- Email: [email protected]
Developing self-control in preschool children through correspondence training
BEHAVIOR THERAPY 8, 398--405
(1977)
Developing Self-Control in Preschool Children through Correspondence Training P A U L KAROLY AND MARTHA J. DIRKS
University of Cincinnati Twelve inner-city preschool children experienced one of two training procedures designed to establish correspondence between their verbalizations about behavioral self-control and execution of a self-control task. The children played the Scarecrow Game which involved the prolonged extension of their arms at their sides. The game is an analog of a "tolerance" type self-control situation. Group 1 experienced a saying (intention) then doing sequence. Group 2 was trained via a doing then saying (reporting) sequence. The experiment was conducted in three phases over 22 days. Both groups showed an increase over baseline in verbalization and play with the game, although reinforcement of verbalization alone did not produce an increase in self-control activity. A significant increase in correspondence did occur in both groups when a snack was delivered contingent upon the matching of verbal report to actual performance. In addition, the level of correspondence exhibited by the say-do group exceeded that of the d o - s a y group.
Shaping (Lovaas, 1961), fading (Bern, 1967), and self-instructional training procedures (Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971) have been employed to establish the stimulus function of children's utterances. Another viable teaching strategy, developed by Risley and Hart (1968) and extended by Israel and O'Leary (1973), is called "correspondence training." Rather than focusing on verbal responses alone, the explicit matching of deed to word or word to deed has been the objective-undertaken in a nonlaboratory (nursery school) context and involving relatively long time delays between members of the verbal-nonverbal chain. The successful demonstrations of correspondence training are said to have implications for the development of children's self-control (Israel & O'Leary, 1973); but, to date, no research has been conducted involving This study is based on a master's thesis submitted by the second author to the University of Cincinnati conducted under the supervision of the senior author. We wish to express our appreciation to John Steffen, who served on the thesis committee, to Joel Warm for helpful comments on the manuscript, and to the teachers, parents, and children at the Eastwood Cooperative Nursery School in Cincinnati, Ohio. Special thanks are extended to Louise Stalnaker and Chris Powell for their assistance in the conduct of this study. Requests for reprints should be sent to Paul Karoly, Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221. 398 Copyright© 1977by Associationfor Advancementof BehaviorTherapy. All rightsof reproductionin any form reserved. ISSN 0005-7894
SELF-CONTROL THROUGH CORRESPONDENCE TRAINING
399
self-directed activities which fit the behavioral definition of self-control. That is, children have not been required to emit a low probability behavior (a controlling response) that alters the likelihood of engaging in an action that has both positive and negative consequences (see Kanfer & Phillips, 1970). A primary goal of the present experiment was to investigate the utility of a correspondence training procedure on young children's performance in a "tolerance" type self-control situation; that is, one involving an immediately unpleasant but long-range positive (rewarding) outcome. Such a task is viewed as an analog to many everyday activities requiring conflictful decision-making (e.g., studying, taking bad-tasting medicine, various forms of self-denial). Second, the study examined the effects of sequencing in correspondence training. Following Luria (1961), Israel and O'Leary (1973) suggested that a saying, then doing sequence would be a superior method of eliciting correspondence since "verbal behavior is a more readily available and versatile discriminative stimulus than nonverbal behavior" (p. 576). The findings supported their prediction. Do such sequence effects hold when the nonverbal task is a delayed self-control activity? The present study sought an answer to this question, as well. METHOD Subjects. Twelve 3- to 5-year-old children living in an inner-city section of a large midwestern city and attending the same church-affiliated half-day nursery school served as subjects. Children were assigned to two groups after being matched on sex and on teacher rankings of general self-control abilities.X The admittance of a new student on the first day of the experiment and the subsequent withdrawal of another resulted in an unequal number of children in each group. Final group compositions were: Group 1, 2 black males, 2 white females and 1 black female; Group 2, 2 black males, 1 white male, 3 black females and 1 white female. The mean age of the children was 4 years, 7 months. Setting and design. The classroom teacher and a student teacher conducted all phases of the training in a nursery school classroom during the months of April and May. Coordinating each phase of the study with the school's free play and snack time, the teachers divided the children into two groups: Group 1, experiencing a say-do sequence, with a verbalization period prior to the normal free-play time, and Group 2, trained in a do-say sequence with free-play preceding the verbalization period. Saying and doing occurred approximately 1 hr apart. The experiment was conducted in three phases: baseline, reinforcement of verbalization, and reinforcement of correspondence. For purposes of data analysis, the baseline phase was subdivided into two periods of five observation days each. Task. Children played the "scarecrow game" (Karoly & Kanfer, 1974). A sturdily constructed wooden figure approximately the size of a 4-year-old child (height = 1 m) had arms horizontal to the floor but adjustable along a vertical axis. The child extended his arms in imitation of the scarecrow, with each hand passing through a set of photocells attached to the scarecrow's hands. A timing device (Hunter Model 120A Klockcounter) was automati1 A general definition of self-control was given orally and in written form to the classroom teacher and to her aide. The statement included concrete examples. The two then ranked all the children in the sample. The interjudge reliability (Spearman p) was .82.
