- Email: [email protected]
Influence of televised modeling and verbalization on children's delay of gratification
JOURNAL
OF EXPERIMENTAL
Influence
CHILD
PSYCHOLOGY
of Televised on Children’s
18,
333-339
Modeling Delay
GREGORY
University
(1974)
and
Verbalization
of Gratification’
C. R. YATES oj
Auckland
Voluntary delay of gratification in g-year-old children was assessed 4 weeks prior to, immediately after, and 4 weeks subsequent to exposure to one of four televized films. The modeling group observed an adult female model exemplify high-delay behavior. The persuasion group observed the model verbalize good reasons for waiting. The persuasion-modeling group observed the model exemplify high-delay behavior and verbalize reasons for waiting. Subjects in each of the treatment groups emitted more delay choices on the posttest than control group subjects who observed the model exhibit neutral behavior. The greatest magnitude of change occurred when modeling and persuasive cues were combined. Treatment effects were still in evidence for the modeling and the persuasion-modeling groups after a period of 4 weeks.
The influence of social modeling stimuli in the modification of voluntary delay of gratification has been demonstrated with preadolescent subjects (Bandura Lk Mischel, 1965). Replicating this study, Stumphauzer (1972) increased delay orientations in young prison inmates through exposure to a prestigeful peer exhibiting a high-delay orientation. Staub (1972) suggested that in the Bandura-Mischel procedure the model’s supportive verbalizations could have been an important source of influence. Carlin (1965) demonstrated that a model’s verbal and affective reactions during an imposed waiting period influenced young children’s willingness to defer gratification. Staub (1972) compared different aspects of a model’s behavior in the aim of increasing delay orientations in adolescents. In two related experiments he found that verbal persuasion emphasizing reasons for delaying gratification achieved more reliable ‘This study is based on an M.A. thesis submitted to the University of Auckland, New Zealand. The author wishes to express his appreciation to E. L. Glynn for supervision and guidance; to J. K. Hopkins, D. Barehan, and G. Pedersen, of Prospect Road School; to C. McKenna, S. Yates, T. E&e, and A. P. Wi!son, who assisted in the construction of the films; and to J. Gumming who served as & in the experiment. Shirley Yates assisted with all phases of the study. Reprint requests should be sent to G. C. R. Yates, Department of Psychiatry, University of Adelaide, South Australia, 5000, Australia. Copyright All rights
@ 1974 by Academic Pres, of reproduction in any form
333 Inc. reserved.
334
GREGORY
C.
R.
YATES
and enduring behavior change than exposure to the model’s choice behavior without verbal supports. Further verbal treatments emphasizing personal appeals and recommendations were ineffective. The present study was designed to investigate further the relative influence of persuasive and modeling cues on delay behavior, using younger subjects and televized rather than live stimulus presentation. Delay orientations were assessed 4 weeks prior to, immediately after, and 4 weeks after exposure to one of four films. In the treatments, one group observed on adult female model exhibit high-delay choice behavior and verbalize reasons for waiting (persuasion modeling), a second group observed the model’s choice behavior (modeling), and a third group observed the model verbalizing for waiting (persuasion). A fourth group, the control, observed the model being interviewed but her behavior provided no obvious influence cues. It was predicted that all treatment groups as compared to the controls would evidence increased delay orientations immediately after film exposure. Predictions were not advanced regarding relative efficacy of the different treatments ancl regarding group differences on the followup. METHOD
Subjects Seventy-two standard two (grade three) children in a Western Auckland primary school participated in the experiment. The analysis was based on the data from 56 subjects whose ages ranged from 7.8 to 10.0 with a mean of 8.11 years. Delay-of-Gratification
Test
The behavior test, which was similar to tests employed in earlier research (e.g., I3andura & Mischel, 1965), consisted of 14 items. Each item involved a choice between a reward obtainable on the day of the test and a more va!uable reward obtainable in 7 days. Choice items involved varying amounts of candy, nuts, fruits, or money, but within each item pair the rewards differed only in the amount of the commodity. The items used were taken from a pool of items administered earlier to children at another school, selected because they were more likely to elicit immediate choices than delay choices. Within the experiment the test was presented in booklet form, one item per page. Photographs of both alternatives were attached to the relevant pages. Each child indicated his choices on a separate response sheet. The number of delayed items chosen constituted the subject’s behavior score.
