girls Boys  54.3 (5.0)  46.0 (5.9)  49.9 (8.0)  68.1 (23. 1 )  63.6 (10.4)  57.4 (21.0)  Over Sex  Control  External  Self  Marginal  Grade 3  47 .9  51 .7  47.9  49.2  Grade 6  57 .5  67.2  60.5  61 .7  Marginal  52 .7  59.4  54.2  Note. Standard d e v i a t i o n s  a r e i n p a r e n t h e s e s below  means.  73  Tables cell  8 and 9 p r e s e n t means,  the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e  respectively.  significant,  g>.lO  significant  Grade  None  of  i n a l l cases. by  There  Condition  2=.06. None o f t h e o t h e r  the  summary  main  was  interaction  effects  a  interaction,  and was  marginally  F(2,48)=3.03,  terms was  significant,  p>. 10 i n a l l c a s e s . The  error  covariance,  data  were t o be a n a l y s e d  using baseline error  the  correlation  between  was  low ( r = - . 1 1 ) ,  and  correlation  might  Overall The feelings  first  obtain  scatterplot  six  items  on a 1-5 s c a l e  satisfaction. a single  total  indicated  but  measure  that  the  i n nature. Questionnaire  and P r e f e r e n c e on t h e CSQ r e f l e c t e d  about t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l  were s c o r e d greater  a  Satisfaction  Satisfaction  scores as a c o v a r i a t e ,  the c o v a r i a t e and dependent  n o t be l i n e a r  Child  by an a n a l y s i s o f  trial  with  o f T a s k A. T h e s e  higher  I n d i v i d u a l item Satisfaction  the c h i l d ' s  scores  items  indicating  s c o r e s were summed t o  score  f o r each  child  in  the E x t e r n a l and S e l f c o n d i t i o n s . The child's  last  preference  reinforcement. higher items  two i t e m s  scores  These  for  on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e f l e c t e d t h e self-  items  indicating  vs.externally-administered  were s c o r e d  a preference  were summed t o o b t a i n a s i n g l e  each c h i l d The  on a 1-5 s c a l e ,  with  f o r s e l f - r e w a r d . These Preference  score  for  i n t h e E x t e r n a l and S e l f c o n d i t i o n s .  Satisfaction  and P r e f e r e n c e  s c o r e s were examined by  Table  8  The A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e  o f S u b s t i t u t i o n Task  Source  Errors  df  ms  F  2 1 1 2 2 1 2 48  0.11 1 .87 0.41 3.32 0.76 0.01 0.61 1.10  0.10 1 .71 0.37 3.03 0.69 0.01 0.56  1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 48  1 .87 2.27 0.01 0.21 1 .76 0.06 0.67 0.97 1 .39  1 .35 1 .64 0.01 0.15 1 .27 0.04 0.49 0.70  Between Condition Grade Sex C o n d i t i o n x Grade C o n d i t i o n x Sex G r a d e x Sex C o n d i t i o n x Grade x Sex Error  Within Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Trial Error  x Condition x Grade x Sex x C o n d i t i o n x Grade x C o n d i t i o n x Sex x Grade X Sex C o n d i t i o n x Grade x Sex  75  Table  9  Means of  Substitution  Task E r r o r  Baseline Grade 3  Data  Trial Grade 6  Generalizaton Trial Grade 3 Grade 6  Control Condition girls 0.80(0.8) boys 1.20(2.2)  0.80(0.8) 0.00(0.0)  0.80(1.1) 0.20(0.4)  0.20(0.4) 0.40(0.5)  External girls boys  1.00(1.7) 1.80(3.5)  0.00(0.0) 0.00(0.0)  0.00(0.0) 0.40(0.9)  0.40(0.5) 0.60(0.5).  0.20(0.4) 0.40(0.5)  1.00(1.7) 1.00(0.7)  Condition 0.20(0.4) 0.20(0.4)  Self Condition girls 0.00(0.0) boys 0.60(0.9)  Marginals Grade Control External Self Note.  3  Grade 6  0.75 0.10 0.30  Standard deviatons  0.35 0.80 0.75 are  in  parentheses.  76  a  three-way  multivariate  between-subject  factors  Grade:  3  vs.  present  the a n a l y s i s  respectively.  6;  not  that  occur  of v a r i a n c e main  effect  error  procedure,  univariate  Univariate grades  the  P_>.10.  not  Neither  significant, The  for  F-tests the  set  was  indicated  means,  Criterion. 1 error  at  To  rate d i d  comparisons,  the  a=.05. U s i n g t h e  significance computed  greater  level  at  for  .05/2=.025.  difference  between  satisfaction  (M=25.5)  (M=22.85). The d i f f e r e n c e  significant  by  for  the  Preference  between measure,  o r Sex was  Sex  interaction  was  significant,  p_=.05 by t h e W i l k ' s Lambda C r i t e r i o n . To keep  was  used  to  univariate  revealed  was  rate  at  compute  F-tests  a=.05,  the  the c r i t i c a l as  Bonferroni significance  .05/2=.025.  Univariate  no s i g n i f i c a n t G r a d e By Sex i n t e r a c t i o n f o r  Satisfaction  interaction  Type  showed a s i g n i f i c a n t  experiment-wise e r r o r  level  cell  o f t h e main e f f e c t s f o r C o n d i t i o n  Grade  procedure  10 and 11  each p>.l0.  F(2,31 ) = 3.30, the  was  the c r i t i c a l  d i d Grade 6 c h i l d r e n  g r a d e s was  Self;  S a t i s f a c t i o n measure, F (1 , 32) =6.02 , p_=.020.  Grade 3 c h i l d r e n than  vs.  and  Lambda  multiple  rate  three  f o r G r a d e was s i g n i f i c a n t ,  Wilk's  F-test  F-tests  on  the  subsequent  experiment-wise  each  summary  the problem of e s c a l a t i n g for  Bonferroni  External  with  Male v s . Female). T a b l e s  F ( 2 , 3 1 ) = 6 . 3 6 , p_=.005 by ensure  of v a r i a n c e  (Condition:  Sex:  The  analysis  measure,  significant  F(1,32)=1.34, for  the  ^=.26.  Preference  This  measure,  77  Table  10  The M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e Preference Scores  Source  df  Condition Grade Sex C o n d i t i o n x Grade C o n d i t i o n x Sex Grade x Sex C o n d i t i o n x G r a d e x Sex Error  2 2 2 2 2 2 2 31  *p_<.05 **2<.01  o f S a t i s f a c t i o n and  Wilks  Lambda  .98 .71 .97 .97 .89 .82 .95  Approx. F .35 6.36** .39 .49 1 .86 3.30* .72  Table  11  Means o f t h e S a t i s f a c t i o n  and P r e f e r e n c e  Data  a Satisfaction  Scores  Grade 3  Grade 6  External Condition girls boys marginal  26.4(2.8) 22.8(4.0) 24.6  22.6(1.7) 23.2(4.5) 22.9  Self Condition girls boys marginal  25.6(4.0) 27.2(2.4) 26.4  21.6(4.3) 24.0(2.5) 22.8  Marginal  25.5  22.85 b  Preference  Scores  Grade 3  Grade 6  External Condition girls boys marginal  4.2(2.7) 7.0(2.2) 5.6  5.8(2.6) 3.4(1.9) 4.6  Self Condition girls boys marginal  4.8(1.3) 6.6(3.0) 5.7  4.6(0.9) 4.4(2.1) 4.5  Marginal Note. Standard  -5.65  4.55  d e v i a t i o n s are i n parentheses.  a  Higher scores i n d i c a t e maximum score=30  greater  satisfaction;  b  Higher scores i n d i c a t e preference f o r s e l f - r e w a r d ; maximum s c o r e = ! 0  79  F(1 ,32) = 6.77, G r a d e a t Sex Grade a  £=.01.  An a n a l y s i s  revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t  boys  preference  tended  (M=3.9).  to  The  significant  for self-reward  prefer  main  effect  simple for  main  girls,  effect  £>.10.  o f Sex a t G r a d e r e v e a l e d  effect  of  Sex  Grade 3 boys (M=6.8),  for  Grade  other  f o r Grade  interaction  significant, Individual  terms  £>.10 i n a l l  examined  analysis  of  not  of simple simple  main main  for  self-reward  to prefer  externallyfor  Sex  £ > . 1 0 . None of t h e  the m u l t i v a r i a t e  analysis  was  cases.  individually  variance  (Condition: External Female). Tables  Lambda  was  s i m p l e main e f f e c t  i t e m s on t h e C h i l d  were a l s o  and  G r a d e was  reward  Items  The e i g h t  summary  preference tended  6  F(1,32)=5.53, £ < . 0 5 .  6 children,  in  Grade  a significant  r e w a r d (M=4.5). The  not s i g n i f i c a n t  for  3 children,  3 girls  indicated  administered  An a n a l y s i s  indicated a greater  while  administered  Grade  of  (M=6.8), w h i l e G r a d e  externally-  effects  set  simple  f o r b o y s , F ( 1 , 3 2 ) = 8 . 7 8 , £ < . 0 1 . G r a d e 3 boys  greater  was  of s i m p l e main e f f e c t s o f  vs. Self;  12 and  cell  a t a=.05. U s i n g  significance  level  Questionnaire  by a t h r e e - w a y  multivariate  three  between-subject f a c t o r s  G r a d e : 3 v s . 6; Sex: M a l e v s .  13 p r e s e n t  means  significant,  Criterion.  with  Satisfaction  the a n a l y s i s  variance  r e s p e c t i v e l y . The main e f f e c t f o r  F ( 8 , 2 5 ) = 4 . 0 0 4 , £ = . 0 0 4 by  Again,  of  the  the experiment-wise e r r o r  the B o n f e r r o n i  procedure,  f o r each u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t  the was  Wilk's rate  was  critical computed  80  Table  12  The M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e Questionnaire Scores Source  df  Condition Grade Sex C o n d i t i o n x Grade C o n d i t i o n x Sex Grade x Sex C o n d i t i o n x Grade x Sex Error  8 8 8 8 8 8 8 25  *£<.05  of C h i l d  Wilks  Satisfaction  Lambda  .79 .44 .78 .76 .71 .66 .64  Approx. F .83 4.00* .87 .96 1 .30 1 .63* 1 .78  81  Table  13  Mean Item S c o r e s  on C h i l d  Satisfaction  Questionnaire  Questionnaire Item  Grade 3  Grade 6  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  4.05(1.0) 4.40(0.9) 4.05(0.7) 4.40(0.9) 4.45(0.9) 4.15(1.0) 2.90(1.7) 2.75(1.5)  4.00(0.7) 4.55(0.5) 3.05(0.9) 3.40(0.8) 4.15(0.9) 3.70(1.3) 2.45(1.3) 2.10(1.2)  Note. Standard Note. Higher maximum  deviations are in scores score=5.  indicate  parentheses. greater  satisfaction,  82  as  .05/8=.006.  difference On  F-tests  between g r a d e s on  Question  having  Univariate  3,  children  done b e t t e r  on  the  two in  of  children  (M=3.05), F ( 1 , 3 2 ) = 1 4 . 5 4 ,  children  i n Grade  on  the  exercise  not  significant,  £>.10  in a l l cases. with  nor  Satisfaction  Practice,  E x p e r i m e n t a l and  and  Generalization  To rate the  ensure that  did  not  overall  i n each the  occur error  rate  each  (see  Larzelere  t h i s p r o c e d u r e ) . The These c o r r e l a t i o n s and  none was  Individual  as 6 4,  harder  (M=3.40), and  Sex  interactions,  of  scores correct  trials  Task B,  of  were on  the  Task  A,  c o n t r o l l i n g for  case.  was  level  the  number  escalating  for t h i s matrix  for  of  Preference  p r o b l e m of  significance  .29),  Question  for Condition  any  with  trial  for  14.  On  h a v i n g worked  Generalization  procedure  of  £=.001.  and  Bonferroni  .05/8=.006  themselves  Measures  relationships  performance  items.  (M=4.05) t h a n d i d Grade  were  Performance  for  baseline  3 rated  main e f f e c t s  examined  the  significant  (M=4.40) t h a n d i d Grade 6 c h i l d r e n  were  Overall  a  questionnaire  t h e m s e l v e s as  F ( 1 , 3 2 ) = 1 .1 1 , £ = . 0 0 2 . The  Correlation  the  Grade  exercise  3 rated  showed  set  multiple  of at  eight  tests,  1977,  c o r r e l a t i o n s are were a l l low  was  error  Using the  the  critical  computed  for a  presented  (ranging  1  correlations,  a=.05.  correlation & Mulaik,  Type  as  discussion in  f r o m £=  Table .03  to  significant. item  scores  were  also  examined  for  83  Table  14  P a r t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n s of S a t i s f a c t i o n and Preference Scores with Performance Measures ( c o n t r o l l i n g f o r b a s e l i n e performance)  Task A - P r a c t i c e  trial  Task A - Experimental  Trial  Satisfaction  Preference  .03( .83)  .05( .77)  .14( .38)  .07( .68)  Task A - G e n e r a l i z a t i o n  Trial  .07( .68)  .29( .08)  Task B - G e n e r a l i z a t i o n  Trial  -. 12( .46)  -.14( .39)  Note. P r o b a b i l i t y v a l u e s are i n parentheses.  84  relationships  with  these  b a s e l i n e performance procedure  was  the  correlation  as  Table  r=  .0007 t o  partialled  u s e d t o keep  computing  in  four  performance out. Again,  the o v e r a l l  critical  significance  .05/32=.002. These  none was  explore (LOC)  examined  by a t h r e e - w a y  with  three  External  vs. Self;  effect  Criterion.  a=.05.  Using  the  significance  emerged  Control  for (high  F's was  scores  3  from  Ratings the  ratings  (Acad.) of  Sex: Male  a l l  or  effect  error  each  vs.  the  No any for  Wilk's set at critical  F-test  dependent  no d i f f e r e n c e  F(1,48)=.90,  the  univariate  for  were  variance  Sex,  c a s e s ) . The  procedure,  each  of  vs. Female).  for Condition,  in  Locus  (Condition: Control  was  measure  between g r a d e s f o r  £>.10,  but  the  expected  between g r a d e s d i d emerge f o r L o c u s  s c o r e s , F(1,48)=11.70, 2=.001.  Grade  (ranging  r a t e was  for  each  are presented  experiment-wise  developmental d i f f e r e n c e of  for  by  there  ratings,  =.05,  F ( 2 , 4 7 ) = 5 . 7 4 , £=.006  Univariate that  level  analysis  factors  Bonferroni  level  .05/2=.025.  academic  The  academic  3 v s . 6;  (p_>-l0  significant,  Lambda  indicated  Grade:  at  groups,  multivariate  differences  interaction was  and  between-subject  significant  Grade  scores  rate  significant.  e q u i v a l e n c e between  Control  Bonferroni  t o moderate  L o c u s of C o n t r o l and A c a d e m i c To  with  the  correlations  15. C o r r e l a t i o n s were low .34), and  error  measures,  s t u d e n t s was  18.2;  T  n  f o r Grade  i n d i c a t e more e x t e r n a l  e  mean LOC  score  6 students,  orientation).  14.9  85  Table  15  P a r t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n s of C h i l d S a t i s f a c t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Item S c o r e s w i t h Performance Measures ( c o n t r o l l i n g f o r b a s e l i n e performanceT  Questionnaire Item Practice Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  .14(.28) .13(.31 ) .03(.83) .06(.64) -.00(.98) -.03(.83) .10(.44) -.06(.64)  Task A Experimental Generalization Trial Trial  . 1 8( .17 ) .22(.09) .30( .02) . 16( .22) .10(.43) -.02(.90) .08(.53) -.00(.99)  Note. P r o b a b i l i t y v a l u e s  are in  .10(.47) .07(.58) .26(.05) .16(.23) .17(.20) -.09(.51) .20(.12) .12(.35)  parentheses.  Task B Generalization Trial  .10(.44) .01(.93) -.20(.13) -. 