400
KAROLY AND DIRKS
cally activated when the child raised his arms to shoulder height and automatically stopped when either hand fell below 20° of horizontal. Playing with the game was defined as exhibiting an arm extension time of at least 10 sec (the point at which the average 4-year-old in our studies begins to verbalize discomfort). In fact, most children tolerated longer; an average of 44 sec across all phases of the experiment, with little variation over time. Children were also allowed to engage in any of seven other activities during free play (e.g., art, water play, toy play, etc.). Procedure. The scarecrow game was placed in the classroom with the other play materials and was available to any child during the first hour of free play. A white, female graduate student, uninformed as to the content of children's verbalizations, monitored the game. When a child indicated he wished to play, the experimenter adjusted the arms of the scarecrow to the height and length of the child's extended arms. The game was introduced by the experimenter to each child individually in the following manner: This is a new game called the Scarecrow Game. To play, you pretend that you're a scarecrow and the rest of the room is the corn field. Since you want to keep the birds away, you'll want to hold out your arms for as long as you can like a good scarecrow. See this scarecrow (pointing to the model scarecrow)? Can you hold your arms out straight just like him? (Child imitates with arms.) Good! Now, all you have to do to be a good scarecrow is stand here just like this one for as long as you can, even if you get tired or your arms start to hurt a little. Just keep your arms out straight as long as possible. When you want to stop playing, just put your arms down like this (experimenter demonstrates by dropping arms to sides). Whenever you drop your arms, then it's time to stop. You can stop whenever you want to; it's up to you. All you have to do is drop your arms. But you'll have to be careful because if you drop your arms even a little, then the game is over. You have to keep them straight out like this to be a really good scarecrow. The experimenter then asked the child a series of questions until he or she understood the procedure. Children in Group 1 (say-do) participated in a verbalization period prior to the first hour of free play. During the verbalization period, the teacher prompted responses from the children concerning their play activity by asking, "What are you going to do that is good today?" Each child was asked the question directly and had two opportunities to respond. The order of inquiry was random except that each child responded once before any was given a second opportunity to answer. Verbalizations were recorded by the teacher on a recording sheet designed for this purpose. Children in Group 2 (do-say) experienced a verbalization period following free play. As in Group 1, the teacher prompted responses concerning the play activity by asking, "What did you do that was good today?" The procedure for responding was as in Group 1. The two teachers alternated daily between the groups. During the verbalization period, the children in both groups were given a primary and a social reinforcer in the form of a special snack (one-half of an oatmeal cookie) and verbal praise. The contingencies for receipt of these reinforcers are described below. Baseline (Days l - I l). During baseline, each child received both the food reinforcer and social approval regardless of verbalization content or the play activity engaged in during free playtime. The only children who did not receive a cookie were those who remained silent. In both groups, consumption of the primary reinforcer followed the occurrence of both the verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Children in the say-do condition (Group 1) had their special snack placed in a cup during the verbalization period but were not allowed to eat it until after the play period. Those in the do-say condition (Group 2) received and consumed their snack during the verbalization period following playtime. During snack distribution,
SELF-CONTROL THROUGH CORRESPONDENCE TRAINING
401
the children were given social approval and were reminded why they were being given the snack (' 'I'm giving you this because you told me what you were going to do this morning"). Reinforcement of verbalization (Days 12-16). In this phase, a child in Group I (say-do) was given a snack and social approval contingent upon verbalizing that he played the scarecrow game that day. The teacher responded minimally to statements of other play activity with a nod or "mmbumm." The desired response was prompted the first day of this phase. The teacher said, "What are you going to do that is good today? Is anybody going to play the scarecrow game?" Immediately following the child's verbalization indicating he was going to play the game, the teacher praised the child, while placing a snack in his cup, and repeated with emphasis that the child was going to play the scarecrow game that day. During the consumption period following playtime, the teacher handed the child his cup and said, "I'm giving you this because you said you were going to play the scarecrow game today." A say-do child who did not verbalize an intention to play with the scarecrow game did not have a snack placed in his cup. During the consumption period following playtime, the teacher showed the child his cup and said, "Oh, your cup is empty today because you didn't say you were going to play the scarecrow game." A similar procedure was followed for children in Group 2 (do-say). In this condition, the teacher asked, "What did you do that was good today? Did anybody play the scarecrow game?" The snack was administered and consumed immediately upon emission of the self-control related verbalization. Do-say children who did not verbalize the game-playing content did not receive a snack. Reinforcement of correspondence (Days 17-22). In this phase, receiving a snack was contingent upon both verbalization of and actual playing with the scarecrow game. Upon receiving the cups containing the snack during the consumption period (say-do) or receipt of the snack itself (do-say), the teacher said, "Yes, you really did play the scarecrow game today!" Those children making the appropriate verbalization but not exhibiting the corresponding nonverbal behavior (self-control performance) were not given the cups in which their snack had been placed earlier (say-do) or were given no snack (do-say). To these children, the teacher said as nonpunishingly as possible, "I'm sorry, but I can't give you the snack because you really didn't play the scarecrow game today." Children not producing the appropriate verbalization were told, "Oh, your cup is empty today!" (say-do) or received no snack (do-say).