MODELING
AND
GR.~TIFICATION
DELAY
335
Procedure The three phases of the experiment were conducted at the school within normal school hours. The first phase involved an initial administration of the choice test to obtain a base-line assessment. The second phase was conducted 4 weeks later. This involved exposing the children in groups to the treatment, films and then readministering the choice test. The third phase, the followup assessment, was conducted 4 weeks after the treatment. In the initial phase of the experiment, each in turn was sent to report to El in an interview room. When S was seated at a desk, El read a short protocol explaining that (a) El was a “university researcher” interested in how people make decisions, (b) although S would be asked to make several choices in a questionnaire there were no actual “right” or “wrong’J answers, and (c) S was to choose carefully because he would actually receive one of his choices either that day or in 7 days time. The subject was then shown the booklet and how to record his answers. W7hile S wrote his responses, E, was occupied with paperwork across the other side of the room. When S had finished the questionnaire, El examined the completed answer sheet and handed LSa small sheet of paper, a “ticket” which specified the reward S was to receive and when it would be available. Rewards were distributed after school on the appropriate day. This procedure served to avoid disrupting the class. Thus for each choice item both alternatives did involve waiting, i.e., no reward was truly immediate. It is evident that the waiting period associated with attainment of the more immediate reward varied with the time of day the test was conducted. Treatment of this factor is discussed under Results. The second phase was conducted in the school hall. The television equipment was set along one wall and the test booklets were placed on desks spaced against the remaining walls. Children within each treatment group viewed their appropriate film in a group situation. The four film treatments were administered successively in a single morning. This procedure minimized the effects of intersubject communication. A second experimenter, E2, assisted with the procedure at this stage. For each treatment administration a note was passed to the teachers asking certain children to report to the hall. After the group had been invited to sit on stools in front of the television monitor, El introduced E2 as having constructed a film about the kind of work that El did. As the children had already assisted in the research, she had agreed to show them the film. It was explained that the children were assembled in a small group because only a few people could see the film at one time.
336
GREGORy
c.
R.
YATES
The children were instructed to watch the screen very carefully. E2 then operated the equipment while El pretended to consult some paperwork. When the film finished, El informed the 8s that they were to fill out another questionnaire and that the same conditions as before applied, i.e., everyone would receive one of their choices, and answers were to be written on the special sheet. Then El directed each 8 by name to a place at a desk when the 8 was to begin the test. The children were instructed to raise their hands if they had any queries and when they had finished. As each S finished he returned to the classroom. The Yickets” were to be given to the teachers to distribute later that day. The third phase involved a further administration of the choice test for all 8s. The procedure followed was identical to that of the first phase, except the verbal protocol was shortened and modified to allow for the fact that the test situation was no longer novel to the child.
