- Email: [email protected]
Behaviorally-based decision-making training for children
Journal of School Psychology 1979 • Vol. 17, No. 3
0022-4405/79/1500-0264500.95 © 1979 The Journal of School Psychology, Inc.
BEHAVIORALLY-BASED DECISION-MAKING TRAINING FOR CHILDREN MICHAEL L. RUSSELL
M. SUSAN ROBERTS
Baylor College of Medicine
San Francisco State University
Summary:
A seven-step, behaviorally based, decision-making process was taught to 17 children, age 9-10 years. Each child's decision-making ability was measured before and after training, using two audiotaped stories that described problem situations typically encountered in the school or home. The children were asked to identify the problem, generate alternative solutions, think of positive and negative consequences for each solution, and offer a personal value supporting their decision. As compared to a no-treatment control group, the children receiving the decision-making training obtained significantly greater scores on four of five dependent measures. Implications for teaching decisionmaking as a self-management skill are offered.
Good decision-making ability is generally recognized as a valuable asset in our society. In the clinical setting, teaching clients the cognitive processes and overt behaviors necessary for making good decisions to resolve problem situations has been viewed as an important aspect of the counseling process (Greenwald, 1973; Krumboltz, 1967). While a number of authors have conceptualized the decision-making process as a set of specific problem-solving behaviors for adolescent and adult clients (Gellat, 1962; D'Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; Herr, Horan, & Baker, 1973), little attention has been directed toward teaching these skills to young children. In 1976 Russell and Thoresen described a seven-step, decision-making sequence which was taught to children who were living in a residential treatment home for acting out preadolescents. Following Thoresen and Mahoney (1974), this approach incorporated the behavioral self-management procedures of modeling, successive approximations, and rehearsal for teaching the decision-making process. Preliminary evaluation of this material indicated that, when taught on an individual basis, children learned the decision-making paradigm and significantly improved their problem-solving skills in real and simulated situations. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of using written and audiotaped materials to teach a decision-making process to small groups of children within the standard elementary school setting. It was hypothesized that training in a sequence of decision-making steps would improve a child's ability to make appropriate decisions involving simulated social and school-related problems. Therefore, one group of children was instructed in a seven-step, decision-making process and given practice in applying the steps to several problems, while a second group of children from the same classroom served as a no-treatment control group.
METHOD
Subjects. Eighteen girls and 16 boys, 9 to 10 years of age, participated in the study. All children were members of a fourth-grade class in a San Francisco parochial school located in a middle-income neighborhood. 264
Russell and Roberts
265
Materials. The decision-making process was taught using a programmed-text style workbook with cassette audiotape (Russell, 1976). ~ Following Krumboltz (1967), the material presents each of the following steps in the decision-making process:
1. Identify the problem 2. Generate alternate solutions 3. Think of positive and negative consequences for each solution 4. Collect information 5. Compare each alternative with personal values 6. Make the decision 7. Reevaluate the decision at a later time The materials are designed to teach the child how to apply each step in this decisionmaking process to resolve a current problem and to improve future decisions. The workbook is written in an informal style at a third-grade reading level. The steps in the decision-making process are presented in six separate sections of the workbook, each requiring 30 to 45 minutes to complete. In each section the child reads a simple explanation of the concept that includes numerous examples, pictures, and a cartoon character who "thinks out loud" for the reader. The child then listens to a story on the audiotape cassette. In the story a child relates a problem situation that he or she is currently facing and describes his or her thoughts for resolving the problem using good decision-making skills. A problem is then presented for the listener to solve. Finally, the child returns to the workbook to read a brief summary of the concept and its application. In the final section of the workbook the child learns how to use a Decision Chart that guides the child through each of the steps in the decision-making process (see Figure 1). The child must correctly use a decision-making chart for a real and a simulated problem before completing the workbook.