RESULTS E a c h p o i n t o n the g r a p h s r e p r e s e n t s t h e a v e r a g e o f t h a t d a y ' s s c o r e a n d t h e i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g a n d s u c c e e d i n g d a y ' s s c o r e (i.e., t h e p e r c e n t a g e s a r e in t h e f o r m o f a t h r e e - p o i n t r u n n i n g m e a n ) . A s i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r , the b a s e l i n e is s u b d i v i d e d i n t o t w o e q u a l p e r i o d s in o r d e r to f a c i l i t a t e d a t a analysis. B o t h g r o u p s s h o w e d an i n c r e a s e o v e r b a s e l i n e in v e r b a l i z a t i o n o f p l a y with the s c a r e c r o w game by the end of the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e training, with t h e s a y - d o g r o u p s h o w i n g a s t e a d y i n c r e a s e in t h e b e h a v i o r a n d t h e d o - s a y g r o u p e x h i b i t i n g a m o r e v a r i a b l e p a t t e r n (Fig. 1). W h e n s n a c k w a s c o n t i n g e n t o n v e r b a l i z i n g p l a y w i t h t h e s c a r e c r o w g a m e ( P h a s e 3), t h e s a y - d o g r o u p c o n t i n u e d to e x h i b i t an i n c r e a s e in t h e c o r r e c t v e r b a l i z a t i o n , w h i l e the v e r b a l b e h a v i o r o f t h e d o - s a y g r o u p d e c r e a s e d to its l o w e s t l e v e l . T h e v e r b a l b e h a v i o r o f b o t h g r o u p s c o n t i n u e d to i n c r e a s e w h e n snack was contingent on c o r r e s p o n d e n c e of the verbal and nonver-
402
KAROLY A N D DIRKS PHASES 2
10¢
SAYING --G~p 1 (Sav-DoJ
cl
/
- -- -G~p
2
(D~Say)
+
5O
I / / i
~30 I/
30 2O 10 I
Z
1
3
4
5
6
;
8
9
10
BASELINE
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
REINFORCEMENT OF VERBALIZATION
I
I
I
19
20
21
Days
REINFORCEMENT OF CORRESPONDENCE
FIG. 1. Percentage of children in each group who verbalized playing with the scarecrow game. Percentages based on a three-point running mean.
bal behavior (Phase 4), although the verbalization level of the do-say group did not reach that of the say-do children. The pattern for doing (Fig. 2) shows that both groups were engaging in th6 self-control task when it was novel (during baseline) with performance falling off until the reinforcement of correspondence phase. In the final phase, both groups showed an increase in the frequency of scarecrow game performance, although th e say-do group exhibited a sharper increment than did the do-say group. The say-do group attained a maximum of 82% performance as compared to a 50% high for the do-say children (attained on the third day of the final phase and subsequently declining). The frequency of correspondence for both groups decreased from an initial level of 20% to below 10% for the baseline and reinforcement of verbalization phases (Fig. 3). Comparison of Phase 3 in Figs. 1 and 3 PHASES 2
3
4
130
~30
DOING
/
so
i+
1 (say-Do)
--Group
---Group 2 (D~Say)
/i I
i
i
I
~--
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
BASELINE
11
i-~i " 13 14 16
16
REINFORCEMENT OF VERBALIZATION
17
I 18
I 19
I 20
I 21
Oays
REINFORCEMENT OF CORRESPONDENCE
FIG. 2. Percentage of children in each group who played with the scarecrow game. Percentages based on a three-point running mean.
SELF-CONTROL T H R O U G H CORRESPONDENCE T R A I N I N G
403
PHASES 1
3
2
4
100 z
CORRESPONDENCE --G~p 1
gO
~ 70
- - -Group 2 (Oo-S~/)
~,eo
,~ ; 1
2
3
4
BASELINE
/ 5
S
1 BASELINE
12
1 REINFORCEMENT OF VERBALIZATION
S
20
E1
Days
REINFORCEMENT OF CORRESPONDENCE
FIG. 3. Percentage of children in each group who showed correspondence between both verbal and nonverbal behavior. Percentages based on a three-point running mean.
indicates that reinforcement of verbal behavior alone did not result in an increase in the corresponding self-control behavior, although a significant increase in correspondence between the verbal and self-control behavior was noted in both groups when snack was contingent on exhibiting correspondence (Phase 4). The level of correspondence of the say-do group continued to increase throughout this phase, with 82% of the children exhibiting correspondence by the end of training, while the d o - s a y group attained a maximum level of 43%. The trend analysis shown in Table 1 is based on ranks and uses the sampling distribution of an S statistic (Ferguson, 1965).2 Table 1 indicates a significant monotonic function (p < .01) for both the say-do and the d o - s a y groups for verbalization of play with the scarecrow game (Fig. 1). Verbalization increases significantly during the course of correspondence training, most notably during the reinforcement of correspondence phase. A significant bitonic function (p < .01) is noted for both groups for performing the arm extension task (doing). Figure 2 reveals a spontaneous decrease in "doing" for both groups during the initial baseline phase. In response to the reinforcement contingencies, there is an increase in the activity level during the reinforcement of correspondence phase. 2 The S statistic was originally employed by Kendall (1955) in his definition of the coefficient of rank correlation, ~-. S is a descriptive statistic showing the disarray in a set of ranks. A function Y = fiX) is defined as monotonically increasing if an increase in the value of X corresponds to an increase in the value of Y. A monotonically decreasing function occurs when an increase in the value of X is associated with a decrease in Y. Ferguson (1965) refers to a function with more than one monotonic branch as "sectionally monotonic." A function with one monotonically increasing and one monotonically decreasing branch is a bitonic function. A function with two increasing branches and one decreasing branch is a tritonic function. The monotonic, bitonic, and tritonic functions are roughly analogous to the linear, quadratic, and cubic functions.