The Film Treatments The films were made in the attempt to simulate a television news commentary. The film shown to the persuasion-modeling group consisted of three parts, each 1 min long. The first part involved exposure to a female experimenter, Es, interviewing a female model across a desk in an office situation. This scene was introduced by an announcer’s off-camera voice explaining that the “University” was conducting research into situations where people make decisions and that in one of the situations being studied, people have to choose between something available immediately or a more valuable thing available later. Then the soundtrack was phased in to coincide with the interview scene, where Es was heard obtaining biographic information from the model and explaining the procedure involved in the administration of the choice test. The model, an attractive, well-dressed young woman, declared herself to be a teacher and acknowledged that she understood the procedure. The second part showed the model make explicit choice decisions to the items presented by Es. These items were different from the items used in the behavior test. The model always chose to wait for the delayed alternative. The questions and responses were conveyed verbally, and screen always focused on the person speaking. (Three fixed cameras mediated by a central mixer were used in the actual filming session.) The response of E8 to the model’s replies was to introduce the next item. The scene was cut as Es introduced the seventh choice item. The third part involved a change of scene, where the model was being interviewed by the announcer who introduced the film. The model was asked how she felt about being in the choice situation. She replied with a series of arguments in favor of delaying gratification. The content of the
MODELING
AND
GRATIFICATION
337
DELAY
arguments was based on variables considered likely to influence delay behavior: (a) brevity of the waiting period (Mischel & Metzner, 1962), (b) waiting for a delayed goal is easy (Mischel & Staub, 1965) and even pleasant (Carlin, 1965), (c) other people approve of those who choose to wait (Stumphauzer, 1970), (d) a goal which appears blocked is actually obtainable, (e) the model’s personal endorsement of delayed responding, (f) the achievement of the most worthwhile thing justifies moral satisfaction. The control group saw only the first part of this film. The modeling group viewed the first and second parts. The persuasion group viewed the first and third parts. In this manner four separate films were constructed. RESULTS
Before any analyses were conducted, the data from eight subjects were excluded because of base-line scores greater than 10. This was to attenuate a possible restriction on the effects of the treatment. Five subjects were absent from the film sessions, and a further three subjects were randomly excluded to equalize cell numbers. To examine if the reward distributing procedure had given rise to any bias in the base-line scores, a t test comparison was made between the scores of children tested in the morning and afternoon. Also a productmoment correlation was obtained between scores and time before school finishing. In each case the hypothesis was retained that scores were not related to the time of day. Behavior
tkores
A 4 X 3 ANOVA (four film treatments, three phases of measurement) revealed significant treatment effects (J’(3,52) = 3.5741 p < .05), significant phases effects (8’(2,104) = 29.7, p < .Ol), and significant Treatment X Phases interaction, indicating that the films had unequal effects (F(6,104) = 3.161, p < .Ol). Duncan’s test was applied to group means at each phase of measureTABLE MEAN
Group Control Persuasion Modeling Persuasion-modeling
PERCENTAGE
Base
line 49 46 45 48
DEL.~Y
1 BEHAVIOR
Postt& .54 69 68 88
SCORES
Followup 48 59 62 75
338
GREGORY
C.
R.
YATES
ment. There were no differences among means at the base line. At the posttreatment level children in both the modeling and the persuasion groups chose more delayed rewards than the control group (p < .05 in both cases) but did not differ from each other. Persuasion-modeling group children chose more delayed rewards than the control group (p < .Ol) , the modeling group (JI < .05j, and the persuasion group (p < .05). At the followup level the persuasion-modeling group chose more delayed rewards than the control group (p < .Ol) and the persuasion group (p < .05), but did not differ significantly from the modeling group. Although the modeling and persuasion groups did not differ significantly from each other, the modeling group chose significantly more delayed rewards than the control group (p < .05), whereas the persuasion group did not. Comparisons within the persuasion group revealed that children chose more delayed rewards on the followup than they did on the baseline cp < .05). DISCUSSION
The results indicated that exposure to short televised films increased voluntary delay of gratification in g-year-old children. These changes were still in evidence after a period of 4 weeks. Exposure to a model’s choice behavior or her persuasive verbalization achieved equitable behavior change upon the immediate posttest. At this level the greatest magnitude of change occurred when modeling and persuasive cues were combined in the same film. The effects of the persuasion and modeling treatments, though similar on the posttest, were different on the followup. The modeling group children maintained increased delay functioning relative to the control group, and also the modeling film component added to the effectiveness of the persuasion film. The persuasion group children did not choose significantly more delay choices than control group children at this level, and the persuasion component did not add to the effectiveness of the modeling film. However, the modeling and persuasion groups did not differ significantly, so the present results do not offer satisfactory evidence for the superior durability of modeling influence against persuasive influence. Previous research indicated the influence of verbal models on delay orientations (Bandura & Mischel, 1965; Carlin, 1965; Stumphauzer, 1972). The present results demonstrate that a modelJs words and behavior choices are both important influence sources whose effects can be additive. Staub (1972) demonstrated that the content of modeled verbalization was important. He found that where persuasive treatments were effective
MODELING
AND
GRATIFICATION
DFXAY
339
personal appeals and recommendations did not influence adolescents’ delay orientations. The persuasive contents used in Staub’s studies and the present experiment were based on variables known to influence delay orientations, possibly facilitating the effects of past experience in delay appropriate situations. Staub found persuasive cues by themselves achieved maximal behavior change, unlike the finding of the present study. Different influence situations were used, but it is likely that adolescents are more susceptible to verbal sources of influence than g-year-old children. A possible interpretation of the additive effect of verbal and modeling cues in the present experiment is that persuasion may serve to instigate performance of exemplified behavior. Where external prompts are minimal, there is no guarantee that modeling will elicit imitation. Staub (1972) found that persuasive arguments changed expressed attitudes towards waiting. Hicks (1971) found that imitation in girls was predicted from their attitudes towards modeled activities. Persuasive cues may conceivably enhance the desirability of modeled acts, thus encouraging imitation. REFERENCES A., & MISCHEL, W. Modification of self-imposed delay of reward through exposure to live and symbolic models. Jo~rrmL oj Per.sonu~~@ cmd Sociul Psy-
BAND~A,
choZogy,
1965,
2,
69S-705.
