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 IN CHILDREN'S RESPONSE TO SELF- AND EXTERNALLY-ADMINISTERED REWARD by GEORGIA LOUISE TIEDEMANN B . S c , U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o , 1978 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of 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 c o n f o r m i n g t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1983 © G e o r g i a L o u i s e Tiedemann, 1983 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of Psychology  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date September 2 6 , 1 9 8 3 i i I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s i n C h i l d r e n ' s Response to S e l f - and E x t e r n a l l y - A d m i n i s t e r e d Reward B e h a v i o r a l s e l f - c o n t r o l i n t e r v e n t i o n s with c h i l d r e n have become i n c r e a s i n g l y p r e v a l e n t i n c l i n i c a l r e s e a r c h and p r a c t i c e i n recent years. S e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t procedures i n p a r t i c u l a r have been s t u d i e d e x t e n s i v e l y , yet l i t t l e i s known about the f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g t h e i r e f f i c a c y . Both developmental and a p p l i e d r e s e a r c h i n s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n d i c a t e that c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the c h i l d , p a r t i c u l a r l y age, may be u s e f u l l y s t u d i e d a.s p r e d i c t o r s of response to treatment. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether age and sex of the c h i l d were p r e d i c t i v e of response to 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 opposed to e x t e r n a l reinforcement. Experimental s e s s i o n s took plac e with i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n i n a school t u t o r i a l room. S i x t y c h i l d r e n were r e c r u i t e d through three elementary schools and randomly assign e d to one of three 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 ( s c o r i n g t h e i r own work and awarding themselves tokens), E x t e r n a l reinforcement (the -experimenter scored the work and awarded tokens), and C o n t r o l (the experimenter scored the work but no tokens were awarded). C h i l d r e n were e i t h e r 8 or 11 years o l d , and sex was balanced between c o n d i t i o n s . B a s e l i n e data were c o l l e c t e d on a b r i e f , a c a d e m i c - l i k e task. C h i l d r e n then worked on t h i s task under one of the three c o n d i t i o n s , and subsequently completed a 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 to assess s u b j e c t i v e response to the c o n d i t i o n s . Data on both task and temporal g e n e r a l i z a t i o n were c o l l e c t e d . Locus of c o n t r o l and academic achievement data were a l s o c o l l e c t e d f o r each c h i l d . The number of c o r r e c t responses on the experimental tasks were examined by a n a l y s i s of c o v a r i a n c e , using b a s e l i n e performance as the c o v a r i a t e . Age was not d i f f e r e n t i a l l y p r e d i c t i v e of e i t h e r immediate or g e n e r a l i z e d response' to the reinforcement c o n d i t i o n s . Boys showed s u p e r i o r performance in the S e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n as compared to E x t e r n a l and C o n t r o l ; g i r l s ' performance was not d i f f e r e n t between c o n d i t i o n s . C h i l d r e n i n the E x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n showed s u p e r i o r o v e r a l l performance on a g e n e r a l i z a t i o n task. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e reponses d i d not c o r r e l a t e with task performance or q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses. The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t , i n a b r i e f analogue i n t e r v e n t i o n , the age of a c h i l d i s not an important p r e d i c t o r of outcome. G i r l s and boys, however, may react d i f f e r e n t l y to more or l e s s a d u l t c o n t r o l of a token reinforcement system. D i r e c t i o n s f o r f u t u r e parametric r e s e a r c h of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t procedures are d i s c u s s e d . A d v i s o r : Robert J . McMahon, Ph.D. i v 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 L i s t of Tables Table Page 1. Means of the "Cheating" Data i n S e l f C o n d i t i o n 54 2. The A n a l y s i s of Covariance of A r i t h m e t i c C o r r e c t Scores 56 3. Adjusted Means of the A r i t h m e t i c C o r r e c t Data .. 57 4. The A n a l y s i s of Covariance of E r r o r Scores 60 5. Adjusted Means of the E r r o r Scores 61 6. The A n a l y s i s of Covariance of S u b s t i t u t i o n C o r r e c t Scores 63 7. Adjusted Means of the S u b s t i t u t i o n C o r r e c t Data 64 8. The A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e of S u b s t i t u t i o n Task E r r o r s 66 9. Means of the S u b s t i t u t i o n Task E r r o r Data 67 10. The M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s of Va r i a n c e of S a t i s f a c t i o n and Preference Scores 69 11. Means of the S a t i s f a c t i o n and P r e f e r n c e Data ... 70 12. The M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s of Va r i a n c e 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 Scores 72 13. Mean Item Scores on 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 73 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 .... 75 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 Scores with Performance Measures 76 16. 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 Ratings with Performance Measures . 78 17. 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 Scores and Academic Ratings with 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 v i Acknowledgement For their consistent support, encouragement and non-contingent reinforcement, I am deeply indebted to my parents, fellow students, and friends. 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. This project was made possible through the hard work and generousity of many people. I am sincerely grateful to my advisor, Robert McMahon; my committee, Merry Bullock and Ken Craig; and the staff and students of St. Joseph's, St. Francis de Sales, and St. Patrick's Schools. 1 B e h a v i o r a l s e l f - c o n t r o l — the use of b e h a v i o r a l t e c h n i q u e s t o m o d i f y one's own b e h a v i o r -- has become i n c r e a s i n g l y p r e v a l e n t i n c l i n i c a l r e s e a r c h and p r a c t i s e i n r e c e n t y e a r s ( K a r o l y & K a n f e r , 1982; Mahoney & A r n k o f f , 1978; Thoresen & C o a t e s , 1976). T h i s t r e n d i s apparent 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 as w e l l , where a t l e a s t e i g h t r e v i e w s of the b e h a v i o r a l s e l f - c o n t r o l l i t e r a t u r e have appeared s i n c e 1974 ( K a r o l y , 1977; K a r o l y & K a n f e r , 1982; M a s t e r s & Mokros, 1974; M c L a u g h l i n , 1976; Meichenbaum, 1979; O'Leary & Dubey, 1979; Rosenbaum & Drabman, 1979; Workman & H e c t o r , 1978). O'Leary and Dubey (1979) summarized some of the major reasons f o r t e a c h i n g c h i l d r e n how t o c o n t r o l t h e i r own b e h a v i o r . F i r s t , a c t i n g i n d e p e n d e n t l y i s v a l u e d and t y p i c a l l y e x p e c t e d by our c u l t u r e . Second, the c h i l d ' s t e a c h e r and/or p a r e n t may not always be c a p a b l e of s u c c e s s f u l y implementing e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l s . T h i r d , when a c h i l d c o n t r o l s h i s or her own b e h a v i o r w e l l , a d u l t s can spend more time t e a c h i n g the c h i l d o t h e r i m p o r t a n t s k i l l s . F o u r t h , the s e l f - c o n t r o l l i n g c h i l d i s a b l e t o l e a r n and behave e f f e c t i v e l y when a d u l t s u p e r v i s i o n i s not a v a i l a b l e . F i n a l l y , t e a c h i n g c h i l d r e n t o c o n t r o l t h e i r own b e h a v i o r may l e a d t o more d u r a b l e b e h a v i o r a l changes than r e l y i n g s o l e l y on e x t e r n a l means or i n f l u e n c e . B e h a v i o r a l s e l f - c o n t r o l i n t e r v e n t i o n s have been used f o r a v a r i e t y of c h i l d r e n ' s p roblems, i n c l u d i n g a g g r e s s i o n , 2 s o c i a l withdrawal, school phobia, anorexia, and f a c i a l t i c s (Ollendick & Cerny, 1981). The vast majority of s e l f - c o n t r o l studies, however, have involved school-related behaviors (see McLaughlin, 1976; Rosenbaum & Drabman, 1979; and Workman & Hector, 1978, for reviews of s e l f - c o n t r o l interventions in the classroom). Self - c o n t r o l procedures have been used both as treatment strategies for children with behavioral or academic d i f f i c u l t i e s , and as classroom management strategies with non-problem children. Self-Control Techniques A variety of s e l f - c o n t r o l procedures which have been studied with children w i l l be b r i e f l y outlined. One important area i s that of standard-setting. Because teaching children to set performance goals for themselves has not proved to be p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f e c t i v e in i s o l a t i o n (e.g., Sagotsky, Patterson, & Lepper, 1978), most investigators have added a consequence for achieving these goals (e.g., Felixbrod & O'Leary, 1973; Lo v i t t , 1973; White-Blackburn, Semb, & Semb, 1977). A great deal of research has focused on the ways in which children may develop personal standards for rewarding or punishing their own performance either by observing a model or through dire c t experience with d i f f e r e n t performance standards (see Masters £ Mokros, 1974). A number of investigators have developed e f f e c t i v e ways of teaching children to adopt p a r t i c u l a r c r i t e r i a for earning rewards, ranging from simple 3 cues or prompts to use the appropriate performance standards (e.g., Brownell, C o l l e t t i , Ersner-Hershfield, Hershfield, & Wilson, 1977; Glynn & Thomas, 1974, McLaughlin, 1982) to extensive t r a i n i n g programmes (e.g., Crow & Mahew, 1976; Drabman, Sp i t a l n i k , & O'Leary, 1973; Turkewitz, O'Leary, & Ironsmith, 1975). Research contrasting the performance of children working under self-determined c r i t e r i a , as opposed to standards imposed by others, was reviewed by Rosenbaum and Drabman in 1979. Children who set their own standards for reinforcement have consistently performed at least as well as, and frequently better than, children with externally-imposed c r i t e r i a ; recent research continues to demonstrate the e f f i c a c y of self-determined performance standards (Dickerson & Creedon, 1981; McLaughlin, 1982). Another s e l f - c o n t r o l technique which has been used with children i s self-assessment, which may consist of self-monitoring (observing and recording p a r t i c u l a r behaviors) and/or self-evaluation (deciding whether the quantity or qu a l i t y of the behavior 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 & Drabman, 1979) have indicated that, although no researchers have found undesirable effects from self-assessment, t h i s procedure generally has weak or short-lived e f f e c t s on children's behavior when used alone. The optimal use of self-assessment tends to be as an adjunct 4 to other techniques, to aid in the maintenance and generalization of behavior changes (e.g., Bolstad & Johnson, 1972; Rhode, Morgan, & Young, 1983; Turkewitz et a l . , 1975; Warrenfeltz et a l . , 1981; Wood & Flynn, 1978). Teaching children to provide themselves with appropriate consequences for their behavior (once they are able to assess i t accurately) is a s e l f - c o n t r o l technique common to many interventions (see O'Leary & Dubey, 1979). In the case of self-reinforcement, the consequence i s a pos i t i v e one — a reward or p r i v i l e g e of some kind — and the c h i l d i s taught to take the appropriate amount of reinforcers, under minimal or no supervision. This technique has shown considerable promise, although there i s much yet to be learned about the factors governing i t s effectiveness with children. Self-punishment i s the alte r n a t i v e consequence, when behavior does not meet the required standard. Although there is very l i t t l e research on contingent self-punishment with chi l d r e n , the available evidence seems to indicate that self-punishment does lead to a decrease in the punished behavior (Grusec & Kuczyinski, 1977; Masters & Santrock, 1976). Two studies in classroom situations have found that self-administration of response cost (another punishment technique involving withholding or removing positive reinforcers) i s e f f e c t i v e in i n i t i a t i n g and maintaining desired behavior changes (Humphrey & Karoly, 1978; Kaufman & 5 O'Leary, 1972). A number of other less common s e l f - c o n t r o l techniques have been explored with children. Distracting oneself by thinking about something p o s i t i v e , relaxing, or looking at an irrelevant stimulus helps children to cope with d i f f i c u l t situations such as delay of g r a t i f i c a t i o n experiments or being alone in the dark (e.g., Graziano & Mooney, 1980; Kanfer, Karoly, & Newman, 1975; Mischel & Ebbesen, 1970; Weil, 1973; Yates & Mischel, 1979), or to eliminate obsessive/compulsive thoughts or behaviors (Campbell, 1974; Friedman, 1980). The " t u r t l e technique" (imitating a t u r t l e p u l l i n g into i t s s h e l l , relaxing, and problem-solving; Robin, Schneider, & Dolnick, 1976), and practice with coping self-statements (Goodwin & Mahoney, 1976), have shown some promise in reducing tantrums and aggression in the classroom. Having a c h i l d restate the contingencies (e.g., "When I f i n i s h t h i s , I get a token") may also prove to be a useful strategy (Kanfer & Zich, 1974; MacPherson, Candee, & Hohman, 1974; Patterson t Mischel, 1976; Snyder & White, 1979). F i n a l l y , permitting children to schedule their own working time (provided cert a i n achievement c r i t e r i a are met) may lead to improved academic performance and work habits (Bushell & Bushell, 1976; George & K i n d a l l , 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 to 6 a l l e v i a t e p a r t i c u l a r s e l f - c o n t r o l problems (see Spivack, P i a t t , & Shure, 1976). Such programmes as s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l t r a i n i n g (Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971), i n s t r u c t i o n i n behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n procedures and p r i n c i p l e s (Gross, 1982; Gross, Brigham, Hopper, & Bologna, 1980; Stark, 1976) or problem-solving t r a i n i n g (Spivak & Shure, 1974) have been s u c c e s s f u l l y implemented i n a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s , although a good d e a l of work remains to be done i n the area of maintenance and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of s e l f - c o n t r o l responses (Meichenbaum, 1979; O'Leary & Dubey, 1979; Rosenbaum & Drabman, 1979). Se l f - R e i n f o r c e m e n t : An Important S e l f - C o n t r o l Technique In a recent review of s e l f - c o n t r o l techniques used with c h i l d r e n , O'Leary and Dubey (1979) concluded that " s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t i s c l e a r l y one of the most powerful s e l f - c o n t r o l procedures" (p.454); t h i s sentiment has been echoed by a number of other authors (e.g., Gross & Drabman, 1982; K a r o l y , 1977). I t i s a standard p a r t of many comprehensive s e l f - c o n t r o l programmes, and some re s e a r c h has i n d i c a t e d t h at i t may be a necessary component f o r the success of these i n t e r v e n t i o n s (Nelson & B i r k i m e r , 1978). ( I t should be noted that the term " s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t " here i s something of a misnomer; i t has been used i n t e r c h a n g a b l y with the more a p p r o p r i a t e term " s e l f - r e w a r d " throughout the b e h a v i o r a l l i t e r a t u r e . E s s e n t i a l s of the t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n surrounding the i s s u e of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t as a 7 process and a c o n s t r u c t may be found i n Bandura, 1975; Brigham, 1978; C a t a n i a , 1976; Goldiamond, 1976; and Mahoney, 1976.) T h e o r e t i c a l l y , s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t should be p a r t i c u l a r l y v a l u a b l e in m a i n t a i n i n g and g e n e r a l i z i n g behavior change ( r e g a r d l e s s of how i t was i n i t i a t e d ) , e s p e c i a l l y i n i n s t a n c e s where e x t e r n a l support f o r the new behavior i s weak (Bandura, 1969) or there i s a time gap between performing the behavior and r e c e i v i n g e x t e r n a l reinforcement (Brigham, 1978; R a c h l i n , 1978). Kazdin (1980) has suggested that s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d c o n t i n g e n c i e s a v o i d a major d i f f i c u l t y inherent i n e x t e r n a l l y managed reinforcement systems; namely, the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the e x t e r n a l agents (e.g., teachers) managing the c o n t i n g e n c i e s may become cues f o r performance of the t a r g e t response by becoming d i s c r i m i n a t i v e s t i m u l i f o r the a v a i l a b i l i t y of reinforcement, thus decreasing the l i k e l i h o o d of the response o c c u r r i n g when the agents are absent or not a d m i n i s t e r i n g r e i n f o r c e r s (Redd & B i r n b r a u e r , 1969). S e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t may produce more r e a d i l y g e n e r a l i z a b l e treatment gains through the development of c o v e r t 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 r e i n f o r c e r (Bandura, 1969; Homme, 1965; Johnson & M a r t i n , 1973). When the c h i l d ' s p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of h i s or her own behavior i s c o n s i s t e n t l y f o l l o w e d by a r e i n f o r c i n g event ( i . e . , when a s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t procedure i s i n e f f e c t ) , then the 8 s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n process i t s e l f begins to take on r e i n f o r c i n g q u a l i t i e s and becomes a c o n d i t i o n e d r e i n f o r c e r . P o s i t i v e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n (the "glow of success") then becomes a d e s i r e d consequence which the c h i l d t r i e s to a t t a i n by a c h i e v i n g c e r t a i n performance c r i t e r i a (see H a r t e r , 1982, for a d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s p r o c e s s ) . Others have suggested 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 through enhanced f e e l i n g s of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and minimized p e r c e p t i o n s of e x t e r n a l c o n s t r a i n t s on behavior (Lepper & G i l o v i c h , 1 9 8 1 ) . The development of t h i s a b i l i t y to be " s e l f - m o t i v a t e d " and s e l f - c o n t r o l l e d i n g e n e r a l — i s c e r t a i n l y a valued s k i l l i n our s o c i e t y , and one of the major aims of primary and secondary education (Dewey, 1939; Gagne, 1965; H a r t e r , 1982; K a r o l y , 1977; McLaughlin, 1976). However, most teachers r e l y on e x t e r n a l l y - i m p o s e d reinforcement or punishment to keep t h e i r c l a s s e s under c o n t r o l and on task (Brigham, Hawkins, S c o t t , & McLaughlin, 1976; Silberman, 1970). S e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t systems c o u l d take some of the burden of classroom management away from the teacher, l e a v i n g him or her with more time and energy to teach (e.g., L o v i t t , 1973; Parks, F i n e & Hopkins, 1976); i t can a l s o be b e n e f i c i a l f o r the c h i l d r e n to assume more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i r own behavior (see K a r o l y , 1977, and Rosenbaum & Drabman, 1979, f o r d i s c u s s i o n s on self-management i n the c l a s s r o o m ) . There i s c o n s i d e r a b l e evidence that the 9 i n c r e a s e d sense of c o n t r o l or c h o i c e may a c t as a response f a c i l i t a t o r f o r c h i l d r e n (e.g., Brigham & B u s h e l l , 1973; Brigham & Sherman, 1973; L o v i t t & C u r t i s s , 1968; T a f f e l , 1976). Some re s e a r c h e r s have a l s o noted that c h i l d r e n p r e f e r a s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t system to one managed by an e x t e r n a l agent (Farnum, Brigham, & Johnson, 1977; F e l i x b r o d , 1974). Kazdin (1980) r a i s e d the p o i n t that self-managed c o n t i n g e n c i e s may even be more accurate than externally-managed token systems; a busy teacher may e a s i l y miss a c e r t a i n i n s t a n c e of a t a r g e t behavior i n one c h i l d out of a c l a s s of 30. T r a i n i n g i n a p p r o p r i a t e s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t may be p a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l with c h i l d r e n whose spontaneous s e l f - r e i n f o r c i n g behavior i s d e f i c i e n t or d i s t u r b e d , as may be the case with depressed, l o w - s e l f - c o n c e p t , a g g r e s s i v e or d e l i n q u e n t i n d i v i d u a l s (Ames & F e l k e r , 1979; Bandura, 1971; Bandura, 1973; Craighead & Wilcoxon-Craighead, 1978; F e l k e r & Thomas, 1971; Thoresen & Mahoney, 1974). Although there i s very l i t t l e r e s e a r c h a v a i l a b l e on the treatment of d y s f u n c t i o n a l s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t systems i n c h i l d r e n , there i s some evidence that c h i l d r e n with severe behavior problems r e i n f o r c e themselves f o r a n t i s o c i a l a c t s to a much g r e a t e r extent than do normal c h i l d r e n (Bandura, 1973; Bandura & Walters, 1959), that t r a i n i n g i n v e r b a l s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t f o r c h i l d r e n with low s e l f - e s t e e m may l e a d to an improved s e l f - c o n c e p t (Hauserman, M i l l e r , & Bond, 1976), and that 10 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 with e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t u r b e d c h i l d r e n may b r i n g improvements on p e r s o n a l i t y as w e l l as b e h a v i o r a l measures (Stark, 1976). Research in Self-Reinforcement with C h i l d r e n Most s t u d i e s of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t with c h i l d r e n f a l l i n t o one of two broad c a t e g o r i e s : those examining s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t as a dependent v a r i a b l e (or "spontaneous" p r o c e s s ) , and those using s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t as an independent v a r i a b l e ( s e l f - c o n t r o l behavior change t e c h n i q u e ) . The former group of s t u d i e s i s g e n e r a l l y from the developmental l i t e r a t u r e , and examines the c o n d i t i o n s surrounding the a c q u i s i t i o n and m o d i f i c a t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' s s e l f - r e i n f o r e i n g responses. The l a t t e r group addresses more a p p l i e d i s s u e s concerning the use of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t in the a c q u i s i t i o n and maintenance of p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t b e h a v i o r s . Although i t i s t h i s more a p p l i e d r e s e a r c h which has the most d i r e c t relevance f o r b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s , developmental s t u d i e s may a l s o be u s e f u l i n a l e r t i n g r e s e a r c h e r s to p a r t i c u l a r subject or environmental v a r i a b l e s which may i n f l u e n c e 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 . Such a parametric approach i s needed at t h i s stage of our understanding of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t with c h i l d r e n (Copeland, 1982; McLaughlin, 1976; O'Leary & Dubey, 1979; Rosenbaum & Drabman, 1978). There now e x i s t s a l a r g e body of r e s e a r c h i n the area, but both independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s vary widely, and the r e s u l t s have been i n c o n s i s t e n t . A c l o s e r 11 parametric examination of the l i t e r a t u r e may help to c l a r i f y some of the reasons f o r c o n f l i c t i n g f i n d i n g s , and p o i n t out the v a r i a b l e s which need to be more s y s t e m a t i c a l l y s t u d i e d . There are a number of dimensions along which the r e s e a r c h to date may be examined. D i f f e r e n c e s in outcomes among s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t s t u d i e s (which w i l l be o u t l i n e d i n d e t a i l below) may be p a r t l y due t o : 1. D i f f e r e n c e s i n the s e t t i n g c o n d i t i o n s — whether the study was conducted i n a l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g , or i n a more a p p l i e d s i t u a t i o n such as a classroom or r e s i d e n c e . 2. The t a r g e t response s t u d i e d may be a pu r e l y a r t i f i c i a l one such as button-pushing or wheel-cranking, or something more n a t u r a l i s t i c such as on-task behavior d u r i n g study p e r i o d s ; the t a r g e t e d behavior may a l s o vary a c c o r d i n g to whether i t i s to be i n c r e a s e d (e.g., p r o d u c t i v i t y ) or decreased (e.g., a g g r e s s i o n ) , and whether s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t i s c o n t i n g e n t upon a c h i l d ' s a c t u a l behavior (e.g., on-task) or the products of that behavior (e.g., number of problems s o l v e d ) . 3. There have been d i f f e r e n t types of r e i n f o r c e r s used, both v e r b a l and m a t e r i a l . 4. The reinforcement schedule and c r i t e r i a used, and whether these are determined by the c h i l d or someone e l s e , a l s o vary among d i f f e r e n t s t u d i e s . 