404
KAROLY AND DIRKS TABLE 1 NONPARAMETRIC TREND ANALYSIS FOR CORRELATED DATA
Activity
Monotonic
Bitonic
Tritonic
Saying Say-Do Do-Say
3.78** 2.23*
0.37 0.55
0.00 0.17
Doing Say-Do Do-Say
1.39 0.00
2.68** 3.82**
0.697 0.00
Correspondence Say-Do Do-Say
2.31" 1.52
2.22* 2.97**
1.05 0.00
Note. Probabilities based on z-scores.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Similar results are noted for correspondence between saying and doing. There is a significant bitonic function for the say-do group (p < .05) and the do-say group (19 < .01) with a decrement in response activity during the baseline phase and an increment in the reinforcement of correspondence period (see Fig. 3). The increment during this final period for the say-do group is a significant monotonic function (p < .05). DISCUSSION The relationship between verbal cues and self-controlling actions can be established reliably in preschoolers. The 82% level of correspondence achieved by the say-do group is quite high, approximating that attained by other investigators (Risley & Hart, 1968) whose target for change was a simple motor response. In the reinforcement of correspondence phase, the say-do group attained a higher level of correspondence behavior (that is, execution of both the verbal and related self-control behavior) than the d o - s a y group (see Fig. 3). Kanfer and Karoly (1972) have suggested that an intention statement (saying) may be viewed as a verbal operant for execution of the intended behavior (doing). Since the say-do group had an opportunity to make an intention statement prior to the free play period, the higher level of self-control behavior exhibited by this group may be attributed to their having a verbal discriminative stimulus to cue subsequent performance. However, an explanation in terms of the acquisition of a higher-order response set (facilitated by the logic of an intention-execution sequence) is as plausible as an associative chaining view.
SELF-CONTROL THROUGH CORRESPONDENCE TRAINING
405
Figure 1 shows a discrepancy in the baseline verbalization (saying) performance of the two groups. As a result of the novelty of the scarecrow game, many of the children played the game in the initial phase of the study, with a gradual but steady decline thereafter. Since the d o - s a y group had the opportunity to report their play activity after it occurred, most reported playing with the scarecrow game during this baseline period. Thus, an accidental reinforcement for correspondence resulted during the first few days, producing a cycle which probably inflated the verbal behavior of children in the d o - s a y group. In the reinforcement of verbalization period (Phase 3), the self-controlrelated verbalizations of the d o - s a y group declined to a level below that of the say-do group (see Fig. 1). In view of the fact that saying was more immediately reinforced in the d o - s a y group, this is curious. One possible explanation involves the children's pre-experimental proclivities toward correspondence. That is, the say-do children could earn their reward "honestly" by bringing performance in line with their intention. The children in the d o - s a y group were, in fact, not playing the scarecrow game very much in this phase; and the only way for them to obtain reward would have been to tell a lie. The say-do children actually tended to do more during this period (Fig. 2) while the d o - s a y children, apparently not willing to lie to obtain reward, said less. A similar trend was reported by Risley and Hart (1968). REFERENCES Bem, S. L. Verbal self-control: The establishment of effective self-instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 74, 485-491. Ferguson, G. A. Nonparametric trend analysis. Montreal: McGill University Press, 1965. Israel, A. C., & O'Leary, K. D. Developing correspondence between children's words and deeds. Child Development, 1973, 44, 575-581. Kanfer, F. H., & Karoly, P. Self-control: A behavioristic excursion into the lion's den. Behavior Therapy, 1972, 3, 398-416. Kanfer, F. H., & Phillips, J. Learning foundations of behavior therapy. New York: Wiley, 1970. Karoly, P., & Kanfer, F. H. Effects of prior contractual experiences on self-control in children. Developmental Psychology, 1974, 10, 459-460. Kendall, M. G. Rank correlation methods. London: Griffin, 1955. 2nd ed. Lovaas, O. I. Control of food intake in children by reinforcement of relevant verbal behavior. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 1964, 68, 672-678. Luria, A. R. The role of speech in the regulation of normal and abnormal behavior. New York: Pergamon Press, 1961. Meichenbaum, D., & Goodman, J. Training impulsive children to talk to themselves: A means of developing self-control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 77, 115-126. Risley, T. R., & Hart, B. Developing correspondence between the nonverbal and verbal behavior of preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1,267-281. RECEIVED: January 29, 1976; REVISED: March 18, 1976 FINAL ACCEPTANCE: April 30, 1976
(1977)
Developing Self-Control in Preschool Children through Correspondence Training P A U L KAROLY AND MARTHA J. DIRKS
University of Cincinnati Twelve inner-city preschool children experienced one of two training procedures designed to establish correspondence between their verbalizations about behavioral self-control and execution of a self-control task. The children played the Scarecrow Game which involved the prolonged extension of their arms at their sides. The game is an analog of a "tolerance" type self-control situation. Group 1 experienced a saying (intention) then doing sequence. Group 2 was trained via a doing then saying (reporting) sequence. The experiment was conducted in three phases over 22 days. Both groups showed an increase over baseline in verbalization and play with the game, although reinforcement of verbalization alone did not produce an increase in self-control activity. A significant increase in correspondence did occur in both groups when a snack was delivered contingent upon the matching of verbal report to actual performance. In addition, the level of correspondence exhibited by the say-do group exceeded that of the d o - s a y group.