M. T. The effects of modeled behavior during imposed delay on the observer’s subsequent willingness to defer rewards (doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1965). Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1965. No. 66-2535. HICKS, D. J. Girls’ attitudes towards modeled behaviors and the content of imitative private play. Child Development, 1971, 42, 139-147. MISCHEL, W., & METZNER, R. Preference for delayed rewards as a function of age, intelligence, and length of delay interval. Journal oj Abnormal and ,Social Psychology, 1962, 64, 425-431. MISCHEL, W., & STAUB, E. Effects of expectancy on working and waiting for larger rewards. Journal oj Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 625-633. STAUB, E. Effects of persuasion and modeling on delay of gratification. DeveZopmental Psychology, 1972, 6, 166177. STUMPHAUZER, J. S. Modification of delay choices in institutionalised youthful offenders through social reinforcement. Psychonomic ,%ience, 1970, 18, 22S223. STUMPHAUZER, J. S. Increased delay of gratification in young prison inmates through imitation of high delay peer models. Journal oj Personality and ,SociaZ PsychoZogy, 1972, 21, 10-17. CARLIN,
OF EXPERIMENTAL
Influence
CHILD
PSYCHOLOGY
of Televised on Children’s
18,
333-339
Modeling Delay
GREGORY
University
(1974)
and
Verbalization
of Gratification’
C. R. YATES oj
Auckland
Voluntary delay of gratification in g-year-old children was assessed 4 weeks prior to, immediately after, and 4 weeks subsequent to exposure to one of four televized films. The modeling group observed an adult female model exemplify high-delay behavior. The persuasion group observed the model verbalize good reasons for waiting. The persuasion-modeling group observed the model exemplify high-delay behavior and verbalize reasons for waiting. Subjects in each of the treatment groups emitted more delay choices on the posttest than control group subjects who observed the model exhibit neutral behavior. The greatest magnitude of change occurred when modeling and persuasive cues were combined. Treatment effects were still in evidence for the modeling and the persuasion-modeling groups after a period of 4 weeks.
The influence of social modeling stimuli in the modification of voluntary delay of gratification has been demonstrated with preadolescent subjects (Bandura Lk Mischel, 1965). Replicating this study, Stumphauzer (1972) increased delay orientations in young prison inmates through exposure to a prestigeful peer exhibiting a high-delay orientation. Staub (1972) suggested that in the Bandura-Mischel procedure the model’s supportive verbalizations could have been an important source of influence. Carlin (1965) demonstrated that a model’s verbal and affective reactions during an imposed waiting period influenced young children’s willingness to defer gratification. Staub (1972) compared different aspects of a model’s behavior in the aim of increasing delay orientations in adolescents. In two related experiments he found that verbal persuasion emphasizing reasons for delaying gratification achieved more reliable ‘This study is based on an M.A. thesis submitted to the University of Auckland, New Zealand. The author wishes to express his appreciation to E. L. Glynn for supervision and guidance; to J. K. Hopkins, D. Barehan, and G. Pedersen, of Prospect Road School; to C. McKenna, S. Yates, T. E&e, and A. P. Wi!son, who assisted in the construction of the films; and to J. Gumming who served as & in the experiment. Shirley Yates assisted with all phases of the study. Reprint requests should be sent to G. C. R. Yates, Department of Psychiatry, University of Adelaide, South Australia, 5000, Australia. Copyright All rights
@ 1974 by Academic Pres, of reproduction in any form
333 Inc. reserved.
334
GREGORY
C.