5. A number of s u b j e c t v a r i a b l e s such as sex, race, 12 age, and p r e v i o u s reinforcement h i s t o r y may be r e l e v a n t to the outcome of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t r e s e a r c h . Experimental S e t t i n g Although s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t as a "spontaneous" process (dependent v a r i a b l e ) has been mostly s t u d i e d i n c o n t r o l l e d l a b o r a t o r y s i t u a t i o n s , there have been very few l a b o r a t o r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t as a behavior change technique (e.g., Bandura & P e r l o f f , 1967; L i e b e r t , 1970). None of these has found s i g n i f i c a n t immediate d i f f e r e n c e s i n performance between s e l f - r e i n f o r c e d and e x t e r n a l l y - r e i n f o r c e d c h i l d r e n ; some, however, have shown s u p e r i o r maintenance of treatment e f f e c t s f o r the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e d group (e.g., Best, 1973; Johnson & M a r t i n , 1973). The m a j o r i t y of s t u d i e s u s i n g s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t as a behavior-change technique have been conducted i n the classroom. Here, s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t shows a c o n s i s t e n t advantage over b a s e l i n e or no-reinforcement c o n d i t i o n s , but the r e s u l t s have been about evenly d i v i d e d between those showing no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between s e l f - and e x t e r n a l l y - r e i n f o r c e d s u b j e c t s (e.g., E p s t e i n & Goss, 1978; Glynn, Thomas, & Shee, 1973) and those showing a c l e a r s u p e r i o r i t y i n the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n (e.g., Parks et a l . , 1976; Turkewitz et a l . , 1975). A s i m i l a r d i v i s i o n has obtained f o r maintenance and g/eneralization of treatment e f f e c t s ; approximately h a l f of the r e s u l t s show no 13 d i f f e r e n c e between s e l f - and e x t e r n a l l y - r e i n f o r c e d c h i l d r e n (e.g., Drabman et a l . , 1973; Panyan, Neerincx, & Landers, 1976), and h a l f i n d i c a t e an advantage for s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t (e.g., Fantuzzo & Clement 1981; N e i l a n s & I s r a e l , 1981). Such c o n f l i c t i n g f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e the need f o r f i n e r - g r a i n e d , parametric analyses to e x p l o r e the v a r i a b l e s that might account f o r s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t being s u p e r i o r to e x t e r n a l reinforcement i n some s t u d i e s , but not i n o t h e r s . Although a p p l i e d s t u d i e s such as those conducted i n classroom s e t t i n g s have the c l e a r advantage i n terms of e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y , and p r o v i d e the u l t i m a t e t e s t of the u t i l i t y of any i n t e r v e n t i o n , i t i s o f t e n necessary to turn to l a b o r a t o r y analogues to gain the experimental c o n t r o l and c o m p a r a b i l i t y between s t u d i e s necessary i n parametric i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . The need f o r more t i g h t l y c o n t r o l l e d , m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y sound s t u d i e s of s e l f - c o n t r o l i n t e r v e n t i o n s has been expressed by a number of reviewers (e.g., J e f f r e y , 1974; McLaughlin, 1976; O'Leary & Dubey, 1979). Such i n v e s t i g a t i o n s can p r o v i d e r e s e a r c h e r s , c l i n i c i a n s and t eachers with b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n concerning the v a r i a b l e s and mechanisms which may be r e l e v a n t to the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n a p p l i e d s i t u a t i o n s . Although i t may be e a s i e r to improve i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y i n the c o n t r o l l e d environment of the l a b o r a t o r y , care must be taken to make the r e s u l t s as g e n e r a l i z a b l e as p o s s i b l e . If one views a l l treatment r e s e a r c h as an analogue of the 14 s i t u a t i o n to which the i n v e s t i g a t o r wishes to g e n e r a l i z e , then the q u e s t i o n i s the extent to which an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s an analogue of the c l i n i c a l s i t u a t i o n (Kazdin, 1978). E x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y can be enhanced by keeping the experimental s i t u a t i o n as c l o s e as p o s s i b l e to the c l i n i c a l one on a number of dimensions, such as the type of tasks and s u b j e c t s used, l o c a t i o n , s e t t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s , type of r e i n f o r c e r s , and so f o r t h . Task and Target Response Most of the tasks employed i n s t u d i e s of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t as a dependent v a r i a b l e have been a r t i f i c i a l l a b o r a t o r y c r e a t i o n s , such as "bowling games" (Bandura & Kupers, 1964) or c r a n k - t u r n i n g t a s k s (Bandura £ P e r l o f f , 1967), although some recent r e s e a r c h e r s have used the more e c o l o g i c a l l y meaningful task of s o l v i n g a r i t h m e t i c problems (e.g., F e l i x b r o d & O'Leary, 1973; Jones & Evans, 1980). Although l i t t l e work has been done i n t h i s a r e a , there are some i n d i c a t i o n s that the nature of the task f o r which c h i l d r e n are rewarding themselves has an impact on unsupervised s e l f - r e i n f o r c i n g behavior (Kanfer & D u e r f e l d t , 1968; Masters & C h r i s t y , 1974; Reschly & Mittman, 1973). Classroom a p p l i c a t i o n s of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t have most f r e q u e n t l y i n v o l v e d "on-task" behavior (e.g., working at desk, not c a l l i n g out) as the t a r g e t e d behavior (e.g., B o l s t a d & Johnson, 1972; Drabman et a l . , 1972). However, an i n c r e a s i n g number of i n v e s t i g a t o r s have heeded Winett and 15 Winkler's (1972) c a l l f o r self-management programmes aimed at academic and s o c i a l growth r a t h e r than d o c i l i t y , and t h e r e f o r e have focussed on academic improvement (e.g., Humphrey & K a r o l y , 1978; Panyan et a l . , 1976) or p r o - s o c i a l behavior (e.g., Sanson-Fisher, Seymour, Montgomery, & Stokes, 1978; Wood & F l y n n , 1978). A l l of these behaviors seem to be e q u a l l y responsive to s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n t i n g e n c i e s ; s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n s i s t e n t l y r e s u l t s i n s i g n i f i c a n t improvements over b a s e l i n e or no-reinforcement c o n d i t i o n s (e.g., B a l l a r d & Glynn, 1975; Thomas, 1976), although c h i l d r e n may be b e t t e r at remedying d e f i c i e n c i e s i n behavior r a t h e r than excesses when s e l f - c o n t r o l procedures are employed (Clement, Anderson, Arn o l d , Butman, Fantuzzo, & Mayo, 1978). Whether the t a r g e t behavior i s a p p r o p r i a t e classroom behavior or academic performance, the r e s u l t s are approximately e q u a l l y d i v i d e d between those showing e q u i v a l e n t improvements from e x t e r n a l and s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n t i n g e n c i e s (e.g., Knapczyk & L i v i n g s t o n , 1973; Shapiro & K l e i n , 1980) and those i n d i c a t i n g an advantage f o r s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t (e.g., Anderson, Fodor, & A l p e r t , 1976; L o y i t t & C u r t i s s , 1969). The c h o i c e of t a s k s f o r analogue s t u d i e s of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t i s an important one. They must not only be s u i t a b l e f o r the p a r t i c u l a r experimental procedure and p o t e n t i a l l y responsive to reinforcement c o n t i n g e n c i e s , but produce data which are g e n e r a l i z a b l e to r e a l world behaviors 16 ( K e n d a l l & W i l l i a m s , 1982). Although performance on p u r e l y a r t i f i c i a l tasks may be responsive to s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t procedures (e.g., L i e b e r t , S p i e g l e r , & H a l l , 1970; Montgomery & Parton, 1970), performance on b r i e f a c a d e m i c - l i k e tasks such as vocabulary t e s t s ( B a r l i n g & Fincham, 1979) or mazes ( M i s c h e l , Coates, & Raskoff, 1968) has been s i m i l a r l y r e s p o n s i v e ; such tasks have the added advantage of enhancing the e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y of the study. Rewards A number of l a b o r a t o r y analogue s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e that a c h i l d ' s magnitude of "spontaneous" ( i . e . , u n r e s t r i c t e d ) s e l f - r e w a r d i s u n r e l a t e d to the value of the rewards i n v o l v e d (Masters, 1969, 1972, 1973; Peskay & Masters, 1971). When s e l f - r e w a r d i s made contingent on a c h i e v i n g a c e r t a i n l e v e l of performance, however, the value of the reward may have an e f f e c t on the c h i l d ' s tendency to adhere to or d e v i a t e from the p r e s c r i b e d c r i t e r i a . Depending on the p a r t i c u l a r experimental procedure, c h i l d r e n working f o r h i g h l y - v a l u e d i n c e n t i v e s may impose upon themselves c r i t e r i a which are s t r i c t e r (Winston, Torney, & Labbee, 1978), more l e n i e n t ( L i e b e r t & Ora, 1968), or the same ( L i e b e r t & A l l e n , 1967) as c h i l d r e n working f o r l e s s - v a l u e d rewards. C h i l d r e n may a l s o set themselves s t r i c t e r standards i f they are s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r i n g m a t e r i a l rewards (e.g., Smarties) rather than p r a i s e ( B a r l i n g & Fincham, 1979). There i s l i t t l e r e s e a r c h a v a i l a b l e concerning the 1 7 e f f e c t s of d i f f e r e n t types of s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d rewards on c h i l d r e n ' s performance. L i e b e r t et a l . (1970) found c h i l d r e n to work harder f o r more v a l u a b l e rewards, Best (1973) found s e l f - p r a i s e to r e s u l t i n b e t t e r performance than s e l f - a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t a n g i b l e rewards. More r e s e a r c h i s c l e a r l y needed i n t h i s area. The l a r g e body of l i t e r a t u r e demonstrating the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of token or p o i n t systems i n modifying c h i l d r e n ' s behavior (see Kazdin, 1977, and O'Leary, 1978), the r e l a t i v e l a c k of responsiveness by many i n d i v i d u a l s with l e a r n i n g or conduct d i s o r d e r s to s o c i a l reinforcement alone (e.g., Johns & Quay, 1962; L e v i n & Simmons, 1962), and the weakened e f f e c t s of s o c i a l reinforcement i n l a b o r a t o r y analogue s i t u a t i o n s ( M o r r i s , 1980) have l e d most r e s e a r c h e r s i n both l a b o r a t o r y and a p p l i e d s i t u a t i o n s to employ tokens or p o i n t s as i n c e n t i v e s . The back-up r e i n f o r c e r s have ranged from candy and toys (e.g., Kaufman & O'Leary, 1972) to time spent on e d u c a t i o n a l games (e.g., T a f f e l , 1976). Enhancing the self-management aspects of 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 by p e r m i t t i n g c h i l d r e n to choose t h e i r own range of back-up r e i n f o r c e r s (Brigham & Sherman, 1973; Brigham & S t o e r z i n g e r , 1976; T a f f e l , 1976) and determine the exchange value of the tokens (Dresner, 1976) has l e d to improved performance over more externally-managed systems. Performance C r i t e r i a and Reinforcement Schedules C h i l d r e n who set t h e i r own standards f o r 18 s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t g e n e r a l l y perform as w e l l as, and o f t e n b e t t e r than, c h i l d r e n working under e x t e r n a l l y - i m p o s e d c r i t e r i a (Rosenbaum & Drabman, 1979). Although c h i l d r e n o f t e n set f a i r l y s t r i c t standards f o r themselves at f i r s t (Bandura & P e r l o f f , 1967), and can a d j u s t these standards i n an e q u i t a b l e manner i n response to the demands of a p a r t i c u l a r task (Masters & C h r i s t y , 1974), c h i l d r e n with academic d i f f i c u l t i e s tend to engage i n a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of i n a p p r o p r i a t e s e l f - r e w a r d (Kanfer & D u e r f e l d t , 1968). Even average c h i l d r e n l e t t h e i r standards drop over time i n the absence of any i n c e n t i v e to do otherwise ( F e l i x b r o d & O'Leary, 1973; Parks et a l . , 1978). T h i s phenomenon i s an u n d e s i r a b l e one, i n l i g h t of the evidence t h a t r e l a t i v e l y lean schedules of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t and p r o g r e s s i v e l y s t r i c t e r performance standards have f r e q u e n t l y been found to r e s u l t i n s u p e r i o r short-term performance and maintenance of treatment e f f e c t s (e.g., Brownell et a l . , 1977; Masters, Furman, & Barden, 1977; Weiner & Dubanowski, 1975). (However, B a r l i n g & Fincham, 1979, found a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the l e n i e n c y of s e l f - i m p o s e d standards and i n c r e a s e d performance f o r c h i l d r e n s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r i n g m a t e r i a l rewards, but no r e l a t i o n s h i p between c r i t e r i o n l e v e l and .performance f o r c h i l d r e n s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r i n g p r a i s e . As Thoresen & Mahoney suggested i n 1974, there i s c l e a r l y s t i l l a .need f o r r e s e a r c h on optimum s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c r i t e r i a and schedules f o r f a d i n g out 19 r e i n f o r c e m e n t ) . F o r t u n a t e l y , there i s a l a r g e body of l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t i n g that c h i l d r e n ' s s e l f - d e t e r m i n e d reinforcement c r i t e r i a are m o d i f i a b l e , e i t h e r through o b s e r v a t i o n a l l e a r n i n g (see Masters & Mokros, 1974) or d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n (e.g., Drabman et a l . , 1973; P r i c e & O'Leary, 1974; S a n t o g r o s s i , O'Leary, Romanczyk, & Kaufman, 1973). Subject V a r i a b l e s I n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b i l i t y i n responsiveness to 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 has been a s o r e l y n e g l e c t e d area of r e s e a r c h , d e s p i t e repeated and c o n v i n c i n g arguments from reviewers f o r the i n c l u s i o n of s u b j e c t v a r i a b l e s i n behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n r e s e a r c h i n g e n e r a l (Craighead & Wilcoxon-Craighead, 1978; Furman, 1980; H a r r i s & F e r r a r i , 1983) and s e l f - c o n t r o l r e s e a r c h i n p a r t i c u l a r (Cole & Kazdin, 1980; Copeland, 1982; J e f f r e y , 1974; K a r o l y , 1977; O'Leary & Dubey, 1979; Rosenbaum & Drabman, 1979). There i s a concern not only f o r matching p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l s with the optimum treatment, but i d e n t i f y i n g those c h i l d r e n who would not be 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 whose minimal improvements would not be worth the teacher's or t h e r a p i s t ' s time and e f f o r t . These i s s u e s are becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y c r u c i a l , as the use of b e h a v i o r a l methods i s becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y widespread i n normal classrooms (Brown, 1972; C l a r k , Evans, & Hamerlynck, 1972; O'Leary & O'Leary, 1976; O l l e n d i c k & Cerny, 1981). In t h e i r recent 20 review of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n i n s c h o o l s , O'Leary and O'Leary (1976) commented that "most teachers have heard about behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n , and 10-20% have used some b e h a v i o r a l procedure q u i t e s y s t e m a t i c a l l y " (p. 475). S e l f - c o n t r o l procedures in p a r t i c u l a r have i n c r e a s e d i n p o p u l a r i t y i n recent years (McLaughlin, 1976). With such a l a r g e and e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g number of c h i l d r e n being i n v o l v e d i n b e h a v i o r a l programmes, more p r e c i s e normative i n f o r m a t i o n i s needed to h e l p match i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d r e n to the approach from which they are most l i k e l y to b e n e f i t . Developmental s t u d i e s . The l a r g e body of l i t e r a t u r e c o n c erning the r e l a t i o n s h i p of subject v a r i a b l e s to "spontaneous," unsupervised s e l f - r e w a r d o f f e r s some i n s i g h t i n t o the kinds of v a r i a b l e s which might u s e f u l l y be examined i n a p p l i e d s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t s t u d i e s . S o c i a l c l a s s and race, f o r i n s t a n c e , have been p r e d i c t i v e of a c h i l d ' s r e a c t i o n s when given the o p p o r t u n i t y to s e l f - a d minister rewards (e.g., C o l l e & Bee, 1968; Masters & Peskay, 1972). Sex, however, seems to have l i t t l e d i r e c t e f f e c t on s e l f - r e i n f o r c i n g behavior (e.g., Lepper, Sagotsky, & M a i l e r , 1975; Reschly & Mittman, 1973), although sex d i f f e r e n c e s f r e q u e n t l y turn up i n i n t e r a c t i o n with other v a r i a b l e s (e.g., Masters, 1973; Stouwie, Hetherington, & Parke, 1970) or experimental c o n d i t i o n s (e.g., Bandura, Grusec, & Menlove, 1967; Masters, 1972). A v a r i e t y of p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s have been shown to c o r r e l a t e with s t a n d a r d - s e t t i n g 21 or s e l f - r e w a r d i n g behavior: among them are achievement m o t i v a t i o n (Stouwie et a l . , 1970), locus of m o t i v a t i o n (Switzky & Haywood, 1974), s e l f - e s t e e m (Reschly & Mittman, 1973), and aggression (Perry & Bussey, 1977). V e r b a l I.Q. ( C o l l e & Bee, 1968; E i s e n , 1972) and p u b l i c versus p a r o c h i a l school attendance (Kanfer, 1966; Lepper et a l . , 1975) do not appear to be r e l a t e d to s e l f - r e i n f o r c i n g behavior. S t u d i e s of the e f f e c t of p r i o r experiences emphasize the importance of s o c i a l i z a t i o n processes i n the development of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t standards and behavior. E x p e r i m e n t a l l y - i n d u c e d a f f e c t i v e s t a t e s (e.g., M i s c h e l et a l . , 1968; Rosenhan, Underwood, & Moore, 1974) and p r i o r exposure to modelled s e l f - r e w a r d (e.g., A l l e n & L i e b e r t , 1969; Bandura & Kupers, 1964) have been p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l documented i n t h e i r e f f e c t s on s e l f - r e w a r d s . Although i t i s g e n e r a l l y w e l l accepted that there w i l l be a developmental p r o g r e s s i o n i n c h i l d r e n ' s s e l f - r e i n f o r c i n g behavior (e.g., Kazdin, 1980; Masters &. Mokros, 1974; Thoresen & Mahoney, 1974), there i s a c u r i o u s lac k of d i r e c t i n f o r m a t i o n on the t y p i c a l p a t t e r n of development over time. In an a p p l i e d s i t u a t i o n , a knowlege of age d i f f e r e n c e s can l e a d to more p r e c i s e p r e d i c t i o n s about the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r v e n t i o n s . While age can be a u s e f u l and e f f i c i e n t moderator v a r i a b l e to study, by i t s e l f , however, age cannot be used to " e x p l a i n " d i f f e r e n c e s . If age 22 d i f f e r e n c e s are found, one must then begin to explore -the concomitant developmental changes which account f o r these age d i f f e r e n c e s (Kessen, 1960; W o h l w i l l , 1973). Only a few s t u d i e s have looked at the s e l f - r e i n f o r e i n g behavior of c h i l d r e n of d i f f e r e n t ages. Two of these (Kanfer, 1966; Kanfer & D u e r f e l d t , 1968) d e a l t with i n a p p r o p r i a t e s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t ( t a k i n g rewards which the c h i l d knew to be undeserved). In both s t u d i e s , the i n c i d e n c e of such " c h e a t i n g " d e c l i n e d with age. H i l d e b r a n d t , Feldman, and D i t r i c h s (1973) mention i n p a s s i n g t h a t f i r s t - g r a d e c h i l d r e n were excluded from t h e i r study, as p i l o t work showed t h a t some of these younger c h i l d r e n d i d not understand the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t procedure. Montgomery and Parton (1970) note that p i l o t work with unsupervised s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t r e v e a l e d a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the number of t r i a l s s e l f - r e w a r d e d on an ambiguous task and age. Two s t u d i e s examined age trends i n s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t d i r e c t l y . Switzky and Haywood (1974) found no d i f f e r e n c e i n performance standards between c h i l d r e n of d i f f e r e n t ages (age 7 through 10); however, younger c h i l d r e n (ages 7 and 8) set a denser schedule of reinforcement than d i d the o l d e r c h i l d r e n (ages 9 and 10). Masters (1973) a l s o found younger (age 4) c h i l d r e n to be more generous with s e l f - r e w a r d than t h e i r o l d e r (age 7) c o u n t e r p a r t s . S e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t by 4-year-olds was a l s o much more s e n s i t i v e to an experimental 23 manipulation i n v o l v i n g s o c i a l comparison than f o r 7-year-olds. Younger g i r l s - were more responsive to the manipulation than the young boys; no sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f - r e w a r d were obtained f o r the o l d e r c h i l d r e n . Behavior-change s t u d i e s . Although there have been r e l a t i v e l y few i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of s u b j e c t v a r i a b l e s to responsiveness i n s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t s i t u a t i o n s , a growing number of r e s e a r c h e r s are examining the s o r t s of v a r i a b l e s h i g h l i g h t e d i n developmental s t u d i e s . The impact of a c h i l d ' s developmental h i s t o r y on the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t i s becoming e v i d e n t : both success experiences ( M i s c h e l , 1968) and p r i o r experience with c o n s i s t e n t reinforcement c o n t i n g e n c i e s (Copeland, 1982; Glynn, 1970; Gross & Drabman, 1982; McLaughlin, 1976; O'Leary & Dubey, 1979) have p o s i t i v e l y i n f l u e n c e d the outcome of self-management procedures. The r e l a t i v e d e a r t h of such experiences i n some c h i l d r e n ' s l i v e s may be p a r t i a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the f i n d i n g 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 need to be much more i n t e n s i v e and c a r e f u l l y s u p e r v i s e d with behavior-problem c h i l d r e n than with other c h i l d r e n (McLaughlin, 1976; O'Leary & Dubey, 1979; Rosenbaum & Drabman, 1979; S a n t o g r o s s i et a l . , 1973). M o t i v a t i o n probably p l a y s a r o l e i n responsiveness to self-management procedures as w e l l ; s e v e r a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s have noted that h i g h l y - m o t i v a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s are the most 24 responsive to these procedures (Gross & Drabman, 1982; J e f f r e y , 1974; Masters et a l . , 1977; McLaughlin, 1976). C l i n i c i a n s or teachers working with c h i l d r e n who demonstrate no d e s i r e at a l l to change a p a r t i c u l a r behavior are ad v i s e d to use e x t e r n a l l y - b a s e d procedures, at l e a s t i n i t i a l l y (Gross & Drabman, 1982). A p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e r e l a t e d to m o t i v a t i o n i n self-management s i t u a t i o n s i s a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e , or "locus of c o n t r o l " ; i . e , the degree to which c h i l d r e n a t t r i b u t e events i n l i f e to t h e i r own e f f o r t s . Copeland (1982) reviewed the c h i l d s e l f - c o n t r o l l i t e r a t u r e d e a l i n g with a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e , and concluded t h a t , "there i s q u i t e a b i t of comp e l l i n g evidence that i n t e r n a l i z e d p e r c e p t i o n s of c o n t r o l are conducive to responding w e l l to treatments which i n v o l v e some degree of s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n . In c o n t r a s t , p e r c e i v e d e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l appears to i n t e r a c t more f a v o r a b l y with treatments c o n t r o l l e d by other people" (p.223). F i v e s t u d i e s have d e a l t with locus of c o n t r o l as i t a f f e c t s 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 i n p a r t i c u l a r . Baron and Ganz (1972), M o r r i s and Messer (1978), and Switzky and Haywood (1974) a l l found r e s u l t s congruent with Copeland's c o n c l u s i o n : " i n t e r n a l " c h i l d r e n b e n e f i t t e d more from s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t procedures than d i d " e x t e r n a l " c h i l d r e n . B a r l i n g and Patz (1980) found the same p a t t e r n with o l d e r (11-year-old) c h i l d r e n , but no i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l 25 d i f f e r e n c e s were found among younger (7-year-old) c h i l d r e n . Gordon and B o l i c k (1979) found no r e l a t i o n s h i p of l o c u s of c o n t r o l t o p e r s i s t e n c e on a s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t task. However, only the o l d e r (age 11) " i n t e r n a l " c h i l d r e n a d j u s t e d t h e i r s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t l e v e l to match t h e i r performance; o l d e r " e x t e r n a l " and younger (age 8) c h i l d r e n s e l f - r e i n f o r c e d l e s s c o n t i n g e n t l y . A number of other s u b j e c t v a r i a b l e s have been i n v e s t i g a t e d i n i s o l a t e d s t u d i e s . Non-medicated h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n were found to be the most respo n s i v e to a self-management i n t e r v e n t i o n , while t h e i r medicated c o u n t e r p a r t s performed best under e x t e r n a l reinforcement c o n d i t i o n s (Bugenthal, Whalen, & Henker, 1977). Sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n responsiveness to s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t have been addressed in only a few s t u d i e s . No sex d i f f e r e n c e s were found by Johnson and M a r t i n (1973) or Winston et a l . (1978). Masters and Santrock (1973) found g i r l s t o be more responsive to c o v e r t s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t ( t h i n k i n g about p o s i t i v e events) than were boys, whereas boys p e r s i s t e d longer on the experimental task when i n s t r u c t e d to t h i n k about negative events. Bandura and P e r l o f f (1967) examined sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n responsiveness to a s e l f - versus an externally-managed token system. Although the sex by treatment i n t e r a c t i o n was not s i g n i f i c a n t , e x t e r n a l reinforcement produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y more responses i n boys than d i d s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t . Gordon and B o l i c k (1979) found 26 the opposite p a t t e r n : with a b i l i t y p a r t i a l l e d out, boys p e r s i s t e d longer at a s e l f - r e i n f o r c e d task than d i d g i r l s . The age or developmental l e v e l of a c h i l d i s l i k e l y to be a c r u c i a l v a r i a b l e i n determining the extent to which c e r t a i n competencies are i n p l a c e , which permit the c h i l d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n and b e n e f i t from a s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t procedure (Craighead & Wilcoxon-Craighead, 1978? K a r o l y , 1977; O l l e n d i c k & Cerny, 1981). A v a r i e t y of g r a d u a l l y - d e v e l o p i n g c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s are necessary f o r b e h a v i o r a l self-management; s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n , time p e r c e p t i o n , or c a u s a l reasoning, f o r i n s t a n c e , may not be s u f f i c i e n t l y developed i n young c h i l d r e n to make s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t an e f f e c t i v e procedure (see Copeland, 1982; H a r t e r , 1982; and K a r o l y , 1977, f o r d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n s of c o g n i t i v e v a r i a b l e s i n v o l v e d i n b e h a v i o r a l s e l f - c o n t r o l p r o c e d u r e s ) . A study by Barkley, Copeland, and Sivage (1980) demonstrates the importance of c o g n i t i v e development i n mediating the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of an i n t e r v e n t i o n . In a s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t procedure i n t r o d u c e d to improve time-on-task i n a classroom of h y p e r a c t i v e boys, there appeared to be a t r e n d f o r c h i l d r e n of i n c r e a s i n g l y - a d v a n c e d v e r b a l mental age to be more responsive to the procedure, both d u r i n g treatment and d u r i n g phasing-out of r e i n f o r c e r s . The degree to which c h i l d r e n are r e i n f o r c e d by p o s i t i v e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n i s hypothesized to be a major f a c t o r i n 27 determining the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y and maintenance of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t e f f e c t s (see page 7). The importance of s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n has been shown to i n c r e a s e throughout the c h i l d h o o d years (Bandura, 1971; H a r t e r , 1982; Kazdin, 1980), sugges t i n g that o l d e r c h i l d r e n may d e r i v e more l a s t i n g b e n e f i t from 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 . C e r t a i n l y c h i l d r e n become more aware of and concerned with s e l f - c o n t r o l l i n g responses, as they become autonomous and s e l f - c o n t r o l l i n g i n d i v i d u a l s (Brehm, 1981; Emmerich, 1974; H a r t e r , 1982; Kanfer, 1966; K e n d a l l & Wilcox, 1979; M i s c h e l & Metzner, 1962). I t should a l s o be noted that " i n t e r n a l i t y " of a c h i l d ' s p e r c e i v e d locus of c o n t r o l and m o t i v a t i o n , which has been shown to p r e d i c t a f a v o r a b l e response to s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t programmes (see page 24) i s f r e q u e n t l y found to be p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with age (Feldman & Ruble, 1981; H a r t e r , 1982; M i s c h e l , Z e i s s , & Z e i s s , 1974; Nowicki & S t r i c k l a n d , 1973). Age d i f f e r e n c e s are expected even from the s t r i c t e s t b e h a v i o r i s t i c p e r s p e c t i v e : the complex nature of the s k i l l s i n v o l v e d i n b e h a v i o r a l s e l f - c o n t r o l procedures suggests that they g r a d u a l l y developed from more b a s i c competencies (Harter, 1982; K a r o l y , 1977). S t a a t s (1975) noted that "wherever there i s a p r o g r e s s i o n i n l e a r n i n g -- where one l e a r n e d s k i l l i s b a s i c to the l e a r n i n g of another --a g e - r e l a t e d l i m i t s to l e a r n i n g w i l l occur" (p. 356). D e s p i t e a l l the evidence suggesting i t s p o s s i b l e r o l e 28 as a moderating v a r i a b l e , age has been examined i n only four s t u d i e s of 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 . Montgomery and Parton (1970) asked c h i l d r e n aged 8 through 11 to p u l l a l e v e r every time they thought they had been c o r r e c t i n an ambiguous button-pushing task. For some c h i l d r e n , p u l l i n g the l e v e r caused a penny to drop i n t o a box; they were, however, t o l d that they c o u l d not keep the pennies. Montgomery and Parton assumed that l e v e r - p u l l i n g would c o n s t i t u t e a rewarding event because of i t s d e f i n i t i o n as a c o r r e c t n e s s cue. No age d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n the l a t e r p r o b a b i l i t y of s u b j e c t s e m i t t i n g responses which they had p r e v i o u s l y judged c o r r e c t , which was a dependent v a r i a b l e designed to measure the r e i n f o r c i n g e f f e c t of s e l f - r e w a r d . A somewhat l e s s a r t i f i c i a l study by Switzky and Haywood (1974) examined the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of m o t i v a t i o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n (the degree to which c h i l d r e n choose a c t i v i t i e s based on i n t r i n s i c versus e x t r i n s i c concerns) and age to responsiveness . to