Shaping (Lovaas, 1961), fading (Bern, 1967), and self-instructional training procedures (Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971) have been employed to establish the stimulus function of children's utterances. Another viable teaching strategy, developed by Risley and Hart (1968) and extended by Israel and O'Leary (1973), is called "correspondence training." Rather than focusing on verbal responses alone, the explicit matching of deed to word or word to deed has been the objective-undertaken in a nonlaboratory (nursery school) context and involving relatively long time delays between members of the verbal-nonverbal chain. The successful demonstrations of correspondence training are said to have implications for the development of children's self-control (Israel & O'Leary, 1973); but, to date, no research has been conducted involving This study is based on a master's thesis submitted by the second author to the University of Cincinnati conducted under the supervision of the senior author. We wish to express our appreciation to John Steffen, who served on the thesis committee, to Joel Warm for helpful comments on the manuscript, and to the teachers, parents, and children at the Eastwood Cooperative Nursery School in Cincinnati, Ohio. Special thanks are extended to Louise Stalnaker and Chris Powell for their assistance in the conduct of this study. Requests for reprints should be sent to Paul Karoly, Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221. 398 Copyright© 1977by Associationfor Advancementof BehaviorTherapy. All rightsof reproductionin any form reserved. ISSN 0005-7894
SELF-CONTROL THROUGH CORRESPONDENCE TRAINING
399
self-directed activities which fit the behavioral definition of self-control. That is, children have not been required to emit a low probability behavior (a controlling response) that alters the likelihood of engaging in an action that has both positive and negative consequences (see Kanfer & Phillips, 1970). A primary goal of the present experiment was to investigate the utility of a correspondence training procedure on young children's performance in a "tolerance" type self-control situation; that is, one involving an immediately unpleasant but long-range positive (rewarding) outcome. Such a task is viewed as an analog to many everyday activities requiring conflictful decision-making (e.g., studying, taking bad-tasting medicine, various forms of self-denial). Second, the study examined the effects of sequencing in correspondence training. Following Luria (1961), Israel and O'Leary (1973) suggested that a saying, then doing sequence would be a superior method of eliciting correspondence since "verbal behavior is a more readily available and versatile discriminative stimulus than nonverbal behavior" (p. 576). The findings supported their prediction. Do such sequence effects hold when the nonverbal task is a delayed self-control activity? The present study sought an answer to this question, as well. METHOD Subjects. Twelve 3- to 5-year-old children living in an inner-city section of a large midwestern city and attending the same church-affiliated half-day nursery school served as subjects. Children were assigned to two groups after being matched on sex and on teacher rankings of general self-control abilities.X The admittance of a new student on the first day of the experiment and the subsequent withdrawal of another resulted in an unequal number of children in each group. Final group compositions were: Group 1, 2 black males, 2 white females and 1 black female; Group 2, 2 black males, 1 white male, 3 black females and 1 white female. The mean age of the children was 4 years, 7 months. Setting and design. The classroom teacher and a student teacher conducted all phases of the training in a nursery school classroom during the months of April and May. Coordinating each phase of the study with the school's free play and snack time, the teachers divided the children into two groups: Group 1, experiencing a say-do sequence, with a verbalization period prior to the normal free-play time, and Group 2, trained in a do-say sequence with free-play preceding the verbalization period. Saying and doing occurred approximately 1 hr apart. The experiment was conducted in three phases: baseline, reinforcement of verbalization, and reinforcement of correspondence. For purposes of data analysis, the baseline phase was subdivided into two periods of five observation days each. Task. Children played the "scarecrow game" (Karoly & Kanfer, 1974). A sturdily constructed wooden figure approximately the size of a 4-year-old child (height = 1 m) had arms horizontal to the floor but adjustable along a vertical axis. The child extended his arms in imitation of the scarecrow, with each hand passing through a set of photocells attached to the scarecrow's hands. A timing device (Hunter Model 120A Klockcounter) was automati1 A general definition of self-control was given orally and in written form to the classroom teacher and to her aide. The statement included concrete examples. The two then ranked all the children in the sample. The interjudge reliability (Spearman p) was .82.