17(.19) .09(.52) .01(.92) -.22(.10) -.26(.05)  86  Correlations performance  measures  Experimental  and  Generalization partialled  of LOC  condition.  are  The  correlations procedure,  was  of  set  error at  was  computed as  with  on  four  Practice,  A,  and  the  with b a s e l i n e performance 16,  rate  a=.05.  both for  overall each  Using  r=  .01  and  set  the  by of  Bonferroni  level  .05/8=.006. T h e s e  ( r a n g i n g from  the  the  of Task  significance  for  each  correlations  to  .41),  Acad,  scores  and  none  significant. of  LOC  Satisfaction  and  Satisfaction  Questionnaire,  scores,  reported  the  Satisfaction  and  for  Table  as  well  17  for  as  individual  Using  significance  Preference matrix item  were u n i f o r m l y low  none was  from  the  separately.  critical  the  Correlations .40), and  in  measures  significant.  was  set  matrix  (ranging  with the  the Child  individual  f o r b a s e l i n e performance  combined and  procedure,  and  Preference  (controlling  conditions,  and  correct  Task B)  critical  Correlations  are  scores  reported in Table  were u n i f o r m l y low was  (number  set-wise  the  correlation  Acad,  Generalization trials trial  out  and  in a l l  two  Bonferroni  level  at from  cases)  experimental  the  at  item  for  the  .05/4=.013, .05/16=.003. r=  .01  to  87  Table  16  P a r t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n s of L o c u s o f C o n t r o l S c o r e s and Academic R a t i n g s w i t h Performance Measures ( c o n t r o l l i n g f o r b a s e l i n e performance) —  Overall Task A Practice Trial  LOC Contrl  Ext.  —  Self  Overall  ACAD Contrl Ext.  Self  -.28 (.03)  -.25 (.29)  -.25 (.31)  -.41 (.08)  .14 (.29)  .19 (.43)  .20 (.42)  .07 (.78)  Task A -.06 E x p e r i m . (.63) Trial  -.16 (.52)  -.15 (.55)  .01 (.97)  .03 (.81)  -.14 (.57)  .11 (.64)  .11 (.64)  Task A General. Trial  -.08 (.52)  -.01 (.97)  -.17 (.47)  -.10 (.69)  .01 (.93)  .02 (.94)  .01 (.98)  .07 (.78)  Task B General. Trial  -.20 (.13)  -.08 (.75)  -.27 (.26)  -.21 (.38)  .14 (.28)  -.11 (.65)  .24 (.33)  .05 (.84)  N o t e . P r o b a b i l i t y v a l u e s a r e i n p a r e n t h e s e s below correlations.  88  Table  17  P a r t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n of L o c u s of C o n t r o l S c o r e s and Academic Ratings w i t h C h i l d S a t i s f a c t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Responses ( c o n t r o l l i n g f o r b a s e l i n e p e r f o r m a n c e on Task A) Questionnaire Item Overall  LOC External  Self  Overall  ACAD External  Self  Overall Satisfaction  .16 (.34)  .10 (.67)  .21 (.40)  -.20 ( .22)  -.23 ( .33)  -.12 ( .62)  Overall Preference  .1 1 ( .51 )  .12 (.63)  .08 (.74)  .01 ( .97)  .02 (.95)  -.05 ( .84)  1  -.02 (.92)  -.15 ( .55)  .10 ( .69)  -.11 ( .52)  -.24 (.31 )  .09 ( .70)  2  -.04 ( .83)  -.30 ( .21 )  .29 (.22)  -.30 ( .06)  -.27 (.26)  -.35 (.14)  3  .09 ( .59)  .03 ( .89)  . 15 ( .54)  -.05 ( .78)  .04 ( .86)  -.07 ( .77)  4  .1 3 ( .43)  .32 (.17)  -.02 (.92)  .07 ( .70)  .13 ( .58)  .06 ( .80)  5  .08 (.63)  .40 ( .87)  .15 (.54)  -.19 ( .25)  -.28 (.24)  -.11 (.66)  6  .25 (.12)  .29 ( .23)  .20 ( .42)  -.19 ( .27)  -.19 (.43)  -.18 ( .46)  7  .13 ( .42)  .17 ( .48)  .08 (.75)  -.21 ( .20)  -.19 (.44)  -.24 ( .33)  8  .03 ( .88)  .03 (.91)  .02 ( .94)  .24 ( . 15)  .20 (.40)  .23 ( .33)  Note. P r o b a b i l i t y  values are  in  parentheses.  89  Discussion The  purpose  parametric  of  with  eleven-year-old  boys  academic-like  their  and  effect  included  condition  on  both  of  number  in  this  the  greatest  of  brief,  self-reward,  and  these c o n d i t i o n s . A achievement  on an e x p l o r a t o r y ages  in  in  the  the c h i l d  In o t h e r  study.  self-reinforcement procedure  that  were  a  made,  a  t o o few, r a t h e r  "cheating"  was  not  a  T h e r e were no d i f f e r e n c e s between  i n e i t h e r of the t r i a l s experimental  number o f p r o b l e m s  Generalization  in  i t accurately.  c h i l d r e n , o r boys and g i r l s ,  primary  were  basis.  taking  words,  locus  ratings  t o employ  self-reward  involved  generalized c o n d i t i o n s and  t o l e a r n the self-reward  errors  self-reward  final  both  t o o many t o k e n s .  On  with  o f t i m e , a n d were a b l e  younger and o l d e r of  and  on  reinforcement  academic  i n the study  few  substantial  problem  worked  immediate  satisfaction  were a b l e  period the  than  Eight-year-old  conditions  to the d i f f e r e n t  Children  Of  self-reinforcement's  girls  under  of c o n t r o l measure and  short  of  was t o c o n d u c t a  r e w a r d , o r no r e w a r d . Age a n d sex were examined f o r  children's  also  study  children.  tasks  responsiveness the  present  investigation  effectiveness  external  the  trial,  session.  The  increase  in  Practice  and  Experimental  trials  (Arithmetic), the  solved  t h e day a f t e r problems  accuracy  when i t was u s e d .  task  correctly  in  was  t h e main  solved was n o t a  on  the  testing  between  the  statistically  90  significant believed being  one, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t  their  performance  "just  their  for  "really  practice")  on a r i t h m e t i c  Practice,  Experimental  The  Differences  Performance  emerged o n l y trend  three did  did  to solve not  interact  superior  resulted t o the  conditions  were l e s s  apparent  condition,  where  there  on t h e  arithmetic  other  variables  any  (baseline  ability  girls  was  a  boys.  performance  t o the  task.  Age  in affecting in  overall  p e r f o r m a n c e ) was  taken  account. Children  there  was  conditions, and  External  an e f f e c t on r e s p o n s i v e n e s s  with  in  f o r boys.  any age d i f f e r e n c e s  into  over the  but only  more p r o b l e m s t h a n  have  Sex  trials.  p e r f o r m a n c e , n o r were t h e r e when  and  conditions,  experimental conditions not  Age  d i f f e r e n c e s between boys and  i n the External  for girls Age  Control  between t h e t h r e e  girls.  Condition,  condition task  than  not s u b s t a n t i a l l y a f f e c t  and G e n e r a l i z a t i o n  p e r f o r m a n c e on t h e a r i t h m e t i c and  (rather  p e r f o r m a n c e were c o n s i s t e n t  Self-reinforcement  reinforcement  counted"  did  performance. E f f e c t s of the  variables  for  whether o r n o t t h e c h i l d r e n  no  difference  in  arithmetic  accuracy  o r between y o u n g e r a n d o l d e r  girls.  trial,  made few e r r o r s on t h e  The f e w e s t  possibly  were t o l d ,  concern  for  "This  accurate  children  and  the three or  boys  e r r o r s were made on t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l  because t h i s  children  between  task,  was t h e  one c o u n t s " ,  only thus  trial  when  increasing  the their  c a l c u l a t i o n s . T h e r e was no d i f f e r e n c e  91  in  accuracy On  between  the  the  Practice  generalization  children  correctly  children,  even when i n i t i a l were  condition  did  better  children  in  the  difference  in  conditions. girls  d i d not  task.  Errors  differ  by  and  the  differ on  was  no  External  experimental Overall,  the Self  or  conditions  in  nor  were  younger  had  done  better  When a s k e d  to  by  for  which the  children's  than  task,  the  no Self  boys  and  substitution  accuracy  did  not  a  there  sex  or  procedure  with  worked  Self the  differences.  expressed  more  indicated  harder  preference boys  than d i d  self-  i n the  on  the  children.  younger  self-reward  experienced during The  indicate  reinforcement,  and  Younger c h i l d r e n  and  than d i d o l d e r  Preference  affected  on  children  that  girls.  Control  satisfaction  children.  for  the  task  T h e r e was  between c h i l d r e n  older  experimental task  External  sex.  difference  procedure,  (baseline  the  experimental  than  preference  in  conditions.  between  satisfaction  external  in a b i l i t y  generalization  performance  age  however,  they  younger  Children  main  in  items than d i d  t h i s t a s k were m i n i m a l , and  condition,  There  and  performance Unlike  older  differences  o v e r a l l on  trials.  (Substitution),  more  controlled.  Control  Generalization  task  completed  performance)  and  self-  indicated  a  b o y s or  any  older  external the  for  reward  child  had  or  greater of  was  the not  actually  study. expressed  satisfaction  with,  and  92  preference  for,  correlate of and  task  academic  performance, The  ratings  elicit  arithmetic  has  performance  inconsistent  been  was  condition children  by  on  was  accuracy  trials,  two  on  was  only  the  to Control,  token brief  improve Bergan  laboratory  from  the  have a c t e d  condition,  been  "no-reinforcement  c o n t r o l " , but m e r e l y a  clarify  An  this  With  additional issue  respect  no-feedback  in future  Control and  as a r e i n f o r c e r  1980). The C o n t r o l  control".  Control  Practice  (Furman, a  External  to appear. the  of  Witmer e t  experiment, the  on  tasks  conditions  e t a l . , 1971;  improvements  may  conditions  reinforcement  under  different  and  difference  and C o n t r o l  the  the  condition,  data:  feedback  which  with  reinforcement  performance  superior  i n the present  significant  received  the  similarly  (e.g.,  trial  uncorrelated  the  of  shown t o  not  Locus of c o n t r o l  t o the C o n t r o l  not s u f f i c i e n t l y  for  Experimental  trial  much  Performance  1971). P e r h a p s  conditon  that  i n the E x t e r n a l  reinforcement  on any  of a s u b s t a n t i a l o v e r a l l  with  previously  external al.,  lack  also  did  preference.  condition  f o r b o y s . The  literature.  performance  superior  supported  Self-reinforcement  is  and  hypothesis,  would  partly  their  were  satisfaction,  Experimental  between  with  procedures  or the s u b s t i t u t i o n t a s k .  first  conditions  only  reinforcement  significantly  t h e main  only  the  then,  control  may  not  have  "no-token  group  would  studies.  to Hypotheses  2 and  3, w h i c h p r e d i c t e d  age  93  differences  in  substitution  tasks  reinforcement  any  of  Patz,  1980;  1974).  of  differences  i s a tendency  evident  where  a  in  more  skills  and  studies  (e.g.,  1972)  the  is &  Many  Johnson,  measure  i n the  responsive  academic  age to  present  effect;  Age  a l s o not  itself,  but  consistent With  may  manner respect  of  the  a good p r e d i c t o r  (Barling & Patz, Hypothesis  of  is  The  use  older  applied et  than  of  it  the  rather  al.,  academic  also  of  deportment b o t h age  are  during groups  that  work.  responsiveness  subject  a  account  children  q u a l i t y of of  i n t e r a c t with other  to  better  interventions  s t u d y may  perhaps  a  self-controlling  y o u n g e r c h i d l r e n , but  from s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t be  from  situations.  Drabman  behavior.  benefit may  1972;  self-management  work t h a n a r e  Haywood,  respond  real-life  necessary.  productivity  more  c h i l d r e n to  "on-task" behaviors,  an  (Barling & &  in applied  of  target  of  which  predicted  applicaton  the  lack  studies  Switzky  of  consistent  interventions  studies  as  the  predictive  laboratory  long-term,  consistent  used  different  finding is  however,  and  than younger c h i l d r e n , perhaps  more  Bolstad  the not  1970;  were,  achievement,  for  four  for older  attitudes  have  This  self-reinforcement  self-reinforcement  only  of  arithmetic  to was  trials.  self-reinforcement  there  the  age  Montgomery & P a r t o n ,  Age  survey If  and  on  response  the  r e s u l t s from t h r e e  examined age  to  in  conditions,  p e r f o r m a n c e on with  performance  variables  by in a  1980). 3  in  particular,  age  94  differences  were  generalization of  the older  have  apparent  in  (Substitution)  overall  task.  due  to  the  poorer  than  at  greater  skill  a t overcoming  substitution  baseline;  interference  tasks  trial  generalization  this issue  task  the  contradicts  the  much  or of  which c i t e s s u p e r i o r  as  one  interventions. main  Control  of  This  differences  Self  task,  One p o s s i b l e  unexpected  d i d better  than This  of treatment  of  self-reward  with data  indicating superior  from t h e  performance i n  w i t h no  and C o n t r o l  explanation  studies.  self-reinforcement  advantages  the External  The use o f  an  generalization  (at l e a s t f o r boys),  between  much  different  conditions.  the  result also c o n f l i c t s  experimental Self condition  the  task.  to proactive  i n future  condition  in either  effects  a  trial.  revealed  children  the  may  overall  from  also  i n the External  task  c h i l d r e n may have h a d  the baseline  children  literature,  was  interference  result:  finding  of  w h i c h a r e n o t so s u b j e c t  would c l a r i f y  performance  of t h i s  nature  the o l d e r  code u s e d d u r i n g  generalization  trial  specific  P e r f o r m a n c e on t h e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n  The  The s u p e r i o r  c h i l d r e n on t h e s e c o n d  been  p e r f o r m a n c e on t h e  significant conditions  any  trial.  in  terms o f f a t i g u e . S e l f - r e i n f o r c e d c h i l d r e n ( p a r t i c u l a r l y  b o y s ) worked h a r d on t h e P r a c t i c e the  arithmetic  substantially condition.  