s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t procedures. S u b j e c t s age 7 through 10 who scored i n the top and bottom q u a r t i l e s on a measure . of l o c u s of m o t i v a t i o n were given the o p p o r t u n i t y to work on a wheel-cranking task f o r s e l f - or e x t e r n a l l y - c o n t r o l l e d rewards. Although performance i n these two i n c e n t i v e c o n d i t i o n s showed an e q u i v a l e n t o v e r a l l advantage i n comparion to v a r i o u s c o n t r o l groups, s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s emerged due to l o c u s of m o t i v a t i o n . The s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n e l i c i t e d the most 29 p r o d u c t i v i t y from the i n t r i n s i c a l l y motivated c h i l d r e n , while the e x t e r n a l reinforcement c o n d i t i o n was the most p r o d u c t i v e f o r the e x t e r n a l l y - m o t i v a t e d c h i l d r e n . A main e f f e c t f o r age was a l s o p r e s e n t . Older c h i l d r e n (ages 9 and 10) produced more responses o v e r a l l than d i d younger c h i l d r e n (ages 7 and 8) but no i n t e r a c t i o n of age with i n c e n t i v e c o n d i t i o n s i s r e p o r t e d . A recent r e p l i c a t i o n by B a r l i n g and Patz (1980) demonstrated a s i m i l a r i n t e r a c t i o n of reinforcement c o n d i t i o n with loc u s of c o n t r o l f o r o l d e r (age 11) s u b j e c t s , but not f o r younger (age 7) ones. F i n a l l y , Gordon and B o l i c k (1979) compared c h i l d r e n ages 8 and 11 on word games, f o r which they rewarded themselves as they chose. With a b i l i t y p a r t i a l l e d out, the younger c h i l d r e n worked longer than the o l d e r c h i l d r e n , p a r t i c u l a r l y when t h e i r performance was a t t r i b u t e d to s k i l l r a t h e r than to luck ( o l d e r c h i l d r e n were u n a f f e c t e d by the i n s t r u c t i o n a l s e t ) . These c h i l d r e n were a l s o e i t h e r h i g h or low s c o r e r s on a measure of l o c u s of c o n t r o l : the o l d e r " i n t e r n a l " c h i l d r e n a d j u s t e d t h e i r s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t l e v e l to t h e i r performances, while o l d e r " e x t e r n a l " c h i l d r e n and most younger c h i l d r e n s e l f - r e w a r d e d more n o n - c o n t i n g e n t l y . Although these four s t u d i e s p r o v i d e some in f o r m a t i o n oh age trends i n s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t procedures, there i s much yet to be l e a r n e d i n t h i s a r e a . The Montgomery and Parton (1970) study was designed to i n v e s t i g a t e a p a r t i c u l a r t h e o r e t i c a l q u e s t i o n , and does not p rovide a u s e f u l analogue 30 to the t y p i c a l 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 . The remaining three s t u d i e s ( B a r l i n g & Patz, 1980; Gordon & B o l i c k , 1979; Switzky & Haywood, 1974) may be l i m i t e d i n t h e i r g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y to classroom 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 f o r a number of reasons: the use of only extreme s c o r e r s on l o c u s of m o t i v a t i o n or l o c u s of c o n t r o l measures, the l a c k of i n s t r u c t i o n i n a p p r o p r i a t e reward c r i t e r i a , and the use of a r t i f i c i a l l a b o r a t o r y t a s k s . Age trends may a l s o be i n v e s t i g a t e d by comparing the r e s u l t s of 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 a c c o r d i n g to the ages of the c h i l d r e n s t u d i e d . A number of s t u d i e s have compared performance under s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n s with the c h i l d ' s own p r e v i o u s performance duri n g a b a s e l i n e p e r i o d , or with the performance of other c h i l d r e n not r e c e i v i n g any systematic reinforcement. The s t u d i e s which r e p o r t the ages of the c h i l d r e n (or where ages may be estimated from the r e p o r t e d grade l e v e l ) - have used c h i l d r e n ranging i n age from 5 to 18 y e a r s , with the mean age approximately 9 y e a r s . In these s t u d i e s , the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t system has u n i f o r m l y r e s u l t e d i n s u p e r i o r performance to b a s e l i n e c o n d i t i o n s or n o n - r e i n f o r c e d peers (e.g., B a l l a r d & Glynn, 1975; Gross, 1982; Nelson & B i r k i m e r , 1978; Sanson-Fisher et a l . , 1978). Data on the ages of c h i l d r e n are a v a i l a b l e f o r over 30 s t u d i e s which compare the r e l a t i v e e f f i c a c y of s e l f - and e x t e r n a l l y - a d m i n s t e r e d reinforcement programmes. The ages of 31 s u b j e c t s range from 5 to 15 y e a r s , averaging approximately 10 y e a r s . (Age d i f f e r e n c e s may be somewhat obscured by the wide span of ages i n c l u d e d w i t h i n many of these s t u d i e s ) . There are only two s t u d i e s i n which any measure i n d i c a t e s poorer performance in the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n than i n the e x t e r n a l - reinforcement c o n d i t i o n . S a n t o g r o s s i et a l . (1973) i n t r o d u c e d s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t procedures i n t o a s p e c i a l classroom of 12-to-15-year-old h o s p i t a l i z e d , e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t u r b e d boys. These procedures were c l e a r l y i n f e r i o r to t e a c h e r - a d m i n i s t e r e d c o n t i n g e n c i e s i n c o n t r o l l i n g d i s r u p t i v e behavior; however, there was no i n t r o d u c t o r y t r a i n i n g p e r i o d of the type g e n e r a l l y used to teach students accurate s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . O'Brien , R i n e r , and Budd (1983) found a s e l f - r e w a r d i n t e r v e n t i o n with a 6-year-old boy (with no consequences f o r i n a c c u r a t e s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n ) to be s l i g h t l y i n f e r i o r to an externally-managed system; behavior d u r i n g s e l f - r e w a r d phases of the study was s t i l l s u b s t a n t i a l l y improved over b a s e l i n e . In a l l of the other s t u d i e s reviewed, s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t produced behavior change at l e a s t as e f f e c t i v e l y as d i d e x t e r n a l reinforcement. A number of s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on some or a l l measures of performance between the two s t r a t e g i e s (e.g., Bandura & P e r l o f f , 1967; B o l s t a d & Johnson, 1972; F r e d e r i k s e n & F r e d e r i k s e n , 1975; Kaufman & O'Leary, 1972; 32 Rhode et a l . , 1983). Subjects i n these s t u d i e s ranged i n age from 6 to 15 years. These s t u d i e s would i n d i c a t e no a d d i t i o n a l advantage i n terms of t a r g e t behaviors to i n v e s t i n g the e f f o r t of i n t r o d u c i n g a s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t system i n t o a f u n c t i o n i n g token economy. A number of s t u d i e s have, however, obtained s u p e r i o r r e s u l t s from u s i n g a s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t procedure. There appears to be an age t r e n d i n these s i t u a t i o n s . Two of the three s t u d i e s that have found some s u p e r i o r i t y i n the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n with younger (age 6 to 9) c h i l d r e n have not done so c o n s i s t e n t l y , but only on one of a number.of measures used. Shapiro and K l e i n (1980), working with 6-to-9-year-old r e t a r d e d , e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t u r b e d c h i l d r e n , found no d i f f e r e n c e s between e x t e r n a l l y - and s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d token systems on three measures (on-task behavior, d i s r u p t i v e behavior, and task a c c u r a c y ) , but s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t d i d r e s u l t i n a g r e a t e r number of items attempted. Johnson and M a r t i n (1973) found no o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e s between a s e l f - and an e x t e r n a l l y - m o n i t o r e d token system with second-grade (age 7) c h i l d r e n ; however, post hoc comparisons of the four s e s s i o n s r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t performance advantage, i n the t h i r d s e s s i o n only, f o r the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t group. In the t h i r d study with young c h i l d r e n (age 6) who were more responsive to s e l f - than e x t e r n a l reinforcement, Parks et a l . (1976) presented performance data f o r both c o n d i t i o n s , i n d i c a t i n g 33 some s u p e r i o r i t y i n the self-managed c o n d i t i o n . However, no s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s es of these data were r e p o r t e d . Aside from these r a t h e r weak i n d i c a t o r s with younger c h i l d r e n , the e i g h t other s t u d i e s r e v e a l i n g a s u p e r i o r i t y f o r s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t have i n v o l v e d groups of somewhat o l d e r c h i l d r e n . Seven of these showed a s i g n i f i c a n t advantage f o r s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t on a l l measures used: Bi r k i m e r and Brown, 1979 (ages 9 and 10); Drabman et al.,1973 (ages 9 and 10); Farnum et a l . , 1977 (age 10); Goodlet and Goodlet, 1969 (age 10); L o v i t t and C u r t i s s , 1969 (age 12); N e i l a n s and I s r a e l , 1981 (age 7 to 13); Turkewitz et a l . , 1975 (age 7 to 11). The e i g h t h study ( F r e d e r i k s e n & F r e d e r i k s e n , 1975) found m i l d l y r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n (mean age 12.8) to be e q u a l l y responsive to e x t e r n a l - and s e l f -reinforcement f o r on-task behavior, but d i s r u p t i o n s decreased s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n . Immediate changes in t a r g e t behaviors are not the only r e s u l t s t h at behavior m o d i f i e r s hope f o r . As was mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , the e x p e c t a t i o n with s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t systems has been t h a t the changes may g e n e r a l i z e b e t t e r than with e x t e r n a l - r e i n f o r c e m e n t systems. Studi e s which have r e p o r t e d some form of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n data may be examined to see i f there are any age trends i n g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of behavior change from s e l f - r e i n - forcement programmes. Of the s t u d i e s examining s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t 34 i n t e r v e n t i o n s with no comparison with e x t e r n a l reinforcement, twelve have r e p o r t e d some g e n e r a l i z a t i o n data. The r e s u l t s are mixed; p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s f o r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n or maintenance of treatment e f f e c t s were obtained by Gross, 1982 (age 10 to 12); Humphrey and K a r o l y , 1978 (age 7 to 9); Kanfer et a l . , 1975 (ages 5 and 6); P r a t e r , Wolter, and Clement, 1982 (ages 10 and 11); Rhode et a l . , 1983 (age 6 to 10); Robertson, Simon, Pachman, and Drabman, 1979 (age 5 to 11); Sanson-Fisher et a l . , 1978 (age 14 to 18); Shapiro and K l e i n , 1980 (age 6 to 9); and Thomas, 1976 (ages 7 and 8); but not by B a l l a r d and Glynn, 1975 (ages 8 and 9); Barkley et a l . , 1980 (age 6 to 10); or Glynn and Thomas (1974, ages 7 and 8). No p a r t i c u l a r age trends are apparent. R e s u l t s from s t u d i e s which compare g e n e r a l i z a t i o n data f o r s e l f - and externally-managed c o n t i n g e n c i e s have been mixed as w e l l . However, age comparisons between the d i f f e r e n t s t u d i e s would be i n a p p r o p r i a t e i n t h i s case, as o l d e r and younger c h i l d r e n vary on a number of other s i g n i f i c a n t dimensions as w e l l . The s i x s t u d i e s i n t h i s group i n v o l v i n g c h i l d r e n age 9 and under a l l used "normal" c h i l d r e n (e.g., Glynn et a l . , 1973; Johnson, 1970), or c h i l d r e n s e l e c t e d f o r the purposes of the study as the "problem" c h i l d r e n i n normal classrooms (e.g., B o l s t a d & Johnson, 1972; Fantuzzo & Clement, 1981). Of the nine s t u d i e s i n v o l v i n g c h i l d r e n over 9 years of age, seven (e.g., 35 N e i l a n s & I s r a e l , 1981; Wood & Flynn, 1978) r e c r u i t e d t h e i r s u b j e c t s from c l i n i c a l p o p u l a t i o n s ( s p e c i a l c l a s s e s , group homes, e t c . ) . I t i s unfortunate that the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e cannot g i v e us an i n d i c a t i o n of age trends f o r e i t h e r "normal" or c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d c h i l d r e n . Hypotheses and Design The purpose of the present experiment was to examine p o s s i b l e age d i f f e r e n c e s i n responsiveness to s e l f - and e x t e r n a l l y - a d m i n i s t e r e d reward. T h i s study extended and improved upon p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h i n a number of ways, t a k i n g i n t o account the i n f o r m a t i o n reviewed above concerning f a c t o r s l i k e l y t o i n f l u e n c e the outcome of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t s t u d i e s . The parameters of the present study were as f o l l o w s : Experimental S e t t i n g A l a b o r a t o r y analogue of 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 was used i n order to maximize experimental c o n t r o l . To enhance e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y , the experiment was conducted i n a s c h o o l , and designed to resemble t y p i c a l classroom a p p l i c a t i o n s of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t as much as p o s s i b l e . Task and Target Response The experimental tasks were paper-and-pencil measures which bore some resemblance i n content, and a t l e a s t i n topography, to the kind of a c t i v i t i e s a c h i l d might encounter i n the classroom. The t a r g e t behavior was 36 p r o d u c t i v i t y r a t h e r than on-task behavior, and i n v o l v e d a c c e l e r a t i n g r a ther than d e c e l e r a t i n g the r a t e of behavior. Normative i n f o r m a t i o n was used to s e l e c t task items of e q u i v a l e n t d i f f i c u l t y f o r the two age groups. Rewards Tokens were used as r e i n f o r c e r s , a l l o w i n g c h i l d r e n a c h o i c e of age-appropriate back-up m a t e r i a l r e i n f o r c e r s . Performance C r i t e r i a and Reinforcement Schedules In order to maintain c o n s i s t e n c y between age groups and experimental c o n d i t i o n s , and f o l l o w the procedure of most classroom i n t e r v e n t i o n s , performance c r i t e r i a and reinforcement schedules were determined by the experimenter. A f a i r l y dense schedule of reinforcement was s e t , i n order to make the c o n t i n g e n c i e s s a l i e n t to the c h i l d r e n ; high r a t i o s of reinforcement are commonly used when i n i t i a l l y i n t r o d u c i n g c o n t i n g e n c i e s (e.g., Gelfand & Hartmann, 1975). Task items d i f f e r e d f o r the two age groups, r e f l e c t i n g normative i n f o r m a t i o n concerning d i f f e r e n t i a l performance on the experimental task. Subject V a r i a b l e s C h i l d r e n i n r e g u l a r classrooms and i n the same grade were used i n each age group, to gain a rough eq u i v a l e n c e f o r academic l e v e l and c o g n i t i v e m a t u r i t y . Sex of the c h i l d was balanced a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s . Locus of c o n t r o l and academic achievement 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 f o r each c h i l d . The two age groups s t u d i e d were 8-year-olds (Grade 3) 37 and 11-year-olds (Grade 6). These p a r t i c u l a r ages were chosen f o r a number of reasons. F i r s t , t h i s i s the approximate age range s t u d i e d i n " the four p r e v i o u s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of age and s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t procedures ( B a r l i n g & Patz, 1980; Gordon & B o l i c k , 1979; Montgomery & Parton, 1970; Switzky & Haywood, 1974). Second, t h i s age range brackets the approximate mean age of c h i l d r e n i n s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t s t u d i e s (9 or 10) and would i n c l u d e s u b j e c t s i n approximately 70% of these s t u d i e s . T h i r d , the preceding review of the l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s that s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t i s much more l i k e l y t o have an immediate advantage over e x t e r n a l reinforcement i n s t u d i e s i n v o l v i n g c h i l d r e n o l d e r than 9 years of age, while c h i l d r e n under 9 are u n l i k e l y to show d i f f e r e n c e s i n performance between the two s t r a t e g i e s . F o u r t h , major developmental advances seem to be made between the years of 8 and 11 on dimensions that may be r e l e v a n t to the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of 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 : a d e c l i n e i n i n a p p r o p r i a t e s e l f - r e w a r d (Kanfer, 1966: Kanfer & D u e r f e l d t , 1968); a s h i f t i n the d i r e c t i o n of i n c r e a s e d s e l f - c o n t r o l on paper-and-pencil measures (Feldman & Ruble, 1981; K e n d a l l & Wilcox, 1979); an i n c r e a s e i n the reinforcement value of task mastery and accuracy feedback (Furman, 1980; H a r t e r , 1978); i n c r e a s i n g s k i l l i n handling delay-of-reward s i t u a t i o n s (Mischel & Metzner, 1962; Reese & L i p s i t t , 1970; Stevenson, 1965); a d e c l i n e i n the impact of a d u l t s on c h i l d behavior, and 38 corresponding i n c r e a s e i n peer -influences (Hartup, 1970; L e f r a n c o i s , 1973, Stevenson, 1965); and a decrease i n r e l i a n c e on e x t e r n a l feedback f o r s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n (Meid, 1971). F i f t h , more general c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s a l s o show s i g n i f i c a n t changes d u r i n g these y e a r s : i n P i a g e t i a n terms, t h i s spans the years of concrete o p e r a t i o n s and ends with the t r a n s i t i o n to formal o p e r a t i o n s (Ginsburg & Opper, 1969). The c h i l d ' s c a p a c i t i e s f o r d e c e n t r a t i o n and t r a n s i t i v i t y , f o r example, undergo c o n s i d e r a b l e expansion, along with sensory and motor s k i l l s , the e f f i c i e n t a l l o c a t i o n of a t t e n t i o n , symbolic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , and p l a n f u l and l o g i c a l a c t i v i t y (Ginsburg & Opper, 1969; Lane, 1979; L e f r a n c o i s , 1973; L i e b e r t , Poulos, & S t r a u s s , 1974). Design The present experiment i n v o l v e d three groups e x t e r n a l reinforcement, s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t , and c o n t r o l . Ten c h i l d r e n from each age range were randomly a s s i g n e d to each c o n d i t i o n , with the p r o v i s o that sex be balanced between c o n d i t i o n s . Locus of c o n t r o l and academic achievement data were c o l l e c t e d f o r each c h i l d . Two tasks were presented to the c h i l d r e n . Task A was presented once under standard c o n d i t i o n s , to o b t a i n b a s e l i n e data. A second p a r a l l e l form of Task A was a d m i n i s t e r e d d u r i n g t r a i n i n g i n the reinforcement procedure. A t h i r d p a r a l l e l form was a d m i n i s t e r e d with reinforcement c o n t i n g e n c i e s i n e f f e c t . A f o u r t h p a r a l l e l form was a d m i n i s t e r e d the f o l l o w i n g day 39 under s t a n d a r d i z e d c o n d i t i o n s as a t e s t of temporal g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of reinforcement e f f e c t s . Task B was presented twice under s t a n d a r d i z e d c o n d i t i o n s ; the f i r s t time to o b t a i n b a s e l i n e data, the second time f o l l o w i n g the reinforcement manipulation, to assess task g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of reinforcement e f f e c t s . C h i l d s a t i s f a c t i o n with the reinforcement contingency was a l s o assessed. Hypotheses 1. The two reinforcement c o n d i t i o n s were expected to r e s u l t i n s u p e r i o r performance (number c o r r e c t ) to that i n the c o n t r o l group, while reinforcement c o n t i n g e n c i e s were i n e f f e c t ( t h i r d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Task A). 2. Performance (number c o r r e c t ) while reinforcement c o n t i n g e n c i e s were i n e f f e c t was not expected to d i f f e r between s e l f - and e x t e r n a l l y - r e i n f o r c e d 8-year-olds, but a s u p e r i o r i t y i n the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r 11-year-olds was expected. 3. G e n e r a l i z a t i o n of reinforcement e f f e c t s ( i n c r e a s e over b a s e l i n e i n number of problems c o r r e c t l y solved) to l a t e r n o n - r e i n f o r c e d t r i a l s (Fourth a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Task A) and a g e n e r a l i z a t i o n task (Second a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Task B) was not expected to d i f f e r between s e l f - and e x t e r n a l l y - r e i n f o r c e d 8-year-olds, but a s u p e r i o r i t y i n the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r 11-year-olds was expected. 4. S a t i s f a c t i o n with the reinforcement procedure (as measured by the 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 ) was not 40 expected to d i f f e r between s e l f - and e x t e r n a l l y - r e i n f o r c e d 8-year-olds, but a p r e f e r e n c e f o r the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n by 11-year-olds was expected. 5. Sex was i n c l u d e d as an independent v a r i a b l e on an e x p l o r a t o r y b a s i s . Due to the sparse and c o n t r a d i c t o r y nature of the r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e , no s p e c i f i c hypotheses were made concerning d i f f e r e n t i a l responsiveness of boys and g i r l s to the experimental' c o n d i t i o n s . 6. Locus of c o n t r o l was i n c l u d e d as an e x p l o r a t o r y v a r i a b l e to i n v e s t i g a t e p o s s i b l e i n t e r a c t i o n s with experimental c o n d i t i o n s . More " i n t e r n a l " c h i l d r e n were expected to show s u p e r i o r performance i n , and p r e f e r e n c e f o r , the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n ; " e x t e r n a l " c h i l d r e n were expected to show s u p e r i o r performance i n , and p r e f e r e n c e f o r , the e x t e r n a l reinforcement c o n d i t i o n . 7. Academic achievement was i n c l u d e d as an e x p l o r a t o r y v a r i a b l e to i n v e s t i g a t e p o s s i b l e i n t e r a c t i o n s with experimental c o n d i t i o n s . 41 Method Subjects and S e t t i n g S i x t y c h i l d r e n p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study. Half of the p a r t i c i p a n t s were 8-year-old students i n grade 3 (mean age = 8 years, 8 months) and h a l f were 11-year-old students i n grade 6 (mean age = 11 y e a r s , 9 months). An equal number of boys and g i r l s i n each age range p a r t i c i p a t e d i n each c o n d i t i o n . S u b j e c t s were r e c r u i t e d from three p a r o c h i a l elementary schools i n the Lower Mainland area. These schools were the f i r s t to respond to a l e t t e r sent to a l l l o c a l school boards (see Appendix A ) . In order to p a r t i c i p a t e , each c h i l d had to be i n one of the two age and grade ranges, e n r o l l e d i n a r e g u l a r classroom, f l u e n t i n E n g l i s h , and have the permission of a parent (see Appendix B f o r permission forms). A t o t a l of 103 pe r m i s s i o n forms were sent home to parents of p r o s p e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s (22 a t School #1, 46 a t School #2, and 35 at School #3). A l l of these were r e t u r n e d . The parents of e i g h t students r e f u s e d p e r m i s s i o n t o p a r t i c i p a t e : four at School #1 and four at School #2. Of the 95 students remaining, 23 students were e l i m i n a t e d on the b a s i s of age (2 at School #1, 15 at School #2, and 6 at School #3) and 2 students were e l i m i n a t e d on the b a s i s of la c k of f l u e n c y i n E n g l i s h (both at School #2). A t o t a l of 70 students were thus e l i g i b l e to 42 p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study; 16 at School #1, 25 at School #2, and 29 at School #3. G i r l s were s l i g h t l y o v e r-represented i n t h i s sample (39 g i r l s to 31 boys), so e i g h t g i r l s were e l i m i n a t e d by random draw (three at School #1 and f i v e at School #2). One student was absent on the t e s t i n g day (at School #1), and one t e s t i n g s e s s i o n (at School #2) was i n t e r r u p t e d by a f i r e alarm, so those data were d i s c a r d e d . The r e q u i r e d 60 s u b j e c t s were thus obtained as f o l l o w s : 12 from School #1, 19 from School #2, and 29 from School #3. Each c h i l d was t e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y i n a q u i e t room i n the s c h o o l . A t a b l e and c h a i r were pr o v i d e d f o r the c h i l d . A second t a b l e and c h a i r were p l a c e d at r i g h t angles to the c h i l d ' s t a b l e so that the experimenter c o u l d e i t h e r s i t c l o s e to the c h i l d or turn away. A d i s h of p l a s t i c tokens was p l a c e d on one corner of the c h i l d ' s t a b l e , and a p e n c i l , e r a s e r , and r u l e r were a l s o p r o v i d e d . Each student earned $2 towards a c l a s s fund as compensation f o r h i s or her time ( t h i s procedure was used so that c h i l d r e n i n the c l a s s who were unable to p a r t i c i p a t e would b e n e f i t as w e l l ) . In a d d i t i o n , each c h i l d was given a small i n d i v i d u a l " p r i z e " (e.g., s t i c k e r s , gum, or note pad) at the end of the experimental s e s s i o n s . Experimenter The author served as experimenter f o r a l l s e s s i o n s . The author i s a graduate student with 2 years of c l i n i c a l experience i n t e s t i n g and behaviour therapy with c h i l d r e n , 43 and has previous r e s e a r c h experience i n s i m i l a r s e t t i n g s with c h i l d r e n i n these age groups. In order to minimize p o s s i b l e experimenter b i a s , p r o c e d u r a l p r o t o c o l s f o r each c o n d i t i o n were p r i n t e d on index cards, and repeated i n i d e n t i c a l f a s h i o n to each c h i l d (see Appendix C). Measures Four paper-and-pencil measures were administered to the c h i l d r e n , and one to the classroom t e a c h e r s . Locus of C o n t r o l S c a l e The N o w i c k i - S t r i c k l a n d Locus of C o n t r o l Scale f o r C h i l d r e n (Nowicki & S t r i c k l a n d , 1973; Appendix D) i s a 40-item, f o r c e d - c h o i c e , s e l f - r e p o r t q u e s t i o n n a i r e designed to assess g e n e r a l i z e d p e r c e p t i o n s of i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l i n c h i l d r e n . Items in t h i s s c a l e r e f l e c t e f f i c a c y b e l i e f s about i n t e l l e c t u a l and academic behaviours, as w e l l as g e n e r a l p e r c e p t i o n s concerning s u p e r s t i t i o n and c o n t r o l over parents' and f r i e n d s ' behavior. Scores on t h i s s c a l e i n d i c a t e the number of " e x t e r n a l " items chosen; thus, higher scores i n d i c a t e more " e x t e r n a l " a t t r i b u t i o n s of c o n t r o l . T h i s i s c u r r e n t l y the most widely used instrument of i t s type, and r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y r e s e a r c h have confirmed i t s u t i l i t y (Copeland, 1982; K e n d a l l & W i l l i a m s , 1982; S t r i c k l a n d , 1977), p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r examining the r e l a t i o n s h i p of l o c u s of c o n t r o l to other v a r i a b l e s w i t h i n a s o c i a l l e a r n i n g framework ( L e f c o u r t , 1982). The s c a l e was a d m i n i s t e r e d i n a group s i t u a t i o n to a l l 44 p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the same grade at each s c h o o l . The experimenter read each q u e s t i o n aloud twice, while c h i l d r e n f o l l o w e d along and c i r c l e d t h e i r p r e f e r r e d answers on t h e i r own sheets. A l o c u s of c o n t r o l measure was i n c l u d e d i n t h i s study to i n v e s t i g a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p of locu s of c o n t r o l to responsiveness to the d i f f e r e n t reinforcement c o n d i t i o n s . Locus of c o n t r o l i s the one p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e which has been examined i n d e t a i l i n the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t l i t e r a t u r e . Task A ( A r i t h m e t i c ) The Mathematics Computation subtest of the C a l i f o r n i a Achievement T e s t s (Tiegs & C l a r k , 1970) c o n s i s t s of a long s e r i e s of simple, m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e a r i t h m e t i c problems. For the purpose of the present study, the su b t e s t was d i v i d e d i n t o four