400
KAROLY AND DIRKS
cally activated when the child raised his arms to shoulder height and automatically stopped when either hand fell below 20° of horizontal. Playing with the game was defined as exhibiting an arm extension time of at least 10 sec (the point at which the average 4-year-old in our studies begins to verbalize discomfort). In fact, most children tolerated longer; an average of 44 sec across all phases of the experiment, with little variation over time. Children were also allowed to engage in any of seven other activities during free play (e.g., art, water play, toy play, etc.). Procedure. The scarecrow game was placed in the classroom with the other play materials and was available to any child during the first hour of free play. A white, female graduate student, uninformed as to the content of children's verbalizations, monitored the game. When a child indicated he wished to play, the experimenter adjusted the arms of the scarecrow to the height and length of the child's extended arms. The game was introduced by the experimenter to each child individually in the following manner: This is a new game called the Scarecrow Game. To play, you pretend that you're a scarecrow and the rest of the room is the corn field. Since you want to keep the birds away, you'll want to hold out your arms for as long as you can like a good scarecrow. See this scarecrow (pointing to the model scarecrow)? Can you hold your arms out straight just like him? (Child imitates with arms.) Good! Now, all you have to do to be a good scarecrow is stand here just like this one for as long as you can, even if you get tired or your arms start to hurt a little. Just keep your arms out straight as long as possible. When you want to stop playing, just put your arms down like this (experimenter demonstrates by dropping arms to sides). Whenever you drop your arms, then it's time to stop. You can stop whenever you want to; it's up to you. All you have to do is drop your arms. But you'll have to be careful because if you drop your arms even a little, then the game is over. You have to keep them straight out like this to be a really good scarecrow. The experimenter then asked the child a series of questions until he or she understood the procedure. Children in Group 1 (say-do) participated in a verbalization period prior to the first hour of free play. During the verbalization period, the teacher prompted responses from the children concerning their play activity by asking, "What are you going to do that is good today?" Each child was asked the question directly and had two opportunities to respond. The order of inquiry was random except that each child responded once before any was given a second opportunity to answer. Verbalizations were recorded by the teacher on a recording sheet designed for this purpose. Children in Group 2 (do-say) experienced a verbalization period following free play. As in Group 1, the teacher prompted responses concerning the play activity by asking, "What did you do that was good today?" The procedure for responding was as in Group 1. The two teachers alternated daily between the groups. During the verbalization period, the children in both groups were given a primary and a social reinforcer in the form of a special snack (one-half of an oatmeal cookie) and verbal praise. The contingencies for receipt of these reinforcers are described below. Baseline (Days l - I l). During baseline, each child received both the food reinforcer and social approval regardless of verbalization content or the play activity engaged in during free playtime. The only children who did not receive a cookie were those who remained silent. In both groups, consumption of the primary reinforcer followed the occurrence of both the verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Children in the say-do condition (Group 1) had their special snack placed in a cup during the verbalization period but were not allowed to eat it until after the play period. Those in the do-say condition (Group 2) received and consumed their snack during the verbalization period following playtime. During snack distribution,
SELF-CONTROL THROUGH CORRESPONDENCE TRAINING
401
the children were given social approval and were reminded why they were being given the snack (' 'I'm giving you this because you told me what you were going to do this morning"). Reinforcement of verbalization (Days 12-16). In this phase, a child in Group I (say-do) was given a snack and social approval contingent upon verbalizing that he played the scarecrow game that day. The teacher responded minimally to statements of other play activity with a nod or "mmbumm." The desired response was prompted the first day of this phase. The teacher said, "What are you going to do that is good today? Is anybody going to play the scarecrow game?" Immediately following the child's verbalization indicating he was going to play the game, the teacher praised the child, while placing a snack in his cup, and repeated with emphasis that the child was going to play the scarecrow game that day. During the consumption period following playtime, the teacher handed the child his cup and said, "I'm giving you this because you said you were going to play the scarecrow game today." A say-do child who did not verbalize an intention to play with the scarecrow game did not have a snack placed in his cup. During the consumption period following playtime, the teacher showed the child his cup and said, "Oh, your cup is empty today because you didn't say you were going to play the scarecrow game." A similar procedure was followed for children in Group 2 (do-say). In this condition, the teacher asked, "What did you do that was good today? Did anybody play the scarecrow game?" The snack was administered and consumed immediately upon emission of the self-control related verbalization. Do-say children who did not verbalize the game-playing content did not receive a snack. Reinforcement of correspondence (Days 17-22). In this phase, receiving a snack was contingent upon both verbalization of and actual playing with the scarecrow game. Upon receiving the cups containing the snack during the consumption period (say-do) or receipt of the snack itself (do-say), the teacher said, "Yes, you really did play the scarecrow game today!" Those children making the appropriate verbalization but not exhibiting the corresponding nonverbal behavior (self-control performance) were not given the cups in which their snack had been placed earlier (say-do) or were given no snack (do-say). To these children, the teacher said as nonpunishingly as possible, "I'm sorry, but I can't give you the snack because you really didn't play the scarecrow game today." Children not producing the appropriate verbalization were told, "Oh, your cup is empty today!" (say-do) or received no snack (do-say).