R.
YATES
and enduring behavior change than exposure to the model’s choice behavior without verbal supports. Further verbal treatments emphasizing personal appeals and recommendations were ineffective. The present study was designed to investigate further the relative influence of persuasive and modeling cues on delay behavior, using younger subjects and televized rather than live stimulus presentation. Delay orientations were assessed 4 weeks prior to, immediately after, and 4 weeks after exposure to one of four films. In the treatments, one group observed on adult female model exhibit high-delay choice behavior and verbalize reasons for waiting (persuasion modeling), a second group observed the model’s choice behavior (modeling), and a third group observed the model verbalizing for waiting (persuasion). A fourth group, the control, observed the model being interviewed but her behavior provided no obvious influence cues. It was predicted that all treatment groups as compared to the controls would evidence increased delay orientations immediately after film exposure. Predictions were not advanced regarding relative efficacy of the different treatments ancl regarding group differences on the followup. METHOD
Subjects Seventy-two standard two (grade three) children in a Western Auckland primary school participated in the experiment. The analysis was based on the data from 56 subjects whose ages ranged from 7.8 to 10.0 with a mean of 8.11 years. Delay-of-Gratification
Test
The behavior test, which was similar to tests employed in earlier research (e.g., I3andura & Mischel, 1965), consisted of 14 items. Each item involved a choice between a reward obtainable on the day of the test and a more va!uable reward obtainable in 7 days. Choice items involved varying amounts of candy, nuts, fruits, or money, but within each item pair the rewards differed only in the amount of the commodity. The items used were taken from a pool of items administered earlier to children at another school, selected because they were more likely to elicit immediate choices than delay choices. Within the experiment the test was presented in booklet form, one item per page. Photographs of both alternatives were attached to the relevant pages. Each child indicated his choices on a separate response sheet. The number of delayed items chosen constituted the subject’s behavior score.
MODELING
AND
GR.~TIFICATION
DELAY
335
Procedure The three phases of the experiment were conducted at the school within normal school hours. The first phase involved an initial administration of the choice test to obtain a base-line assessment. The second phase was conducted 4 weeks later. This involved exposing the children in groups to the treatment, films and then readministering the choice test. The third phase, the followup assessment, was conducted 4 weeks after the treatment. In the initial phase of the experiment, each in turn was sent to report to El in an interview room. When S was seated at a desk, El read a short protocol explaining that (a) El was a “university researcher” interested in how people make decisions, (b) although S would be asked to make several choices in a questionnaire there were no actual “right” or “wrong’J answers, and (c) S was to choose carefully because he would actually receive one of his choices either that day or in 7 days time. The subject was then shown the booklet and how to record his answers. W7hile S wrote his responses, E, was occupied with paperwork across the other side of the room. When S had finished the questionnaire, El examined the completed answer sheet and handed LSa small sheet of paper, a “ticket” which specified the reward S was to receive and when it would be available. Rewards were distributed after school on the appropriate day. This procedure served to avoid disrupting the class. Thus for each choice item both alternatives did involve waiting, i.e., no reward was truly immediate. It is evident that the waiting period associated with attainment of the more immediate reward varied with the time of day the test was conducted. Treatment of this factor is discussed under Results. The second phase was conducted in the school hall. The television equipment was set along one wall and the test booklets were placed on desks spaced against the remaining walls. Children within each treatment group viewed their appropriate film in a group situation. The four film treatments were administered successively in a single morning. This procedure minimized the effects of intersubject communication. A second experimenter, E2, assisted with the procedure at this stage. For each treatment administration a note was passed to the teachers asking certain children to report to the hall. After the group had been invited to sit on stools in front of the television monitor, El introduced E2 as having constructed a film about the kind of work that El did. As the children had already assisted in the research, she had agreed to show them the film. It was explained that the children were assembled in a small group because only a few people could see the film at one time.