s h o r t e r forms by random a l l o c a t i o n of the problems, b a l a n c i n g f o r type of computation i n v o l v e d and l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y (see Appendix E ) . C h i l d r e n were given 3 minutes to " c i r c l e as many c o r r e c t answers as p o s s i b l e . " The grade 3 forms and grade 6 forms were p i l o t t e s t e d i n classrooms with 8-year-old and 11-year-old c h i l d r e n , and ad j u s t e d so that the t e s t s were of e q u i v a l e n t d i f f i c u l t y f o r each age group. Although such changes c o n s t i t u t e d a departure from the standard a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , the t e s t was used i n the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n as an experimental task r a t h e r than as an assessment d e v i c e . T h e r e f o r e the a b s o l u t e 45 or normed l e v e l s of performance are not of i n t e r e s t . T h i s p a r t i c u l a r t e s t was chosen f o r a number of reasons. As a paper-and-pencil a r i t h m e t i c task r e q u i r i n g both speed and accuracy, i t bears some resemblance to the kind of task a c h i l d might encounter i n the classroom. Reinforcement c o n t i n g e n c i e s have been shown to improve the performance of normal c h i l d r e n on a number of s i m i l a r l y b r i e f s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s (e.g., Bergan, McManis, & Welchert, 1971; Clingman, Auerbach, Bowman, & P a r r i s h , 1977; H o l t & Hobbs, 1979; Witmer, B o r n s t e i n , & Dunham, 1971), as has s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t (e.g., B a r l i n g & Fincham, 1979; Best, 1973) . The primary experimental task had to have forms of e q u i v a l e n t d i f f i c u l t y designed f o r each of the age groups. I t had to be a task on which c h i l d r e n can work with minimal s u p e r v i s i o n , and simple enough that c h i l d r e n c o u l d e a s i l y score t h e i r own answers. The use of reinforcement i n the procedure n e c e s s i t a t e d d i s c r e t e , small response u n i t s so that the number of tokens awarded had a c l e a r correspondence with the amount of work accomplished. A simple speeded task was d e s i r a b l e , as performance l e v e l s were l i k e l y to be s e n s i t i v e to i n c r e a s e d a t t e n t i o n or m o t i v a t i o n r e s u l t i n g from reinforcement c o n t i n g e n c i e s (e.g., Oakland, 1969; S a t t l e r , 1974). The task a l s o had to be e a s i l y d i v i s i b l e i n t o four p a r a l l e l forms, because i t was a d m i n i s t e r e d four times to each su b j e c t (the p a r t i c u l a r forms a d m i n i s t e r e d to 46 any one c h i l d were randomly assi g n e d to order of p r e s e n t a t i o n ) . F i n a l l y , e t h i c a l and p r a c t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s made i t p r e f e r a b l e to employ a t e s t that i s not widely used i n the l o c a l school system. The Mathematics Computation subtest of the C a l i f o r n i a Achievement T e s t s was one of the few tasks a v a i l a b l e which f u l f i l l e d a l l these requirements, and yet was s u f f i c i e n t l y c h a l l e n g i n g to be l i k e l y to s u s t a i n a c h i l d ' s i n t e r e s t throughout the four a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s . Task B ( S u b s t i t u t i o n ) Subtest #7 ( S u b s t i t u t i o n ) of the Babcock Test of Mental E f f i c i e n c y (Babcock, 1965) i s a speeded coding task, which i s very s i m i l a r to the more widely used WISC-R Coding s u b t e s t . For the purpose of the present study, a few minor changes were made, such as reducing the time l i m i t to 2 minutes and i n c r e a s i n g the number of items presented. These changes were made so that the performance measure would be the number of items c o r r e c t l y completed, and the two age groups would be exposed to the task f o r an equal amount of time. The s u b s t i t u t i o n task i s presented i n Appendix F. Because t h i s task was used to probe f o r t a s k - g e n e r a l i z a t i o n e f f e c t s of the experimental c o n d i t i o n s , i t was ad m i n i s t e r e d twice (using the two p a r a l l e l forms provided) a c c o r d i n g to standard procedures. T h i s task was chosen becasue i t f u l f i l l s many of the same requirements as Task A, i n c l u d i n g the e s s e n t i a l requirements of s u i t a b i l i t y 47 f o r both age groups, the l i k e l i h o o d of performance being responsive to reinforcement procedures, a degree of resemblance to academic t a s k s , the a v a i l a b i l i t y of p a r a l l e l forms, and infrequency of use by school p s y c h o l o g i s t s . 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 In keeping with the growing r e c o g n i t i o n of s o c i a l v a l i d i t y as an important dependent v a r i a b l e i n a p p l i e d b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h (Kazdin, 1977; Wolf, 1978), and p a r t i c u l a r l y the need f o r assessment of c h i l d r e n ' s s a t i s f a c t i o n with b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s (McMahon & Forehand, 1983), a 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 (Appendix G) was designed to assess the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the two experimental 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 e x t e r n a l reinforcement) to the c h i l d r e n . Each item examines a p a r t i c u l a r aspect of the c h i l d ' s p e r c e p t i o n of the s i t u a t i o n (e.g., "How would you l i k e your work to be marked t h i s way i n school?") and the c h i l d i s asked to r e p l y by g i v i n g a r a t i n g on a 5-point s c a l e . Although the major comparison of i n t e r e s t i s between the answers from c h i l d r e n i n the two reinforcement c o n d i t i o n s , c o n s i s t e n c y i n the procedure was maintained by a l s o a d m i n i s t e r i n g the q u e s t i o n n a i r e to the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . Two q u e s t i o n s concerning the reinforcement procedures were r e p l a c e d by two a l t e r n a t e q u e s t i o n s i n the c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n . Teacher Rating of Academic L e v e l A f t e r a l l the t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s were complete i n any one 48 s c h o o l , the classroom teachers were asked to give each c h i l d a r a t i n g on a s c a l e of 1 to 5 f o r general academic l e v e l . A r a t i n g of "1" i n d i c a t e d students with some academic problems, "2" below average students, "3" average a c h i e v e r s , "4" above average, and "5" o u t s t a n d i n g students. Procedure Overview P i l o t t e s t i n g of Task A ( A r i t h m e t i c ) was conducted over the course of s e v e r a l weeks, concurrent with s u b j e c t r e c r u i t m e n t . Once p i l o t t e s t i n g was completed and the p a r e n t a l p e r m i s s i o n forms were returned, the experimenter met with p r o s p e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n each school and grade to c o l l e c t demographic i n f o r m a t i o n and administer the l o c u s of c o n t r o l s c a l e . The i n d i v i d u a l t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s then commenced. Each c h i l d was seen f o r approximately 30 minutes on one day and f o r 5 minutes on the f o l l o w i n g day f o r a g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l . When a l l the t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s were completed i n a p a r t i c u l a r s c h o o l , the experimenter then h e l d a d e b r i e f i n g s e s s i o n with each p a r t i c i p a t i n g c l a s s . P i l o t T e s t i n g P i l o t t e s t i n g of the Task A ( A r i t h m e t i c ) m a t e r i a l s was conducted i n the Grade 3 and Grade 6 classrooms of a l o c a l elementary s c h o o l ( c h i l d r e n from t h i s s chool d i d not p a r t i c i p a t e i n the main s t u d y ) . A l l of the c h i l d r e n i n each c l a s s v o l u n t e e r e d to h e l p the experimenter develop "an a r i t h m e t i c q u i z t h a t ' s not too hard and not too easy," by 49 attempting s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t v e r s i o n s of the 3-minute q u i z . Only the data f o r c h i l d r e n i n the a p p r o p r i a t e age groups were used (eleven 8-year-olds and f i v e 1 1-year-olds). Four v e r s i o n s of the t e s t were administered to each c l a s s , with the d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l of some ite m s being s l i g h t l y a d j u s t e d each time i n order to make the average number of items c o r r e c t l y completed at each age l e v e l as s i m i l a r as p o s s i b l e . On the f i n a l v e r s i o n of the t e s t , the mean number of items c o r r e c t l y completed on the Grade 3 form was 28.4 (SD=8.8), and on the Grade 6 form the mean was 31.8 (SD=5.1). Subject Recruitment and S e l e c t i o n As o u t l i n e d above, schools were i n v i t e d by l e t t e r to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the p r o j e c t . The experimenter v i s i t e d the f i r s t three schools to r e p l y , and i n v i t e d the students to p a r t i c i p a t e i n "a study of how Grade 3 and Grade 6 students do on 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 of permission were sent home with the students and c o l l e c t e d by the te a c h e r . Once the su b j e c t pool of 60 c h i l d r e n was e s t a b l i s h e d , c h i l d r e n were randomly assi g n e d to the three c o n d i t i o n s , b a l a n c i n g f o r sex w i t h i n each age group. Ten c h i l d r e n i n each age range p a r t i c i p a t e d i n each c o n d i t i o n . I n t r o d u c t o r y Group Session Before t e s t i n g began i n each s c h o o l , the c h i l d r e n i n the p a r t i c i p a t i n g c l a s s e s were t o l d that those i n v o l v e d i n the study would leave the classroom and work with the 50 experimenter f o r approximately 30 minutes, and that not every student would do the same t h i n g . The importance of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of r e s u l t s and secrecy throughout the study was s t r e s s e d , and the c h i l d r e n were asked to h e l p by not as k i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s about the t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s , or d i s c u s s i n g the s e s s i o n s i f they p a r t i c i p a t e d themselves. The Locus of C o n t r o l s c a l e was then i n t r o d u c e d as a " q u e s t i o n n a i r e to f i n d out your o p i n i o n s on d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s that happen to you", and 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 i n the c l a s s . C h i l d r e n were asked to f i l l in t h e i r "own p r i v a t e answers" on sheets provided, as the experimenter read the q u e s t i o n s aloud. B a s e l i n e Measures When the c h i l d was brought i n t o the t e s t i n g room at the beginning of the i n d i v i d u a l s e s s i o n , the experimenter reminded him or her t h a t , "We w i l l be doing 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 , but I am not going to t e l l your teacher or your parents how you do — i t ' s j u s t between you and me." The experimenter then p l a c e d a sample sheet of Task A ( A r i t h m e t i c ) i n f r o n t of the c h i l d , saying, "The f i r s t t h i n g i s an a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e . " The standard i n s t r u c t i o n s were then read (see Appendix C), showing the c h i l d how to c i r c l e the c o r r e c t answers. A f t e r checking that the c h i l d understood the i n s t r u c t i o n s , the experimenter s a i d , "I w i l l time you and see how many you can do c o r r e c t l y i n 3 minutes... Ready? On your mark, get s e t , go!" The 51 experimenter stopped the c h i l d at the end of- 3 minutes and c o l l e c t e d the t e s t form. The experimenter then gave the c h i l d a Task B ( S u b s t i t u t i o n ) sheet, and s a i d , "Now we have a matching e x e r c i s e . " The standard i n s t r u c t i o n s from the t e s t manual were read (see Appendix C), showing the c h i l d how to f i l l i n the f i g u r e s with the a p p r o p r i a t e number. The c h i l d was then t o l d , " I ' l l time you and see how many you can do c o r r e c t l y in 2 minutes... Are you ready? On your mark, get s e t , go!" The experimenter stopped the c h i l d at the end of 2 minutes, and c o l l e c t e d the t e s t form. Experimental M a n i p u l a t i o n The three 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 , e x t e r n a l reinforcement, and c o n t r o l ) d i f f e r e d i n the manner i n which the second and t h i r d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s of Task A took p l a c e . C h i l d r e n i n the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n were t o l d at t h i s p o i n t that they c o u l d earn tokens f o r the amount of work done on the next a r i t h m e t i c t a s k . C h i l d r e n c o u l d earn one token f o r each item c o r r e c t l y completed. They were t o l d that the tokens c o u l d be exchanged l a t e r f o r p r i z e s , and the more tokens they earned, the more d e s i r a b l e the p r i z e they c o u l d s e l e c t . Using tokens and l e a v i n g the exact nature of the backup p r i z e s undefined i s a procedure common to many s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t s t u d i e s (e.g. Bandura & P e r l o f f , 1967; M i s c h e l et a l . , 1968; Switzky & Haywood, 1974). T h i s keeps ' .— the a c t u a l items given during the task constant 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 ) , and takes i n t o account the f i n d i n g that token r e i n f o r c e r s may be more e f f e c t i v e on s t a n d a r d i z e d l a b o r a t o r y tasks than are candies or p r a i s e (e.g., Bergan et a l . , 1971; Clingman et a l . , 1977; Klugman, 1944). C h i l d r e n i n the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n were a l s o t o l d t h a t they were in charge of checking t h e i r own work and a d m i n i s t e r i n g the c o r r e c t number of tokens. In keeping with the procedure used i n a p p l i e d s i t u a t i o n s to maintain a p p r o p r i a t e standards (e.g., Drabman et a l . , 1973; Turkewitz et a l . , 1975), the c h i l d r e n were t o l d that i t was important to check t h e i r work c a r e f u l l y and take only the number of tokens earned. The c h i l d r e n were then shown how to use the s c o r i n g template and p r a c t i c e d " c a l c u l a t i n g the number of tokens earned on each l i n e (nine items per l i n e ) , u n t i l they c a l c u l a t e d the number of - tokens c o r r e c t l y f o r three c o n s e c u t i v e example l i n e s . T h i s t r a i n i n g procedure took an average of 3.2 minutes f o r the Grade 3 c h i l d r e n and 2.8 minutes f o r the Grade 6 c h i l d r e n . The c h i l d was then t o l d that the next a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e (Task A, form 2) would be " j u s t f o r p r a c t i c e " , to gain f a m i l i a r i t y with the s e l f - s c o r i n g procedure. T h i s " p r a c t i c e " t r i a l was i n c l u d e d to i n c r e a s e the s a l i e n c e of an otherwise r a t h e r b r i e f experimental m a n i p u l a t i o n , and to g i v e the c h i l d experience with the a c t u a l e v a l u a t i o n and reinforcement procedure. 53 Task A (form 2) was then administered f o r the standard 3-minute p e r i o d . The c h i l d was prompted to c a l c u l a t e the number of tokens earned and reward h e r s e l f or himself a c c o r d i n g l y . The experimenter turned away to the adjacent t a b l e at t h i s p o i n t and appeared to be engaged in other a c t i v i t i e s i n order to minimize the amount of s u p e r v i s i o n p e r c e i v e d by the c h i l d . When the c h i l d f i n i s h e d s c o r i n g the t e s t and counting out the tokens f o r each l i n e , the experimenter counted aloud the t o t a l number of tokens and returned these " p r a c t i c e " tokens to the d i s h . (The average time taken to score the p r a c t i c e t e s t was 1.5 minutes f o r both the Grade 3 c h i l d r e n and the Grade 6 c h i l d r e n ) . Task A (form 3) was then i n t r o d u c e d , with the reminder that " t h i s i s the one that counts." The experimental t r i a l of the a r i t h m e t i c q u i z then began, f o l l o w e d a g a i n by the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t procedure. (Average time taken to score the q u i z and count out tokens on t h i s t r i a l was 1.4 minutes fo r Grade 3 c h i l d r e n and 1.6 minutes f o r Grade 6 c h i l d r e n ) . A f t e r the experimenter had counted aloud the t o t a l number of tokens taken, the c h i l d was t o l d , "I don't have the p r i z e s with me today, but I ' l l w r i t e down how many tokens you got, and w e ' l l see tomorrow what you can get f o r them, OK?" A l l c h i l d r e n expressed s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h i s arrangement. The d i s h of tokens was then removed from the c h i l d ' s desk. The experimental procedure i n the e x t e r n a l reinforcement c o n d i t i o n was i d e n t i c a l to that i n the 54 s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n , except that the experimenter r a t h e r than the c h i l d scored the q u i z and counted out the tokens. C h i l d r e n were t o l d t h a t they c o u l d earn tokens (and l a t e r , p r i z e s ) f o r t h e i r performance on the a r i t h m e t i c task, and that the experimenter would score the q u i z and c a l c u l a t e the number of tokens earned. The experimenter demonstrated how the s c o r i n g template would be used and c a l c u l a t e d the number of tokens earned f o r s e v e r a l example l i n e s . (The amount of time taken by t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n was yoked to that taken by the most r e c e n t l y t e s t e d same-sex s u b j e c t of the same age i n the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n ) . The c h i l d was then i n t r o d u c e d to the " p r a c t i c e " q u i z (Task A, form 2) and given 3 minutes to work on i t . The experimenter concluded the t r a i n i n g phase by c a l c u l a t i n g the number c o r r e c t on each l i n e , g i v i n g the c h i l d the a p p r o p r i a t e number of tokens, and c o u n t i n g aloud the t o t a l number of tokens earned. (The amount of time taken f o r t h i s p rocess was yoked to the amount of time taken by same-aged c h i l d r e n i n the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n to check t h e i r work and s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r tokens.) The " p r a c t i c e " tokens were then returned to the d i s h . Task A (form 3) was i n t r o d u c e d with the reminder that " t h i s i s the one that counts." A f t e r the 3-minute work p e r i o d , the experimenter again checked the c h i l d ' s work, c a l c u l a t e d the tokens earned, and counted the t o t a l number of tokens a l o u d . (Scori n g time was again yoked t o the time 55 taken by c h i l d r e n in the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n ) . The c h i l d was then t o l d that a r e c o r d would be made of the number of tokens earned, and that the p r i z e c o u l d be chosen on the f o l l o w i n g day. A l l c h i l d r e n expressed s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h i s arrangement. The d i s h of tokens was then removed from the c h i l d ' s desk. In the c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n , the c h i l d r e n a l s o worked on forms 2 and 3 of Task A and were informed of t h e i r scores on these forms, but no mention was made of tokens or p r i z e s . The second form of Task A was preceeded by a d i s c u s s i o n about "the best way to mark these a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e s " and 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 , i n order to take up an e q u i v a l e n t amount of time to the t r a i n i n g procedures i n the experimental c o n d i t i o n s . The c h i l d was t o l d that the experimenter wanted "to p r a c t i c e marking with these t r a n s p a r e n c i e s , " and was asked to do a second a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e , " j u s t f o r p r a c t i c e . " Task A (form 2) was then given, and the experimenter scored the form and informed the c h i l d of h i s or her score i n a n e u t r a l tone of v o i c e . (Time taken f o r s c o r i n g was yoked to that i n the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n ) . The experimenter then asked the c h i l d to do a t h i r d a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e , i n f o r m i n g the c h i l d t h a t t h i s one would a l s o be scored, and that " t h i s one counts." Task A (form 3) was then administered, and the experimenter again informed the c h i l d of the score 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 ( S c o r i n g time was yoked to that taken i n the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n ) . In the process of c o l l e c t i n g the a r i t h m e t i c sheets, the d i s h of tokens was a l s o removed from the c h i l d ' s desk. C h i l d S a t i s f a c t i o n Quesionnaire The experimenter presented the q u e s t i o n n a i r e to the c h i l d , saying, "Before we do some more t h i n g s , I'd l i k e to f i n d out what you t h i n k about the e x e r c i s e we j u s t d i d . " The c h i l d was shown how to mark h i s or her answers on the s c a l e s and asked to f i l l out the q u e s t i o n n a i r e p r i v a t e l y , with the experimenter turned away. G e n e r a l i z a t i o n T r i a l of Task B ( S u b s t i t u t i o n ) Task B (form 2) was then given to the c h i l d i n the same manner as the f i r s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . I n t e r i m I n s t r u c t i o n s The c h i l d was then thanked f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g , and t o l d that there would be "a few quick t h i n g s to do tomorrow" before p r i z e s were chosen. The experimenter d i s c u s s e d the importance of secrecy with the c h i l d , and asked him or her "not to t e l l anyone anyt h i n g " about the t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s u n t i l a l l the c h i l d r e n had had a chance to p a r t i c i p a t e . The c h i l d was then e s c o r t e d back to the classroom. G e n e r a l i z a t i o n T r i a l of Task A ( A r i t h m e t i c ) Upon e n t e r i n g the t e s t i n g room on the f o l l o w i n g day, the c h i l d was t o l d t h a t the experimenter would l i k e the c h i l d to do "one more of those a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e s , because 57 I'm i n t e r e s t e d i n seeing 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 days, and I'd l i k e to see how you do on i t today." Task A (form 4) was then given i n the same manner as the b a s e l i n e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . C l o s i n g D i s c u s s i o n and P r i z e s The experimenter then asked the c h i l d i f anyone had asked about the t e s t i n g s e s s i o n or d i s c u s s e d the experiment with him or her, how he or she had r e p l i e d to any q u e r i e s , and whether "any other kid s were t a l k i n g about i t . " A l l c h i l d r e n i n d i c a t e d that they had not d i s c u s s e d the experiment with anyone, and that they d i d not thin k any of the other c h i l d r e n were d i s c u s s i n g i t e i t h e r . Each c h i l d was then t o l d , "You d i d so w e l l yesterday, that you can choose any p r i z e from the ones I've brought. You may choose the one you want today, and I ' l l give them out when everyone's f i n i s h e d . " The c h i l d then made h i s or her s e l e c t i o n from a d i s p l a y of s e v e r a l small " p r i z e s " (e.g., s t i c k e r s , notepads, gum). The c h i l d was thanked f o r h e l p i n g out, and again asked to "keep e v e r y t h i n g a s e c r e t u n t i l everyone's f i n i s h e d . " The c h i l d was then e s c o r t e d back to the classroom. Teacher Ratings of Academic L e v e l The classroom teacher of each p a r t i c i p a t i n g student was asked i n p r i v a t e to give an o v e r a l l r a t i n g of the c h i l d ' s academic s t a n d i n g , on a s c a l e of 1 to 5. These r a t i n g s were obtained a f t e r the c h i l d completed the t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s . 58 - Debrief ing Where a l l c h i l d r e n i n a p a r t i c u l a r s chool had completed the t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s , the p r i z e s were d i s t r i b u t e d . The experimenter gave a b r i e f p r e s e n t a t i o n about the experiment to each p a r t i c i p a t i n g c l a s s . The teacher was then presented with the donation of $2.00 per s u b j e c t f o r the classroom fund, and the students and teacher were thanked f o r t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n . 59 R e s u l t s P r e l i m i n a r y Analyses A l l p aper-and-pencil data were scored and checked by an undergraduate r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t who was b l i n d to the c o n d i t i o n s and hypotheses of the study. B a s e l i n e performance (number c o r r e c t ) on each of the four forms of Task A ( A r i t h m e t i c ) was examined by a separate one-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e f o r each grade to ensure equivalence of forms. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n number c o r r e c t at b a s e l i n e were found f o r e i t h e r the Grade 3 forms, F(3,26)=0.76, p>.10, or the Grade 6 forms, F(3,26)=1.69, £>.10. B a s e l i n e performance on the two forms of Task B ( S u b s t i t u t i o n ) was examined by a t - t e s t to ensure equivalence of forms(the same forms were used by both Grade 3 and Grade 6 c h i l d r e n ) . No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n number c o r r e c t at b a s e l i n e was found, t(58)=-0.06, £>.10. B a s e l i n e performance on the two tasks (A and B) by c h i l d r e n from the three d i f f e r e n t schools was analysed by a two-way m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e with two between-subject f a c t o r s ( S c h o o l : 1 vs. 2 vs. 3; Grade: 3 vs. 6) to ensure equivalence between s c h o o l s . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s f o r School, F(4,1 06) = 1 .85, by Wilk's Lambda C r i t e r i o n , or the School by Grade i n t e r a c t i o n , F(4,106)=1.66, p>.l0 by Wilk's Lambda C r i t e r i o n . There was a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r Grade, F (2, 53) = 18.77, p_<.00l by Wilk's Lambda C r i t e r i o n . To ensure that the problem of 60 e s c a l a t i n g type 1 e r r o r r a t e d i d not occur f o r subsequent m u l t i p l e comparisons, the experiment-wise e r r o r r a t e was set at a=.05. Using the B o n f e r r o n i procedure, the c r i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l f o r each u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t was computed as .05/2=.025. (See Ramsay, 1980, f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s p r o c e d u r e ) . U n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s showed a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r Grade on b a s e l i n e performance of Task B, F(1,54)=37.58, p_<-001, i n d i c a t i n g s u p e r i o r performance by Grade 6 c h i l d r e n (M=77.23) to that of Grade 3 c h i l d r e n (M=56.77). The main e f f e c t f o r Grade on b a s e l i n e performance of Task A d i d not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e , F(1,54)=4.20, p_=.045. The mean number c o r r e c t was 25.10 f o r Grade 6 students and 20.73 f o r Grade 3 students. Task A ( A r i t h m e t i c ) Cheating The d i f f e r e n c e between the number of problems c o r r e c t l y s o l v e d and the number of tokens awarded was examined f o r both the p r a c t i c e and experimental t r i a l s . There was no d i f f e r e n c e on any oc c a s i o n between number c o r r e c t and tokens awarded i n the E x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n . "Cheating" i n the S e l f c o n d i t i o n was analysed by a three-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e with two between- s u b j e c t f a c t o r s (Grade: 3 vs. 6; Sex: Male vs. Female) and one w i t h i n - s u b j e c t f a c t o r ( T r i a l s : P r a c t i c e vs. E x p e r i m e n t a l ) . Table 1 presents a summary of means. No s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s were obtained f o r any of the main 61 Table 1 Means of the "Cheating" Data i n S e l f C o n d i t i o n P r a c t i c e T r i a l Experimental T r i a l G i r l s Boys G i r l s Boys Grade 3 0.4(.89) 0.8(.84) 1.2(2.68) 0.6(1.52) Grade 6 0.6(.55) -2.8(6.30) 0.0(0.0) -0.4(2.88) Note. Standard d e v i a t i o n s are i n parentheses. 62 e f f e c t s or i n t e r a c t i o n s (p_>.lO i n a l l c a s e s ) . Number C o r r e c t Using the b a s e l i n e score as a c o v a r i a t e , a four-way a n a l y s i s of cov a r i a n c e was computed on the number of a r i t h m e t i c problems c o r r e c t l y s o l v e d . The a n a l y s i s of c o v a r i a n c e was chosen as the most a p p r o p r i a t e t e s t , f o r repeated measures f o l l o w i n g a b a s e l i n e measure, because i t y i e l d s more r e a d i l y i n t e r p r e t a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n than a simple repeated-measures ANOVA or an a n a l y s i s of gain scores (see Huck & McLean, 1975). There were three between-subject f a c t o r s ( C o n d i t i o n : C o n t r o l v s. E x t e r n a l vs. S e l f ; Grade: 3 v s . 