RESULTS E a c h p o i n t o n the g r a p h s r e p r e s e n t s t h e a v e r a g e o f t h a t d a y ' s s c o r e a n d t h e i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g a n d s u c c e e d i n g d a y ' s s c o r e (i.e., t h e p e r c e n t a g e s a r e in t h e f o r m o f a t h r e e - p o i n t r u n n i n g m e a n ) . A s i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r , the b a s e l i n e is s u b d i v i d e d i n t o t w o e q u a l p e r i o d s in o r d e r to f a c i l i t a t e d a t a analysis. B o t h g r o u p s s h o w e d an i n c r e a s e o v e r b a s e l i n e in v e r b a l i z a t i o n o f p l a y with the s c a r e c r o w game by the end of the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e training, with t h e s a y - d o g r o u p s h o w i n g a s t e a d y i n c r e a s e in t h e b e h a v i o r a n d t h e d o - s a y g r o u p e x h i b i t i n g a m o r e v a r i a b l e p a t t e r n (Fig. 1). W h e n s n a c k w a s c o n t i n g e n t o n v e r b a l i z i n g p l a y w i t h t h e s c a r e c r o w g a m e ( P h a s e 3), t h e s a y - d o g r o u p c o n t i n u e d to e x h i b i t an i n c r e a s e in t h e c o r r e c t v e r b a l i z a t i o n , w h i l e the v e r b a l b e h a v i o r o f t h e d o - s a y g r o u p d e c r e a s e d to its l o w e s t l e v e l . T h e v e r b a l b e h a v i o r o f b o t h g r o u p s c o n t i n u e d to i n c r e a s e w h e n snack was contingent on c o r r e s p o n d e n c e of the verbal and nonver-
402
KAROLY A N D DIRKS PHASES 2
10¢
SAYING --G~p 1 (Sav-DoJ
cl
/
- -- -G~p
2
(D~Say)
+
5O
I / / i
~30 I/
30 2O 10 I
Z
1
3
4
5
6
;
8
9
10
BASELINE
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
REINFORCEMENT OF VERBALIZATION
I
I
I
19
20
21
Days
REINFORCEMENT OF CORRESPONDENCE
FIG. 1. Percentage of children in each group who verbalized playing with the scarecrow game. Percentages based on a three-point running mean.
bal behavior (Phase 4), although the verbalization level of the do-say group did not reach that of the say-do children. The pattern for doing (Fig. 2) shows that both groups were engaging in th6 self-control task when it was novel (during baseline) with performance falling off until the reinforcement of correspondence phase. In the final phase, both groups showed an increase in the frequency of scarecrow game performance, although th e say-do group exhibited a sharper increment than did the do-say group. The say-do group attained a maximum of 82% performance as compared to a 50% high for the do-say children (attained on the third day of the final phase and subsequently declining). The frequency of correspondence for both groups decreased from an initial level of 20% to below 10% for the baseline and reinforcement of verbalization phases (Fig. 3). Comparison of Phase 3 in Figs. 1 and 3 PHASES 2
3
4
130
~30
DOING
/
so
i+
1 (say-Do)
--Group
---Group 2 (D~Say)
/i I
i
i
I
~--
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
BASELINE
11
i-~i " 13 14 16
16
REINFORCEMENT OF VERBALIZATION
17
I 18
I 19
I 20
I 21
Oays
REINFORCEMENT OF CORRESPONDENCE
FIG. 2. Percentage of children in each group who played with the scarecrow game. Percentages based on a three-point running mean.
SELF-CONTROL T H R O U G H CORRESPONDENCE T R A I N I N G
403
PHASES 1
3
2
4
100 z
CORRESPONDENCE --G~p 1
gO
~ 70
- - -Group 2 (Oo-S~/)
~,eo
,~ ; 1
2
3
4
BASELINE
/ 5
S
1 BASELINE
12
1 REINFORCEMENT OF VERBALIZATION
S
20
E1
Days
REINFORCEMENT OF CORRESPONDENCE
FIG. 3. Percentage of children in each group who showed correspondence between both verbal and nonverbal behavior. Percentages based on a three-point running mean.
indicates that reinforcement of verbal behavior alone did not result in an increase in the corresponding self-control behavior, although a significant increase in correspondence between the verbal and self-control behavior was noted in both groups when snack was contingent on exhibiting correspondence (Phase 4). The level of correspondence of the say-do group continued to increase throughout this phase, with 82% of the children exhibiting correspondence by the end of training, while the d o - s a y group attained a maximum level of 43%. The trend analysis shown in Table 1 is based on ranks and uses the sampling distribution of an S statistic (Ferguson, 1965).2 Table 1 indicates a significant monotonic function (p < .01) for both the say-do and the d o - s a y groups for verbalization of play with the scarecrow game (Fig. 1). Verbalization increases significantly during the course of correspondence training, most notably during the reinforcement of correspondence phase. A significant bitonic function (p < .01) is noted for both groups for performing the arm extension task (doing). Figure 2 reveals a spontaneous decrease in "doing" for both groups during the initial baseline phase. In response to the reinforcement contingencies, there is an increase in the activity level during the reinforcement of correspondence phase. 2 The S statistic was originally employed by Kendall (1955) in his definition of the coefficient of rank correlation, ~-. S is a descriptive statistic showing the disarray in a set of ranks. A function Y = fiX) is defined as monotonically increasing if an increase in the value of X corresponds to an increase in the value of Y. A monotonically decreasing function occurs when an increase in the value of X is associated with a decrease in Y. Ferguson (1965) refers to a function with more than one monotonic branch as "sectionally monotonic." A function with one monotonically increasing and one monotonically decreasing branch is a bitonic function. A function with two increasing branches and one decreasing branch is a tritonic function. The monotonic, bitonic, and tritonic functions are roughly analogous to the linear, quadratic, and cubic functions.