PROCEDURE The children were randomly assigned to two groups. Seventeen children received training in the decision-making process (experimental group) and 17 children received only the pre- and posttests (no-treatment control group). Initially all children received the pretest on an individual basis. During the pretest the children listened to two audiotape recordings of home and school-related problem situations that were 3 to 5 minutes in length. These stories were selected at random from eight problems describing a child who had either stolen an item, damaged an object that belonged to another, found money, observed the misbehavior of another child, not fulfilled a promise, or was under peer pressure to conform to a group decision. Androgynous names were used for the characters in the stories, and all problem situations were equally appropriate for boys and girls. Each child listened to a problem situation encountered by a child of the same sex. After listening to each story, the children were asked to state how they would solve the problem, identify alternative solutions they had considered, list positive and negative consequences for each possible solution, and state their reason for selecting their choice. ~Copies of the Decision-Making Book for Children may be obtained from Mictiael L. Russell, Ph.D., National Heart and Blood Vessel Research and Demonstration Center, The Methodist Hospital-Alkek Tower, M.S. A701, 6535 Fannin Street, Houston, Texas 77030.
266
Journal of School Psychology
N~e
DECISION CHART My problem is:
CHOICE #I,
I don't know what to do
I could good point bad point
CHOICE #2,
I could good point bad point
CHOICE #3,
I could good point bad point
Before I decide I will need to k n o w
CHOICE #
THE
NEXT
is the BEST choice for me because
DAM,
,
. after I carried out m y decision:
A GOOD result of m y decision was: A BAD result of my decision was: Next time I have the same problem I think I will
Russell and Roberts
267
The children assigned to the experimental group attended four, 1-hour instructional sessions in small groups of five or six students. The instructional sessions were conducted by an experimenter in an unoccupied classroom. At the end of the training sessions the children had completed the decision-making material and had used the decision-making chart with two real problems they had encountered in the classroom or at home. One week after the experimental group had completed the instructional sessions, all children individually received the posttest. The posttest consisted of two audiotaped stories selected at random that were different from the stories the child had received on the pretest. The same questions asked of the children on the pretest were repeated on the posttest. Dependent Measures. An appropriate decision was operationally defined as one in which the child: (a) identified the problem, (b) listed alternative solutions, (c) offered positive and negative consequences for each alternative solution, and (d) described a personal value which supported the child's decision. A child could improve his or her ability in making decisions by considering a greater number of alternative solutions, identifying a greater number of positive and negative consequences for each solution, and stating one or more personal values that justified the decision. In both the pretest and posttest situations, the child was asked the following questions: 1. Take your time and then tell me what you would do. 2. What would you say was the problem? 3. When you thought about the problem, what solutions did you think of?. 4. When you thought of each possible solution, what good or bad things about each solution did you think of?. 5. What value do you have that makes your solution to the problem the best solution for you? An experimenter recorded the child's responses on a standard form. If the child offered an ambiguous answer, the experimenter used nondirective questions to obtain additional information (e.g., Can you tell me more?). RESULTS The means and standard deviations are presented in Table 1 for the number of children in each group who correctly identified the problems presented in the audiotape, the number of alternative solutions considered, the number of positive and negative consequences for the alternative solutions, the number of positive and negative consequences for the decision made, and the number of values identified for the decision. Statistical analyses of the data were performed using an analysis of covariance for each dependent measure (Dixon & Massey, 1969). A significant treatment effect was indicated for the number of alternative solutions identified (F = 18.34; df = 1, 31: p < .01), the number of positive and negative consequences for the alternative solutions (F = 11.38; df = 1, 31; p < .01), the number of positive and negative consequences for the decision (F = 5.12; df = 1, 31; p < .01), and the number of values identified for the decision (F = 15.61; df = 1, 31; p < .01). As compared to the control group, the children who received the decision-making training attained significantly higher scores for each dependent measure on the posttest.
268
Journal of School Psychology
Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Five Dependent Measures for Children with and without Training Decision~Making Training Measure Number of problems correctly identified Number of alternative solutions considered Number of positive and negative consequences for alternative solutions Number of positive and negative consequences for the decision Number of values identified for the decision
No-Treatment Control
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
mean s.d. mean s.d.