task,  and E x p e r i m e n t a l  enough so t h a t  .superior  to  that  Externally-reinforced  o f t h i s r e s u l t might  on  their  children  t r i a l s of  performance  of c h i l d r e n  be  was  i n the Control also  may  have  95  worked h a r d e r to  the  token  children  in  between The  than C o n t r o l  contingencies, the  Self  External  and  generalization  (following asked  to  children able  or  a  do  children  Control  have been  w i l l i n g t o work so  whereas  the  hard  children  continued  to  show t h e  e f f e c t s of  (By  next  task,  fatigue  Self  children  This  explanation  with  generalization on  One  of  tasks,  was  arithmetic of  deal  of  may  have  reducing previous  still  had  significant).  the  work  children  trial.  the  energy  token trial a  were  The  Self  between  of  the  task,  spare  and  arithmetic  factor  and  the  performance).  further  the  the  to  not  reinforcement.  superior  requires  to e x p l o r e  difference  substitution  have been  results  intervals  further  t h a n any  the  the  of  replication  experimental  possible  and  effects  of  performance.  generalization the  the  once a g a i n d e m o n s t r a t e d  differing  fatigue  longer  extent  academic-like  that  day's G e n e r a l i z a t i o n would no  due  from t h e i r e f f o r t s and  on  External  trials,  the  marginally  experimental  the  the  to  next  fatigued  two  (making  questionnaire) the  these  not  only  was  following  may  but  condition  task  brief  on  the  practice felt  and  more p r e d i c t a b l e  the  f i n d i n g that  t a s k was other  test anxiety day.  trials.  w i t h the less  better As  test  overall the  in regards  performance  Generalization  trial  having  format  by  t h i s time,  children  during  this brief  session,  been  present  a  on  as  have  had  to  well  pressured w h i c h may  on  result  on  good  the  96  With  respect  e x p r e s s e d more but  there  Hypothesis  satisfaction  was  reinforcement predicted.  to  no  overall  differential  conditions  by  latter  result  The  differential  responsiveness  m e a s u r e s . The  greater  younger  c h i l d r e n should  reflect  the  evaluation  positive  of  4,  reaction  parallels  overall  age  on  bias  and  frequently  (Furman,  1980).  The  tendency  o f young boys t o show  interesting  in light  The  preference  may  questions  some c h i l d r e n contrasted "somebody  else":  who  as  explain  might  have  teacher-reinforcement, reinforcement  in  this  performance  caution'; less  by  i t may  critical  f o u n d among y o u n g e r  greater  preference  the expressed  to phrase  (perhaps o l d e r  may case,  The  may  questions  with  a peer, or a  choice  boys i n  chosen a  from been  particular)  self-reinforcement have  of  have  peer  over external  i n mind a s t h e  a g e n t . More p r e c i s e w o r d i n g o f f u t u r e  w o u l d c l e a r up t h i s c o n f u s i o n . \  to  preference  reinforcement  to a teacher,  chosen  response  ambiguous w o r d i n g o f t h e  reinforcement.  latter  referring  e i t h e r . Some c h i l d r e n  reinforcing  somewhat  external  this  of  boys or both groups of g i r l s i s  self-reinforcement  interpreted of  for  lack  expressed  o f t h e sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n  self-reinforcement.  two  c h i l d r e n as  the  satisfaction  response  than o l d e r  the  the  be i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h  performance  self-reward  to  y o u n g e r and o l d e r  by  children  than d i d o l d e r c h i l d r e n ,  children  for  younger  questions  97  The  absence  questionnaire illustrates  Terdal,  responses the  with c h i l d r e n  significant  w i t h any  difficulty  (Gorsuch,  1981),  interpreting  of  and  the  sex  differences:  persist also  questionnaire  differences Sex  age  of  and  study as  which in  on  the  reinforcement  with the  studies  Bolick  self-reinforced  ability  results  which  reports  girls.  that  boys  has  to  This i s  ability  investigation.  the t a r g e t t a s k s  from  examined  (1979) f o u n d  task than  the p r e s e n t  however,  i n response,  responsiveness  differences  that  caution in  results.  were  to  i s in line  Gordon  itself,  variables  &  was  Perhaps  obscured  sex  in previous studies.  differences view  response  finding  out,  differential  boys  self-reinforcement  only  partialled  5,  Mash  girls  longer at a  the  for  measures  Self-reinforcement c o n d i t i o n , while  differential  of t h e  need  again  most  showed  one  the  1972;  ' of  clearly  to the  only  using self-report  underlines  satisfaction  This  measure  Henighan, & Barnard,  responsive  conditions.  performance  of  With respect t o Hypothesis  no  correlations  (see  must be  girls  achievement rather  than  Block,  1976;  tend  cannot  u n l e s s one  explain takes a  to reinforcement  obtained  purely  genetic  c o n d i t i o n s . . As  21),  sought.  There  i s some e v i d e n c e  to  suggest  to  more  adult-oriented  in  their  the  teacher  boys  (e.g.,  efforts outshine  (e.g., their  trying peers)  Maccoby & J a c k l i n ,  1974,  further  with  page  be  some  the.  to than p.  explanatory  please are 265).  Boys may  have  98  perceived  both  the E x t e r n a l  adult-controlled,  and  independence  offered  adult  may  control  affecting findings  would  developmental for  girls  have  been  literature  a  both  strongly  from  1981;  conducted male and  Patz,  in  1980;  self-  studies control children  degree  major  findings  to a  1974,  and  sex  &  only  measure. such as  6,  Locus  Perhaps  p.  157).  may  also female  replications useful  of C o n t r o l  any  of  the  with other studies Haywood, of  1974)  within  which  scorers an  l o c u s of c o n t r o l  in  importance.  not  conditions  have  and  these on  "average"  i s represented, this  This &  found  "externals"  the  latter l o c u s of  sample  i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , where t h e whole  of  in  (e.g., B a r l i n g  "internals"  extreme  was  correlations.  r e i n f o r c e m e n t . However, used  strive  effects.  responsiveness  have  the  degree  a  to r e s p o n s i v e n e s s to the  in  conflict  external  study,  e x p e r i m e n t e r s w o u l d be  to Hypothesis  Switzky  present  the  from  greater  & Jacklin,  in  of  b o y s t e n d t o v a l u e and  influence  of  factor  interpretation  with  the  female  enough r e l a t e d  differential to  a  greater  The  a l l the s e s s i o n s . Future  possible  respect  is  such  Maccoby  In  t o emerge s i g n i f i c a n t result  the  condition.  This  that  social  factor.  investigating With  been  to  as b e i n g  r e s p o n s i v e n e s s t o the source of reward  experimenter with  the S e l f  responses.  (Brehm,  Differential  in  conditions  better  be , c o n s i s t e n t  independence  than  Control  responded  n o t have  girls'  and  of  range  variable diminishes  99  With not  respect  related  to Hypothesis  to This  developmental  literature  self-reinforcing  children of  is  the  to  line  that  verbal  (e.g.,  finding  d i f f e r e n t ages  reinforcement  The the  data  need  the  ultimate  t e s t of  an  possibility using It  an  children  situation. of  differences felt  the  trivial, also  be  perceived  the  situation  increase  A the  investigations;  study  their  that  reaction  future bias  well  was  be  i t i s unclear  further  may  be  e.g.,  conditions,  f r o m the  the in the  reduced  by  study.  on  how  the  perceived  whether  they  anxiety-provoking  or  l a r g e r number o f of  the  must be  the  information  situation;  interpretability  i n more  studies,  h y p o t h e s e s of  realistic,  somewhat  of  but  way  analogue  could  reinforcement  as  studies  in this  to obtain  testing  indicate  investigations  interventions,  b l i n d to the useful  between  etc.  Eisen,  variables affecting  obtained  In  experimenter  also  in  s i t u a t i o n s as  for exploring  information  experimenter  would  differ  self-reinforcement  applied  to  presumably d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s  environments. Analogue  good s t a r t i n g p o i n t of  1968;  present  parametric  in applied  laboratory  utility  the  unrelated  i n v e s t i g a t i o n would seem t o  continued  self-reinforcement, controlled  Is  from  conditions.  from t h i s for  findings  I.Q.  was  reinforcement  C o l l e & Bee,  in  (and  the  with  c o g n i t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t ) d i d not  to the  a  in  behavior  also of  academic achievement  responsiveness  conditions.  1972), and  7,  subjects  results present  could  of  future  study  whether  100  certain  marginally  difference  or  significant  simply  a  lack  of  results power  represent  for  no  real  detecting  such  differences. The limit the  p a r t i c u l a r parameters employed  its  age  generalizability  ranges  useful  to  studied.  extend  children  and  Further  parametric  variety  of  a greater  tasks  children,  and  home-related to  obtain  utility  and  advised  parameters, be  to  and  such  educational  looking  at,  "problem"  target  O'Brien  present users  would  age  be  range  of  backgrounds.  for  example,  versus  behaviors  from  e t a l . , 1983)  are  a  "normal" school-  to  necessary about  the  interventions.  study of  study  c h i l d r e n in  p r e c i s i o n i n making d e c i s i o n s  that  potential  self-reinforcement  procedures  keep p o s s i b l e  indicate  in  mind  t e s t i n g i n t e r v e n t i o n s . D e p e n d i n g on  other  as  the  a more i m p o r t a n t  outcome.  school  f i n d i n g s to a broader  settings,  (see  present  investigations  v a r i e t y of  extending  from the  when d e s i g n i n g  may  Future  self-reinforcement  investigators would be  and  ones  to p a r o c h i a l  studies  greater  of  Data  these  i n the  nature  sex  of  differences  the  consideration  target  t h a n age  behavior,  sex  in predicting  101  References A l l e n , M.K., & L i e b e r t , R.M. ( 1 9 6 9 ) . Effects of live and symbolic deviant-modeling cues on adoption of a p r e v i o u s l y l e a r n e d s t a n d a r d . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 11, 253-260. Ames, C , & F e l k e r , D.W. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . E f f e c t s of s e l f - c o n c e p t on children's c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s and s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 71, 613-619. A n d e r s o n , L . , F o d o r , I . , & A l p e r t , M. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . A comparison o f methods f o r t r a i n i n g s e l f - c o n t r o l . B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 7, 649-658. Babcock, H. ( 1 9 6 5 ) . The Babcock t e s t of m e n t a l e f f i c i e n c y . B e v e r l y H i l l s , C a l i f . : Western P s y c h o l o g i c a l S e r v i c e s . Ballard, K.D., & Glynn, T. (1975). Behavioral self-management i n s t o r y w r i t i n g w i t h e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l children. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s , 8, 387-398. B a n d u r a , A. ( 1 9 6 9 ) . P r i n c i p l e s of b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n . York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t , & Winston. Bandura, A. (1971). processes. In r e i n f o r c e m e n t . New  New  Vicarious and self-reinforcement R. Glaser (Ed.), The n a t u r e o f York: Academic P r e s s .  B a n d u r a , A. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . Aggression: A social learning E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , N. J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l .  analysis.  Bandura, A. (1975). S e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t : T h e o r e t i c a l and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . B e h a v i o r i s m , 4, 135-155. B a n d u r a , A., G r u s e c , J . E . , & M e n l o v e , F.L. (1967). Some social determinants of self-monitoring reinforcement systems. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 5, 449-455. B a n d u r a , A., & K u p e r s , C . J . ( 1 9 6 4 ) . T r a n s m i s s i o n o f p a t t e r n s of self-reinforcement through modeling. J o u r n a l of A b n o r m a l and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 69, 1-9. B a n d u r a , A., & P e r l o f f , B. (1967). self-monitored and externally systems. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y 7,111-116. • Bandura, New  A., & W a l t e r s , R.M. York: Ronald P r e s s .  Relative efficacy of imposed reinforcement and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y ,  (1959). Adolescent a g g r e s s i o n .  1 02  B a r k l e y , R.A., Copeland, A.P., & S i v a g e , C. (1980). A self-control classroom for hyperactive children. J o u r n a l of A u t i s m a n d D e v e l o p m e n t a l D i s o r d e r s , 10, 75-89.  Barling, J . , & Fincham, F. (1979). E f f e c t s o f s e l f - and e x t e r n a l l y - i m p o s e d r e i n f o r c e m e n t ( m a t e r i a l and social) on intelligence test p e r f o r m a n c e o f a b o v e - a v e r a g e IQ c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of Genetic Psychology, 135, 73-70. B a r l i n g , J . , & P a t z , M. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . D i f f e r e n c e s f o l l o w i n g selfand external-reinforcement a s a f u n c t i o n of l o c u s o f control and age: A social learning analysis. P e r s o n a l i t y and I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s , _]_, 7 9 - 8 5 . Baron, R.M., St Ganz, R.L. (1972). Effects of l o c u s of c o n t r o l and t y p e o f f e e d b a c k on t h e t a s k p e r f o r m a n c e o f lower-class black c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 2 1 , 1 2 4 - 1 3 0 . Bergan, A., McManis, D.L., & M e l c h e r t , P.A. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . Effects of s o c i a l a n d t o k e n r e i n f o r c e m e n t on WISC b l o c k design p e r f o r m a n c e . P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , 3 2 , 8 7 1 - 8 8 0 . Best,  H. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . The m a i n t e n a n c e o f b e h a v i o r s e l f -reinforcement . Unpublished d o c t o r a l U n i v e r s i t y of Waterloo.  through s e l f dissertation,  B i r k i m e r , J . C , & Brown, J . H . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . The e f f e c t s o f s t u d e n t self-control on t h e r e d u c t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' s problem behaviors. Behavioral Disorders, 4, 1 3 1 - 1 3 6 . Block, J.H. assessing  Issues, problems, and p i t f a l l s i n sex d i f f e r e n c e s . M e r r i l - P a l m e r Q u a r t e r l y , 2 2 ,  (1976).  283-308.  Bolstad, O.D., & J o h n s o n , S.M. ( 1 9 7 2 ) . S e l f - r e g u l a t i o n i n the m o d i f i c a t i o n of d i s r u p t i v e classroom behavior. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s , 5 , 4 4 3 - 4 5 4 . Brehm, S.S. (1981). Oppositional behavior i n c h i l d r e n : A r e a c t a n c e t h e o r y a p p r o a c h . I n S.S. Brehm, S.M. Kassin, & F.X. G i b b o n s ( E d s . ) , D e v e l o p m e n t a l s o c i a l psychology. New Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Brigham, T.A. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . Some s p e c u l a t i o n s a b o u t s e l f - c o n t r o l . In T. B r i g h a m St A.C. C a t a n i a (Eds.), The handbook o f a p p l i e d b e h a v i o r r e s e a r c h : S o c i a l and i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s . New Y o r k : I r v i n g t o n . Brigham, T.A., St environments:  Bushell, Effects  D. ( of  N o t e s on autonomous student-selected and  1973).  1 03  teacher-selected rewards E d u c a t i o n a l T e c h n o l o g y , 13,  on academic 19-22.  performance..  B r i g h a m , T.A., Hawkins, R., S c o t t , S.W., & McLaughlin, T.F. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . S e l f - c o n t r o l i n the c l a s s r o o m . In T.A. Brigham, R. Hawkins, S.W. Scott, & T.F. McLaughlin (Eds.), Behavior a n a l y s i s in education. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. B r i g h a m , T.A., & immediacy switching Experimental  Sherman, J.A. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . E f f e c t s of c h o i c e of renforcement in single response behavior of children. J o u r n a l of A n a l y s i s of B e h a v i o r , 19, 425-435.  and and the  Brigham, T.A., & Stoerzinger, A. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . An experimental a n a l y s i s of children's preference for s e l f - s e l e c t e d rewards. In T.A. Brigham, R. Hawkins, J.W. Scott, & T.F. McLaughlin (Eds.), Behavioral analysis in e d u c a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: K e n d a l l / H u n t . Brown, D.G. ( 1 9 7 2 ) . Behavor m o d i f i c a t i o n i n c h i l d , s c h o o l , and f a m i l y m e n t a l h e a l t h . I l l i n o i s : R e s e a r c h P r e s s . Brownell, K.O., Colletti, G., Ersner-Hershfield, R., Hershfield, S.M., & W i l s o n , G.T. (1977). S e l f - c o n t r o l in school children: Stringency and leniency in self-determined and externally imposed performed s t a n d a r d s . B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 8, 442-455. B u g e n t h a l , D., Whalen, C, & Henker, B. (1977). Causal attributions of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n and m o t i v a t i o n a l a s s u m p t i o n s o f two b e h a v i o r change a p p r o a c h e s : E v i d e n c e f o r an i n t e r a c t i o n i s t p o s i t i o n . C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , 48, 847-884. B u s h e l l , S.A., & B u s h e l l , D., J r . ( 1 9 7 6 ) . A dual-contingency procedure to support student self-determination of p e r f o r m a n c e . In T.A. G r i g h a m , R. H a w k i n s , J.W. Scott & T.F. McLaughlin (Eds.), Behavioral analysis in e d u c a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: K e n d a l l / H u n t . C a m p b e l l , L.M. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . A v a r i a t i o n of t h o u g h t - s t o p p i n g in a t w e l v e - y e a r - o l d boy: A c a s e r e p o r t . J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y and E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h i a t r y , 4, 69-70. Catania, A.C. (1975). The B e h a v i o r i s m , 3, 192-199.  myth  of  self-reinforcement.  Clark, F.W., Evans, D.R., & Hamerlynck, L.A. (1972). Implementing behavioral programs for schools and c l i n i c s . In F.W. C l a r k , D.R. Evans, & L.A. Hamerlynck (Eds.), Implementing B e h a v i o r a l Programs f o r S c h o o l s  1 04  and  Clinics.  Illinois:  Research  Press.  Clement, P.W., Anderson, E., A r n o l d , J . , Butman, R., Fantuzzo, J. & Mays, R. S e l f - o b s e r v a t i o n and self-reinforcement as sources of self-control in c h i l d r e n . B i o f e e d b a c k a n d S e l f - R e g u l a t i o n , 3, 247-268. Clingman, J.M., A u e r b a c h , S.M., Bowman, P . C , & P a r r i s h , J.M. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . D i f f e r e n t i a l effects of candy, social, and token rewards on t h e IQ s c o r e s of children of above-average i n t e l l i g e n c e . Psychology i n the Schools, j_4, 95-98. Cole,  P.M., & Kazdin, A.E. (1980). Critical issues in self-instructional training with children. Child B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 2, 1-23.  Colle, H.A., Sc Bee, H.L. ( 1968). The e f f e c t s o f competence and s o c i a l c l a s s on d e g r e e o f m o d e l l i n g o f s e l f - r e w a r d p a t t e r n s . P s y c h o n o m i c S c i e n c e , 10, 231-232. Copeland, A.P. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Individual difference factors in children's self-management: Toward individualized treatments. I n P. K a r o l y Sc F.H. K a n f e r ( E d s . ) , S e l f management a n d b e h a v i o r c h a n g e : From t h e o r y t o p r a c t i c e . New Y o r k : Pergamon. Craighead, W.E., Sc W i l c o x o n - C r a i g h e a d , L. (1978). New d i r e c t i o n s i n b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t o n w i t h c h i l d r e n . I n M. Hersen, R.M. E i s l e r , Sc P.M. M i l l e r ( E d s . ) , P r o g r e s s i n b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n ( V o l . 6 ) . New York: Academic Press. Crow,  R., Mayhew, G. (1976). Reinforcement effects on accuracy of s e l f reporting behavior of elementary students. I n T.A. B r i g h a m , R. H a w k i n s , J.W. S c o t t , Sc T.F. McLaughlin (Eds.), Behavioral analysis i n e d u c a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: K e n d a l l / H u n t . :  Dewey, J. (1939). Macmillan.  Experience  and e d u c a t i o n .  New  York:  D i c k e r s o n , E.A., Sc C r e e d o n , C F . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Self-selection of standards by c h i l d r e n : The r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f pupil-selected and teacher-selected standards of performance. J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 14, 425-433. Drabman, R.S., S p i t a l n i k , R., Sc O ' L e a r y , K.D. • Teaching selfcontrol to disruptive childrn. of A b n o r m a l P s y c h o l o g y , 82, 10-16.  ( 1 973). Journal  105  Dresner, F. (1976). A self-originated token economy: Behavior change i n a l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s c l a s s . In T.A. B r i g h a m , R. H a w k i n s , J.W. S c o t t , & T.R. M c L a u g h l i n ( E d s . ) , B e h a v i o r a n a l y s i s i n e d u c a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. Eisen, M. (1972). Characteristic s e l f - e s t e e m , sex, resistance to temptation. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 24, 68-72.  and and  Emmerich, W. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . D e v e l o p m e n t a l t r e n d s i n e v a l u a t i o n s o f s i n g l e t r a i t s . C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , 45, 172-183. E p s t e i n , R., & G o s s , C M . (1978). A self-control procedure for the maintenance of n o n d i s r u p t i v e b e h a v i o r i n an e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l c h i l d . B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 9, 109-117. F a n t u z z o , J.W., & C l e m e n t , P.W. (1981). Generalization of the effects of teacherand s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d t o k e n r e i n f o r c e r s to n o n t r e a t e d s t u d e n t s . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 14, 435-447. Farnum, M., Brigham, T.A., & Johnson, G. (1977). A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e e f f e c t s o f t e a c h e r d e t e r m i n e d and s t u d e n t d e t e r m i n e d c o n t i n g e n c i e s on a r i t h m e t i c performance. Unpublished manuscript, Washington State University. Feldman, N.S., & Ruble, D.N. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . The d e v e l o p m e n t o f person p e r c e p t i o n : C o g n i t i v e and social factors. In S.S. Brehm, S.M. Kassin, & F.X. Gibbons (Eds.), Developmental s o c i a l psychology. New. York: Oxford University Press. Felixbrod, J.J. (1974). E f f e c t s of p r i o r l o c u s of c o n t r o l o v e r r e i n f o r c e m e n t on c u r r e n t p e r f o r m a n c e and r e s i s t a n c e to education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York a t S t o n y Brook. Felixbrod, J.J., & O'Leary, K.D. (1973). Effects of reinforcement on children's academic behavior as a function of s e l f - d e t e r m i n e d and externally imposed c o n t i n g e n c i e s . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 6, 241-250. Felker, D.W., & Thomas, S.B. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . S e l f - i n i t i a t e d reinforcement and positive self-concept. D e v e l o p m e n t , 42, 1285-1287. Frederiksen, L.W., Teacher-determined  & and  Frederiksen, CB. self-determined  verbal Child  ( 1975). token  106  reinforcement in a special B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 6, 310-314.  education  classroom.  F r i e d m a n , S. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . S e l f - c o n t r o l i n t h e t r e a t m e n t of G i l l e s de l a T o u r e t t e ' s syndrome: Case study with 18-month follow-up. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 48, 400-402. Furman, W. (1980). Promoting social development: Developmental i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t r e a t m e n t . In B.B. Lahey & A.E. Kazdin ( E d s . ) , Advances i n c l i n i c a l c h i l d p s y c h o l o g y ( V o l . 3 ) . New Y o r k : Plenum. Gagne, R. ( 1 9 6 5 ) . The c o n d i t i o n s of l e a r n i n g H o l t , R i n e h a r t , and W i n s t o n . Gelfand, D.M., & Hartmann, a n a l y s i s and t h e r a p y . New  D.P. York:  .  New  (1975). Child Pergamon.  York:  behavior  G e o r g e , T.W., & K i n d a l l , L.M. (1976) An i n t r a - c l a s s a n a l y s i s of the e f f e c t s of s e l f - d e t e r m i n e d and externally imposed learning activities on p o s t t e s t achievement progress rate and attitudes. In T.A. Brigham, R.Hawkins, J.W. Scott, & T.F. M c L a u g h l i n (Eds.), Behavior a n a l y s i s i n education. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. Ginsburg, H., intellectual  & Opper, S. (1969). P i a g e t ' s t h e o r y of d e v e l o p m e n t . New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l .  Glass, G.V., Peckham, P.D., & Sanders, J.R. (1972). Consequences o f f a i l u r e t o meet a s s u m p t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g t h e f i x e d e f f e c t s a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e and covariance. Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 42, 237-288. G l y n n , E . L . (1970) C l a s s r o o m a p p l i c a t i o n s o f s e l f - d e t e r m i n e d r e i n f o r c e m e n t . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 3_, 123-132. Glynn, E.L., & Thomas, J.D. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . E f f e c t o f c u e i n g on s e l f - c o n t r o l of c l a s s r o o m b e h a v i o r . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 1_, 299-306. Glynn, E . L . , Thomas, J.D., & Shee, S.M. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . B e h a v i o r a l self-control of on-task behavior i n an elementary classroom. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l A n a l y s i s , 6, 105-113. Goldiamond, I. (1976). self-reinforcement. A n a l y s i s , 9, 521-525.  Fables, Journal  armadyllics, and of A p p l i e d Behavior  1 07  Goodlet, G.R., & Goodlet, M.M. (1969). Efficiency of self-monitored and externally imposed schedules of reinforcement in c o n t r o l l i n g disruptive behavior. In M.J. Mahoney, Sc C E . Thoresen (Eds.), S e l f - c o n t r o l : Power t o t h e p e r s o n . M o n t e r e y , C a l i f . : B r o o k s / C o l e . Goodwin, S.E., Sc Mahoney, M.J. ( 1 976). Coping with a g g r e s s i o n t h r o u g h c o g n i t i v e m o d e l i n g . In T.A. B r i g h a m , R. Hawkins, J.W. Scott, Sc T . F . McLaughlin (Eds.), Behavior a n a l y s i s i n education. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. Gordon, D.A. , S< Bolick, T. (1979). The role of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n i n c h i l d r e n ' s t a s k p e r s i s t e n c e . J o u r n a l of G e n e t i c P s y c h o l o g y , 135, 255-262. Gorsuch, R.L., H e n i g h a n , R.P., Sc B a r n a r d , C. ( 1972). L o c u s of c o n t r o l : An example of d a n g e r s i n u s i n g children's s c a l e s w i t h c h i l d r e n . C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , 43, 579-590. Graziano, A.M., Sc Mooney, K . C ( 1 980). Family s e l f - c o n t r o l instruction for children's nighttime fear reduction. J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 48, G r o s s , A.M. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Self-management t r a i n i n g and compliance in c h i l d r e n with diabetes. C h i l d B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 4, 47-67.  medication and F a m i l y  G r o s s , A.M., B r i g h a m , T.A. , Hopper, C, Sc B o l o g n a , N.C. (1980). S e l f - management and s o c i a l s k i l l s t r a i n i n g : A s t u d y w i t h p r e d e l i n q u e n t and d e l i n q u e n t y o u t h . C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e and B e h a v i o r , 1_, 161-184. Gross, A.M., Sc Drabman, R.S. (1982). Teaching self-recording, selfe v a l u a t i o n , and s e l f - r e w a r d t o n o n c l i n i c c h i l d r e n and a d o l e s c e n t s . In P. K a r o l y Sc F.H. Kanfer (Eds.), S e l f management and b e h a v i o r c h a n g e : From t h e o r y t o p r a c t i c e . New Y o r k : Pergamon. H a r r i s , S.L., & F e r r a r i , M. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . D e v e l o p m e n t a l c h i l d b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y . B e h a v o r T h e r a p y , 14,  factors 54-72.  in  Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a d e v e l o p m e n t a l model. Human D e v e l o p m e n t , 21, 34-64. Harter, S. (1982). A developmental p e r s p e c t i v e on some p a r a m e t e r s of s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n i n c h i l d r e n . In P. K a r o l y Sc F.H. Kanfer (Eds.), S e l f management and b e h a v i o r c h a n g e s : From t h e o r y t o p r a c t i c e . New Y o r k : Pergamon.  108  Hartup, W.W. (1970). Peer interaction and social o r g a n i z a t i o n . In P.H. Mussen ( E d . ) , C a r m i c h a e l ' s manual of c h i l d p s y c h o l o g y ( V o l . 2 ) . T o r o n t o : J o h n Wiley and Sons. Hauserman, N., Miller, J . S . , & Bond, F.T. (1976). A behavioral approach to changing self-concept in elementary school c h i l d r e n . The P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e c o r d , 26, 111-116. H i l d e b r a n d t , D.E., Feldman, S.E., & D i t r i c h s , R.A. (1973). Rules, m o d e l s , and self-reinforcement in children. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 25, 1-5. H o l t , M.M., & Hobbs, T.R. (1979). The effects of token reinforcement, feedback and response cost on standardized test performance. B e h a v i o u r R e s e a r c h and T h e r a p y , 17, 81-83. Homme, L . E . (1965). C o n t r o l of C o v e r a n t s : The o p e r a n t s o f t h e m i n d . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e c o r d s , 15, 501-511. Huck, S.W., & McLean, R.A. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . U s i n g a r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s ANOVA t o a n a l y s e the data from a pretest-posttest design: A potentially confusing task. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 82, 511-518. Humphrey, L . L . , & K a r o l y , P. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . S e l f - m a n a g e m e n t i n t h e classroom: Self-imposed response cost versus s e l f - r e w a r d . B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 9, 592-601. J e f f r e y , D.B. (1974) S e l f - c o n t r o l : M e t h o d o l o g i c a l i s s u e s and research t r e n d s . I n M.J. Mahoney & CE. Thoresen (Eds.), S e l f - c o n t r o l : Power t o t h e p e r s o n . Belmont, C a l i f o r n a i l Brooks/Cole. J o h n s , J.H., & Quay, H.C. (1962). The effect of social reward on verbal conditioning i n psychopathic and neurotic military offenders. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 26, 217-220. Johnson, S.M. (1970). Self-reinforcement reinforcement in behavior modification D e v e l o p m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 3, 147-148.  versus external with children.  Johnson, S.M., & Martin, S. (1973). Developing s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n as a c o n d i t i o n e d reinforcer. In B.A. Ashem & E.G. P o s e r ( E d s . ) , A d a p t i v e l e a r n i n g : B e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n w i t h c h i l d r e n . New Y o r k : Pergamon. J o n e s , R.T., & E v a n s , H.L. (1980). continuum of e x t e r n a l cues.  Self-reinforcement: A J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l  109  Psychology,  72, 625-635.  Kanfer, F.H. (1966). Influence o f age and incentive conditions on c h i l d r e n ' s self-rewards. Psychological R e p o r t s , J_9, 263-274. K a n f e r , F.H., & D u e r f e l d t , P.H. (1968). Age, c l a s s standing and committment as determinants of c h e a t i n g i n c h i l d r e n . C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , 39, 545-557. K a n f e r , F.H., K a r o l y , P., & Newman, A. (1975). R e d u c t i o n o f children's fear o f t h e d a r k by c o m p e t e n c e - r e l a t e d a n d situational threat-related verbal cues. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g a n d C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 43, 251-258. Kanfer, F.H., & Z i c h , J . (1974). S e l f - c o n t r o l t r a i n i n g : The e f f e c t s o f e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l on c h i l d r e n ' s r e s i s t a n c e t o t e m p t a t i o n . D e v e l o p m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 10, 108-115. K a r o l y , P. (1977). B e h a v i o r a l s e l f - m a n a g e m e n t in children: C o n c e p t s , methods, i s s u e s a n d d i r e c t i o n s . I n M. H e r s e n , R.M. E i s l e r & P.M. M i l l e r ( E d s . ) , P r o g r e s s i n b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n ( V o l . 5 ) . New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s . K a r o l y , P., & K a n f e r , F.H. ( E d s . ) (1982). Self-management and b e h a v i o r c h a n g e : From t h e o r y t o p r a c t i c e . New Y o r k : Pergamon. Kaufman, K.F., & O ' L e a r y , K.D. (1972). Reward, c o s t a n d s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n procedures for disruptive adolescents in a p s y c h i a t r i c h o s p i t a l s c h o o l . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 5, 293. Kazdin, A . E . (1977) Assessing the c l i n i c a l or importance of behavior change through v a l i d a t i o n . B e h a v i o r M o d i f i c a t i o n , _1_, 427-451 .  applied social  K a z d i n , A . E . (1978). E v a l u a t i n g t h e g e n e r a l i t y of f i n d i n g s i n analogue therapy r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 46, 673-686. Kazdin, -A.E. (1980). s e t t i n g s (Rev. E d . ) .  Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n i n a p p l i e d I l l i n o i s : Dorsey P r e s s .  Kendall, P . C , & Wilcox, children: Development C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l  L . E . ( 1979). Self-control in of a r a t i n g s c a l e . Journal of P s y c h o l o g y , 47, 1020-1029.  Kendall, P.C, & Williams, C L . (1982). Assessing the cognitive and b e h a v i o r a l components of children's s e l f - m a n a g e m e n t . I n P. K a r o l y & F.H. K a n f e r (Eds.), Self-management a n d b e h a v i o r c h a n g e : From t h e o r y t o  1 10  practice.  New  York:  Pergamon.  Klugman, S.F. ( 1 9 4 4 ) . The e f f e c t of money i n c e n t i v e v e r s u s p r a i s e upon t h e r e l i a b i l i t y and o b t a i n e d s c o r e s of the revised Stanford-Binet test. J o u r n a l of G e n e r a l P s y c h o l o g y , 30, 255-269. K n a p c z y k , D.R., & L i v i n g s t o n , G. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . S e l f - r e c o r d i n g and student teacher s u p e r v i s i o n : V a r i a b l e s within a token economy structure. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l A n a l y s i s , 6, 481. Lane,  D.M. (1979). Developmental attention-deployment skills. Journal C h i l d P s y c h o l o g y , 28, 16-29.  of  changes in Experimental  Larzelere, R.E., & M u l a i k , S.A. (1977). Single-sample for many correlations. Psychological Bulletin, 557-569. Lefcourt, H.M. (1982). L o c u s of c o n t r o l . N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c . Lefrancois, G.R. (1973). Of c h i l d r e n : An c h i l d development. Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a :  tests 84,  Hillsdale,  introduction Wadsworth.  to  Lepper, M.R., & G i l o v i c h , T.J. (1981). The multiple functions of reward: A social-developmental p e r s p e c t i v e . In S.S. Brehm, S.M. K a s s i n , & F.X. G i b b o n s (Eds.), Developmental s o c i a l psychology. New York:Oxford. Lepper, M.R., Sagotsky, G., & Mailer, J. (1975). Generalization and p e r s i s t e n c e of e f f e c t s of e x p o s u r e to self-reinforcement models. C h i l d Development, 46, 618-630. L e v i n , G., & Simmons, J . ( 1 9 6 2 ) . R e s p o n s e t o f o o d and p r a i s e by emotionally d i s t u r b e d boys. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports, 2, 539-546. Liebert, R.M., & A l l e n , M.K. (1967). E f f e c t s of rule structure and reward m a g n i t u d e on t h e a c q u i s i t i o n and adoption of self-reward criteria. Psychological R e p o r t s , 21, 445-452. Liebert, R.M., & O r a , J.P. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . C h i l d r e n ' s a d o p t i o n self-reward patterns: Incentive level and method t r a n s m i s s i o n . C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , 39, 537-544.  of of  Liebert, R.M., Poulos, R.W., & Strauss, G.D. (1974). D e v e l o p m e n t a l p s y c h o l o g y . New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l .  111  L i e b e r t , R.M., S p i e g l e r , M.D., & H a l l , W.M. (1970). Effects of the value of contingent self-administered and n o n - c o n t i n g e n t e x t e r n a l l y imposed r e w a r d on children's behavioral productivity. Psychonomic S c i e n c e , 18, 245-246. L o v i t t , T.C. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . Self-management p r o j e c t s w i t h children with behavioral disabilities. J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , 6, 138-150. Lovitt, T.C, & C u r t i s s , K.H. ( 1 9 6 9 ) . Academic r e s p o n s e r a t e as a function of teacher and self-imposed contingencies. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l A n a l y s i s , 2, 49-53. Maccoby, E.E., & J a c k l i n , C N . ( 1 9 7 4 ) . The p s y c h o l o g y of sex d i f f e r e n c e s . Stanford, C a l i f . : Stanford Univ. Press. M a c P h e r s o n , E.M., Candee, B.L., & Hohman, R.J. (1974). A comparison of t h r e e methods f o r e l i m i n a t i n g d i s r u p t i v e lunchroom behavior. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavor A n a l y s i s , 7, 287-297. Mahoney, M.J. (1976). Terminal terminology: A s e l f - r e g u l a t e d response to Goldiamond. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s , 9, 515-517. Mahoney, M.S., & Arnkoff, D.B. (1978). Cognitive and self-control t h e r a p i e s . In S.L. G a r f i e l d & A.E. Bergin (Ed.), Handbook of p s y c h o t h e r a p y and b e h a v i o r change (2nd e d . ) . New Y o r k : John W i l e y & S o n s . Mash,  E.J., & childhood (Eds.), New Y o r k :  T e r d a l , L.G. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . B e h a v i o r a l a s s e s s m e n t of disturbance. In E.J. Mash & L.G. Terdal B e h a v i o r a l a s s e s s m e n t of c h i l d h o o d d i s o r d e r s . Guilford.  M a s t e r s , J.C. ( 1 9 6 9 ) . S o c i a l c o m p a r i s o n , self-reinforcement and the v a l u e of a r e i n f o r c e r . C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , 40, 1027-1038. Masters, J . C ( 1 9 7 2 ) . E f f e c t s of s u c c e s s , f a i l u r e and r e w a r d outcome upon contingent and noncontingent self-reinforcement. Developmental Psychology, 7, 110- 118. Masters, J . C ( 1 9 7 3 ) . E f f e c t s o f age upon children's noncontingent the value of a reinforcer. 111- 116. Masters, J . C ,  & C h r i s t y , M.D.  and social comparison s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t and C h i l d Development, 44,  (1974). Achievement  standards  1 12  for contingent self-reinforcement: length and t a s k difficulty* Child 6-13.  Effects of Development,  task 45,  M a s t e r s , J.D., Furman, W., & B a r d e n , R.C. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . E f f e c t s o f achievement standards, tangible rewards and s e l f - d i s p e n s e d achievement e v a l u a t i o n s on children's t a s k m a s t e r y . C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , 48, 217-224. Master, J . C , & Mokros, J.R. (1974). S e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t p r o c e s s e s i n c h i l d r e n . I n H.W. Reese ( E d . ) , A d v a n c e s i n c h i l d d e v e l o p m e n t and b e h a v i o r . New York: Academic Press. Masters, J . C , & Peskay, J . (1972). Effects of race, socioeconomic status and s u c c e s s or f a i l u r e upon contingent and n o n - c o n t i n g e n t self-reinforcement in c h i l d r e n . D e v e l o p m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 7, 139-145. M a s t e r s , J . C , & S a n t r o c k , J.W. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . S t u d i e s i n t h e s e l f r e g u l a t i o n o f b e h a v i o r : E f f e c t s o f v e r b a l and c o g n i t i v e self-reinforcement . Unpublished manuscript, University of M i n n e s o t a . Masters, J . C , & Santrock, J.W. self-regulation of b e h a v i o r : cognitive and effective P s y c h o l o g y , 12, 334-348.  (1976). Effects events.  Studies i n the of c o n t i n g e n t Developmental  M c L a u g h l i n , T.F. (1976). Self-control i n the classroom. Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 46, 631-663. M c L a u g h l i n , T . F . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . E f f e c t s o f s e l f - d e t e r m i n e d and h i g h performance standards on spelling performance: A multi-element baseline analysis. C h i l d and F a m i l y B e h a v i o r , 4, 55-61. McMahon, R.J., & Forehand, R.L. (1983). Consumer satisfaction in behavioral treatment of children: Types, issues, and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , j_4, 209-225. Meichenbaum, D.H. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . T e a c h i n g c h i l d r e n s e l f - c o n t r o l . I n B.B. Lahey & A . E . K a z d i n (Eds.), Advances i n c l i n i c a l c h i l d p s y c h o l o g y ( V o l . 2 ) . New Y o r k : Plenum. Meichenbaum, D.H., & Goodman, J . ( 1 9 7 1 ) . T r a i n i n g i m p u l s i v e c h i l d r e n t o t a l k t o t h e m s e l v e s : A means of d e v e l o p i n g s e l f - c o n t r o l . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 77, 115-126. Meid,  E.S.  ( 1 9 7 1 ) . The e f f e c t s  o f two t y p e s o f s u c c e s s and  11 3  f a i l u r e on c h i l d r e n ' s d i s c r i m i n a t i o n l e a r n i n g and e v a l u a t i o n of p e r f o r m a n c e . U n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t , University. Miller, H.R. (1969). conditions: Case 835-838. M i s c h e l , W. Wiley.  (1968).  Yale  WISC performance under incentive report. Psychological Reports, 24,  Personality  and  assessment.  New  York:  Mischel, W., Coates, B., & R a s k o f f , F. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . E f f e c t s of s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e on self-gratification. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 10, 381-390. Mischel, W., & E b b e s e n , E.G. ( 1 9 7 0 ) . A t t e n t i o n i n d e l a y of gratification. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 16, 329-337. Mischel, W. , Sc M e t z n e r , R. ( 1 9 6 2 ) . P r e f e r e n c e f o r d e l a y e d r e w a r d as a f u n c t i o n of age, i n t e l l i g e n c e , and length of delay interval. J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 64, 425-431. Mischel, W., Zeiss, R., Sc Zeiss, A.R. (1974). Internal-external control and p e r s i s t e n c e : V a l i d a t i o n and implications of the Stanford Preschool Internal-External Scale. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 29, 265-278. Montgomery, G.T., Sc P a r t o n , D.A. of selfreward. Journal 84, 273-276.  (1970). R e i n f o r c i n g effect of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y ,  Morris, E.K. (1980). The differential effectiveness of social reinforcement with c h i l d r e n i n l a b o r a t o r y and natural s e t t i n g s : A conditioned reinforcement analysis. P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e c o r d , 30, 9-16. N e i l a n s , T.H., Sc I s r a e l , A.C. (1981). Towards maintenance and generalization of behavior change: Teaching c h i l d r e n s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n and s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l s k i l l s . C o g n i t i v e T h e r a p y and R e s e a r c h , 5, 189-195. Nelson, W.J., Jr., Sc B i r k i m e r , J.C. (1978). Role self-instruction and self-reinforcement in m o d i f i c a t i o n of i m p u l s i v i t y . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 46, 183. Nowicki, S., Sc S t r i c k l a n d , B. scale for c h i l d r e n . Journal P s y c h o l o g y , 40, 148-154.  of the and  ('1973). A l o c u s of c o n t r o l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l  11 4  Oakland, J.A. motivation. 411-412.  (1969). WISC coding a s a measure o f J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 25,  O ' B r i e n , T.P., R i n e r , L . S . , & Budd, K.S. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . The e f f e c t s of a c h i l d ' s s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n p r o g r a m on c o m p l i a n c e w i t h parental instructions i n t h e home. J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 16, 69-79. O ' L e a r y , k.D. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . The o p e r a n t a n d s o c i a l psychology of token systems. In A.C. C a t o n i a & T.A. B r i g h a m ( E d s . ) , Handbook o f a p p l i e d b e h a v i o r a n a l y s i s : S o c i a l a n d i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s . New Y o r k : I r v i n g t o n . O'Leary, S.G., & Dubey, D.R. (1979). Applications of self-control p r o c e d u r e s by c h i l d r e n : A r e v i e w . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 12, 449-465. O ' L e a r y , S.G., & O ' L e a r y , K.D. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . B e h a v i o r i n t h e s c h o o l . I n H. Leitenberg (Ed.), b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t o n and behavor t h e r a p y . C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l . O l l e n d i c k , T.H., & C e r n y , therapy with c h i l d r e n  modification Handbook o f Englewood  J.A. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Clinical . New Y o r k : Plenum.  behavior  Panyan, S.E., N e e r i n c x , J . , & L a n d e r s , W. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . E x t e r n a l versus s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t procedure f o r three ethnic groups i n a c i t i z e n s h i p p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m . I n T.A. B r i g h a m , R. Hawkins, J.W. Scott, & T.F. McLaughlin (Eds.), B e h a v i o r a n a l y s i s i n e d u c a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. P a r k s , A . L . , F i n e , M.J., & H o p k i n s , B.L. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . A s t u d y o f teacher-managed and self-managed reinforcement with young c h i l d r e n on an a c a d e m i c t a s k . I n T.A. B r i g h a m , R. Hawkins, J.W. S c o t t , & T . F . M c L a u g h l i n ( E d s . ) , B e h a v i o r a n a l y s i s i n e d u c a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: K e n d a l l / H u n t . Patterson, C.J., & Mischel, W. (1976). Effects of temptation-inhibiting and t a s k - f a c i l i t a t i n g p l a n s on self-control. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 3_3, 209-217. Perry, D.G., & Bussey, K. (1977). S e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n highand l o w - a g g r e s s i v e boys following acts of a g g r e s s i o n . C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , 48, 653-657. Peskay, J . , & M a s t e r s , J.C. (1971). E f f e c t s of socioeconomic status and the value of a reinforcer upon s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t by c h i l d r e n . C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , 42, 2120-2123.  1 15  Prater, J . S . , W o l t e r , C.F., & C l e m e n t , P.W. (1982). S e t t i n g generalization during self-reinforcement with educationally handicapped children. C h i l d and F a m i l y B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 4, 25-39. P r i c e , G., & O'Leary, K.D. (1974). Teaching c h i l d r e n to develop h i g h performance standards. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Stony Brook. Rachlin, H. (1978). Self-control. In T.A. B r i g h a m & A.C. Catania (Eds.), The handbook o f a p p l i e d b e h a v i o r r e s e a r c h . New Y o r k : I r v i n g t o n . Ramsey, P.H. (1980). Choosing t h e most p o w e r f u l p a i r w i s e m u l t i p l e comparison procedure i n m u l t i v a r i a t e analysis of variance. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 65, 317-326. Redd,  W.H., & Birnbrauer, J.S. (1969). Adults as discriminative stimuli for different reinforcement contingencies with retarded children. J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l C h i l d P s y c h o l o g y , 7, 440-447.  Reese, H.W., & Lipsitt, p s y c h o l o g y . New Y o r k :  L.P. (1970). E x p e r i m e n t a l Academic P r e s s .  child  R e s c h l y , D . J . , & M i t t m a n , A. (1973). The relationship of self-esteem status and task ambiguity to the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t b e h a v i o r of c h i l d r e n . Developmental P s y c h o l o g y , 9, 1 6 - 1 9 . Rhode, G., Morgan, D.P., & Young, K.R. (1983). G e n e r a l i z a t i o n and m a i n t e n a n c e o f treatment gains of behaviorally handicapped s t u d e n t s from r e s o u r c e rooms to regular classrooms using s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n procedures. J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 16, 171-188. R o b e r t s o n , S . J . , Simon, S . J . , Pachman, J . S . , & Drabman, R.S. (1979). S e l f - c o n t r o l and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s i n a classroom of disruptive retarded children. Child B e h a v i o r Therapy, 347-362. Robin, A., S c h n e i d e r , M., & D o l n i c k , M. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . The t u r t l e t e c h n i q u e : An e x t e n d e d c a s e s t u d y of self-control in t h e c l a s s r o o m . P s y c h o l o g y i n t h e S c h o o l s , 13, 449-453. Rosenbaum, M.A., & Drabman, R.S. (1979). Self-control t r a i n i n g i n the c l a s s r o o m : A review and critique. J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 12, 467-485. Rosenhan,  D.L.,  Underwood,  B.,  & Moore, B.S.  (1974).  Affect  1 16  m o d e r a t e s s e l f - g r a t i f i c a t i o n and altruism. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 30, 546-552. S a g o t s k y , G., P a t t e r s o n , C , & L e p p e r , M.R. (1978). T r a i n i n g children's self-control: A field experiment in self-monitoring and goal-setting in the classroom. J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l C h i l d P s y c h o l o g y , 25, 242-253. S a n s o n - F i s h e r , B., Seymour, F., Montgomery, W., & S t o k e s , T. (1978). M o d i f y i n g d e l i n q u e n t s ' c o n v e r s a t i o n u s i n g token reinforcement of self-recorded behavior. J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y and E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h i a t r y , 9, 163-168. Santogrossi, D.A., O'Leary, K.D., Romanczyk, R.G., & Kaufman, K.F. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n by a d o l e s c e n t s i n a p s y c h i a t r i c h o s p i t a l s c h o o l t o k e n p r o g r a m . J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r a l A n a l y s i s , 6, 277-287. S a t t l e r , J.M. (1974). A s s e s s m e n t of c h i l d r e n ' s . P h i l a d e l p h i a : W.B. Saunders.  intelligence  Shapiro, E.S., & Klein, R.D. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Self-management of classroom behavior with retarded/disturbed children. B e h a v i o r M o d i f i c a t i o n , 4, 83-97. Silberman, CE. (1970). Random House.  Crisis  i n the c l a s s r o o m .  New  York:  Snyder, J . J . , & White, M. (1979). The use of cognitive self-instruction i n the treatment of behaviorally d i s t u r b e d a d o l e s c e n t s . B e h a v i o r T h e r a p y , 10, 227-235. Spivack, G., Piatt, J.J., p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g approach Jossey-Bass. S t a a t s , A.W. Dorsey  (1975). Press.  Social  & Shure, M.B. to adjustment.  (1976). The San F r a n c i s c o :  b e h a v i o r i s m . Homewood,  Illinois:  Stark, J.A. (1976). An e v a l u a t i o n of a semiprogrammed self-modification technique designed to improve self-control with groups of emotionally disturbed a d o l e s c e n t s . In T.A. B r i g h a m , R. H a w k i n s , J.W. Scott, & T.F. M c L a u g h l i n ( E d s . ) , B e h a v i o r a n a l y s i s i n e d u c a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: K e n d a l l / H u n t . Stevenson, H.W. ( 1 9 6 5 ) . S o c i a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t of c h i l d r e n ' s behavior. In L.P. Lipsitt & C.C. Spiker (Eds.), A d v a n c e s i n c h i l d d e v e l o p m e n t and b e h a v i o r (Vol. 2). New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s .  1 17  S t o u w i e , R . J . , H e t h e r i n g t o n , E.M., & Parke, R.D. (1970). Some determinants of c h i l d r e n ' s s e l f - r e w a r d behavior after exposure to discrepant reward criteria. D e v e l o p m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 3, 313-319. Strickland, B.R. (1977). Internal-external control of r e i n f o r c e m e n t . I n T. B l a s s ( E d . ) , P e r s o n a l i t y V a r i a b l e s i n s o c i a l b e h a v i o r . H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Switzkey, H.N., & Haywood, H.C. (1974). Motivational o r i e n t a t i o n and t h e r e l a t i v e e f f i c a c y o f s e l f - m o n i t o r e d and externally imposed reinforcement systems in c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 30, 360-366. T a f f e l , S . J . ( 1 9 7 6 ) . C h o o s i n g s p e c i a l academic a c t i v i t i e s a s a reward f o r i n c r e a s e d a c a d e m i c p r o d u c t i v i t y . I n T.A. B r i g h a m , R. H a w k i n s , J.W. Scott, & T.F. McLaughlin (Eds.), Behavor a n a l y s i s i n e d u c a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. Thomas, J.D. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . A c c u r a c y o f s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t o f on-task behavior by e l e m e n t a r y school children. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 9, 209-210. Thoresen, C.E., & Coates, T.J. (1976). Behavoral self-control: Some clinical concerns. I n M. H e r s e n , R.M. E i s l e r & P.M. M i l l e r ( E d s . ) , Progress i n behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n ( V o l . 2 ) . New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s . Thoresen, C.E., & Mahoney, M.J. (1974). B e h a v i o r a l s e l f - c o n t r o l . . New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t , & W i n s t o n . T i e g s , E.W., & . C l a r k , T e s t s . Monterey,  W.W. (1970). Californai Achievement California: CTB/McGraw-Hill.  Turkewitz, H., O ' L e a r y , K.D., & I r o n s m i t h , M. (1975). G e n e r a l i z a t i o n and maintenance of a p p r o p r i a t e behavior through self-control. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 43, 577-583. Ulman, W.F., & Shook, G.L. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . A method f o r m a i n t a i n i n g h i g h r a t e s o f p e r f o r m a n c e i n an open c l a s s r o o m s e t t i n g . In T.A. Brigham, R. Hawkins, J.W. Scott, & T.F. McLaughlin (Eds.), Behavior a n a l y s i s i n education. Dubuque, Iowa: K e n d a l l / Hunt. W a r r e n f e l t z , R.B., K e l l y , W.J. , S a l z b e r g , C L . B e e g l e , C P . , Levy, S.M., Adams, T.A., & C r o u s e , T.R. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . S o c i a l s k i l l s t r a i n i n g of behavior d i s o r e r e d a d o l e s c e n t s and self-monitoring to promote generalization to a  118  vocational  setting.  B e h a v i o r a l D i s o r d e r s , 7, 18-27.  W e i l , G. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . T r e a t m e n t o f i n s o m n i a child through self-relaxation. 282-294.  i n an e l e v e n - y e a r - o l d Behavior Therapy, 4,  Weiner, H.R., & Dubanowski, R.A. (1975). Resistance to extinction as a function of s e l f or externally determined schedules of r e i n f o r c e m e n t . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 31, 905-910. W h i t e - B l a c k b u r n , G., Semb, S., & Semb, G. (1977). The effects o f a g o o d - b e h a v i o r c o n t r a c t on t h e c l a s s r o o m behaviors of s i x t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 10, 312. Winer, B . J . (1971). S t a t i s t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s i n e x p e r i m e n t a l design (International Student Edition). Tokyo: M c g r a w - H i l l Kogakusha L t d . Winett, R.A., & Winkler, R.C. (1972). Current behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n , i n t h e c l a s s r o o m ; Be s t i l l , be q u i e t , be docile. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r a l A n a l y s i s , 5, 499-504. W i n s t o n , A.S., T o r n e y , D., & L a b b e e , P. (1978). Children's selfr e i n f o r c e m e n t : Some e v i d e n c e f o r m a x i m i z a t i o n o f p a y o f f and m i n i m i z a t i o n of e f f o r t . C h i l d Development, 49, 882-884. Witmer, J.M., B o r n s t e i n , A.V., & Dunham, R.M. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . The e f f e c t s of v e r b a l a p r o v a l and d i s a p p r o v a l upon t h e performance o f t h i r d a n d f o u r t h g r a d e c h i l d r e n on f o u r s u b t e s t s o f t h e WISC. J o u r n a l o f S c h o o l P s y c h o l o g y , 9, 347-356. Wolf,  M. (1978). S o c i a l v a l i d i t y : The c a s e f o r s u b j e c t i v e measurement o r how a p p l i e d b e h a v i o r a n a l y s i s i s f i n d i n g its h e a r t . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s , 22, 203-214.  Wood,  R., & Flynn, J.M. (1978). A s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n token s y s t e m v e r s u s an e x t e r n a l e v a l u a t i o n t o k e n s y s t e m a l o n e in a residential setting with predelinquent youth. J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d B e h a v i o r A n a l y s i s , 11, 503-512.  Workman, E.A., & Hector, M.A. (1978). Behavioral s e l f - c o n t r o l i n classroom settings: A review of the l i t e r a t u r e . J o u r n a l o f S c h o o l P s y c h o l o g y , 16, 227-236. Yates, B.T., preferred  & Mischel., attentional  W. (1979). strategies  Young for  children's delaying  1 19  gratification. P s y c h o l o g y , 37,  Journal 286-300.  of P e r s o n a l i t y  and  Social  120  APPENDICES  121  APPENDIX A  123  APPENDIX B  I 2.5  I,  . (parent or guardian)  , do/do not ( c i r c l e one)  give my consent for my c h i l d ,  ,  to participate i n a project at St. Francis de Sales School, conducted by Ms. Georgia Tiedemann, entitled "Does grading their own work help children learn?"  (signature)  (date)  1 26  APPENDIX C  1 27  Procedural Baseline going  Protocols  - A l l Children  H i , come and t o do.  s i t down h e r e and  I'll  tell  y o u what we're  We w i l l be d o i n g some d i f f e r e n t l e a r n i n g e x e r c i s e s , I am n o t g o i n g t o t e l l y o u r t e a c h e r o r your p a r e n t s how do - i t ' s j u s t between y o u and me.  but you  The first thing i s an a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e . H e r e ' s an example s h e e t . The q u e s t i o n s a r e a t t h e t o p , and underneath e a c h q u e s t i o n a r e f o u r a n s w e r s . You have t o f i n d t h e c o r r e c t answer and circle i t . For instance, one plus three i s . . . ( c i r c l e answer) four; seven minus two is...(circle answer) f i v e , so y o u c i r c l e t h e f i v e . Which answer would y o u c i r c l e f o r t h e n e x t o n e ? . . . T h a t ' s r i g h t , c i r c l e t h e two. And the n e x t o n e . . . R i g h t . Okay now, do you u n d e r s t a n d how we do them?...Good. Now I'm g o i n g t o g i v e you two s h e e t s o f p a p e r w i t h l o t s of t h e s e q u e s t i o n s on them. I ' l l t i m e you and s e e how many you can do correctly i n 3 m i n u t e s . I t ' s k i n d of a s p e e d q u i z . You c a n do them i n any o r d e r , j u s t do a s many as you can in 3 m i n u t e s . Do you have any q u e s t i o n s ? . . . H e r e ' s y o u r p a p e r . When I say "go", you f l i p i t o v e r and s t a r t working. A r e you r e a d y ? . . . O n y o u r mark, g e t s e t , go! (Time: 3 Stop!  minutes)  (Collect  paper)  Now we have a m a t c h i n g e x e r c i s e . Look a t t h e s e f i g u r e s and t h e numbers i n e a c h o f them. You a r e t o p u t i n e a c h of t h e s e ( p o i n t below) t h e number i n t h e f i g u r e l i k e i t up h e r e ( p o i n t a b o v e ) . So i n e a c h s t a r y o u p u t a one, i n t h e c i r c l e s a two...(name each one). So what would go i n t h i s f i r s t c i r c l e ? . . . T h a t ' s r i g h t , put a two i n t h e r e . And the next one?...Good. C o u l d y o u f i l l o u t t h e r e s t o f t h i s l i n e f o r me p l e a s e , to p r a c t i c e the code?.... Okay, t h i s one w i l l a l s o be a s p e e d q u i z . I ' l l t i m e y o u and see how many you c a n do c o r r e c t l y i n 2 m i n u t e s . But I ' d l i k e y o u t o do t h i s one i n o r d e r , so do e a c h l i n e l i k e this ( p o i n t ) and d o n ' t s k i p any. You c a n l o o k up h e r e ( p o i n t ) a l l you want t o , t o c h e c k on t h e c o d e . I f you f i n i s h t h i s page, j u s t go on t o t h e n e x t one; t h e y a r e a l l t h e same. A r e you r e a d y ? . . . O n y o u r mark, g e t s e t , go! (Time: 2  minutes)  1 28  Stop!  (Collect  Experimental  paper.)  Procedure  - Self-Reinforcement Condition  We're g o i n g t o do some more of t h e a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e now, but t h i s t i m e w e ' l l mark i t . For each one you get correct, you get one o f t h e s e t o k e n s . T h e s e t o k e n s c a n be c a s h e d i n l a t e r f o r a p r i z e ; t h e more, t o k e n s y o u earn, the better the p r i z e you c a n c h o o s e . L e t me show you how w e ' l l mark t h e e x e r c i s e , because you'll be doing the marking yourself. I t ' s important to mark y o u r work c a r e f u l l y and t a k e e x a c t l y t h e number o f t o k e n s you've e a r n e d . H e r e ' s an example o f an e x e r c i s e someone already did. This t r a n s p a r e n c y has the c o r r e c t answers w r i t t e n i n r e d . You c a n l a y i t on t o p o f t h e a r i t h m e t i c sheet and see i f they circled the correct answer. L e t ' s see how many a r e c o r r e c t i n the first line. Look, this one is circled correctly (point), that's one' r i g h t . . . a n d this one; two...three..this one wasn't. answered...this is four right...oops, t h i s one was w r o n g . . . t h i s i s f i v e r i g h t . . S i x r i g h t . . . a n d t h i s was wrong. T h e r e were six right in this line, so you'd c o u n t o u t s i x t o k e n s ( c o u n t o u t s i x t o k e n s ) . Can you mark t h e n e x t line f o r me?...yes, there's seven r i g h t , so y o u c o u n t o u t s e v e n t o k e n s . . . O k a y , t r y m a r k i n g t h e n e x t two l i n e s now... (Practice until child r e c o r d time taken t o t r a i n ) .  marks  3  lines  correctly,  and  W e ' l l do one a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e now, j u s t t o practice marking, i t on y o u r own. W e ' l l do i t t h e same way as b e f o r e ; y o u c i r c l e as many as you c a n c o r r e c t l y i n 3 minutes, and you can do them i n any o r d e r . Remember, t h i s i s o n l y f o r p r a c t i c e . A r e you r e a d y ? . . . O n y o u r mark, g e t s e t , go! (Time:  3 minutes).  Stop! Here a r e your t r a n s p a r e n c i e s . You when you've f i n i s h e d m a r k i n g and g e t t i n g y o u r  l e t me tokens.  know  (Record time taken t o s c o r e ) Okay, let's see how many you g o t . (Count t o k e n s a l o u d and r e t u r n them t o d i s h ) . Do you have any questions about how t o mark t h i s ? . . . A l l r i g h t , t h i s n e x t q u i z i s t h e one t h a t counts f o r the prize. A r e you r e a d y ? . . . O n y o u r mark, g e t s e t , go! Time: 3 m i n u t e s ) . (Time:  3 minutes).  1 29  S t o p ! Here a r e y o u r when y o u ' r e f i n i s h e d . (Record  transparencies. Just  time taken t o  Okay, l e t ' s  see how  let  me  know  score).  many you  got.  (Count  tokens  aloud).  I don't have t h e p r i z e s w i t h me t o d a y , b u t I ' l l w r i t e down how many t o k e n s y o u g o t , and w e ' l l see tomorrow what you c a n g e t f o r them, okay?...(Remove t o k e n s from d e s k ) . Experimental  Procedure  - External  Reinforcement  Condition  We're g o i n g t o do some more of t h e a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e now, but t h i s t i m e I ' l l mark i t . For each one you get correct, you get one o f t h e s e t o k e n s . T h e s e t o k e n s c a n be c a s h e d i n l a t e r f o r a p r i z e ; t h e more tokens you earn,the better the prize y o u can c h o o s e . L e t me show you how I'll mark t h e e x e r c i s e . H e r e ' s an example o f an e x e r c i s e someone already did. This t r a n s p a r e n c y has t h e c o r r e c t a n s w e r s w r i t t e n i n r e d . I c a n l a y i t on t o p o f t h e a r i t h m e t i c s h e e t and see i f they circled the c o r r e c t answer. L e t ' s see how many a r e c o r r e c t in the f i r s t l i n e . Look, this one is circled correctly ( p o i n t ) , t h a t ' s one r i g h t . . . a n d t h i s one; t w o . . . t h r e e . . . t h i s one wasn't answered...this i s f o u r r i g h t . . . o o p s , t h i s one was w r o n g . . . t h i s i s f i v e r i g h t . . . s i x right...and this was wrong. There were s i x r i g h t i n t h i s l i n e , so I ' d c o u n t o u t s i x t o k e n s . (Count o u t s i x t o k e n s ) . I ' l l mark t h e n e x t line now...There's s e v e n r i g h t , so I c o u n t o u t s e v e n t o k e n s . . . A n d t h e n e x t two l i n e s . . . (Count out appropriate i n d i c a t e d from y o k i n g ) .  number of t o k e n s . Take up  time  W e ' l l do one a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e now, j u s t t o practice marking i t . W e ' l l do i t t h e same way as b e f o r e ; you c i r c l e a s many as you can c o r r e c t l y i n 3 m i n u t e s , and you can do them i n any o r d e r . Remember, t h i s i s o n l y f o r p r a c t i c e . A r e y o u r e a d y ? . . . O n y o u r mark, g e t s e t , go! (Time:  3 minutes).  S t o p ! I ' l l mark them now. (Add t o t i m e i n d i c a t e d from y o k i n g ) .  just  time taken to  mark  Okay, let's see how many y o u g o t . (Count t o k e n s a l o u d and r e t u r n them t o d i s h ) . Do y o u have any questions?...All right, t h i s n e x t q u i z i s t h e one t h a t c o u n t s f o r t h e p r i z e . A r e y o u r e a d y ? . . . O n y o u r mark, g e t s e t , go!  130  (Time: time  3 minutes).  S t o p ! I ' l l mark them now i n d i c a t e d from y o k i n g ) . Okay, l e t ' s  see how  (Adjust  many you  got.  time  t a k e n t o mark  (Count  to  tokens a l o u d ) .  