404
KAROLY AND DIRKS TABLE 1 NONPARAMETRIC TREND ANALYSIS FOR CORRELATED DATA
Activity
Monotonic
Bitonic
Tritonic
Saying Say-Do Do-Say
3.78** 2.23*
0.37 0.55
0.00 0.17
Doing Say-Do Do-Say
1.39 0.00
2.68** 3.82**
0.697 0.00
Correspondence Say-Do Do-Say
2.31" 1.52
2.22* 2.97**
1.05 0.00
Note. Probabilities based on z-scores.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Similar results are noted for correspondence between saying and doing. There is a significant bitonic function for the say-do group (p < .05) and the do-say group (19 < .01) with a decrement in response activity during the baseline phase and an increment in the reinforcement of correspondence period (see Fig. 3). The increment during this final period for the say-do group is a significant monotonic function (p < .05). DISCUSSION The relationship between verbal cues and self-controlling actions can be established reliably in preschoolers. The 82% level of correspondence achieved by the say-do group is quite high, approximating that attained by other investigators (Risley & Hart, 1968) whose target for change was a simple motor response. In the reinforcement of correspondence phase, the say-do group attained a higher level of correspondence behavior (that is, execution of both the verbal and related self-control behavior) than the d o - s a y group (see Fig. 3). Kanfer and Karoly (1972) have suggested that an intention statement (saying) may be viewed as a verbal operant for execution of the intended behavior (doing). Since the say-do group had an opportunity to make an intention statement prior to the free play period, the higher level of self-control behavior exhibited by this group may be attributed to their having a verbal discriminative stimulus to cue subsequent performance. However, an explanation in terms of the acquisition of a higher-order response set (facilitated by the logic of an intention-execution sequence) is as plausible as an associative chaining view.
SELF-CONTROL THROUGH CORRESPONDENCE TRAINING
405
Figure 1 shows a discrepancy in the baseline verbalization (saying) performance of the two groups. As a result of the novelty of the scarecrow game, many of the children played the game in the initial phase of the study, with a gradual but steady decline thereafter. Since the d o - s a y group had the opportunity to report their play activity after it occurred, most reported playing with the scarecrow game during this baseline period. Thus, an accidental reinforcement for correspondence resulted during the first few days, producing a cycle which probably inflated the verbal behavior of children in the d o - s a y group. In the reinforcement of verbalization period (Phase 3), the self-controlrelated verbalizations of the d o - s a y group declined to a level below that of the say-do group (see Fig. 1). In view of the fact that saying was more immediately reinforced in the d o - s a y group, this is curious. One possible explanation involves the children's pre-experimental proclivities toward correspondence. That is, the say-do children could earn their reward "honestly" by bringing performance in line with their intention. The children in the d o - s a y group were, in fact, not playing the scarecrow game very much in this phase; and the only way for them to obtain reward would have been to tell a lie. The say-do children actually tended to do more during this period (Fig. 2) while the d o - s a y children, apparently not willing to lie to obtain reward, said less. A similar trend was reported by Risley and Hart (1968). REFERENCES Bem, S. L. Verbal self-control: The establishment of effective self-instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 74, 485-491. Ferguson, G. A. Nonparametric trend analysis. Montreal: McGill University Press, 1965. Israel, A. C., & O'Leary, K. D. Developing correspondence between children's words and deeds. Child Development, 1973, 44, 575-581. Kanfer, F. H., & Karoly, P. Self-control: A behavioristic excursion into the lion's den. Behavior Therapy, 1972, 3, 398-416. Kanfer, F. H., & Phillips, J. Learning foundations of behavior therapy. New York: Wiley, 1970. Karoly, P., & Kanfer, F. H. Effects of prior contractual experiences on self-control in children. Developmental Psychology, 1974, 10, 459-460. Kendall, M. G. Rank correlation methods. London: Griffin, 1955. 2nd ed. Lovaas, O. I. Control of food intake in children by reinforcement of relevant verbal behavior. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 1964, 68, 672-678. Luria, A. R. The role of speech in the regulation of normal and abnormal behavior. New York: Pergamon Press, 1961. Meichenbaum, D., & Goodman, J. Training impulsive children to talk to themselves: A means of developing self-control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 77, 115-126. Risley, T. R., & Hart, B. Developing correspondence between the nonverbal and verbal behavior of preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1,267-281. RECEIVED: January 29, 1976; REVISED: March 18, 1976 FINAL ACCEPTANCE: April 30, 1976