6; Sex: Male vs. Female) and one w i t h i n - s u b j e c t f a c t o r ( T r i a l : P r a c t i c e vs. Experimental vs. G e n e r a l i z a t i o n ) . A s p h e r i c i t y t e s t f o r the repeated measures i n d i c a t e d that the assumption of compound symmetry was met, E^ 1^ (see Winer, 1971, p. 523). C o r r e l a t i o n s between the c o v a r i a t e and the th r e e repeated measures were high (r_=.86, .84, and .83 f o r the p r a c t i c e , experimental, and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l s , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) and s c a t t e r p l o t s i n d i c a t e d that these o v e r a l l c o r r e l a t i o n s were l i n e a r i n nature. A t e s t of homogeneity of r e g r e s s i o n s l o p e s between the groups i n d i c a t e d that t h i s assumption was met f o r each of the three t r i a l s , F (1 1 r 36') = 1.0, 0.79, and 0.74, r e s p e c t i v e l y , 2 > « 1 0 i n a 1 1 c a s e s . Tables 2 and 3 present the a n a l y s i s of c o v a r i a n c e summary and a d j u s t e d means, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The a n a l y s i s 63 Table 2 The A n a l y s i s of Covariance of A r i t h m e t i c C o r r e c t Scores Source df .ms F Between C o n d i t i o n 2 228.48 5.49** Grade 1 16.30 0.31 Sex 1 2.24 0.04 C o n d i t i o n x Grade 2 70.49 1 .34 C o n d i t i o n x Sex 2 181.27 3.45* Grade x Sex 1 31 .26 0.60 C o n d i t i o n x Grade x Sex 2 1 .37 0.03 C o v a r i a t e ( B a s e l i n e ) 1 8509.69 162.01** E r r o r 47 52.53 Within T r i a l 2 311.02 27.36** T r i a l x C o n d i t i o n 4 8.78 0.77 T r i a l x Grade 2 22.87 2.01 T r i a l x Sex 2 1 .40 0.12 T r i a l x C o n d i t i o n x Grade 4 5.49 0.48 T r i a l x C o n d i t i o n x Sex 4 8.84 0.78 T r i a l x Grade X Sex 2 6.96 0.61 T r i a l C o n d i t i o n x Grade x Sex 4 2.80 0.25 E r r o r 96 1 1 .37 *2<.05 **P_<.01 64 Table 3 Adjusted Means of the A r i t h m e t i c C o r r e c t Data O v e r a l l T r i a l s P r a c t i c e Experimental G e n e r a l i z a t i o n Gr. 3 Gr. 6 Gr. 3 Gr. 6 Gr. ,3 Gr. 6 C o n t r o l i C o n d i t i o n g i r l s 22.77 24.00 23.57 23.00 26. 77 27. 00 (2.9) (6.4) (4.3) (6.7) (7. 5) (6. 9) boys 25.23 25.98 27.83 25.38 31 . 03 26. 58 (10.1) (7.6) (8.1) (7.0) (9. 0) (9. 3) E x t e r n a l C o n d i t i o n g i r l s 25.53 26. 12 28. 13 28. 12 30. 73 31 . 32 (12.6) (8.5) (15.7) (7.1) (13. 7) (9. 1) boys 23.27 23. 10 24.67 23. 10 27. 27 25. 70 (11.9) (7.0) (10.3) (6.7) (8. 5) (7. 3) S e l f C o n d i t i o n g i r l s 24.20 29.69 26.60 29.89 30. 20 32. 49 (9.2) (6.5) (9.9) (10.2) (13. 8) (11. 8) boys 25.52 29.00 28.52 33. 19 34. 72 34. 1 9 (5.8) (8.3) (3.9) (12.9) (5. 4) (10. 9) C o l l a p s e d Over Grade P r a c t i c e Experimental G e n e r a l i z a t o n Marginals T r i a l T r i a l T r i a l C o n t r o l C o n d i t i o n g i r l s 23.38 23 .28 26. 88 24 .51 25. 75 boys 25.60 26 .60 28. 80 27 .00 E x t e r n a l C o n d i t i o n g i r l s 25.82 28 . 12 31 . 02 28 .32 26. 42 boys 23. 19 23 .89 26. 49 24 .52 S e l f C o n d i t i o n g i r l s 26.94 28 .25 31 . 34 28 .84 29. 85 boys 27.26 30 .86 34. 46 30 .86 Marginal 25.35 26 .82 29. 83 Note. Standard d e v i a t i o n s are i n parentheses below means. 65 y i e l d e d a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t .for C o n d i t i o n , F(2,47)=5.49, p=.007. T h i s e f f e c t was q u a l i f i e d by a s i g n i f i c a n t C o n d i t i o n by Sex i n t e r a c t i o n , F(2,47)=3.45, 2=.04. An a n a l y s i s of simple main e f f e c t s of C o n d i t i o n s at Sex re v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t simple main e f f e c t for. C o n d i t i o n f o r boys, F(2,47)=5.76, p<.01. A Newman-Keuls m u l t i p l e comparison t e s t i n d i c a t e d that boys i n the S e l f c o n d i t i o n ( a d j u s t e d M=30.8) c o r r e c t l y completed s i g n i f i c a n t l y more problems o v e r a l l than those i n the C o n t r o l (adjusted M=27.0), p_=.05, or E x t e r n a l (adjusted M=24.5), p ^ 0 1 ' c o n d i t i o n s , but there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between boys i n the C o n t r o l and E x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n s . A simple main e f f e c t f o r C o n d i t i o n f o r g i r l s was only m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , F (2 , 47) = 3.1 1 , P_<.10. An a n a l y s i s of simple main e f f e c t s of Sex at the three C o n d i t i o n s obtained only one ma r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r Sex at E x t e r n a l , F(1,47)=4.05, 2<.10 ( t h i s j u s t misses the c r i t i c a l value f o r p=.05, namely 4.068). T h i s t r e n d i n the E x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n i s f o r g i r l s (adjusted M=28.3) to show s u p e r i o r o v e r a l l performance t o boys ( a d j u s t e d M=24.5). A main e f f e c t f o r T r i a l s was obtained, F(2,96)=27.36, 2<.001. A Newman-Keuls t e s t i n d i c a t e d that performance on the G e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l ( a d j u s t e d M=29.8) was higher than performance on e i t h e r the P r a c t i c e (adjusted M=23.35), 2<.01, or Experimental t r i a l s ( a djusted M=26.82), 2 < « 0 5 , but 66 there was no o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e between the P r a c t i c e and Experimental t r i a l s . No s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s were found f o r Grade or Sex, and none of the remaining i n t e r a c t i o n s was s i g n i f i c a n t ( i n a l l cases p_>.lO). E r r o r s Data f o r e r r o r s on Task A (number attempted minus number c o r r e c t ) were analysed by a four-way a n a l y s i s of c o v a r i a n c e with e r r o r score at b a s e l i n e as the c o v a r i a t e . There were three between-subject f a c t o r s ( C o n d i t i o n : C o n t r o l v s . E x t e r n a l v s . S e l f ; Grade: 3 v s . 6; Sex: Male vs. Female) and one w i t h i n - s u b j e c t f a c t o r ( T r i a l : P r a c t i c e vs. Experimental vs. G e n e r a l i z a t i o n ) . A s p h e r i c i t y t e s t f o r the repeated measure i n d i c a t e d a v i o l a t i o n of the assumption of compound symmetry, p_=.0l3, so a Greenhouse-Geisser c o r r e c t i o n was a p p l i e d to a l l e f f e c t s i n v o l v i n g the t r i a l f a c t o r . The e p s i l o n f a c t o r used to a d j u s t the e r r o r degrees of freedom was c a l c u l a t e d as 0.856 (see Winer, 1971, p.523, f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s adjustment). C o r r e l a t i o n s between the c o v a r i a t e and the three repeated measures were low to moderate (r_=.15, .38, and .26 f o r the p r a c t i c e , e x perimental, and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l s , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , and s c a t t e r p l o t s i n d i c a t e d that these o v e r a l l c o r r e l a t i o n s were l i n e a r i n nature. A t e s t of homogeneity of r e g r e s s i o n s l o p e s between the groups i n d i c a t e d that t h i s assumption was met f o r the p r a c t i c e and experimental t r i a l s , F(11,36)=1.66 and 67 1.08 r e s p e c t i v e l y , p_>.l0 i n both c a s e s . T h i s assumption was v i o l a t e d f o r the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l , F(11,36)=2.57, g=.02. A t e s t on a l l three t r i a l s combined, however, i n d i c a t e d that t h i s assumption was met o v e r a l l , F(11,36)=1.64, 2>.10. Fo l l o w i n g G l a s s , Peckham, and Sanders' (1972) c o n c l u s i o n that even extreme v i o l a t i o n s of t h i s assumption are l i k e l y to r e s u l t i n nothing more s e r i o u s than a somewhat more c o n s e r v a t i v e t e s t , the a n a l y s i s was performed. Tables 4 and 5 present the a n a l y s i s of cova r i a n c e summary and a d j u s t e d means, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The only s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t was f o r T r i a l , F(2,96)=4.5, 2=.018. A Newman-Keuls t e s t i n d i c a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer e r r o r s were made on the Experimental t r i a l (adjusted M=1.02) than on e i t h e r the P r a c t i c e (adjusted M=1.58) and G e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l s ( a djusted M=1.45), 2<-05 i n both cases. There was no d i f f e r e n c e between the P r a c t i c e and G e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l s . None of the other main e f f e c t s or i n t e r a c t i o n s was s i g n i f i c a n t , g>.07 i n a l l cases. Task B ( S u b s t i t u t i o n ) Number C o r r e c t Using the b a s e l i n e score as a c o v a r i a t e , a three-way a n a l y s i s of co v a r i a n c e was computed on the number of s u b s t i t u t i o n items c o r r e c t l y marked at the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l . There were three between-subject f a c t o r s ( C o n d i t i o n : C o n t r o l v s . E x t e r n a l v s . S e l f ; Grade: 3 vs. 6; Sex: Male v s . Female). The c o r r e l a t i o n of the c o v a r i a t e and the dependent 68 Table 4 The A n a l y s i s of Covariance of E r r o r Scores Source df ms F Between C o n d i t i o n 2 1.14 0.32 Grade 1 0.93 0.26 Sex 1 0.27 0.08 C o n d i t i o n x Grade 2 0.89 0.02 C o n d i t i o n x Sex 2 5.66 1 .57 Grade x Sex 1 1.21 0.34 C o n d i t i o n x Grade x Sex 2 4.02 1.11 C o v a r i a t e ( B a s e l i n e ) 1 24.13 6.68 E r r o r 47 3.61 Within T r i a l 2 5.27 4.54* T r i a l X Condit ion 4 0.36 0.31 T r i a l X Grade 2 0.42 0.36 T r i a l X Sex 2 0.62 0.54 T r i a l X C o n d i t i o n x Grade 4 0.88 0.76 T r i a l X C o n d i t i o n x Sex 4 0.63 0.54 T r i a l X Grade x Sex 2 0.29 0.25 T r i a l X C o n d i t i o n x Grade x Sex 4 2.67 2.30 E r r o r 96 1.16 *p<.05 Table 5 Adjusted Means of the E r r o r Scores O v e r a l l T r i a l s P r a c t i c e Experimental G e n e r a l i z a t i o n Gr. 3 Gr. 6 Gr. 3 Gr. 6 Gr. 3 Gr. 6 C o n t r o l C o n d i t i o n g i r l s 1 .32 1 .52 1 .12 1 .72 1 .52 1 .92 (1.1) (1 .3) (1 .1 ) (1.1) (1 .5) (1 .8) boys 1 .52 1 .32 0 .72 0.12 0 .92 1 .92 (0.5) (1 .1) (0 .9) (0.4) (0 .4) (1 .0) E x t e r n a l C o n d i t i o n g i r l s 1 .46 1 .45 1 .26 0.85 0 .86 1 .85 (1.5) (1 .5) (1 .1) (0.7) (1 .3) (2 .0) boys 1.19 2 .19 0 .99 0.59 1 .39 0 .79 (1.1) (2 .0) (0 .8) (0.4) (1 .1) (0 .9) >elf C o n d i t i o n g i r l s 1 .52 1 .32 0 .92 0.52 1 .92 0 .52 (1.7) (1 .1 ) (1 .8) (0.7) (2 .9) (1 .4) boys 2.12 2 .06 1 . 1 2 2.26 1 .12 2 .66 (1.0) (2 .4) (1 .0) (2.7) (1 .4) (2 .3) Mar g i n a l 1.58 1.02 1.45 Note. Standard d e v i a t i o n s are i n parentheses below means. 70 measure was reasonably high (r=.66), and a s c a t t e r p l o t i n d i c a t e d that t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p was l i n e a r i n nature. A t e s t of homogeneity of r e g r e s s i o n slopes i n d i c a t e d that t h i s assumption was met, F (1 1 , 36 ) = 1 .1 3 , p_>.10. Ta b l e s 6 and 7 present the a n a l y s i s of co v a r i a n c e summary and adj u s t e d means, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The a n a l y s i s y i e l d e d a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r Grade, F(1,47)=26.85, P_<.001, i n d i c a t i n g that Grade 6 c h i l d r e n c o r r e c t l y completed more items at the G e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l ( a djusted M=61.7) than d i d Grade 3 c h i l d r e n (adjusted M=49.2), even when i n i t i a l performance d i f f e r e n c e s are taken i n t o account. A main e f f e c t f o r C o n d i t i o n was a l s o obtained, F(2,47)=4.68, £=.014. A Newman-Keuls m u l t i p l e comparison t e s t i n d i c a t e d that performance by c h i l d r e n i n the E x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n (adjusted M=59.4) was s u p e r i o r to that of c h i l d r e n i n both the S e l f (adjusted M=54.2), and the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s (adjusted M=52.4), p_=.05 i n both cases. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r Sex, and the i n t e r a c t i o n s were a l s o not s i g n i f i c a n t , JO>.10 i n a l l cases. E r r o r s Data f o r e r r o r s on the Task B g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l (number attempted minus number c o r r e c t ) were analysed by a four-way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . There were three between-subject f a c t o r s ( C o n d i t i o n : C o n t r o l vs. E x t e r n a l v s . S e l f ; Grade: 3 vs. 6; Sex: Male vs. Female) and one w i t h i n - s u b j e c t f a c t o r ( T r i a l : B a s e l i n e vs. G e n e r a l i z a t i o n ) . 71 Table 6 The A n a l y s i s of Covariance of S u b s t i t u t i o n C o r r e c t Scores Source df ms F C o n d i t i o n 2 244.49 4.68 Grade 1 1402. 1 4 26.85** Sex 1 24.1 4 0.46 C o n d i t i o n x Grade 2 44.27 0.85 C o n d i t i o n x Sex 2 26. 1 4 0.50 Grade x Sex 1 32.78 0.63 C o n d i t i o n x Grade x Sex 2 67.30 1 .27 C o v a r i a t e ( B a s e l i n e ) 1 731.60 14.01 E r r o r 47 52.21 *2<-05 **P_<.01 72 Table 7 Adjusted Means of the S u b s t i t u t i o n C o r r e c t Data C e l l Means Group C o n t r o l G i r l s Boys E x t e r n a l G i r l s Boys S e l f G i r l s Boys Grade 3 48.3 (17.1) 47.5 (9.3) 49.1 ' (17.4) 54.3 (5.0) 46.0 (5.9) 49.9 (8.0) Grade 6 55.6 (12.0) 59.3 (15.5) 66.4 (4.7) 68.1 (23. 1 ) 63.6 (10.4) 57.4 (21.0) C o l l a p s e d Over Sex C o n t r o l E x t e r n a l S e l f M arginal Grade 3 47 .9 51 .7 47.9 49.2 Grade 6 57 .5 67.2 60.5 61 .7 Ma r g i n a l 52 .7 59.4 54.2 Note. Standard d e v i a t i o n s are i n parentheses below means. 73 Tables 8 and 9 present the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e summary and c e l l means, r e s p e c t i v e l y . None of the main e f f e c t s was s i g n i f i c a n t , g>.lO i n a l l c a s e s . There was a m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t Grade by C o n d i t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n , F(2,48)=3.03, 2=.06. None of the other i n t e r a c t i o n terms was s i g n i f i c a n t , p>. 10 i n a l l cases. The e r r o r data were to be anal y s e d by an a n a l y s i s of co v a r i a n c e , using b a s e l i n e e r r o r scores as a c o v a r i a t e , but the c o r r e l a t i o n between the c o v a r i a t e and dependent measure was low (r=-.11), and a s c a t t e r p l o t i n d i c a t e d t h at the c o r r e l a t i o n might not be l i n e a r i n nature. 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  O v e r a l l S a t i s f a c t i o n and Preference The f i r s t s i x items on the CSQ r e f l e c t e d the c h i l d ' s f e e l i n g s about the experimental t r i a l of Task A. These items were scored on a 1-5 s c a l e with higher scores i n d i c a t i n g g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n . I n d i v i d u a l item scores were summed to o b t a i n a s i n g l e t o t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n score f o r each c h i l d i n 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 l a s t two items on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e f l e c t e d the c h i l d ' s p r e f e r e n c e f o r s e l f - v s . e x t e r n a l l y - a d m i n i s t e r e d reinforcement. These items were scored on a 1-5 s c a l e , with higher scores i n d i c a t i n g a p r e f e r e n c e f o r s e l f - r e w a r d . These items were summed to o b t a i n a s i n g l e Preference score f o r each c h i l d i n 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 S a t i s f a c t i o n and Preference scores were examined by Table 8 The A n a l y s i s of Variance of S u b s t i t u t i o n Task E r r o r s Source df ms F Between C o n d i t i o n 2 0.11 0.10 Grade 1 1 .87 1 .71 Sex 1 0.41 0.37 C o n d i t i o n x Grade 2 3.32 3.03 C o n d i t i o n x Sex 2 0.76 0.69 Grade x Sex 1 0.01 0.01 C o n d i t i o n x Grade x Sex 2 0.61 0.56 E r r o r 48 1.10 Within T r i a l 1 1 .87 1 .35 T r i a l x C o n d i t i o n 2 2.27 1 .64 T r i a l x Grade 1 0.01 0.01 T r i a l x Sex 1 0.21 0.15 T r i a l x C o n d i t i o n x Grade 2 1 .76 1 .27 T r i a l x C o n d i t i o n x Sex 2 0.06 0.04 T r i a l x Grade X Sex 1 0.67 0.49 T r i a l C o n d i t i o n x Grade x Sex 2 0.97 0.70 E r r o r 48 1 .39 75 T a b l e 9 M e a n s o f S u b s t i t u t i o n T a s k E r r o r D a t a B a s e l i n e T r i a l G e n e r a l i z a t o n T r i a l G r a d e 3 G r a d e 6 G r a d e 3 G r a d e 6 C o n t r o l C o n d i t i o n g i r l s 0 . 8 0 ( 0 . 8 ) 0 . 8 0 ( 0 . 8 ) 0 . 8 0(1.1) 0 . 2 0 ( 0 . 4 ) b o y s 1 . 2 0 ( 2 . 2 ) 0 . 0 0 ( 0 . 0 ) 0 . 2 0 ( 0 . 4 ) 0 . 4 0 ( 0 . 5 ) E x t e r n a l C o n d i t i o n g i r l s 0 . 2 0 ( 0 . 4 ) 1 . 0 0 ( 1 . 7 ) 0 . 0 0 ( 0 . 0 ) 0 . 0 0 ( 0 . 0 ) b o y s 0 . 2 0 ( 0 . 4 ) 1 . 8 0 ( 3 . 5 ) 0 . 0 0 ( 0 . 0 ) 0 . 4 0 ( 0 . 9 ) S e l f C o n d i t i o n g i r l s 0 . 0 0 ( 0 . 0 ) 0 . 4 0 ( 0 . 5 ) 0 . 2 0 ( 0 . 4 ) 1 . 0 0 ( 1 . 7 ) b o y s 0 . 6 0 ( 0 . 9 ) 0 . 6 0 ( 0 . 5 ) . 0 . 4 0 ( 0 . 5 ) 1 . 0 0 ( 0 . 7 ) M a r g i n a l s G r a d e 3 G r a d e 6 C o n t r o l 0 . 7 5 0 . 3 5 E x t e r n a l 0 . 1 0 0 . 8 0 S e l f 0 . 3 0 0 . 7 5 N o t e . S t a n d a r d d e v i a t o n s a r e i n p a r e n t h e s e s . 76 a three-way m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e with three between-subject f a c t o r s ( C o n d i t i o n : E x t e r n a l v s . S e l f ; Grade: 3 vs. 6; Sex: Male vs. Female). Tables 10 and 11 present the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e summary and c e l l means, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The main e f f e c t f o r Grade was s i g n i f i c a n t , F(2,31)=6.36, p_=.005 by the Wilk's Lambda C r i t e r i o n . To ensure that the problem of e s c a l a t i n g Type 1 e r r o r r a t e d i d not occur f o r subsequent m u l t i p l e comparisons, the experiment-wise e r r o r r a t e was set at a=.05. Using the B o n f e r r o n i procedure, the c r i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l f o r each u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t was computed at .05/2=.025. U n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s showed a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between grades on the 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 i n d i c a t e d g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n (M=25.5) than d i d Grade 6 c h i l d r e n (M=22.85). The d i f f e r e n c e between grades was not s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the Preference measure, P_>.10. Nei t h e r of the main e f f e c t s f o r C o n d i t i o n or Sex was s i g n i f i c a n t , each p>.l0. The Grade by Sex i n t e r a c t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t , F(2,31 ) = 3.30, p_=.05 by the Wilk's Lambda C r i t e r i o n . To keep the experiment-wise e r r o r r a t e at a=.05, the B o n f e r r o n i procedure was used to compute the c r i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l f o r u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s as .05/2=.025. U n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t Grade By Sex i n t e r a c t i o n f o r the S a t i s f a c t i o n measure, F(1,32)=1.34, ^=.26. T h i s i n t e r a c t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the Preference 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 of Variance of S a t i s f a c t i o n and Preference Scores Source df Wilks Lambda Approx. F C o n d i t i o n 2 .98 .35 Grade 2 .71 6.36** Sex 2 .97 .39 C o n d i t i o n x Grade 2 .97 .49 C o n d i t i o n x Sex 2 .89 1 .86 Grade x Sex 2 .82 3.30* C o n d i t i o n x Grade x Sex 2 .95 .72 E r r o r 31 *p_<.05 **2<.01 Table 11 Means of the S a t i s f a c t i o n and Preference Data a S a t i s f a c t i o n Scores Grade 3 Grade 6 E x t e r n a l C o n d i t i o n g i r l s 26.4(2.8) 22.6(1.7) boys 22.8(4.0) 23.2(4.5) marginal 24.6 22.9 S e l f C o n d i t i o n g i r l s 25.6(4.0) 21.6(4.3) boys 27.2(2.4) 24.0(2.5) marginal 26.4 22.8 Marg i n a l 25.5 22.85 b Preference Scores Grade 3 Grade 6 E x t e r n a l C o n d i t i o n g i r l s 4.2(2.7) 5.8(2.6) boys 7.0(2.2) 3.4(1.9) marginal 5.6 4.6 S e l f C o n d i t i o n g i r l s 4.8(1.3) 4.6(0.9) boys 6.6(3.0) 4.4(2.1) marginal 5.7 4.5 Marg i n a l -5.65 4.55 Note. Standard 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 g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n ; maximum score=30 b Higher scores i n d i c a t e p r e f e r e n c e f o r se l f - r e w a r d ; maximum score=!0 79 F(1 ,32) = 6.77, £=.01. An a n a l y s i s of simple main e f f e c t s of Grade at Sex r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t simple main e f f e c t of Grade f o r boys, F(1,32)=8.78, £<.01. Grade 3 boys i n d i c a t e d a g r e a t e r p r e f e r e n c e f o r s e l f - r e w a r d (M=6.8), while Grade 6 boys tended to p r e f e r e x t e r n a l l y - a d m i n i s t e r e d reward (M=3.9). The simple main e f f e c t f o r Grade was not s i g n i f i c a n t f o r g i r l s , £>.10. An a n a l y s i s of simple main e f f e c t s of Sex at Grade r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t simple main e f f e c t of Sex f o r Grade 3 c h i l d r e n , F(1,32)=5.53, £<.05. Grade 3 boys i n d i c a t e d a g r e a t e r p r e f e r e n c e f o r s e l f - r e w a r d (M=6.8), while Grade 3 g i r l s tended to p r e f e r e x t e r n a l l y -a d m i n i s t e r e d reward (M=4.5). The simple main e f f e c t f o r Sex was not s i g n i f i c a n t f o r Grade 6 c h i l d r e n , £>.10. None of the other i n t e r a c t i o n terms i n the m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s was s i g n i f i c a n t , £>.10 i n a l l c a s e s . I n d i v i d u a l Items The e i g h t items on the 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 were a l s o examined i n d i v i d u a l l y by a three-way m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e with three between-subject f a c t o r s ( C o n d i t i o n : E x t e r n a l vs. S e l f ; Grade: 3 vs. 6; Sex: Male vs. Female). Tables 12 and 13 present the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e summary and c e l l means r e s p e c t i v e l y . The main e f f e c t f o r Grade was s i g n i f i c a n t , F(8,25)=4.004, £=.004 by the Wilk's Lambda C r i t e r i o n . Again, the experiment-wise e r r o r r a t e was set at a=.05. Using the B o n f e r r o n i procedure, the c r i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l f o r each u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t was 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 of Va r i a n c e 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 Scores Source df Wilks Lambda Approx. F C o n d i t i o n 8 .79 .83 Grade 8 .44 4.00* Sex 8 .78 .87 C o n d i t i o n x Grade 8 .76 .96 C o n d i t i o n x Sex 8 .71 1 .30 Grade x Sex 8 .66 1 .63* C o n d i t i o n x Grade x Sex 8 .64 1 .78 E r r o r 25 *£<.05 81 Table 13 Mean Item Scores on 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 Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Grade 3 Grade 6 Item 1 4.05(1.0) 4.00(0.7) 2 4.40(0.9) 4.55(0.5) 3 4.05(0.7) 3.05(0.9) 4 4.40(0.9) 3.40(0.8) 5 4.45(0.9) 4.15(0.9) 6 4.15(1.0) 3.70(1.3) 7 2.90(1.7) 2.45(1.3) 8 2.75(1.5) 2.10(1.2) Note. Standard d e v i a t i o n s are i n parentheses. Note. Higher scores i n d i c a t e g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n , maximum score=5. 82 as .05/8=.006. U n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s showed a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between grades on two of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e items. On Question 3, c h i l d r e n i n Grade 3 r a t e d themselves as having done b e t t e r on the e x e r c i s e (M=4.05) than d i d Grade 6 c h i l d r e n (M=3.05), F(1,32)=14.54, £=.001. On Question 4, c h i l d r e n i n Grade 3 r a t e d themselves as having worked harder on the e x e r c i s e (M=4.40) than d i d Grade 6 c h i l d r e n (M=3.40), F(1,32) = 1 .1 1 , £=.002. The main e f f e c t s f o r C o n d i t i o n and Sex were not s i g n i f i c a n t , nor were any of the i n t e r a c t i o n s , £>.10 i n a l l c a ses. C o r r e l a t i o n with Performance Measures O v e r a l l S a t i s f a c t i o n and Preference scores were examined f o r r e l a t i o n s h i p s with number c o r r e c t on the P r a c t i c e , Experimental and G e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l s of Task A, and the G e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l of Task B, c o n t r o l l i n g f o r b a s e l i n e performance in each case. To ensure that the problem of e s c a l a t i n g Type 1 e r r o r r a t e d i d not occur f o r t h i s matrix of e i g h t c o r r e l a t i o n s , the o v e r a l l e r r o r r a t e was set at a=.05. Using the B o n f e r r o n i procedure f o r m u l t i p l e t e s t s , the c r i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l f o r each c o r r e l a t i o n was computed as .05/8=.006 (see L a r z e l e r e & Mulaik, 1977, f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s p r o c e d u r e ) . The c o r r e l a t i o n s are p resented in Table 14. These c o r r e l a t i o n s were a l l low (ranging from £= .03 to .29), and none was s i g n i f i c a n t . I n d i v i d u a l item scores were a l s o examined f o r 83 Table 14 P a r t i a l Correlations 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 for baseline  performance) Sa t i s f a c t i o n Preference Task A - Practice t r i a l .03( .83) .05( .77) Task A - Experimental T r i a l .14( .38) .07( .68) Task A - Generalization T r i a l .07( .68) .29( .08) Task B - Generalization T r i a l -. 12( .46) -.14( .39) Note. Probability values are in parentheses. 84 r e l a t i o n s h i p s with these four performance measures, with b a s e l i n e performance p a r t i a l l e d out. Again, the B o n f e r r o n i procedure was used to keep the o v e r a l l e r r o r r a t e at =.05, computing the c r i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l f o r each c o r r e l a t i o n as .05/32=.002. These c o r r e l a t i o n s are presented i n Table 15. C o r r e l a t i o n s were low to moderate (ranging from r= .0007 to .34), and none was s i g n i f i c a n t . Locus of C o n t r o l and Academic Ratings To ex p l o r e e quivalence between groups, the Locus of C o n t r o l (LOC) scores and academic r a t i n g s (Acad.) were examined by a three-way m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e with three between-subject f a c t o r s ( C o n d i t i o n : C o n t r o l vs. E x t e r n a l v s. S e l f ; Grade: 3 vs. 6; Sex: Male vs. Female). No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s emerged f o r C o n d i t i o n , Sex, or any i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t (p_>-l0 in a l l c a s e s ) . The e f f e c t f o r Grade was s i g n i f i c a n t , F(2,47)=5.74, £=.006 by the Wilk's Lambda C r i t e r i o n . The experiment-wise e r r o r r a t e was set at a=.05. Using the B o n f e r r o n i procedure, the c r i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l f o r each u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t was .05/2=.025. U n i v a r i a t e F's f o r each dependent measure i n d i c a t e d t h a t there was no d i f f e r e n c e between grades f o r academic r a t i n g s , F(1,48)=.90, £>.10, but the expected developmental d i f f e r e n c e between grades d i d emerge for Locus of C o n t r o l scores, F(1,48)=11.70, 2=.001. T n e mean LOC score f o r Grade 3 students was 18.2; f o r Grade 6 students, 14.9 (high scores i n d i c a t e more e x t e r n a l o r i e n t a t i o n ) . 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 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 performanceT Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Item Task A Task B P r a c t i c e Experimental G e n e r a l i z a t i o n G e n e r a l i z a t i o n T r i a l T r i a l T r i a l T r i a l 1 .14(.28) . 1 8 ( . 1 7 ) .10(.47) .10(.44) 2 .13(.31 ) .22(.09) .07(.58) .01(.93) 3 .03(.83) .30( .02) .26(.05) -.20(.13) 4 .06(.64) . 16( .22) .16(.23) -. 17(.19) 5 -.00(.98) . 10(.43) .17(.20) .09(.52) 6 -.03(.83) -.02(.90) -.09(.51) .01(.92) 7 .10(.44) .08(.53) .20(.12) -.22(.10) 8 -.06(.64) -.00(.99) .12(.35) -.26(.05) Note. P r o b a b i l i t y v a l u e s are i n parentheses. 86 C o r r e l a t i o n s of LOC and Acad, scores with the four performance measures (number c o r r e c t on the P r a c t i c e , Experimental and G e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l s of Task A, and the G e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l of Task B) with b a s e l i n e performance p a r t i a l l e d out are r e p o r t e d i n Table 16, both o v e r a l l and by c o n d i t i o n . The set-wise e r r o r r a t e f o r each set of c o r r e l a t i o n s was set at a=.05. Using the B o n f e r r o n i procedure, the c r i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l f o r each c o r r e l a t i o n was computed as .05/8=.006. These c o r r e l a t i o n s were u n i f o r m l y low (ranging from r = .01 to .41), and none was s i g n i f i c a n t . C o r r e l a t i o n s of LOC and Acad, scores with the S a t i s f a c t i o n and Preference measures from the 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 , as w e l l as i n d i v i d u a l item scores, ( c o n t r o l l i n g f o r b a s e l i n e performance in a l l cases) are r e p o r t e d i n Table 17 f o r the two experimental c o n d i t i o n s , combined and s e p a r a t e l y . Using the B o n f e r r o n i procedure, the c r i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l f o r the S a t i s f a c t i o n and Preference matrix was set at .05/4=.013, and f o r the i n d i v i d u a l item matrix at .05/16=.003. C o r r e l a t i o n s were u n i f o r m l y low (ranging from r= .01 to .40), and none was s i g n i f i c a n t . 