I don't have t h e p r i z e s w i t h me t o d a y , but I ' l l w r i t e down how many t o k e n s you g o t , and w e ' l l see tomorrow what y o u c a n g e t f o r them, o k a y ? . . . (Remove t o k e n s from d e s k ) . Experimental  Procedure  - Control Condition  We're g o i n g t o do some more o f t h e a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e now, but t h i s t i m e w e ' l l mark i t . What do you t h i n k w o u l d be t h e f a s t e s t way t o mark a t e s t like this? ( D i s c u s s ) . . . I'm t r y i n g out a new way t o mark i t . L e t me show y o u . Here's an example of an e x e r c i s e someone a l r e a d y d i d . T h i s t r a n s p a r e n c y has the c o r r e c t answers w r i t t e n i n r e d . I can lay i t on t o p o f t h e a r i t h m e t i c s h e e t and see i f t h e y c i r c l e d t h e c o r r e c t answer. L e t ' s see how many are correct in the first line. Look, this one i s c i r c l e d c o r r e c t l y ( p o i n t ) , t h a t ' s one r i g h t . . . a n d t h i s one; two... t h r e e . . . t h i s one wasn't a n s w e r e d . . . T h i s i s f o u r r i g h t . . . o o p s , t h i s one was wrong...this i s f i v e r i g h t . . . s i x r i g h t ...and t h i s was wrong. T h e r e were s i x r i g h t i n t h i s l i n e . I ' l l mark t h e n e x t l i n e now...There's s e v e n r i g h t . . . A n d t h e n e x t two l i n e s . . . ( S c o r e r e m a i n i n g q u e s t i o n s . Take up t i m e i n d i c a t e d from y o k i n g . To t a k e up e x c e s s t i m e , d i s c u s s f u r t h e r i . e . , "What do y o u t h i n k of t h i s way of m a r k i n g ? . . . " ) . We'll do one a r i t h e m t i c e x e r c i s e now, j u s t t o p r a c t i c e m a r k i n g i t u s i n g t h e s e t r a n s p a r e n c i e s . W e ' l l do i t t h e same way as b e f o r e ; y o u c i r c l e as many a s y o u c a n c o r r e c t l y i n 3 m i n u t e s , and you c a n do them i n any o r d e r . Remember, t h i s i s o n l y f o r p r a c t i c e . A r e you r e a d y ? . . . O n y o u r mark, get set, go! (Time:  3 minutes).  S t o p ! I ' l l mark them now. ( A d j u s t t i m e t a k e n t o mark t o time indicated f r o m y o k i n g . I n f o r m c h i l d of number c o r r e c t i n n e u t r a l tone of v o i c e ) . I t h i n k t h e s e t r a n s p a r e n c i e s work p r e t t y w e l l now, I ' l l use them t o mark t h e n e x t a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e . T h i s c o u n t s . A r e you ready?...On y o u r mark, g e t s e t , go! ' .— (Time:  3 minutes).  so one  131  S t o p ! I ' l l mark them now. ( A d j u s t t i m e t a k e n t o mark t o time indicated from y o k i n g . I n f o r m c h i l d of number c o r r e c t i n n e u t r a l t o n e of v o i c e . C o l l e c t p a p e r and remove tokens from d e s k ) . Remainder of  Session  - A l l Children  Before we do some more t h i n g s , I'd l i k e t o f i n d out what you think about the exercise we just did. This questionnaire has some q u e s t i o n s w r i t t e n down, and under e a c h q u e s t i o n i s a whole range of a n s w e r s ( p o i n t ) . I ' d like you to c i r c l e t h e answer t h a t you a g r e e w i t h . F o r i n s t a n c e ( p o i n t ) , how much f u n i s a r i t h m e t i c ? Do you t h i n k i t ' s a l o t of f u n , a l i t t l e f u n , s o - s o , a little boring, or really boring? Which one would you circle?...Okay, c i r c l e that one...Now you go t h r o u g h and circle an answer for each question, so I can find out what you t h i n k about the a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e we j u s t d i d . Take y o u r t i m e and let me know when y o u ' r e f i n i s h e d . (Collect  p a p e r when f i n i s h e d ) .  Now I'd like you t o t r y t h e m a t c h i n g e x e r c i s e a g a i n , but t h i s t i m e i t ' s a d i f f e r e n t c o d e . Look, this time the circle has a one, t h e s t a r has a two... (name e a c h f i g u r e and number). Can you f i l l out t h e first line for me, to p r a c t i c e t h e new code?...We'11 do i t the same way as b e f o r e : you do them i n o r d e r and d o n ' t s k i p any. I ' l l t i m e you and see how many you can do i n 2 m i n u t e s . Are you ready?...On y o u r mark, g e t s e t , go! (Time: 2 m i n u t e s ) . Stop!  (Collect  paper).  Okay, t h a t ' s a l l we're g o i n g t o do t o d a y . I ' l l ask you t o come back tomorrow and do a few q u i c k t h i n g s f o r me. In the meantime, do you t h i n k you can keep e v e r y t h i n g a s e c r e t t h a t we d i d t o d a y ? . . . I t ' s v e r y i m p o r t a n t t h a t you d o n ' t t e l l anyone a n y t h i n g , b e c a u s e not e v e r y o n e does t h e same things, and I want e v e r y o n e t o have an e q u a l c h a n c e . Once e v e r y o n e ' s participated, then we can a l l t a l k a b o u t i t , so you won't have t o keep i t a s e c r e t f o r v e r y l o n g . Do you t h i n k you can keep i t a l l secret?...(Discuss, then return child to classroom). Generalization Session - A l l Children Hi! Come and s i t down here again. Remember t h e s e a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e s ? I'd l i k e you t o do one more for me today, because I'm interested in seing i f kids do d i f f e r e n t l y on d i f f e r e n t d a y s , and I'd l i k e t o see how you do on i t today. Do you remember how we do t h e m ? . . . J u s t  1 32  c i r c l e a s many c o r r e c t answer a s y o u c a n , and do them i n any o r d e r y o u l i k e . A r e y o u r e a d y ? . . . O n your mark, g e t s e t , go! (Time: Stop!  3 minutes). (Collect  paper).  Now I ' d l i k e t o f i n d o u t what i t ' s been l i k e , t r y i n g t o keep t h i s a s e c r e t . Has anyone a s k e d y o u a b o u t i t ? . . . D o you think any o f t h e o t h e r k i d s a r e t a l k i n g a b o u t i t ? . . . ( P r o b e f o r any p o s s i b l e b r e a c h e s o f s e c r e c y ) . Now I ' v e g o t a t r e a t f o r y o u . I b r o u g h t some prizes with me today. I d e c i d e d t h a t y o u d i d so w e l l y e s t e r d a y , t h a t y o u c a n c h o o s e any p r i z e f r o m t h e ones I've b r o u g h t . You may choose t h e one y o u want t o d a y , and I ' l l g i v e them o u t when e v e r y o n e ' s f i n i s h e d . Come over here and take a look. (Record c h i l d ' s  choice of p r i z e . )  Okay, we're f i n i s h e d now. Don't t o keep everything a secret until T h a n k s f o r h e l p i n g me! (Return c h i l d  to classroom).  f o r g e t , y o u s t i l l have everyone's finished.  1 33  APPENDIX D  13 4  1. Do  you  b e l i e v e t h a t most p r o b l e m s w i l l  don't fool 2.  Do  you  3. A r e 4.  with  can  some k i d s j u s t b o r n  deal  i f you  t i m e do  you  stop  yourself  from c a t c h i n g a c o l d ?  lucky? feel  t h a t g e t t i n g good g r a d e s means a  Are  6.  Do you b e l i e v e t h a t i f somebody s t u d i e s h a r d e n o u g h he o r she p a s s any s u b j e c t ? Do you f e e l t h a t most o f t h e t i m e i t d o e s n ' t pay t o t r y h a r d , b e c a u s e t h i n g s n e v e r t u r n o u t r i g h t anyway?  8.  9.  you  often  blamed f o r t h i n g s  that j u s t aren't  your f a u l t ?  Do you f e e l t h a t i f t h i n g s s t a r t o u t w e l l i n t h e m o r n i n g , i t ' s g o i n g t o be a good day no m a t t e r w h a t you do? Do  you  feel  children 10.  Do  you  11.  When you  t h a t most o f t h e t i m e p a r e n t s  listen  t o what  get  can  p u n i s h e d , does  make good t h i n g s  Most o f  13.  Do  14.  Do you f e e l t h a t i t ' s n e a r l y i m p o s s i b l e mind a b o u t a n y t h i n g ? Do you b e l i e v e t h a t y o u r p a r e n t s s h o u l d y o u r own d e c i s i o n s ?  15. 16.  Do you  you  you can you  the  t i m e do  you  find  think that cheering  feel do  t h a t when you  do  luck helps  a team t o win?  t o change your allow  you  very  YES  NO  YES  NO  YES  NO  YES  NO  YES  NO  YES  NO  YES  NO  YES  NO  YES  NO  YES  NO  YES  NO  YES  NO  YES  NO  YES  NO  YES  NO  little  t o make i t r i g h t ?  b e l i e v e t h a t most k i d s a r e  NO  parent's  t o make most o f  something wrong, t h e r e ' s  YES  good  i t h a r d t o c h a n g e a f r i e n d ' s mind?  more t h a n  NO  their  r e a s o n a t a I I? 12.  YES  that  happen?  i t u s u a l l y seem i t ' s f o r no  NO  can  have t o s a y ?  believe that wishing  YES  great  t o you?  5.  7.  just  them?  b e l i e v e t h a t you  Most of t h e  solve themselves  17.  Do  18.  Are  19.  Do you f e e l t h a t one o f t h e b e s t ways t o h a n d l e most p r o b l e m s i s j u s t n o t t o t h i n k a b o u t them?  YES  NO  20.  Do you f e e l t h a t you f r i e n d s are?  YES  NO  most o f t h e o t h e r  j u s t b o r n good a t s p o r t s ?  k i d s y o u r age  have a  stronger  l o t of choice  t h a n you  in deciding  are?  who  your  135  21. If you find a four leaf clover, do you believe that i t might bring you good Iuck?  YES  NO  22. Do you often feel that whether you do your homework has much to do with what kind of grades you get?  YES  NO  YES  NO  YES  NO  YES  NO  YES  NO  23. Do you feel that when a kid your age decides to h i t you, there's l i t t l e you can do to stop him or her? 24. Have you ever had a good luck charm? 25. Do you believe that whether or not people like you depends on how you act? 26. Will your parents usually help you i f you ask them? 27. Have you f e l t that when people were mean to you, i t was usually for no reason at a I I? 28. Most of the time, do you feel that you can change what might happen tomorrow by what you do today? 29. Do you believe that when bad things are going to happen, they are just going to happen, no matter what you try to do to stop them?  YES  NO  YES  NO  YES  NO  30. Do you think that kids can get their own way if they just keep trying? .  YES  NO  31. Most of the time do you find i t useless to try to get your own way at home?  YES  NO  32. Do you feel that when good things happen, they happen because of hard work?  YES  NO  33. Do you feel that when somebody your own age wants to be your enemy, there's l i t t l e you can do to change matters?  YES  NO  34. Do you feel that i t ' s easy to get friends to do what you want them to?  YES  NO  35. Do you usually feel that you have l i t t l e to say about what you get to eat at home?  YES  NO  36. Do you feel that when someone doesn't like you, there's can do about it?  YES  NO  37. Do you usually feel that i t ' s almost useless to try in school, because most other children are just plain smarter than you are?  YES  NO  38. Are you the kind of person who believes that planning ahead makes things turn out better?  YES  NO  39. Most of the time, do you feel that you have l i t t l e to say about what your family decides to do?  YES  NO  40. Do you think i t ' s better to be smart than to be lucky?  YES  NO  l i t t l e you  136  APPENDIX E  137  Scm^e - Grade 3  36  I  • S a m p l e . - d ra  co  c>  4J  1  1  LO -C  0  X IE  P  jo  Co  oo  ^  _J=  o  —  c>» O  r. CO  cn  N>  Co Oi po jo -c Co  Go Ol ^  —  PO  Po  po Co JLi —  {O — —  JO  Oi cn  cjt _n  —  ^  -too  lb  0  0  50 -C -Q  00  CO  QJ  ^  • Co l  CP 0  -  CJ  1  ?o  00  ^  0* 0  -0 5>v  so ^  SI  ~o 00  O LO  CO  <3N  (TN  Cn  ~  CO  <I  cn Cn — co  + po cn oo  OO  .5-  on -c po 1  - 0  cn —<JI po cn 0  X  __  cn O  cn  —J  _c <p  90 Co  1  I CO  W  —^ cn co  0  « cn  go  0 0  , Oo  —  cn  ?o  0  Po po  X  —j*  <5-N  cn  00  cn 00 M  x co  00  ?o Co CO  1  00  _J . _n  ^ -J  co  co  —D CO  CO  po  +• _  1  CO  0  + — Co CO  Co  -C _E  —Q  ^ -  -O  PO Cj  Oo cr\  -c  OO  Po 9o  _C  -4-  p pj -C co -3 0 0  0  <^ cn Co  x  X  OO  OO  -C  -Q  <5^ cn  —7  0  03 0  0  |0Q  JO  50  CP  -  cn  po 'po  cn  CO _ c  Co Co _c po -r  - j  _c _o  Co Co Co —  X  O  1  —  CA ?o  I  CP  ^  Cn Co  cn  r*o  cn -c  ~C CO  po .  CJ  Cf — co  —  OJ  oo —  I  cn  00  CO  X jOocn  0  —  cn Po  00  cn  ^  Co  p  ^ x  CT> - O  1  O Co  139  APPENDIX F  I HO  •  0 © >  • o  G <! • O # <3 O  • # G > # > O  •  • o > • t> o G • t>  <D2  G • > O G • ^  G  O G & • # • * D>'.0 D G > G O D> ^ O  O • > # O G  141  APPENDIX G  CHILD SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE Example:  How much f u n i s arithmetic?  A lot of fun 1.  a little fun  How h a r d was t h i s  v e r y easy 2.  so-so  3.  a little boring  really boring  exercise?  easy  so-so  How much d i d you l i k e d o i n g t h i s  not a t all  ( c i r c l e one)  not much  hard  very  hard  exercise?  so-so  How w e l l do you t h i n k y o u d i d on t h i s  liked i t a bit  liked i t a lot  exercise?  -r-  not v e r y 4.  fair  O.K.  How h a r d d i d you work on t h i s  worked very hard  5.  worked pretty hard  good  exercise?  about normal f o r me  worked a little  How would you l i k e y o u r work t o be marked t h i s  wouldn't like i t a  t  a  1  wouldn't like i t  excellent  OK  d i d n ' t work very hard  way i n s c h o o l ?  would like i t  1  would like i t a lot  Sometimes g e t t i n g p o i n t s o r p r i z e s h e l p s us work h a r d e r ; times, i t doesn't matter. D i d g e t t i n g tokens . . .  h e l p you h e l p e d you work a l o t work harder harder  maybe h e l p e d some  maybe h e l p e d a little  othe  d i d n ' t he me work harder  7.  Sometimes you c a n mark y o u r own work arid g i v e y o u r s e l f rewards o t h e r t i m e s , someone e l s e checks t h e work and g i v e s you reward I f you d i d t h i s e x e r c i s e a g a i n , would you want t o . . .  definitely have someone else decide how w e l l I did  8.  maybe have someone e l s e decide  not sure  I f you g o t p r i z e s f o r good work i n y o u r want t o . . .  decide myself how w e l l I did  Alternate  maybe decide myself  questions  (not scored)  not sure  maybe decide myself  definitely decide myself how w e l l I did  classroom,  would you  have someone maybe else decide have how w e l l someone I did else decide  in control  conditions:  5.  Would you l i k e t o do work l i k e t h i s  i n school?  6.  Sometimes, w o r k i n g a l o n e i n s t e a d o f i n a b i g c l a s s r o o m h e l p s t o work h a r d e r ; o t h e r t i m e s , i t d o e s n ' t m a t t e r . D i d working alone . . . ?  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095729/manifest

Comment

Related Items