336
GREGORy
c.
R.
YATES
The children were instructed to watch the screen very carefully. E2 then operated the equipment while El pretended to consult some paperwork. When the film finished, El informed the 8s that they were to fill out another questionnaire and that the same conditions as before applied, i.e., everyone would receive one of their choices, and answers were to be written on the special sheet. Then El directed each 8 by name to a place at a desk when the 8 was to begin the test. The children were instructed to raise their hands if they had any queries and when they had finished. As each S finished he returned to the classroom. The Yickets” were to be given to the teachers to distribute later that day. The third phase involved a further administration of the choice test for all 8s. The procedure followed was identical to that of the first phase, except the verbal protocol was shortened and modified to allow for the fact that the test situation was no longer novel to the child.
The Film Treatments The films were made in the attempt to simulate a television news commentary. The film shown to the persuasion-modeling group consisted of three parts, each 1 min long. The first part involved exposure to a female experimenter, Es, interviewing a female model across a desk in an office situation. This scene was introduced by an announcer’s off-camera voice explaining that the “University” was conducting research into situations where people make decisions and that in one of the situations being studied, people have to choose between something available immediately or a more valuable thing available later. Then the soundtrack was phased in to coincide with the interview scene, where Es was heard obtaining biographic information from the model and explaining the procedure involved in the administration of the choice test. The model, an attractive, well-dressed young woman, declared herself to be a teacher and acknowledged that she understood the procedure. The second part showed the model make explicit choice decisions to the items presented by Es. These items were different from the items used in the behavior test. The model always chose to wait for the delayed alternative. The questions and responses were conveyed verbally, and screen always focused on the person speaking. (Three fixed cameras mediated by a central mixer were used in the actual filming session.) The response of E8 to the model’s replies was to introduce the next item. The scene was cut as Es introduced the seventh choice item. The third part involved a change of scene, where the model was being interviewed by the announcer who introduced the film. The model was asked how she felt about being in the choice situation. She replied with a series of arguments in favor of delaying gratification. The content of the
MODELING
AND
GRATIFICATION
337
DELAY
arguments was based on variables considered likely to influence delay behavior: (a) brevity of the waiting period (Mischel & Metzner, 1962), (b) waiting for a delayed goal is easy (Mischel & Staub, 1965) and even pleasant (Carlin, 1965), (c) other people approve of those who choose to wait (Stumphauzer, 1970), (d) a goal which appears blocked is actually obtainable, (e) the model’s personal endorsement of delayed responding, (f) the achievement of the most worthwhile thing justifies moral satisfaction. The control group saw only the first part of this film. The modeling group viewed the first and second parts. The persuasion group viewed the first and third parts. In this manner four separate films were constructed. RESULTS
Before any analyses were conducted, the data from eight subjects were excluded because of base-line scores greater than 10. This was to attenuate a possible restriction on the effects of the treatment. Five subjects were absent from the film sessions, and a further three subjects were randomly excluded to equalize cell numbers. To examine if the reward distributing procedure had given rise to any bias in the base-line scores, a t test comparison was made between the scores of children tested in the morning and afternoon. Also a productmoment correlation was obtained between scores and time before school finishing. In each case the hypothesis was retained that scores were not related to the time of day. Behavior
tkores
A 4 X 3 ANOVA (four film treatments, three phases of measurement) revealed significant treatment effects (J’(3,52) = 3.5741 p < .05), significant phases effects (8’(2,104) = 29.7, p < .Ol), and significant Treatment X Phases interaction, indicating that the films had unequal effects (F(6,104) = 3.161, p < .Ol). Duncan’s test was applied to group means at each phase of measureTABLE MEAN
Group Control Persuasion Modeling Persuasion-modeling
PERCENTAGE
Base
line 49 46 45 48
DEL.~Y
1 BEHAVIOR
Postt& .54 69 68 88
SCORES
Followup 48 59 62 75
338
GREGORY
C.
R.