87 Table 16 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  Ratings 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) — — LOC ACAD O v e r a l l C o n t r l E x t . S e l f O v e r a l l C o n t r l E xt. S e l f Task A -.28 -.25 -.25 -.41 .14 .19 .20 .07 P r a c t i c e (.03) (.29) (.31) (.08) (.29) (.43) (.42) (.78) T r i a l Task A -.06 -.16 -.15 .01 .03 -.14 .11 .11 Experim. (.63) (.52) (.55) (.97) (.81) (.57) (.64) (.64) T r i a l Task A -.08 -.01 -.17 -.10 .01 .02 .01 .07 Ge n e r a l . (.52) (.97) (.47) (.69) (.93) (.94) (.98) (.78) T r i a l Task B -.20 -.08 -.27 -.21 .14 -.11 .24 .05 General. (.13) (.75) (.26) (.38) (.28) (.65) (.33) (.84) T r i a l Note. P r o b a b i l i t y values are i n parentheses below c o r r e l a t i o n s . 88 Table 17 P a r t i a l C o r r e l a t i o n of Locus of C o n t r o l Scores and Academic  Ratings with 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 performance on Task A) Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Item LOC ACAD O v e r a l l E x t e r n a l S e l f O v e r a l l E x t e r n a l S e l f O v e r a l l S a t i s - .16 .10 .21 -.20 -.23 -.12 f a c t i o n (.34) (.67) (.40) ( .22) ( .33) ( .62) O v e r a l l P r e f - . 1 1 .12 .08 .01 .02 -.05 erence ( .51 ) (.63) (.74) ( .97) (.95) ( .84) 1 -.02 -.15 .10 -.11 -.24 .09 (.92) ( .55) ( .69) ( .52) (.31 ) ( .70) 2 -.04 -.30 .29 -.30 -.27 -.35 ( .83) ( .21 ) (.22) ( .06) (.26) (.14) 3 .09 .03 . 15 -.05 .04 -.07 ( .59) ( .89) ( .54) ( .78) ( .86) ( .77) 4 . 1 3 .32 -.02 .07 .13 .06 ( .43) (.17) (.92) ( .70) ( .58) ( .80) 5 .08 .40 .15 -.19 -.28 -.11 (.63) ( .87) (.54) ( .25) (.24) (.66) 6 .25 .29 .20 -.19 -.19 -.18 (.12) ( .23) ( .42) ( .27) (.43) ( .46) 7 .13 .17 .08 -.21 -.19 -.24 ( .42) ( .48) (.75) ( .20) (.44) ( .33) 8 .03 .03 .02 .24 .20 .23 ( .88) (.91) ( .94) ( . 15) (.40) ( .33) Note. P r o b a b i l i t y values are i n parentheses. 89 D i s c u s s i o n The purpose of the present study was to conduct a parametric i n v e s t i g a t i o n of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t ' s e f f e c t i v e n e s s with c h i l d r e n . E i g h t - y e a r - o l d and e l e v e n - y e a r - o l d boys and g i r l s worked on b r i e f , a c a d e m i c - l i k e tasks under c o n d i t i o n s of s e l f - r e w a r d , e x t e r n a l reward, or no reward. Age and sex were examined f o r t h e i r e f f e c t on both immediate and g e n e r a l i z e d responsiveness to the d i f f e r e n t reinforcement c o n d i t i o n s and the c h i l d r e n ' s s a t i s f a c t i o n with these c o n d i t i o n s . A locu s of c o n t r o l measure and academic achievement r a t i n g s were a l s o i n c l u d e d i n the study on an e x p l o r a t o r y b a s i s . C h i l d r e n of both ages i n the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n were able to l e a r n the s e l f - r e w a r d procedure i n a short p e r i o d of time, and were ab l e to employ i t a c c u r a t e l y . Of the few e r r o r s i n s e l f - r e w a r d that were made, a s u b s t a n t i a l number i n v o l v e d the c h i l d t a k i n g too few, r a t h e r than too many tokens. In other words, " c h e a t i n g " was not a problem i n t h i s study. There were no d i f f e r e n c e s between younger and ol d e r c h i l d r e n , or boys and g i r l s , i n accuracy of s e l f - r e w a r d i n e i t h e r of the t r i a l s when i t was used. On the primary experimental task ( A r i t h m e t i c ) , the g r e a t e s t number of problems c o r r e c t l y s o l v e d was on the f i n a l G e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l , the day a f t e r the main t e s t i n g s e s s i o n . The in c r e a s e i n problems s o l v e d between the P r a c t i c e and Experimental t r i a l s was not a s t a t i s t i c a l l y 90 s i g n i f i c a n t one, i n d i c a t i n g that whether or not the c h i l d r e n b e l i e v e d t h e i r performance " r e a l l y counted" ( r a t h e r than being " j u s t f o r p r a c t i c e " ) d i d not s u b s t a n t i a l l y a f f e c t t h e i r performance. E f f e c t s of the C o n d i t i o n , Age and Sex v a r i a b l e s on a r i t h m e t i c performance were c o n s i s t e n t over the P r a c t i c e , Experimental and G e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l s . The S e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n r e s u l t e d i n performance on the a r i t h m e t i c task s u p e r i o r t o the E x t e r n a l reinforcement and C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s , but only f o r boys. D i f f e r e n c e s between the three c o n d i t i o n s were l e s s apparent f o r g i r l s . Performance d i f f e r e n c e s between boys and g i r l s emerged only i n the E x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n , where there was a tr e n d f o r g i r l s to sol v e more problems than boys. Age d i d not have an e f f e c t on responsiveness to the three experimental c o n d i t i o n s on the a r i t h m e t i c t a s k . Age d i d not i n t e r a c t with any other v a r i a b l e s i n a f f e c t i n g performance, nor were there any age d i f f e r e n c e s i n o v e r a l l performance when a b i l i t y ( b a s e l i n e performance) was taken i n t o account. C h i l d r e n made few e r r o r s on the a r i t h m e t i c task, and there was no d i f f e r e n c e i n accuracy between the three c o n d i t i o n s , or between younger and o l d e r c h i l d r e n or boys and g i r l s . The fewest e r r o r s were made on the Experimental t r i a l , p o s s i b l y because t h i s was the only t r i a l when the c h i l d r e n were t o l d , "This one counts", thus i n c r e a s i n g t h e i r concern f o r acc u r a t e c a l c u l a t i o n s . There was no d i f f e r e n c e 91 i n accuracy between the P r a c t i c e and G e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l s . On the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n task ( S u b s t i t u t i o n ) , o l d e r c h i l d r e n c o r r e c t l y completed more items than d i d younger c h i l d r e n , even when i n i t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n a b i l i t y ( b a s e l i n e performance) were c o n t r o l l e d . C h i l d r e n i n the E x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n d i d b e t t e r o v e r a l l on the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n task than c h i l d r e n i n the C o n t r o l and S e l f c o n d i t i o n s . There was no d i f f e r e n c e i n performance between the C o n t r o l and S e l f c o n d i t i o n s . U n l i k e the main experimental task, boys and g i r l s d i d not d i f f e r i n performance on the s u b s t i t u t i o n t a s k . E r r o r s on t h i s task were minimal, and accuracy d i d not d i f f e r by c o n d i t i o n , age or sex. There was no d i f f e r e n c e between c h i l d r e n i n the S e l f and E x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n s i n s a t i s f a c t i o n with the experimental procedure, nor were there sex d i f f e r e n c e s . O v e r a l l , however, younger c h i l d r e n expressed more s a t i s f a c t i o n than o l d e r c h i l d r e n . Younger c h i l d r e n i n d i c a t e d t h a t they had done b e t t e r and worked harder on the experimental task than d i d o l d e r c h i l d r e n . When asked to i n d i c a t e a p r e f e r e n c e f o r s e l f - or e x t e r n a l reinforcement, younger boys i n d i c a t e d a g r e a t e r p r e f e r e n c e f o r s e l f - r e w a r d than d i d o l d e r boys or any of the g i r l s . P r e f e r e n c e f o r s e l f - or e x t e r n a l reward was not a f f e c t e d by which procedure the c h i l d had a c t u a l l y experienced d u r i n g the study. The c h i l d r e n ' s expressed s a t i s f a c t i o n with, and 92 pr e f e r e n c e f o r , the reinforcement procedures d i d not c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y with t h e i r performance on any t r i a l of the main task or the s u b s t i t u t i o n t a s k . Locus of c o n t r o l and academic r a t i n g s were a l s o u n c o r r e l a t e d with performance, s a t i s f a c t i o n , and p r e f e r e n c e . The f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s , that the two reinforcement c o n d i t i o n s would e l i c i t s u p e r i o r performance on the Experimental a r i t h m e t i c t r i a l to the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n , was only p a r t l y supported by the data: only the S e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n was s u p e r i o r to C o n t r o l , and only f o r boys. The lack of a s u b s t a n t i a l o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e between performance i n the E x t e r n a l and C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s i s i n c o n s i s t e n t with much of the token reinforcement l i t e r a t u r e . Performance on s i m i l a r l y b r i e f l a b o r a t o r y tasks has been p r e v i o u s l y shown to improve under c o n d i t i o n s of e x t e r n a l reinforcement (e.g., Bergan et a l . , 1971; Witmer et a l . , 1971). Perhaps i n the present experiment, the E x t e r n a l conditon was not s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n f o r s i g n i f i c a n t improvements to appear. C o n t r o l c h i l d r e n r e c e i v e d accuracy feedback on the P r a c t i c e and Experimental t r i a l s , which may have a c t e d as a r e i n f o r c e r (Furman, 1980). The C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n , then, may not have been a "no-reinforcement c o n t r o l " , but merely a "no-token c o n t r o l " . An a d d i t i o n a l no-feedback c o n t r o l group would c l a r i f y t h i s issue i n f u t u r e s t u d i e s . With respect to Hypotheses 2 and 3, which p r e d i c t e d age 93 d i f f e r e n c e s i n performance on the a r i t h m e t i c and s u b s t i t u t i o n tasks i n response to the d i f f e r e n t reinforcement c o n d i t i o n s , age was not p r e d i c t i v e of performance on any of the t r i a l s . T h i s f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t with r e s u l t s from three of the four l a b o r a t o r y s t u d i e s which examined age and 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 ( B a r l i n g & Patz, 1980; Montgomery & Parton, 1970; Switzky & Haywood, 1974). Age d i f f e r e n c e s were, however, p r e d i c t e d from a survey of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t s t u d i e s i n a p p l i e d s i t u a t i o n s . I f there i s a tendency f o r o l d e r c h i l d r e n to respond b e t t e r to s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t than younger c h i l d r e n , perhaps i t i s only evident i n more long-term, r e a l - l i f e i n t e r v e n t i o n s where a more c o n s i s t e n t a p p l i c a t o n of s e l f - c o n t r o l l i n g s k i l l s and a t t i t u d e s i s necessary. Many of the a p p l i e d s t u d i e s (e.g., B o l s t a d & Johnson, 1972; Drabman et a l . , 1972) have used "on-task" b e h a v i o r s , r a t h e r than academic achievement, as the t a r g e t behavior. The use of a p r o d u c t i v i t y measure i n the present study may a l s o account f o r the l a c k of an age e f f e c t ; perhaps o l d e r c h i l d r e n are more respon s i v e to self-management of deportment d u r i n g academic work than are younger c h i d l r e n , but both age groups b e n e f i t from s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t of the q u a l i t y of that work. Age may a l s o not be a good p r e d i c t o r of responsiveness by i t s e l f , but may i n t e r a c t with other s u b j e c t v a r i a b l e s i n a c o n s i s t e n t manner ( B a r l i n g & Patz, 1980). With respect to Hypothesis 3 i n p a r t i c u l a r , age 94 d i f f e r e n c e s were apparent i n o v e r a l l performance on the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n ( S u b s t i t u t i o n ) task. The s u p e r i o r performance of the o l d e r c h i l d r e n on the second t r i a l of t h i s task may have been due to the s p e c i f i c nature of the task. Performance on the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l was o v e r a l l much poorer than at b a s e l i n e ; the o l d e r c h i l d r e n may have had gr e a t e r s k i l l at overcoming i n t e r f e r e n c e from a d i f f e r e n t s u b s t i t u t i o n code used d u r i n g the b a s e l i n e t r i a l . The use of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n tasks which are not so subject to p r o a c t i v e i n t e r f e r e n c e would c l a r i f y t h i s i s s u e i n f u t u r e s t u d i e s . The g e n e r a l i z a t i o n task a l s o r e v e a l e d an unexpected r e s u l t : c h i l d r e n i n the E x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n d i d b e t t e r than c h i l d r e n i n e i t h e r the C o n t r o l or S e l f c o n d i t i o n s . T h i s f i n d i n g c o n t r a d i c t s much of the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t l i t e r a t u r e , which c i t e s s u p e r i o r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of treatment e f f e c t s as one of the advantages of s e l f - r e w a r d i n t e r v e n t i o n s . T h i s r e s u l t a l s o c o n f l i c t s with data from the main experimental task, i n d i c a t i n g s u p e r i o r performance i n the S e l f c o n d i t i o n (at l e a s t f o r boys), with no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the E x t e r n a l and C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s on any t r i a l . One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n of t h i s r e s u l t might be i n terms of 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 boys) worked hard on the P r a c t i c e and Experimental t r i a l s of the a r i t h m e t i c task, enough so that t h e i r performance was s u b s t a n t i a l l y .superior to that of c h i l d r e n i n the C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n . E x t e r n a l l y - r e i n f o r c e d c h i l d r e n a l s o may have 95 worked harder than C o n t r o l c h i l d r e n on these two t r i a l s , due to the token c o n t i n g e n c i e s , but not to the extent of c h i l d r e n i n the S e l f c o n d i t i o n (making the d i f f e r e n c e between E x t e r n a l and C o n t r o l only m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ) . The g e n e r a l i z a t i o n task was the next a c a d e m i c - l i k e work ( f o l l o w i n g a b r i e f q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) that the c h i l d r e n were asked to do f o l l o w i n g the experimental t r i a l . The S e l f c h i l d r e n may have been f a t i g u e d from t h e i r e f f o r t s and not a b l e or w i l l i n g to work so hard on the s u b s t i t u t i o n task, whereas the E x t e r n a l c h i l d r e n s t i l l had energy to spare and c o ntinued to show the e f f e c t s of the token reinforcement. (By the next day's G e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l of the a r i t h m e t i c task, f a t i g u e would no longer have been a f a c t o r and the S e l f c h i l d r e n once again demonstrated s u p e r i o r performance). T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n of the r e s u l t s r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r r e p l i c a t i o n with d i f f e r i n g i n t e r v a l s between the experimental and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t a s k s , to e x p l o r e the p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s of f a t i g u e on performance. One f u r t h e r and more p r e d i c t a b l e r e s u l t i n regards to g e n e r a l i z a t i o n was the f i n d i n g that o v e r a l l performance on the a r i t h m e t i c task was b e t t e r on the G e n e r a l i z a t i o n t r i a l than any of the other t r i a l s . As w e l l as having had a good d e a l of p r a c t i c e with the t e s t format by t h i s time, c h i l d r e n may have f e l t l e s s p r e s s u r e d dur i n g t h i s b r i e f s e s s i o n , reducing t e s t a n x i e t y which may have been present on the p r e v i o u s day. 96 With respect to Hypothesis 4, younger c h i l d r e n expressed more s a t i s f a c t i o n o v e r a l l than d i d o l d e r c h i l d r e n , but there was no d i f f e r e n t i a l r e a c t i o n to the two reinforcement c o n d i t i o n s by younger and o l d e r c h i l d r e n as p r e d i c t e d . The l a t t e r r e s u l t p a r a l l e l s the lack of d i f f e r e n t i a l responsiveness by age on the performance measures. The g r e a t e r o v e r a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n expressed by younger c h i l d r e n should be i n t e r p r e t e d with caution'; i t may r e f l e c t the p o s i t i v e response b i a s and l e s s c r i t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of performance f r e q u e n t l y found among younger c h i l d r e n (Furman, 1980). The tendency of young boys to show g r e a t e r p r e f e r e n c e f o r s e l f - r e w a r d than o l d e r boys or both groups of g i r l s i s i n t e r e s t i n g i n l i g h t of the sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n response to s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t . The somewhat ambiguous wording of the pr e f e r e n c e q u e s t i o n s may e x p l a i n the expressed p r e f e r e n c e of some c h i l d r e n f o r e x t e r n a l reinforcement. The q u e s t i o n s c o n t r a s t e d s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t to reinforcement from "somebody e l s e " : t h i s l a t t e r phrase may have been i n t e r p r e t e d as r e f e r r i n g to a teacher, a peer, or a c h o i c e of e i t h e r . Some c h i l d r e n (perhaps o l d e r boys i n p a r t i c u l a r ) who might have chosen s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t over t e a c h e r - r e i n f o r c e m e n t , may have chosen e x t e r n a l reinforcement i n t h i s case, with a peer i n mind as the r e i n f o r c i n g agent. More p r e c i s e wording of f u t u r e q u e s t i o n s would c l e a r up t h i s c o n f u s i o n . \ 97 The absence of s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s ' of q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses with any performance measure again i l l u s t r a t e s the d i f f i c u l t y of using s e l f - r e p o r t measures with c h i l d r e n (Gorsuch, Henighan, & Barnard, 1972; Mash & T e r d a l , 1981), and u n d e r l i n e s the need f o r c a u t i o n i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the 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 r e s u l t s . With respect t o Hypothesis 5, boys were c l e a r l y most responsive to the S e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n , while g i r l s showed no d i f f e r e n t i a l response to the reinforcement c o n d i t i o n s . T h i s f i n d i n g i s i n l i n e with the r e s u l t s from only one of the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t s t u d i e s which examined sex d i f f e r e n c e s : Gordon and B o l i c k (1979) found boys to p e r s i s t longer at a s e l f - r e i n f o r c e d task than g i r l s . T h i s i s a l s o the only study which r e p o r t s that a b i l i t y was p a r t i a l l e d out, as i n the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Perhaps d i f f e r e n t i a l a b i l i t y on the t a r g e t tasks has obscured sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s . Sex i t s e l f , however, cannot e x p l a i n the. obtained d i f f e r e n c e s i n response, unless one takes a p u r e l y g e n e t i c view of responsiveness to reinforcement conditions.. As with age d i f f e r e n c e s (see page 21), some f u r t h e r explanatory v a r i a b l e s must be sought. There i s some evidence to suggest that g i r l s tend to be more a d u l t - o r i e n t e d i n t h e i r achievement e f f o r t s (e.g., t r y i n g to p l e a s e the teacher r a t h e r than outshine t h e i r peers) than are boys (e.g., Block, 1976; Maccoby & J a c k l i n , 1974, p. 265). Boys may have 98 p e r c e i v e d both the E x t e r n a l and C o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s as being a d u l t - c o n t r o l l e d , and responded b e t t e r to the g r e a t e r independence o f f e r e d i n the S e l f c o n d i t i o n . The degree of a d u l t c o n t r o l may not have been such a major f a c t o r i n a f f e c t i n g g i r l s ' responses. T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the f i n d i n g s would be , c o n s i s t e n t with f i n d i n g s from the developmental l i t e r a t u r e that boys tend to value and s t r i v e f o r independence from s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e to a g r e a t e r degree than g i r l s (Brehm, 1981; Maccoby & J a c k l i n , 1974, p. 157). D i f f e r e n t i a l responsiveness to the source of reward may a l s o have been a f a c t o r . In the present study, a female experimenter conducted a l l the s e s s i o n s . Future r e p l i c a t i o n s with both male and female experimenters would be u s e f u l i n i n v e s t i g a t i n g p o s s i b l e sex e f f e c t s . With respect to Hypothesis 6, Locus of C o n t r o l was not s t r o n g l y enough r e l a t e d to responsiveness to the c o n d i t i o n s to emerge s i g n i f i c a n t i n any of the c o r r e l a t i o n s . T h i s r e s u l t i s i n c o n f l i c t with other s t u d i e s (e.g., B a r l i n g & Patz, 1980; Switzky & Haywood, 1974) which have found d i f f e r e n t i a l responsiveness of " i n t e r n a l s " and " e x t e r n a l s " to s e l f - and e x t e r n a l reinforcement. However, these l a t t e r s t u d i e s have only used extreme s c o r e r s on the locus of c o n t r o l measure. Perhaps w i t h i n an "average" sample of c h i l d r e n such as i n the present study, where the whole range of l o c u s of c o n t r o l i s represented, t h i s v a r i a b l e d i m i n i s h e s i n importance. 99 With respect to Hypothesis 7, academic achievement was not r e l a t e d to responsiveness to the reinforcement c o n d i t i o n s . T h i s i s i n l i n e with f i n d i n g s from the developmental l i t e r a t u r e that v e r b a l I.Q. Is u n r e l a t e d to s e l f - r e i n f o r c i n g behavior (e.g., C o l l e & Bee, 1968; E i s e n , 1972), and a l s o the f i n d i n g i n the present study that c h i l d r e n of d i f f e r e n t ages (and presumably d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of c o g n i t i v e development) d i d not d i f f e r i n t h e i r r e a c t i o n to the reinforcement c o n d i t i o n s . The data from t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n would seem to i n d i c a t e the need f o r continued parametric i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t , i n a p p l i e d s i t u a t i o n s as w e l l as i n more c o n t r o l l e d l a b o r a t o r y environments. Analogue s t u d i e s may be a good s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r e x p l o r i n g v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t i n g the u t i l i t y of 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 , but the u l t i m a t e t e s t of i n f o r m a t i o n obtained i n t h i s way must be i n an a p p l i e d s i t u a t i o n . In f u t u r e analogue s t u d i e s , the p o s s i b i l i t y of experimenter b i a s c o u l d be f u r t h e r reduced by using an experimenter b l i n d to the hypotheses of the study. I t would a l s o be u s e f u l to o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n on how the c h i l d r e n p e r c e i v e d the t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n ; e.g., p e r c e i v e d d i f f e r e n c e s between reinforcement c o n d i t i o n s , whether they f e l t the s i t u a t i o n was r e a l i s t i c , a n x i e t y - p r o v o k i n g or t r i v i a l , e t c . A somewhat l a r g e r number of s u b j e c t s c o u l d a l s o i n c r e a s e the i n t e r p r e t a b i l i t y of r e s u l t s of f u t u r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s ; i t i s unclear from the present study whether 100 c e r t a i n m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s r e p r e s e n t no r e a l d i f f e r e n c e or simply a lack of power for d e t e c t i n g such d i f f e r e n c e s . The p a r t i c u l a r parameters employed i n the present study l i m i t i t s g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y to p a r o c h i a l school c h i l d r e n i n the age ranges s t u d i e d . Future i n v e s t i g a t i o n s would be u s e f u l to extend these f i n d i n g s to a broader age range of c h i l d r e n and a g r e a t e r v a r i e t y of e d u c a t i o n a l backgrounds. Fu r t h e r parametric s t u d i e s l o o k i n g a t , f o r example, a v a r i e t y of tasks and s e t t i n g s , "problem" versus "normal" c h i l d r e n , and extending t a r g e t behaviors from s c h o o l - to home-related ones (see O'Brien et a l . , 1983) are necessary to o b t a i n g r e a t e r p r e c i s i o n i n making d e c i s i o n s about the u t i l i t y of 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 . Data from the present study i n d i c a t e that p o t e n t i a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s and users of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t procedures would be a d v i s e d to keep p o s s i b l e sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n mind when d e s i g n i n g and t e s t i n g i n t e r v e n t i o n s . Depending on other parameters, such as the nature of the t a r g e t behavior, sex may be a more important c o n s i d e r a t i o n than age i n p r e d i c t i n g outcome. 101 References A l l e n , M.K., & L i e b e r t , R.M. (1969). E f f e c t s of l i v e and symbolic deviant-modeling cues on adoption of a p r e v i o u s l y learned standard. 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, 11, 253-260. Ames, C , & F e l k e r , D.W. (1979). E f f e c t s of s e l f - c o n c e p t on c h i l d r e n ' 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 of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 71, 613-619. Anderson, L., Fodor, I., & A l p e r t , M. (1976). A comparison of methods for t r a i n i n g s e l f - c o n t r o l . Behavior Therapy, 7, 649-658. Babcock, H. (1965). The Babcock t e s t of mental 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 . B a l l a r d , K.D., & Glynn, T. (1975). B e h a v i o r a l self-management i n s t o r y w r i t i n g with elementary school c h i l d r e n . 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. Bandura, A. (1969). P r i n c i p l e s of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . New York: H o l t , Rinehart, & Winston. Bandura, A. (1971). V i c a r i o u s and 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 . In R. G l a s e r (Ed.), The nature of  reinforcement . New York: Academic Press. Bandura, A. (1973). A g g r e s s i o n : A s o c i a l l e a r n i n g a n a l y s i s . Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l . 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  methodological c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . Behaviorism, 4, 135-155. Bandura, A., Grusec, J.E., & Menlove, F.L. (1967). Some s o c i a l determinants of s e l f - m o n i t o r i n g reinforcement systems. 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, 5, 449-455. Bandura, A., & Kupers, C.J. (1964). Transmission of p a t t e r n s of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t through modeling. J o u r n a l of  Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 69, 1-9. Bandura, A., & P e r l o f f , B. (1967). R e l a t i v e e f f i c a c y of s e l f - m o n i t o r e d and e x t e r n a l l y imposed reinforcement systems. 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, 7,111-116. • Bandura, A., & Walters, R.M. (1959). Adolescent a g g r e s s i o n . New York: Ronald P r e s s . 1 02 Barkley, R.A., Copeland, A.P., & Sivage, C. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . A s e l f - c o n t r o l classroom f o r h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of Autism and Developmental D i s o r d e r s , 1 0 , 7 5 - 8 9 . B a r l i n g , J . , & Fincham, F. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . E f f e c t s of s e l f - and ext e r n a l l y - i m p o s e d reinforcement ( m a t e r i a l and s o c i a l ) on i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t performance of above-average IQ c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of Genetic Psychology, 1 3 5 , 7 3 - 7 0 . B a r l i n g , J . , & Patz, 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 s e l f -and e x t e r n a l - r e i n f o r c e m e n t as a f u n c t i o n of locu s of c o n t r o l and age: A s o c i a l l e a r n i n g a n a l y s i s . 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. ( 1 9 7 2 ) . E f f e c t s of locus of c o n t r o l and type of feedback on the task performance of l o w e r - c l a s s 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., & Melchert, P.A. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . E f f e c t s of s o c i a l and token reinforcement on WISC block design performance. 