.91 .20 .65 .52
.97 .12 1.38 .78
.94 .17 .41 .44
.91 .20 .35 .46
mean s.d.
.65 .72
2.29 1.49
.35 .52
.65 1.06
mean s.d. mean mean
1.15 .75
1.71 .46
1.26 .59
1.35 .68
.50
s.d.
.40
.71 .31
.44 .43
.29 .31
No significant difference was observed between the experimental and control groups for the number of problems correctly identified in the audiotaped stories. All children identified more than 90% of the problems in the stories on both the pretest and posttest. DISCUSSION The results of this study indicate that children who received training in a systematic approach to solving problems were able to identify and describe each step of the approach as they had applied it in a simulated situation. As compared with the notreatment control group on the posttest, the children receiving the decision-making training offered a greater number of alternative solutions, a greater number of positive and negative consequences for each alternative, a greater number of positive and negative consequences for their decision, and a greater number of personal values for the decision made on the posttest. A somewhat unexpected finding was that more than 90% of all the problems described on the audiotape recordings were correctly identified by the children. This suggests that the ability to correctly identify the problem in the audiotaped stories was learned before the age of 9 years. While further research will be required to identify the age at which each step in the decision-making process could or should be taught to a child, this finding suggests that the separate parts of the decision-making process may be differentially acquired as the child develops. Rather than introducing decision-making skills to the adolescent who is faced with immediate social or school-related problems, it appears possible to begin teaching this ability at the elementary school level. Developing decision-making abilities before they are needed may be a plausible preventive program. Acquiring and practicing decision-making skills before entering adolescenee may increase the probability that the child will make appropriate decisions using a valid problem-solving strategy. If decision-making is conceptualized as specific abilities which can be acquired and
Russell and Roberts
269
used for self-management, then good decision-making becomes a set of skills which is potentially available to all children. The child learns that not only can he or she affect the social environment, but also that the process of decision-making is controlled by the child. The child learns to self-manage his or her own behavior to produce desired consequences in the environment. Self-management through decision-making allows the child to directly interact with the environment, predict the consequences of the interaction, and review the results. In this way, the child who acquires good decision-making skills assumes increasing responsibility for his or her own behavior and becomes progressively less dependent upon others.
REFERENCES Casey, L., & McGreevy, P. Primary options: A decision-making program for children: Minicourse for primary graders. Momentum, 1975, 6, 16-19. Cox, J. Learning to make decisions. School and Community, 1972, 58, 36-38. Dixon, W. J., & Massey, F. J. Introduction to statistical analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969. Pp. 222-236. D'Zurilla, T. J. & Goldfried, M. R. Problem solving and behavior modification. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 78, 107-126. Gellat, H. B. Decision-making: A conceptual frame of reference for counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962, 9, 240-245. Greenwald, H. Direct decision therapy. San Diego, Ca.: Edits, 1973. Herr, E., Horan, J., & Baker, S. Clarifying the counseling mystique. American Vocational Journal, 1973, 48, 66-72. Krumboltz, J. D. Future directions for guidance research. In J. M. Whiteley (Ed.), Proceedings of the invitational conference on research problems in counseling: Re-evaluation and refocus. St. Ann, Mo.: Central Midwestern Regional Educational Laboratory, 1967. Pp. 199-219. Russell, M. L. The decision-making book for children. San Francisco, Ca.: M. L. Russell, 1976. Russell, M. L., & Thoresen, C. E. Teaching decision-making skills to children. In J. Krumboltz and C. Thoresen (Eds.), Counseling methods. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1976. Pp. 377-383. Thoresen, C. E., & Mahoney, M. J. Behavioral self-control. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1974. Michael L. Russell National Heart and Blood Vessel Research and Demonstration Center The Methodist Hospital Alkek Tower, M.S. A701 6535 Fannin Street Houston, Texas 77030 Received: July 1, 1977 Revision Received: October 27, 1977
M. Susan Roberts Doctoral Candidate Department of Human Development and Family Life University of Katasas Lawrence, Kansas 66044
0022-4405/79/1500-0264500.95 © 1979 The Journal of School Psychology, Inc.