YATES
ment. There were no differences among means at the base line. At the posttreatment level children in both the modeling and the persuasion groups chose more delayed rewards than the control group (p < .05 in both cases) but did not differ from each other. Persuasion-modeling group children chose more delayed rewards than the control group (p < .Ol) , the modeling group (JI < .05j, and the persuasion group (p < .05). At the followup level the persuasion-modeling group chose more delayed rewards than the control group (p < .Ol) and the persuasion group (p < .05), but did not differ significantly from the modeling group. Although the modeling and persuasion groups did not differ significantly from each other, the modeling group chose significantly more delayed rewards than the control group (p < .05), whereas the persuasion group did not. Comparisons within the persuasion group revealed that children chose more delayed rewards on the followup than they did on the baseline cp < .05). DISCUSSION
The results indicated that exposure to short televised films increased voluntary delay of gratification in g-year-old children. These changes were still in evidence after a period of 4 weeks. Exposure to a model’s choice behavior or her persuasive verbalization achieved equitable behavior change upon the immediate posttest. At this level the greatest magnitude of change occurred when modeling and persuasive cues were combined in the same film. The effects of the persuasion and modeling treatments, though similar on the posttest, were different on the followup. The modeling group children maintained increased delay functioning relative to the control group, and also the modeling film component added to the effectiveness of the persuasion film. The persuasion group children did not choose significantly more delay choices than control group children at this level, and the persuasion component did not add to the effectiveness of the modeling film. However, the modeling and persuasion groups did not differ significantly, so the present results do not offer satisfactory evidence for the superior durability of modeling influence against persuasive influence. Previous research indicated the influence of verbal models on delay orientations (Bandura & Mischel, 1965; Carlin, 1965; Stumphauzer, 1972). The present results demonstrate that a modelJs words and behavior choices are both important influence sources whose effects can be additive. Staub (1972) demonstrated that the content of modeled verbalization was important. He found that where persuasive treatments were effective
MODELING
AND
GRATIFICATION
DFXAY
339
personal appeals and recommendations did not influence adolescents’ delay orientations. The persuasive contents used in Staub’s studies and the present experiment were based on variables known to influence delay orientations, possibly facilitating the effects of past experience in delay appropriate situations. Staub found persuasive cues by themselves achieved maximal behavior change, unlike the finding of the present study. Different influence situations were used, but it is likely that adolescents are more susceptible to verbal sources of influence than g-year-old children. A possible interpretation of the additive effect of verbal and modeling cues in the present experiment is that persuasion may serve to instigate performance of exemplified behavior. Where external prompts are minimal, there is no guarantee that modeling will elicit imitation. Staub (1972) found that persuasive arguments changed expressed attitudes towards waiting. Hicks (1971) found that imitation in girls was predicted from their attitudes towards modeled activities. Persuasive cues may conceivably enhance the desirability of modeled acts, thus encouraging imitation. REFERENCES A., & MISCHEL, W. Modification of self-imposed delay of reward through exposure to live and symbolic models. Jo~rrmL oj Per.sonu~~@ cmd Sociul Psy-
BAND~A,
choZogy,
1965,
2,
69S-705.
M. T. The effects of modeled behavior during imposed delay on the observer’s subsequent willingness to defer rewards (doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1965). Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1965. No. 66-2535. HICKS, D. J. Girls’ attitudes towards modeled behaviors and the content of imitative private play. Child Development, 1971, 42, 139-147. MISCHEL, W., & METZNER, R. Preference for delayed rewards as a function of age, intelligence, and length of delay interval. Journal oj Abnormal and ,Social Psychology, 1962, 64, 425-431. MISCHEL, W., & STAUB, E. Effects of expectancy on working and waiting for larger rewards. Journal oj Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 625-633. STAUB, E. Effects of persuasion and modeling on delay of gratification. DeveZopmental Psychology, 1972, 6, 166177. STUMPHAUZER, J. S. Modification of delay choices in institutionalised youthful offenders through social reinforcement. Psychonomic ,%ience, 1970, 18, 22S223. STUMPHAUZER, J. S. Increased delay of gratification in young prison inmates through imitation of high delay peer models. Journal oj Personality and ,SociaZ PsychoZogy, 1972, 21, 10-17. CARLIN,