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 maintenance of behavior through s e l f - s e l f -reinforcement . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Waterloo. 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 of student s e l f - c o n t r o l on the r e d u c t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' s problem be h a v i o r s . B e h a v i o r a l D i s o r d e r s , 4 , 1 3 1 - 1 3 6 . Block, J.H. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . Issues, problems, and p i t f a l l s i n a s s e s s i n g 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 , 2 8 3 - 3 0 8 . B o l s t a d , O.D., & Johnson, 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. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . O p p o s i t i o n a l behavior i n c h i l d r e n : A reactance theory approach. In S.S. Brehm, S.M. Ka s s i n , & F.X. Gibbons (Eds.), Developmental s o c i a l psychology. New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press. Brigham, T.A. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . Some s p e c u l a t i o n s about s e l f - c o n t r o l . In T. Brigham St A.C. Catania (Eds.), The handbook of  a p p l i e d behavior 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 York: I r v i n g t o n . Brigham, T.A., St B u s h e l l , D. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . Notes on autonomous environments: E f f e c t s of s t u d e n t - s e l e c t e d and 1 03 t e a c h e r - s e l e c t e d rewards on academic performance.. E d u c a t i o n a l Technology, 13, 19-22. Brigham, T.A., Hawkins, R., S c o t t , S.W., & McLaughlin, T.F. (1976). S e l f - c o n t r o l i n the classroom. In T.A. Brigham, R. Hawkins, S.W. S c o t t , & T.F. McLaughlin (Eds.), Behavior a n a l y s i s i n e d u c a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. Brigham, T.A., & Sherman, J.A. (1973). E f f e c t s of c h o i c e and immediacy of renforcement in s i n g l e response and s w i t c h i n g behavior of c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of the  Experimental A n a l y s i s of Behavior, 19, 425-435. Brigham, T.A., & S t o e r z i n g e r , A. (1976). An experimental a n a l y s i s of c h i l d r e n ' s preference f o r s e l f - s e l e c t e d rewards. In T.A. Brigham, R. Hawkins, J.W. S c o t t , & T.F. McLaughlin (Eds.), B e h a v i o r a l a n a l y s i s i n  e d u c a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. Brown, D.G. (1972). 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 mental h e a l t h . I l l i n o i s : Research P r e s s . Brownell, K.O., C o l l e t t i , G., E r s n e r - H e r s h f i e l d , R., H e r s h f i e l d , S.M., & Wilson, G.T. (1977). S e l f - c o n t r o l i n school c h i l d r e n : S t r i n g e n c y and l e n i e n c y i n s e l f - d e t e r m i n e d and e x t e r n a l l y imposed performed standards. Behavior Therapy, 8, 442-455. Bugenthal, D., Whalen, C , & Henker, B. (1977). Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s 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 assumptions of two behavior change approaches: Evidence 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 Development, 48, 847-884. B u s h e l l , S.A., & B u s h e l l , D., J r . (1976). A dual-contingency procedure to support student s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n of performance. In T.A. Grigham, R. Hawkins, J.W. S c o t t & T.F. McLaughlin (Eds.), B e h a v i o r a l a n a l y s i s i n  e d u c a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. Campbell, L.M. (1974). A v a r i a t i o n of thought-stopping i n a t w e l v e - y e a r - o l d boy: A case r e p o r t . J o u r n a l of Behavior  Therapy and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 4, 69-70. C a t a n i a , A.C. (1975). The myth of s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t . Behaviorism, 3, 192-199. C l a r k , F.W., Evans, D.R., & Hamerlynck, L.A. (1972). Implementing b e h a v i o r a l programs f o r 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 Schools 1 04 and C l i n i c s . I l l i n o i s : Research Press. Clement, P.W., Anderson, E., Arno 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 s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t as sources of s e l f - c o n t r o l i n c h i l d r e n . Biofeedback and S e l f - R e g u l a t i o n , 3, 247-268. Clingman, J.M., Auerbach, S.M., Bowman, P.C, & P a r r i s h , J.M. (1977). D i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of candy, s o c i a l , and token rewards on the IQ scores of c h i l d r e n 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). C r i t i c a l i s s u e s i n s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l t r a i n i n g with c h i l d r e n . C h i l d  Behavior Therapy, 2, 1-23. C o l l e , H.A., Sc Bee, H.L. ( 1968). The e f f e c t s of competence and s o c i a l c l a s s on degree of modelling of s e l f - r e w a r d p a t t e r n s . Psychonomic Sci e n c e , 10, 231-232. Copeland, A.P. (1982). I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e f a c t o r s i n c h i l d r e n ' s self-management: Toward i n d i v i d u a l i z e d treatments. In P. Ka r o l y Sc F.H. Kanfer (Eds.), S e l f  management and behavior change: From theory to  p r a c t i c e . New York: Pergamon. Craighead, W.E., Sc Wilcoxon-Craighead, L. (1978). New d i r e c t i o n s i n behavior m o d i f i c a t o n with c h i l d r e n . In M. Hersen, R.M. E i s l e r , Sc P.M. M i l l e r ( E ds.), Progress i n  behavior 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 e f f e c t s on accuracy of s e l f - r e p o r t i n g behavior of elementary students. In T.A. Brigham, R. Hawkins, J.W. S c o t t , Sc T.F. McLaughlin ( E d s . ) , B e h a v i o r a l a n a l y s i s i n  edu c a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. : Dewey, J . (1939). Experience and ed u c a t i o n . New York: Macmillan. Dickerson, E.A., Sc Creedon, C F . (1981). S e l f - s e l e c t i o n 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 of p u p i l - s e l e c t e d and t e a c h e r - s e l e c t e d standards of performance. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavior 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'Leary, K.D. ( 1 973). • Teaching s e l f - c o n t r o l to d i s r u p t i v e c h i l d r n . J o u r n a l  of Abnormal Psychology, 82, 10-16. 105 Dresner, F. (1976). A s e l f - o r i g i n a t e d 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. Brigham, R. Hawkins, J.W. S c o t t , & T.R. McLaughlin (Eds.), Behavior a n a l y s i s i n e d u c a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. E i s e n , M. (1972). C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s e l f - e s t e e m , sex, and r e s i s t a n c e to temptation. 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, 24, 68-72. Emmerich, W. (1974). Developmental trends i n e v a l u a t i o n s of s i n g l e t r a i t s . C h i l d Development, 45, 172-183. E p s t e i n , R., & Goss, CM. (1978). A s e l f - c o n t r o l procedure for the maintenance of n o n d i s r u p t i v e behavior i n an elementary school c h i l d . Behavior Therapy, 9, 109-117. Fantuzzo, J.W., & Clement, P.W. (1981). G e n e r a l i z a t i o n of the e f f e c t s of t e a c h e r - and s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d token r e i n f o r c e r s to nontreated students. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d  Behavior A n a l y s i s , 14, 435-447. Farnum, M., Brigham, T.A., & Johnson, G. (1977). A comparison of the e f f e c t s of teacher determined and  student determined 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 U n i v e r s i t y . Feldman, N.S., & Ruble, D.N. (1981). The development of person p e r c e p t i o n : C o g n i t i v e and s o c i a l f a c t o r s . In S.S. Brehm, S.M. K a s s i n , & F.X. Gibbons (Eds.), Developmental s o c i a l psychology. New. York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . F e l i x b r o d , 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  over reinforcement on c u r r e n t performance and  r e s i s t a n c e to e d u c a t i o n . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , State U n i v e r s i t y of New York at Stony Brook. F e l i x b r o d , J . J . , & O'Leary, K.D. (1973). E f f e c t s of reinforcement on c h i l d r e n ' s academic behavior as a f u n c t i o n of s e l f - d e t e r m i n e d and e x t e r n a l l y imposed c o n t i n g e n c i e s . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s , 6, 241-250. F e l k e r , D.W., & Thomas, S.B. (1971). S e l f - i n i t i a t e d v e r b a l reinforcement and p o s i t i v e s e l f - c o n c e p t . C h i l d  Development, 42, 1285-1287. F r e d e r i k s e n , L.W., & F r e d e r i k s e n , C B . Teacher-determined and s e l f - d e t e r m i n e d ( 1975). token 106 reinforcement i n a s p e c i a l education classroom. Behavior Therapy, 6, 310-314. Friedman, S. (1980). S e l f - c o n t r o l i n the treatment 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 Psychology, 48, 400-402. Furman, W. (1980). Promoting s o c i a l development: Developmental i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r treatment. In B.B. Lahey & A.E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances i n c l i n i c a l c h i l d  psychology ( V o l . 3). New York: Plenum. Gagne, R. (1965). The c o n d i t i o n s of l e a r n i n g . New York: H o l t , Rinehart, and Winston. Gelfand, D.M., & Hartmann, D.P. (1975). C h i l d behavior  a n a l y s i s and therapy. New York: Pergamon. George, 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 e x t e r n a l l y imposed l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s on p o s t t e s t achievement progress r a t e and a t t i t u d e s . In T.A. Brigham, R.Hawkins, J.W. S c o t t , & T.F. McLaughlin (Eds.), Behavior a n a l y s i s i n e d u c a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. Ginsburg, H., & Opper, S. (1969). P i a g e t ' s theory of  i n t e l l e c t u a l development. New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l . G l a s s , G.V., Peckham, P.D., & Sanders, J.R. (1972). Consequences of f a i l u r e to meet assumptions u n d e r l y i n g the f i x e d e f f e c t s analyses of v a r i a n c e and c o v a r i a n c e . Review of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 42, 237-288. Glynn, E.L. (1970) Classroom a p p l i c a t i o n s of s e l f - d e t e r m i n e d reinforcement. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s , 3_, 123-132. Glynn, E.L., & Thomas, J.D. (1974). E f f e c t of cueing on s e l f - c o n t r o l of 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 , 1_, 299-306. Glynn, E.L., Thomas, J.D., & Shee, S.M. (1973). B e h a v i o r a l s e l f - c o n t r o l 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). s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t . A n a l y s i s , 9, 521-525. F a b l e s , a r m a d y l l i c s , and J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavior 1 07 Goodlet, G.R., & Goodlet, M.M. (1969). E f f i c i e n c y of s e l f - m o n i t o r e d and e x t e r n a l l y imposed schedules of reinforcement i n c o n t r o l l i n g d i s r u p t i v e behavior. In M.J. Mahoney, Sc C E . Thoresen (Eds.), S e l f - c o n t r o l :  Power to the person. Monterey, C a l i f . : Brooks/Cole. Goodwin, S.E., Sc Mahoney, M.J. ( 1 976). Coping with a g g r e s s i o n through c o g n i t i v e modeling. In T.A. Brigham, R. Hawkins, J.W. S c o t t , Sc T.F. McLaughlin (Eds.), Behavior a n a l y s i s i n e d u c a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. Gordon, D.A. , S< B o l i c k , T. (1979). The r o l e 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 task p e r s i s t e n c e . J o u r n a l of Genetic Psychology, 135, 255-262. Gorsuch, R.L., Henighan, R.P., Sc Barnard, C. ( 1972). Locus of c o n t r o l : An example of dangers i n using c h i l d r e n ' s s c a l e s with c h i l d r e n . C h i l d Development, 43, 579-590. Graziano, A.M., Sc Mooney, K.C ( 1 980). Family s e l f - c o n t r o l i n s t r u c t i o n f o r c h i l d r e n ' s n i g h t t i m e fear r e d u c t i o n . 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 Psychology, 48, Gross, A.M. (1982). Self-management t r a i n i n g and medication compliance i n c h i l d r e n with d i a b e t e s . C h i l d and Family  Behavior Therapy, 4, 47-67. Gross, A.M., Brigham, T.A. , Hopper, C , Sc Bologna, 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 study with p r e d e l i n q u e n t and d e l i n q u e n t youth. C r i m i n a l  J u s t i c e and Behavior, 1_, 161-184. Gross, A.M., Sc Drabman, R.S. (1982). Teaching s e l f - r e c o r d i n g , s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n , and s e l f - r e w a r d to 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 behavior change:  From theory to p r a c t i c e . New York: Pergamon. H a r r i s , S.L., & F e r r a r i , M. (1983). Developmental f a c t o r s i n c h i l d behavior therapy. Behavor Therapy, 14, 54-72. Hart e r , S. (1978). E f f e c t a n c e m o t i v a t i o n r e c o n s i d e r e d : Toward a developmental model. Human Development, 21, 34-64. Ha r t e r , S. (1982). A developmental p e r s p e c t i v e on some parameters 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. Karoly Sc F.H. Kanfer (Eds.), S e l f management and behavior  changes: From theory to p r a c t i c e . New York: Pergamon. 108 Hartup, W.W. (1970). Peer i n t e r a c t i o n and s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . In P.H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual  of c h i l d psychology ( V o l . 2). Toronto: John Wiley and Sons. Hauserman, N., M i l l e r , J.S., & Bond, F.T. (1976). A b e h a v i o r a l approach to changing s e l f - c o n c e p t i n elementary school c h i l d r e n . The P s y c h o l o g i c a l Record, 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, models, and s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n 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, 25, 1-5. H o l t , M.M., & Hobbs, T.R. (1979). The e f f e c t s of token reinforcement, feedback and response c o s t on s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t performance. Behaviour Research and  Therapy, 17, 81-83. Homme, L.E. (1965). C o n t r o l of Coverants: The operants of the mind. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Records, 15, 501-511. Huck, S.W., & McLean, R.A. (1975). Using a repeated measures ANOVA to analyse the data from a p r e t e s t - p o s t t e s t d e s i g n : A p o t e n t i a l l y c o n f u s i n g t a s k . P s y c h o l o g i c a l  B u l l e t i n , 82, 511-518. Humphrey, L.L., & Kar o l y , P. (1978). Self-management i n the classroom: Self-imposed response cost versus s e l f - r e w a r d . Behavior Therapy, 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 re s e a r c h t r e n d s . In M.J. Mahoney & C E . Thoresen (Eds.), S e l f - c o n t r o l : Power to the person. Belmont, C a l i f o r n a i l Brooks/Cole. Johns, J.H., & Quay, H.C. (1962). The e f f e c t of s o c i a l reward on v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g i n psychopathic and n e u r o t i c m i l i t a r y o f f e n d e r s . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g  Psychology, 26, 217-220. Johnson, S.M. (1970). S e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t versus e x t e r n a l reinforcement i n behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n with c h i l d r e n . Developmental Psychology, 3, 147-148. Johnson, S.M., & M a r t i n , 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 r e i n f o r c e r . In B.A. Ashem & E.G. Poser (Eds.), Adaptive l e a r n i n g : Behavior  m o d i f i c a t i o n with c h i l d r e n . New York: Pergamon. Jones, R.T., & Evans, H.L. (1980). S e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t : A continuum of e x t e r n a l cues. 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). I n f l u e n c e of age and i n c e n t i v e c o n d i t i o n s on c h i l d r e n ' s s e l f - r e w a r d s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l  Reports, J_9, 263-274. Kanfer, 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 ch e a t i n g i n c h i l d r e n . C h i l d Development, 39, 545-557. Kanfer, F.H., Karol y , P., & Newman, A. (1975). Reduction of c h i l d r e n ' s fear of the dark by competence-related and s i t u a t i o n a l t h r e a t - r e l a t e d v e r b a l cues. 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 Psychology, 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 of 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 to temptation. Developmental Psychology, 10, 108-115. K a r o l y , P. (1977). B e h a v i o r a l self-management i n c h i l d r e n : Concepts, methods, i s s u e s and d i r e c t i o n s . In M. Hersen, R.M. E i s l e r & P.M. M i l l e r (Eds.), Progress i n behavior  m o d i f i c a t i o n ( V o l . 5) . New York: Academic P r e s s . K a r o l y , P., & Kanfer, F.H. (Eds.) (1982). Self-management  and behavior change: From theory to p r a c t i c e . New York: Pergamon. Kaufman, K.F., & O'Leary, K.D. (1972). Reward, c o s t and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n procedures f o r d i s r u p t i v e 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 . 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, 293. Kazdin, A.E. (1977) A s s e s s i n g the c l i n i c a l or a p p l i e d importance of behavior change through s o c i a l v a l i d a t i o n . Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n , _1_, 427-451 . Kazdin, A.E. (1978). E v a l u a t i n g the 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 Psychology, 46, 673-686. Kazdin, -A.E. (1980). Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n i n a p p l i e d  s e t t i n g s (Rev. Ed.). I l l i n o i s : Dorsey Press. K e n d a l l , P .C, & Wilcox, L.E. ( 1979). S e l f - c o n t r o l i n c h i l d r e n : Development of a r a t i n g s c a l e . 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 Psychology, 47, 1020-1029. K e n d a l l , P .C, & W i l l i a m s , C L . (1982). A s s e s s i n g the c o g n i t i v e and b e h a v i o r a l components of c h i l d r e n ' s self-management. In P. Ka r o l y & F.H. Kanfer (Eds.), Self-management and behavior change: From theory to 1 10 p r a c t i c e . New York: Pergamon. Klugman, S.F. (1944). The e f f e c t of money i n c e n t i v e versus p r a i s e upon the r e l i a b i l i t y and obtained scores of the r e v i s e d S t a n f o r d - B i n e t t e s t . J o u r n a l of General  Psychology, 30, 255-269. Knapczyk, D.R., & L i v i n g s t o n , G. (1973). 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 w i t h i n a token economy s t r u c t u r e . 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 changes i n attention-deployment s k i l l s . J o u r n a l of Experimental  C h i l d Psychology, 28, 16-29. L a r z e l e r e , R.E., & Mulaik, S.A. (1977). Single-sample t e s t s f o r many c o r r e l a t i o n s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 84, 557-569. L e f c o u r t , H.M. (1982). Locus of c o n t r o l . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. L e f r a n c o i s , G.R. (1973). Of c h i l d r e n : An i n t r o d u c t i o n to  c h i l d development. Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth. Lepper, M.R., & G i l o v i c h , T . J . (1981). The m u l t i p l e f u n c t i o n s of reward: A s o c i a l - d e v e l o p m e n t a l 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. Gibbons (Eds.), Developmental s o c i a l psychology. New York:Oxford. Lepper, M.R., Sagotsky, G., & M a i l e r , J . (1975). G e n e r a l i z a t i o n and p e r s i s t e n c e of e f f e c t s of exposure to s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t models. C h i l d Development, 46, 618-630. L e v i n , G., & Simmons, J . (1962). Response to food and p r a i s e by e m o t i o n a l l y 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. L i e b e r t , R.M., & A l l e n , M.K. (1967). E f f e c t s of r u l e s t r u c t u r e and reward magnitude on the a c q u i s i t i o n and adoption of s e l f - r e w a r d c r i t e r i a . P s y c h o l o g i c a l  Reports, 21, 445-452. L i e b e r t , R.M., & Ora, J.P. (1968). C h i l d r e n ' s adoption of s e l f - r e w a r d p a t t e r n s : I n c e n t i v e l e v e l and method of t r a n s m i s s i o n . C h i l d Development, 39, 537-544. L i e b e r t , R.M., Poulos, R.W., & S t r a u s s , G.D. (1974). Developmental psychology. 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). E f f e c t s of the value of contingent s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d and non-contingent e x t e r n a l l y imposed reward on c h i l d r e n ' s b e h a v i o r a l p r o d u c t i v i t y . Psychonomic Science, 18, 245-246. L o v i t t , T.C. (1973). Self-management p r o j e c t s with c h i l d r e n with b e h a v i o r a l d i s a b i l i t i e s . J o u r n a l of Learning  D i s a b i l i t i e s , 6, 138-150. L o v i t t , T . C , & C u r t i s s , K.H. (1969). Academic response r a t e as a f u n c t i o n of teacher and self-imposed c o n t i n g e n c i e 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 l A n a l y s i s , 2, 49-53. Maccoby, E.E., & J a c k l i n , C N . (1974). The psychology of sex  d i f f e r e n c e s . S t a n f o r d , C a l i f . : S t a n f o r d Univ. Press. MacPherson, E.M., Candee, B.L., & Hohman, R.J. (1974). A comparison of three methods for 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., & A r n k o f f , D.B. (1978). C o g n i t i v e and s e l f - c o n t r o l 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 psychotherapy and behavior change (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Mash, E . J . , & T e r d a l , L.G. (1981). B e h a v i o r a l assessment of c h i l d h o o d d i s t u r b a n c e . In E . J . Mash & L.G. T e r d a l (Eds.), B e h a v i o r a l assessment of c h i l d h o o d d i s o r d e r s . New York: G u i l f o r d . Masters, J.C. (1969). S o c i a l comparison, s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t and the value of a r e i n f o r c e r . C h i l d Development, 40, 1027-1038. Masters, J . C (1972). E f f e c t s of success, f a i l u r e and reward outcome upon contingent and noncontingent s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t . Developmental Psychology, 7, 110- 118. Masters, J . C (1973). E f f e c t s of age and s o c i a l comparison upon c h i l d r e n ' s noncontingent s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t and the value of a r e i n f o r c e r . C h i l d Development, 44, 111- 116. Masters, J . C , & C h r i s t y , M.D. (1974). Achievement standards 1 12 f o r c ontingent s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t : E f f e c t s of task l e n g t h and task d i f f i c u l t y * C h i l d Development, 45, 6-13. Masters, J.D., Furman, W., & Barden, R.C. (1977). E f f e c t s of achievement standards, t a n g i b l e 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 c h i l d r e n ' s task mastery. C h i l d Development, 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 processes i n c h i l d r e n . In H.W. Reese (Ed.), Advances i n  c h i l d development and behavior. New York: Academic Pr e s s . Masters, J . C , & Peskay, J . (1972). E f f e c t s of race, socioeconomic s t a t u s and success or f a i l u r e upon cont i n g e n t and non-contingent s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n c h i l d r e n . Developmental Psychology, 7, 139-145. Masters, J . C , & Santrock, J.W. (1973). S t u d i e s i n the s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n of behavior: E f f e c t s of v e r b a l and c o g n i t i v e  s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t . Unpublished manuscript, U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota. Masters, J . C , & Santrock, J.W. (1976). S t u d i e s i n the s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n of behavior: E f f e c t s of contingent c o g n i t i v e and e f f e c t i v e events. Developmental  Psychology, 12, 334-348. McLaughlin, T.F. (1976). S e l f - c o n t r o l i n the classroom. Review of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 46, 631-663. McLaughlin, T.F. (1982). E f f e c t s of s e l f - d e t e r m i n e d and high performance standards on s p e l l i n g performance: A multi-element b a s e l i n e a n a l y s i s . C h i l d and Family  Behavior, 4, 55-61. McMahon, R.J., & Forehand, R.L. (1983). Consumer s a t i s f a c t i o n i n b e h a v i o r a l treatment of c h i l d r e n : Types, i s s u e s , and recommendations. Behavior Therapy, j_4, 209-225. Meichenbaum, D.H. (1979). Teaching c h i l d r e n s e l f - c o n t r o l . In B.B. Lahey & A.E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances i n c l i n i c a l  c h i l d psychology ( V o l . 2 ) . New York: Plenum. Meichenbaum, D.H., & Goodman, J . (1971). T r a i n i n g impulsive c h i l d r e n to t a l k to themselves: A means of developing s e l f - c o n t r o l . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s , 77, 115-126. Meid, E.S. (1971). The e f f e c t s of two types of success and 1 1 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 performance. Unpublished manuscript, Yale U n i v e r s i t y . M i l l e r , H.R. (1969). WISC performance under i n c e n t i v e c o n d i t i o n s : Case r e p o r t . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports, 24, 835-838. M i s c h e l , W. (1968). P e r s o n a l i t y and assessment. New York: Wiley. M i s c h e l , W., Coates, B., & Raskoff, F. (1968). E f f e c t s of success and f a i l u r e on s e l f - g r a t i f i c a t i o 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, 10, 381-390. M i s c h e l , W., & Ebbesen, E.G. (1970). A t t e n t i o n i n delay of g r a t i f i c a t i o 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, 16, 329-337. M i s c h e l , W. , Sc Metzner, R. (1962). Preference f o r delayed reward 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 l e n g t h of delay i n t e r v a l . J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l  Psychology, 64, 425-431. M i s c h e l , W., Z e i s s , R., Sc Z e i s s , A.R. (1974). I n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l and p e r s i s t e n c e : V a l i d a t i o n and i m p l i c a t i o n s of the S t a n f o r d P r e s c h o o l I n t e r n a l - E x t e r n a l S c a l e . 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, 29, 265-278. Montgomery, G.T., Sc Parton, D.A. (1970). R e i n f o r c i n g e f f e c t of s e l f - reward. J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology, 84, 273-276. M o r r i s , E.K. (1980). The d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s of s o c i a l reinforcement with c h i l d r e n i n l a b o r a t o r y and n a t u r a l s e t t i n g s : A c o n d i t i o n e d reinforcement a n a l y s i s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Record, 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 g e n e r a l i z a t i o n 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 Therapy and Research, 5, 189-195. Nelson, W.J., J r . , Sc B i r k i m e r , J.C. (1978). Role of s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n and s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n the 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 and  C l i n i c a l Psychology, 46, 183. Nowicki, S., Sc S t r i c k l a n d , B. ('1973). A l o c u s of c o n t r o l s c a l e f o r c h i l d r e n . 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  Psychology, 40, 148-154. 1 1 4 Oakland, J.A. (1969). WISC coding as a measure of m o t i v a t i o n . J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 25, 411-412. O'Brien, T.P., Riner, L.S., & Budd, K.S. (1983). 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 program on compliance with p a r e n t a l i n s t r u c t i o n s i n the home. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d  Behavior A n a l y s i s , 16, 69-79. O'Leary, k.D. (1978). The operant and s o c i a l psychology of token systems. In A.C. Catonia & T.A. Brigham (Eds.), Handbook of a p p l i e d behavior a n a l y s i s : 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 York: I r v i n g t o n . O'Leary, S.G., & Dubey, D.R. (1979). A p p l i c a t i o n s of s e l f - c o n t r o l procedures by c h i l d r e n : A review. J o u r n a l  of A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s , 12, 449-465. O'Leary, S.G., & O'Leary, K.D. (1976). Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n i n the s c h o o l . In H. L e i t e n b e r g (Ed.), Handbook of  behavior m o d i f i c a t o n and behavor therapy. Englewood 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., & Cerny, J.A. (1981). C l i n i c a l behavior  therapy with c h i l d r e n . New York: Plenum. Panyan, S.E., Neerincx, J . , & Landers, W. (1976). 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 e t h n i c 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 program. In T.A. Brigham, R. Hawkins, J.W. S c o t t , & T.F. McLaughlin (Eds.), Behavior a n a l y s i s i n e d u c a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. Parks, A.L., F i n e , M.J., & Hopkins, B.L. (1976). A study of teacher-managed and self-managed reinforcement with young c h i l d r e n on an academic t a s k . In T.A. Brigham, R. Hawkins, J.W. S c o t t , & T.F. McLaughlin (Eds.), Behavior  a n a l y s i s i n educ a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. P a t t e r s o n , C.J., & M i s c h e l , W. (1976). E f f e c t s of t e m p t a t i o n - i n h i b i t i n g and t a s k - f a c i l i t a t i n g plans on s e l f - c o n t r o l . 