BEHAVIORALLY-BASED DECISION-MAKING TRAINING FOR CHILDREN MICHAEL L. RUSSELL
M. SUSAN ROBERTS
Baylor College of Medicine
San Francisco State University
Summary:
A seven-step, behaviorally based, decision-making process was taught to 17 children, age 9-10 years. Each child's decision-making ability was measured before and after training, using two audiotaped stories that described problem situations typically encountered in the school or home. The children were asked to identify the problem, generate alternative solutions, think of positive and negative consequences for each solution, and offer a personal value supporting their decision. As compared to a no-treatment control group, the children receiving the decision-making training obtained significantly greater scores on four of five dependent measures. Implications for teaching decisionmaking as a self-management skill are offered.
Good decision-making ability is generally recognized as a valuable asset in our society. In the clinical setting, teaching clients the cognitive processes and overt behaviors necessary for making good decisions to resolve problem situations has been viewed as an important aspect of the counseling process (Greenwald, 1973; Krumboltz, 1967). While a number of authors have conceptualized the decision-making process as a set of specific problem-solving behaviors for adolescent and adult clients (Gellat, 1962; D'Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971; Herr, Horan, & Baker, 1973), little attention has been directed toward teaching these skills to young children. In 1976 Russell and Thoresen described a seven-step, decision-making sequence which was taught to children who were living in a residential treatment home for acting out preadolescents. Following Thoresen and Mahoney (1974), this approach incorporated the behavioral self-management procedures of modeling, successive approximations, and rehearsal for teaching the decision-making process. Preliminary evaluation of this material indicated that, when taught on an individual basis, children learned the decision-making paradigm and significantly improved their problem-solving skills in real and simulated situations. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of using written and audiotaped materials to teach a decision-making process to small groups of children within the standard elementary school setting. It was hypothesized that training in a sequence of decision-making steps would improve a child's ability to make appropriate decisions involving simulated social and school-related problems. Therefore, one group of children was instructed in a seven-step, decision-making process and given practice in applying the steps to several problems, while a second group of children from the same classroom served as a no-treatment control group.
METHOD
Subjects. Eighteen girls and 16 boys, 9 to 10 years of age, participated in the study. All children were members of a fourth-grade class in a San Francisco parochial school located in a middle-income neighborhood. 264
Russell and Roberts
265
Materials. The decision-making process was taught using a programmed-text style workbook with cassette audiotape (Russell, 1976). ~ Following Krumboltz (1967), the material presents each of the following steps in the decision-making process:
1. Identify the problem 2. Generate alternate solutions 3. Think of positive and negative consequences for each solution 4. Collect information 5. Compare each alternative with personal values 6. Make the decision 7. Reevaluate the decision at a later time The materials are designed to teach the child how to apply each step in this decisionmaking process to resolve a current problem and to improve future decisions. The workbook is written in an informal style at a third-grade reading level. The steps in the decision-making process are presented in six separate sections of the workbook, each requiring 30 to 45 minutes to complete. In each section the child reads a simple explanation of the concept that includes numerous examples, pictures, and a cartoon character who "thinks out loud" for the reader. The child then listens to a story on the audiotape cassette. In the story a child relates a problem situation that he or she is currently facing and describes his or her thoughts for resolving the problem using good decision-making skills. A problem is then presented for the listener to solve. Finally, the child returns to the workbook to read a brief summary of the concept and its application. In the final section of the workbook the child learns how to use a Decision Chart that guides the child through each of the steps in the decision-making process (see Figure 1). The child must correctly use a decision-making chart for a real and a simulated problem before completing the workbook.
PROCEDURE The children were randomly assigned to two groups. Seventeen children received training in the decision-making process (experimental group) and 17 children received only the pre- and posttests (no-treatment control group). Initially all children received the pretest on an individual basis. During the pretest the children listened to two audiotape recordings of home and school-related problem situations that were 3 to 5 minutes in length. These stories were selected at random from eight problems describing a child who had either stolen an item, damaged an object that belonged to another, found money, observed the misbehavior of another child, not fulfilled a promise, or was under peer pressure to conform to a group decision. Androgynous names were used for the characters in the stories, and all problem situations were equally appropriate for boys and girls. Each child listened to a problem situation encountered by a child of the same sex. After listening to each story, the children were asked to state how they would solve the problem, identify alternative solutions they had considered, list positive and negative consequences for each possible solution, and state their reason for selecting their choice. ~Copies of the Decision-Making Book for Children may be obtained from Mictiael L. Russell, Ph.D., National Heart and Blood Vessel Research and Demonstration Center, The Methodist Hospital-Alkek Tower, M.S. A701, 6535 Fannin Street, Houston, Texas 77030.
266
Journal of School Psychology
N~e
DECISION CHART My problem is:
CHOICE #I,
I don't know what to do
I could good point bad point
CHOICE #2,
I could good point bad point
CHOICE #3,
I could good point bad point
Before I decide I will need to k n o w
CHOICE #
THE
NEXT
is the BEST choice for me because
DAM,
,
. after I carried out m y decision:
A GOOD result of m y decision was: A BAD result of my decision was: Next time I have the same problem I think I will
Russell and Roberts
267
The children assigned to the experimental group attended four, 1-hour instructional sessions in small groups of five or six students. The instructional sessions were conducted by an experimenter in an unoccupied classroom. At the end of the training sessions the children had completed the decision-making material and had used the decision-making chart with two real problems they had encountered in the classroom or at home. One week after the experimental group had completed the instructional sessions, all children individually received the posttest. The posttest consisted of two audiotaped stories selected at random that were different from the stories the child had received on the pretest. The same questions asked of the children on the pretest were repeated on the posttest. Dependent Measures. An appropriate decision was operationally defined as one in which the child: (a) identified the problem, (b) listed alternative solutions, (c) offered positive and negative consequences for each alternative solution, and (d) described a personal value which supported the child's decision. A child could improve his or her ability in making decisions by considering a greater number of alternative solutions, identifying a greater number of positive and negative consequences for each solution, and stating one or more personal values that justified the decision. In both the pretest and posttest situations, the child was asked the following questions: 1. Take your time and then tell me what you would do. 2. What would you say was the problem? 3. When you thought about the problem, what solutions did you think of?. 4. When you thought of each possible solution, what good or bad things about each solution did you think of?. 5. What value do you have that makes your solution to the problem the best solution for you? An experimenter recorded the child's responses on a standard form. If the child offered an ambiguous answer, the experimenter used nondirective questions to obtain additional information (e.g., Can you tell me more?). RESULTS The means and standard deviations are presented in Table 1 for the number of children in each group who correctly identified the problems presented in the audiotape, the number of alternative solutions considered, the number of positive and negative consequences for the alternative solutions, the number of positive and negative consequences for the decision made, and the number of values identified for the decision. Statistical analyses of the data were performed using an analysis of covariance for each dependent measure (Dixon & Massey, 1969). A significant treatment effect was indicated for the number of alternative solutions identified (F = 18.34; df = 1, 31: p < .01), the number of positive and negative consequences for the alternative solutions (F = 11.38; df = 1, 31; p < .01), the number of positive and negative consequences for the decision (F = 5.12; df = 1, 31; p < .01), and the number of values identified for the decision (F = 15.61; df = 1, 31; p < .01). As compared to the control group, the children who received the decision-making training attained significantly higher scores for each dependent measure on the posttest.
268
Journal of School Psychology
Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Five Dependent Measures for Children with and without Training Decision~Making Training Measure Number of problems correctly identified Number of alternative solutions considered Number of positive and negative consequences for alternative solutions Number of positive and negative consequences for the decision Number of values identified for the decision
No-Treatment Control
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
mean s.d. mean s.d.