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, 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 high- and low-aggressive boys f o l l o w i n g a c t s of ag g r e s s i o n . C h i l d Development, 48, 653-657. Peskay, J . , & Masters, J.C. (1971). E f f e c t s of socioeconomic s t a t u s and the value of a r e i n f o r c e r 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 Development, 42, 2120-2123. 1 15 P r a t e r , J.S., Wolter, C.F., & Clement, P.W. (1982). S e t t i n g g e n e r a l i z a t i o n d u r i n g s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t with e d u c a t i o n a l l y handicapped c h i l d r e n . C h i l d and Family  Behavior Therapy, 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 high performance standards. Unpublished manuscript, State U n i v e r s i t y of New York at Stony Brook. R a c h l i n , H. (1978). S e l f - c o n t r o l . In T.A. Brigham & A.C. C a t a n i a (Eds.), The handbook of a p p l i e d behavior r e s e a r c h . New York: I r v i n g t o n . Ramsey, P.H. (1980). Choosing the most powerful 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 a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 65, 317-326. Redd, W.H., & B i r n b r a u e r , J.S. (1969). A d u l t s as d i s c r i m i n a t i v e s t i m u l i f o r d i f f e r e n t reinforcement c o n t i n g e n c i e s with r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of  Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 7, 440-447. Reese, H.W., & L i p s i t t , L.P. (1970). Experimental c h i l d  psychology. New York: Academic Press. Reschly, D.J., & Mittman, A. (1973). The r e l a t i o n s h i p of s e l f - e s t e e m s t a t u s and task ambiguity to the s e l f - r e i n f o r c e m e n t behavior of c h i l d r e n . Developmental  Psychology, 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 maintenance of treatment gains of b e h a v i o r a l l y handicapped students from resource rooms to r e g u l a r classrooms u s i n g s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n procedures. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s , 16, 171-188. Robertson, 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 procedures i n a classroom of d i s r u p t i v e r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n . C h i l d  Behavior Therapy, 347-362. Robin, A., Schneider, M., & D o l n i c k , M. (1976). The t u r t l e t e chnique: An extended case study of s e l f - c o n t r o l i n the classroom. Psychology i n the Schools, 13, 449-453. Rosenbaum, M.A., & Drabman, R.S. (1979). S e l f - c o n t r o l t r a i n i n g i n the classroom: A review and c r i t i q u e . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s , 12, 467-485. Rosenhan, D.L., Underwood, B., & Moore, B.S. (1974). A f f e c t 1 16 moderates s e l f - g r a t i f i c a t i o n and a l t r u i s m . 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, 30, 546-552. Sagotsky, G., P a t t e r s o n , C , & Lepper, M.R. (1978). T r a i n i n g c h i l d r e n ' s s e l f - c o n t r o l : A f i e l d experiment i n s e l f - m o n i t o r i n g and g o a l - s e t t i n g i n the classroom. J o u r n a l of Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 25, 242-253. Sanson-Fisher, B., Seymour, F., Montgomery, W., & Stokes, 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 using token reinforcement of s e l f - r e c o r d e d behavior. J o u r n a l of  Behavior Therapy and Experimental P s y c h i a t r y , 9, 163-168. S a n t o g r o s s i , D.A., O'Leary, K.D., Romanczyk, R.G., & Kaufman, K.F. (1973). 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 token program. 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). Assessment of c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e l l i g e n c e . P h i l a d e l p h i a : W.B. Saunders. Shapiro, E.S., & K l e i n , R.D. (1980). Self-management of classroom behavior with r e t a r d e d / d i s t u r b e d c h i l d r e n . Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n , 4, 83-97. Silberman, C E . (1970). C r i s i s i n the classroom. New York: Random House. Snyder, J . J . , & White, M. (1979). The use of c o g n i t i v e s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n i n the treatment of b e h a v i o r a l l y d i s t u r b e d a d o l e s c e n t s . Behavior Therapy, 10, 227-235. Spivack, G., P i a t t , J . J . , & Shure, M.B. (1976). The  p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g approach to adjustment. San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass. S t a a t s , A.W. (1975). S o c i a l behaviorism. Homewood, I l l i n o i s : Dorsey P r e s s . Stark, J.A. (1976). An e v a l u a t i o n of a semiprogrammed s e l f - m o d i f i c a t i o n technique designed to improve s e l f - c o n t r o l with groups of e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t u r b e d a d o l e s c e n t s . In T.A. Brigham, R. Hawkins, J.W. S c o t t , & T.F. McLaughlin (Eds.), Behavior a n a l y s i s i n e d u c a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. Stevenson, H.W. (1965). S o c i a l reinforcement of c h i l d r e n ' s behavior. In L.P. L i p s i t t & C.C. Spiker (Eds.), Advances in c h i l d development and behavior ( V o l . 2). New York: Academic Press. 1 17 Stouwie, R.J., Hetherington, 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 a f t e r exposure t o d i s c r e p a n t reward c r i t e r i a . Developmental Psychology, 3, 313-319. S t r i c k l a n d , B.R. (1977). I n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l of reinforcement. In T. Blass (Ed.), P e r s o n a l i t y V a r i a b l e s  in s o c i a l behavior. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Switzkey, H.N., & Haywood, H.C. (1974). M o t i v a t i o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n and the r e l a t i v e e f f i c a c y of s e l f - m o n i t o r e d and e x t e r n a l l y imposed reinforcement systems i n 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, 30, 360-366. T a f f e l , S.J. (1976). Choosing s p e c i a l academic a c t i v i t i e s as a reward f o r i n c r e a s e d academic p r o d u c t i v i t y . In T.A. Brigham, R. Hawkins, J.W. S c o t t , & T.F. McLaughlin (E d s . ) , Behavor a n a l y s i s i n educ a t i o n . Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. Thomas, J.D. (1976). Accuracy of self-assessment of on-task behavior by elementary school c h i l d r e n . 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, 209-210. Thoresen, C.E., & Coates, T.J. (1976). Behavoral s e l f - c o n t r o l : Some c l i n i c a l concerns. In M. Hersen, R.M. E i s l e r & P.M. M i l l e r ( Eds.), Progress i n behavior  m o d i f i c a t i o n ( V o l . 2 ) . New York: Academic Press. 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 York: H o l t , Rinehart, & Winston. T i e g s , E.W., &.Clark, W.W. (1970). C a l i f o r n a i Achievement  T e s t s . Monterey, C a l i f o r n i a : CTB/McGraw-Hill. Turkewitz, H., O'Leary, K.D., & Ironsmith, 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 s e l f - c o n t r o l . 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 Psychology, 43, 577-583. Ulman, W.F., & Shook, G.L. (1976). A method f o r ma i n t a i n i n g h i g h r a t e s of performance i n an open classroom s e t t i n g . In T.A. Brigham, R. Hawkins, J.W. S c o t t , & T.F. McLaughlin ( E d s . ) , 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 . Beegle, C P . , Levy, S.M., Adams, T.A., & Crouse, T.R. (1981). 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 s e l f - m o n i t o r i n g to promote g e n e r a l i z a t i o n to a 118 v o c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g . B e h a v i o r a l D i s o r d e r s , 7, 18-27. Weil, G. (1973). Treatment of insomnia i n an e l e v e n - y e a r - o l d c h i l d through s e l f - r e l a x a t i o n . Behavior Therapy, 4, 282-294. Weiner, H.R., & Dubanowski, R.A. (1975). R e s i s t a n c e to e x t i n c t i o n as a f u n c t i o n of s e l f or e x t e r n a l l y determined schedules of reinforcement. 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, 31, 905-910. White-Blackburn, G., Semb, S., & Semb, G. (1977). The e f f e c t s of a good-behavior c o n t r a c t on the classroom behaviors of s i x t h - g r a d e students. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d  Behavior 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 experimental  design ( I n t e r n a t i o n a l Student E d i t i o n ) . Tokyo: Mcgraw-Hill 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 the classroom; Be s t i l l , be q u i e t , be d o c i l e . 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. Winston, A.S., Torney, D., & Labbee, P. (1978). C h i l d r e n ' s s e l f - r einforcement: Some evidence f o r maximization of payoff and mi 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. (1971). 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 the performance of t h i r d and f o u r t h grade c h i l d r e n on four s u b t e s t s of the WISC. J o u r n a l of School Psychology, 9, 347-356. Wolf, M. (1978). S o c i a l v a l i d i t y : The case f o r s u b j e c t i v e measurement or how a p p l i e d behavior a n a l y s i s i s f i n d i n g i t s 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., & Fl y n n , J.M. (1978). A s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n token system versus an e x t e r n a l e v a l u a t i o n token system alone i n a r e s i d e n t i a l s e t t i n g with p r e d e l i n q u e n t youth. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s , 11, 503-512. Workman, E.A., & Hector, M.A. (1978). B e h a v i o r a l s e l f - c o n t r o l i n classroom s e t t i n g s : A review of the l i t e r a t u r e . J o u r n a l of School Psychology, 16, 227-236. Yates, B.T., & Mischel., W. (1979). Young c h i l d r e n ' s p r e f e r r e d a t t e n t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s f o r d e l a y i n g 1 19 g r a t i f i c a t i o 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, 37, 286-300. 120 APPENDICES 121 APPENDIX A 123 APPENDIX B I 2.5 I, . , do/do not (parent or guardian) (circle one) give my consent for my child, , to participate in 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 P r o t o c o l s  B a s e l i n e - A l l C h i l d r e n H i , come and s i t down here and I ' l l t e l l you what we're going to do. We w i l l be doing 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 , but I am not going to t e l l your teacher or your parents how you do - i t ' s j u s t between you and me. The f i r s t t h i n g i s an a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e . Here's an example sheet. The q u e s t i o n s are at the top, and underneath each q u e s t i o n are four answers. You have to f i n d the c o r r e c t answer and c i r c l e i t . For i n s t a n c e , one plu s three i s . . . ( c i r c l e answer) four; seven minus two i s . . . ( c i r c l e answer) f i v e , so you c i r c l e the f i v e . Which answer would you c i r c l e f o r the next one?...That's r i g h t , c i r c l e the two. And the next one...Right. Okay now, do you understand how we do them?...Good. Now I'm going to give you two sheets of paper with l o t s of these q u e s t i o n s on them. I ' l l time you and see how many you can do c o r r e c t l y i n 3 minutes. I t ' s k i n d of a speed q u i z . You can do them i n any order, j u s t do as many as you can i n 3 minutes. Do you have any questions?...Here's your paper. When I say "go", you f l i p i t over and s t a r t working. Are you ready?...On your mark, get s e t , go! (Time: 3 minutes) Stop! ( C o l l e c t paper) Now we have a matching e x e r c i s e . Look at these f i g u r e s and the numbers in each of them. You are to put i n each of these ( p o i n t below) the number i n the f i g u r e l i k e i t up here (point above). So i n each s t a r you put a one, i n the 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 ? . . . That's r i g h t , put a two i n there. And the next one?...Good. Could you f i l l out the r e s t of 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 speed q u i z . I ' l l time you and see how many you can do c o r r e c t l y i n 2 minutes. But I'd l i k e you to do t h i s one i n order, so do each l i n e l i k e t h i s ( p o i nt) and don't s k i p any. You can look up here (point) a l l you want t o , to check on the code. I f you f i n i s h t h i s page, j u s t go on to the next one; they are a l l the same. Are you ready?...On your mark, get s e t , go! (Time: 2 minutes) 1 28 Stop! ( C o l l e c t paper.) Experimental Procedure - Self-Reinforcement C o n d i t i o n We're going to do some more of the a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e now, but t h i s time w e ' l l mark i t . For each one you get c o r r e c t , you get one of these tokens. These tokens can be cashed i n l a t e r f o r a p r i z e ; the more, tokens you earn, the b e t t e r the p r i z e you can choose. Let me show you how w e ' l l mark the e x e r c i s e , because y o u ' l l be doing the marking y o u r s e l f . I t ' s important to mark your work c a r e f u l l y and take e x a c t l y the number of tokens you've earned. Here's an example of an e x e r c i s e someone alre a d y d i d . T h i s transparency has the c o r r e c t answers w r i t t e n i n red. You can l a y i t on top of the a r i t h m e t i c sheet and see i f they c i r c l e d the c o r r e c t answer. L e t ' s see how many are c o r r e c t i n the f i r s t l i n e . Look, t h i s 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; t w o . . . t h r e e . . t h i s one wasn't. answered...this i s four 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 . . Six r i g h t . . . a n d t h i s was wrong. There were s i x r i g h t i n t h i s l i n e , so you'd count out s i x tokens (count out s i x t o k e n s ) . Can you mark the next l i n e f o r me?...yes, there's seven r i g h t , so you count out seven tokens...Okay, t r y marking the next two l i n e s now... ( P r a c t i c e u n t i l c h i l d marks 3 l i n e s c o r r e c t l y , and r e c o r d time taken to t r a i n ) . We'll 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 to p r a c t i c e marking, i t on your own. We'll do i t the same way as b e f o r e ; you c i r c l e as many as you can c o r r e c t l y i n 3 minutes, and you can do them i n any order. Remember, t h i s i s only f o r p r a c t i c e . Are you ready?...On your mark, get s e t , go! (Time: 3 minutes). Stop! Here are your t r a n s p a r e n c i e s . You l e t me know when you've f i n i s h e d marking and g e t t i n g your tokens. (Record time taken to score) Okay, l e t ' s see how many you got. (Count tokens aloud and r e t u r n them to d i s h ) . Do you have any q u e s t i o n s about how to mark t h i s ? . . . A l l r i g h t , t h i s next q u i z i s the one that counts f o r the p r i z e . Are you ready?...On your mark, get s e t , go! Time: 3 minutes). (Time: 3 minutes). 1 29 Stop! Here are your t r a n s p a r e n c i e s . J u s t l e t me know when you're f i n i s h e d . (Record time taken to s c o r e ) . Okay, l e t ' s see how many you got. (Count tokens a l o u d ) . I don't have the p r i z e s with me today, but I ' l l w r i t e down how many tokens you got, and w e ' l l see tomorrow what you can get f o r them, okay?...(Remove tokens from desk). Experimental Procedure - E x t e r n a l Reinforcement C o n d i t i o n We're going to do some more of the a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e now, but t h i s time I ' l l mark i t . For each one you get c o r r e c t , you get one of these tokens. These tokens can be cashed i n l a t e r f o r a p r i z e ; the more tokens you earn,the b e t t e r the p r i z e you can choose. Let me show you how I ' l l mark the e x e r c i s e . 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 transparency has the c o r r e c t answers w r i t t e n i n red. I can l a y i t on top of the a r i t h m e t i c sheet and see i f they c i r c l e d the c o r r e c t answer. L e t ' s see how many are c o r r e c t i n the f i r s t l i n e . Look, t h i s 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; t w o . . . t h r e e . . . t h i s one wasn't answered...this i s four 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 . . . a n d t h i s 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 count out s i x tokens. (Count out s i x t o k e n s ) . I ' l l mark the next l i n e now...There's seven r i g h t , so I count out seven tokens...And the next two l i n e s . . . (Count out a p p r o p r i a t e number of tokens. Take up time i n d i c a t e d from y o k i n g ) . We'll 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 to p r a c t i c e marking i t . We'll do i t the same way as b e f o r e ; you c i r c l e as many as you can c o r r e c t l y i n 3 minutes, and you can do them i n any order. Remember, t h i s i s only f o r p r a c t i c e . Are you ready?...On your mark, get s e t , go! (Time: 3 minutes). Stop! I ' l l mark them now. (Add j u s t time taken to mark to time i n d i c a t e d from y o k i n g ) . Okay, l e t ' s see how many you got. (Count tokens aloud and r e t u r n them to d i s h ) . Do you have any q u e s t i o n s ? . . . A l l r i g h t , t h i s next q u i z i s the one that counts f o r the p r i z e . Are you ready?...On your mark, get s e t , go! 130 (Time: 3 minutes). Stop! I ' l l mark them now (Adjust time taken t o mark to time i n d i c a t e d from y o k i n g ) . Okay, l e t ' s see how many you got. (Count tokens a l o u d ) . I don't have the p r i z e s with me today, but I ' l l w r i t e down how many tokens you got, and w e ' l l see tomorrow what you can get f o r them, okay?... (Remove tokens from d e s k ) . Experimental Procedure - C o n t r o l C o n d i t i o n We're going to do some more of the a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e now, but t h i s time w e ' l l mark i t . What do you think would be the f a s t e s t way to mark a t e s t l i k e t h i s ? ( D i s c u s s ) . . . I'm t r y i n g out a new way to mark i t . Let me show you. 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 transparency has the c o r r e c t answers w r i t t e n i n r e d . I can l a y i t on top of the a r i t h m e t i c sheet and see i f they c i r c l e d the c o r r e c t answer. L e t ' s see how many are c o r r e c t i n the f i r s t l i n e . Look, t h i s 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 answered... T h i s i s four 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. There were s i x r i g h t i n t h i s l i n e . I ' l l mark the next l i n e now...There's seven r i g h t . . . A n d the next two l i n e s . . . (Score remaining q u e s t i o n s . Take up time i n d i c a t e d from yoking. To take up excess time, d i s c u s s f u r t h e r i . e . , "What do you think of t h i s way of marking?..."). 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 to p r a c t i c e marking i t using these t r a n s p a r e n c i e s . We'll do i t the same way as before; you c i r c l e as many as you can 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 only f o r p r a c t i c e . Are you ready?...On your mark, get s e t , go! (Time: 3 minutes). Stop! I ' l l mark them now. (Adjust time taken to mark to time i n d i c a t e d from yoking. Inform 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 think these 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, so I ' l l use them to mark the next a r i t h m e t i c e x e r c i s e . T h i s one counts. Are you ready?...On your mark, get set, go! ' .— (Time: 3 minutes). 131 Stop! I ' l l mark them now. (Adjust time taken to mark to time i n d i c a t e d from yoking. Inform 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 . C o l l e c t paper and remove tokens from desk). Remainder of S e s s i o n - A l l C h i l d r e n Before we do some more t h i n g s , I'd l i k e to f i n d out what you t h i n k about the e x e r c i s e we j u s t d i d . T h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e has some qu e s t i o n s w r i t t e n down, and under each ques t i o n i s a whole range of answers ( p o i n t ) . I'd l i k e you to c i r c l e the answer that you agree with. For i n s t a n c e ( p o i n t ) , how much fun 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 fun, a l i t t l e fun, so-so, a l i t t l e b o r i n g , or r e a l l y boring? Which one would you c i r c l e ? . . . O k a y , c i r c l e that one...Now you go through and c i r c l e an answer f o r each q u e s t i o n , so I can f i n d 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 your time and l e t me know when you're f i n i s h e d . ( C o l l e c t paper when f i n i s h e d ) . Now I'd l i k e you to t r y the matching e x e r c i s e again, but t h i s time i t ' s a d i f f e r e n t code. Look, t h i s time the c i r c l e has a one, the s t a r has a two... (name each f i g u r e and number). Can you f i l l out the f i r s t l i n e f o r me, to p r a c t i c e the new code?...We'11 do i t the same way as b e f o r e : you do them i n order and don't s k i p any. I ' l l time you and see how many you can do i n 2 minutes. Are you ready?...On your mark, get s e t , go! (Time: 2 minutes). Stop! ( C o l l e c t paper). Okay, t h a t ' s a l l we're going to do today. I ' l l ask you to come back tomorrow and do a few quick t h i n g s f o r me. In the meantime, do you think you can keep e v e r y t h i n g a s e c r e t that we d i d t o d a y ? . . . I t ' s very important that you don't t e l l anyone anything, because not everyone does the same t h i n g s , and I want everyone to have an equal chance. Once everyone's p a r t i c i p a t e d , then we can a l l t a l k about i t , so you won't have to keep i t a s e c r e t f o r very l o n g . Do you t h i n k you can keep i t a l l s e c r e t ? . . . ( D i s c u s s , then r e t u r n c h i l d to c l a s s r o o m ) . G e n e r a l i z a t i o n Session - A l l C h i l d r e n H i ! Come and s i t down here again. Remember these 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 to do one more f o r me today, because I'm i n t e r e s t e d i n s e i n g 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 days, and I'd l i k e to see how you do on i t today. Do you remember how we do them?...Just 1 32 c i r c l e as many c o r r e c t answer as you can, and do them i n any order you l i k e . Are you ready?...On your mark, get s e t , go! (Time: 3 minutes). Stop! ( C o l l e c t paper). Now I'd l i k e to f i n d out what i t ' s been l i k e , t r y i n g to keep t h i s a s e c r e t . Has anyone asked you about it? . . . D o you th i n k any of the other k i d s are t a l k i n g about i t ? . . . ( P r o b e f o r any p o s s i b l e breaches of s e c r e c y ) . Now I've got a t r e a t f o r you. I brought some p r i z e s with me today. I decided that you d i d so w e l l yesterday, t h a t you can choose any p r i z e from the ones I've brought. You may choose the one you want today, and I ' l l g i ve them out when everyone's f i n i s h e d . Come over here and take a look. (Record c h i l d ' s c h o i c e of p r i z e . ) Okay, we're f i n i s h e d now. Don't f o r g e t , you s t i l l have to keep e v e r y t h i n g a s e c r e t u n t i l everyone's f i n i s h e d . Thanks f o r h e l p i n g me! (Return c h i l d to classr o o m ) . 1 33 APPENDIX D 13 4 1. Do you b e l i e v e t h a t most problems w i l l s o l v e t h e m s e l v e s i f you j u s t don't f o o l w i t h them? YES NO 2. Do you b e l i e v e t h a t you c a n s t o p y o u r s e l f from c a t c h i n g a c o l d ? YES NO 3. A r e some k i d s j u s t born l u c k y ? YES NO 4. Most o f t h e t i m e do you f e e l t h a t g e t t i n g good grades means a g r e a t deal t o you? YES NO 5. Are you o f t e n blamed f o r t h i n g s t h a t j u s t a r e n ' t your f a u l t ? YES NO 6. Do you b e l i e v e t h a t i f somebody s t u d i e s hard enough he o r she can pass any s u b j e c t ? YES NO 7. Do you f e e l t h a t most o f t h e t i m e i t doesn't pay t o t r y h a r d , because t h i n g s n e v e r t u r n o u t r i g h t anyway? YES NO 8. 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 morning, t h a t i t ' s g o i n g t o be a good day no m a t t e r what you do? YES NO 9. Do you f e e l t h a t most o f t h e t i m e p a r e n t s l i s t e n t o what t h e i r c h i l d r e n have t o say? YES NO 10. Do you b e l i e v e t h a t w i s h i n g can make good t h i n g s happen? YES NO 11. When you g e t p u n i s h e d , does i t u s u a l l y seem i t ' s f o r no good reason a t a I I? YES NO 12. Most o f t h e t i m e do you f i n d i t hard t o change a f r i e n d ' s mind? YES NO 13. Do you t h i n k t h a t c h e e r i n g more tha n l u c k h e l p s a team t o win? YES NO 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 t o change your p a r e n t ' s mind about a n y t h i n g ? YES NO 15. 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 a l l o w you t o make most o f your own d e c i s i o n s ? YES NO 16. Do you f e e l t h a t when you do something wrong, t h e r e ' s v e r y l i t t l e you can do t o make i t r i g h t ? YES NO 17. Do you b e l i e v e t h a t most k i d s a r e j u s t born good a t s p o r t s ? YES NO 18. A r e most o f t h e o t h e r k i d s y o u r age s t r o n g e r than you a r e ? YES NO 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 problems i s j u s t n o t t o t h i n k about them? YES NO 20. Do you f e e l t h a t you have a l o t o f c h o i c e i n d e c i d i n g who y o u r f r i e n d s a r e ? YES NO 135 21. If you find a four leaf clover, do you believe that it 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 23. Do you feel that when a kid your age decides to hit you, there's l i t t l e you can do to stop him or her? YES NO 24. Have you ever had a good luck charm? YES NO 25. Do you believe that whether or not people like you depends on how you act? YES NO 26. Will your parents usually help you if you ask them? YES NO 27. Have you felt that when people were mean to you, i t was usually for no reason at a I I? YES NO 28. Most of the time, do you feel that you can change what might happen tomorrow by what you do today? YES NO 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 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 it'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 l i t t l e you can do about it? YES NO 37. Do you usually feel that it'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 it's better to be smart than to be lucky? YES NO 136 APPENDIX E 137 Scm^e - Grade 3 I 36 •Sample.- d ra co c> 1 1 LO -C 4J 0 0 I X jOocn 00 cn Cf ^ CP — CP • Co co 0 po 'po cn p pj -C co -4-Oo cr\ CO jo Co oo X P IE c>» - po O — . O J r . CJ CO 50 - C l Cn Co - 3 0 0 - c ^ - SI ^ _J= oo o — — cn cn r*o — cn cjt -c _n N> — 1 JO - j _c _o CO _ c 03 CP 0 0 - CJ - 0 x 0 * ^ 0 O LO ~o _ J . 00 _n 00 x co Co Oi I ~C CO Go Ol po jo ^ -c Co CA ?o c n Oi lb 0 cn 0 <^  cn Co - 0 — po ?o Co CO .5-- O —J 1 on -c po O — X Co Co Co — Co Co _c po 50 -C -Q <JI cn cn 0 cn 0 cn X __ cn O _c —^ <p cn , Oo — co PO Po po {O Co — -r -too ^ QJ CO ^ ?o 1 90 Co -Q 1 I CO PO W Cj 0 0 0 « c n go ?o 0 0 ^ JLi — X — OO JO 00 00 _C | 0 Q Co Po 9o 1 OO - J co co —D CO CO + — Co CO — —7 —Q <5^  cn CO <3N (TN Cn -C _E X 0 0 <I Po po —j* <5-N cn 00 +• _ cn ^ Po 00 x CT> -O cn ^ - 0 so OO 5>v ^ ~ CO cn Cn — co + OO po cn oo cn 00 1 CO M po Co p 1 O Co 139 APPENDIX F I HO • 0 © > G G • G • o <! # • O G & • G > • # • O > O * D>'.0 # # G D G > <3 > • G O O O ^ D> ^ O • • o > • <D2 t> o G • t> O • > # O G 141 APPENDIX G CHILD SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE Example: How much fun i s arithmetic? ( c i r c l e one) A l o t a l i t t l e so-so a l i t t l e r e a l l y of fun fun boring boring 1. How hard was t h i s e x e r c i s e ? very easy easy so-so hard very hard 2 . How much d i d you l i k e doing t h i s exercise? not at not so-so l i k e d i t l i k e d i t a l l much a b i t a l o t 3. How well do you think you d i d on t h i s exercise? -r-not very f a i r O.K. good e x c e l l e n t 4. How hard d i d you work on t h i s e x e r c i s e ? worked worked about worked d i d n ' t work very hard p r e t t y normal a l i t t l e very hard hard f o r me 5. How would you l i k e your work to be marked t h i s way i n school? wouldn't wouldn't OK would would l i k e i t l i k e i t l i k e i t l i k e i t a t a 1 1 a l o t Sometimes g e t t i n g points or p r i z e s helps us work harder; othe times, i t doesn't matter. Did g e t t i n g tokens . . . help you helped you maybe helped maybe helped d i d n ' t he work a l o t work some a l i t t l e me work harder harder harder 7. Sometimes you can mark your own work arid give y o u r s e l f rewards other times, someone e l s e checks the work and gives you reward I f you d i d t h i s e x e r c i s e again, would you want to . . . d e f i n i t e l y have someone e l s e decide how w e l l I d i d maybe have someone e l s e decide not sure maybe decide myself d e f i n i t e l y decide myself how w e l l I d i d 8. I f you got p r i z e s f o r good work i n your classroom, would you want to . . . decide myself how w e l l I d i d maybe decide myself not sure maybe have someone e l s e decide have someone e l s e decide how well I d i d Al t e r n a t e questions (not scored) i n c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s : 5. Would you l i k e to do work l i k e t h i s i n school? 6. Sometimes, working alone instead of i n a b i g classroom helps to work harder; other times, i t doesn't matter. Did 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