.91 .20 .65 .52
.97 .12 1.38 .78
.94 .17 .41 .44
.91 .20 .35 .46
mean s.d.
.65 .72
2.29 1.49
.35 .52
.65 1.06
mean s.d. mean mean
1.15 .75
1.71 .46
1.26 .59
1.35 .68
.50
s.d.
.40
.71 .31
.44 .43
.29 .31
No significant difference was observed between the experimental and control groups for the number of problems correctly identified in the audiotaped stories. All children identified more than 90% of the problems in the stories on both the pretest and posttest. DISCUSSION The results of this study indicate that children who received training in a systematic approach to solving problems were able to identify and describe each step of the approach as they had applied it in a simulated situation. As compared with the notreatment control group on the posttest, the children receiving the decision-making training offered a greater number of alternative solutions, a greater number of positive and negative consequences for each alternative, a greater number of positive and negative consequences for their decision, and a greater number of personal values for the decision made on the posttest. A somewhat unexpected finding was that more than 90% of all the problems described on the audiotape recordings were correctly identified by the children. This suggests that the ability to correctly identify the problem in the audiotaped stories was learned before the age of 9 years. While further research will be required to identify the age at which each step in the decision-making process could or should be taught to a child, this finding suggests that the separate parts of the decision-making process may be differentially acquired as the child develops. Rather than introducing decision-making skills to the adolescent who is faced with immediate social or school-related problems, it appears possible to begin teaching this ability at the elementary school level. Developing decision-making abilities before they are needed may be a plausible preventive program. Acquiring and practicing decision-making skills before entering adolescenee may increase the probability that the child will make appropriate decisions using a valid problem-solving strategy. If decision-making is conceptualized as specific abilities which can be acquired and
Russell and Roberts
269
used for self-management, then good decision-making becomes a set of skills which is potentially available to all children. The child learns that not only can he or she affect the social environment, but also that the process of decision-making is controlled by the child. The child learns to self-manage his or her own behavior to produce desired consequences in the environment. Self-management through decision-making allows the child to directly interact with the environment, predict the consequences of the interaction, and review the results. In this way, the child who acquires good decision-making skills assumes increasing responsibility for his or her own behavior and becomes progressively less dependent upon others.
REFERENCES Casey, L., & McGreevy, P. Primary options: A decision-making program for children: Minicourse for primary graders. Momentum, 1975, 6, 16-19. Cox, J. Learning to make decisions. School and Community, 1972, 58, 36-38. Dixon, W. J., & Massey, F. J. Introduction to statistical analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969. Pp. 222-236. D'Zurilla, T. J. & Goldfried, M. R. Problem solving and behavior modification. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 78, 107-126. Gellat, H. B. Decision-making: A conceptual frame of reference for counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962, 9, 240-245. Greenwald, H. Direct decision therapy. San Diego, Ca.: Edits, 1973. Herr, E., Horan, J., & Baker, S. Clarifying the counseling mystique. American Vocational Journal, 1973, 48, 66-72. Krumboltz, J. D. Future directions for guidance research. In J. M. Whiteley (Ed.), Proceedings of the invitational conference on research problems in counseling: Re-evaluation and refocus. St. Ann, Mo.: Central Midwestern Regional Educational Laboratory, 1967. Pp. 199-219. Russell, M. L. The decision-making book for children. San Francisco, Ca.: M. L. Russell, 1976. Russell, M. L., & Thoresen, C. E. Teaching decision-making skills to children. In J. Krumboltz and C. Thoresen (Eds.), Counseling methods. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1976. Pp. 377-383. Thoresen, C. E., & Mahoney, M. J. Behavioral self-control. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1974. Michael L. Russell National Heart and Blood Vessel Research and Demonstration Center The Methodist Hospital Alkek Tower, M.S. A701 6535 Fannin Street Houston, Texas 77030 Received: July 1, 1977 Revision Received: October 27, 1977
M. Susan Roberts Doctoral Candidate Department of Human Development and Family Life University of Katasas Lawrence, Kansas 66044