Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf

8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf

1/22

Springeris collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Behavioral Education.

http://www.jstor.org

An Analysis of Self-ManagementAuthor(s): Carolyn Hughes and John W. LloydSource: Journal of Behavioral Education, Vol. 3, No. 4 (December 1993), pp. 405-425

Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41819757Accessed: 11-08-2014 11:05 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41819757http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41819757http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/


2/22

Journal

f

Behavioralducation

Vol.

,

No.

4, 1993,

p.

405-425

An

Analysis

of

Self-Management

Carolyn Hughes,

Ph.D.,1,3

nd

John

W.

Lloyd,

Ph.D.2

Accepted:pril

0,

1993

Action

ditor:

irbhay

.

Singh

We

discuss

opics

related

o a

theoretical

nalysis

f self-management,ncluding

theories

f

elf-management,

elf-reinforcement

nd

self-management,

ntecedent

stimuli

for self-management,

eaching

of

self-management

ehaviors,

nd

applications

f self-management.

ur

analysis

ndicates

hat

elf-management's

roots n behavioralexplanations fphenomena

are

solid,

but

that

there re

important

ssues

yet

to be examined n

developing

thorough

nderstanding

of

self-management.

e

argue

hat

elf-management

ehaviors

lmost

certainly

must

be examined

n relation

o

the

contexts

n which

they

ccur

and the

consequences

that

they

roduce.

KEY

WORDS:

elf-management;

elf-control;

elf-regulation;

einforcement;

roblem-solving.

Human

situations

associated

with

self-control

r

self-management

typically

nvolve

behaving

n

a

way

that

causes one

or the other

of

two

competing onsequences to occur (Catania, 1984; Rachlin, 1978; Skinner,

1953).

Often,

for

simplicity,

eople

say

that an individual

hooses

between

two behaviors

having

different

onsequences.

For

example,

spending

one's

entire

weekly

paycheck

may

make

inexpensive

tems

such

as

magazines

or

cassette

tapes

available

immediately,

ut

may

prevent

the later

purchase

of a more

expensive

commodity

uch

as a new

car

(Catania,

1984).

Simi-

larly,

he immediate ffects

f

watching

elevision

ather han

studying

may

increase

the future ikelihood

of television

viewing,

ut the

delayed

effects

(e.g.,

poor

grades)

may

be

aversive.

1Assistantrofessor,epartmentfSpecial ducation,anderbiltniversity,ashville,

Tennessee.

2Professor,

urry

chool f

Education,

niversity

f

Virginia,

harlottesville,

irginia.

Correspondence

hould

e directed

o

Carolyn ughes, epartment

f

Special

ducation,

Vanderbilt

niversity,

ox

328,

eabody

ollege,

ashville,

N

37203.

405

1 5 -08

9/93/1

00-0405

07.00/0

1993 umanciences

ress,

nc.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/22

406

Hughes

nd

Lloyd

Such situations

resent

hallenging

ilemmas o an

individualbecause

the

effects

f the

two

alternative

esponses

ccur at

differentimes

Rachlin,

1978).

In

contrast,

f

opportunities e.g.,

a

limitless

upply

of

funds)

to

buy

a

car

or

purchase

a video

player

occurred at

the same

time,

self-control

would

not be an issue.

One

simply

would

choose

a

purchase

based

upon

personal

preference i.e.,

a

high-probabilityehavior).

The dilemma

occurs

because a

high-probability

ctivity

or

an individual uch as

spending

one's

money

provides

mmediate

reinforcement,

hereas the

effect

f not

saving

funds

e.g.,

not

enough

money

s

accumulated

to

buy

a

car)

is

experienced

only after a delay (Bandura, 1969). Good grades (and possible related

events

such

as

honor

rolls,

cholarships,

r

recognition)

may

not

be

an ef-

fective

einforcer or

tudying

ecause,

as an

outcome,

grade averages may

be

"to

delayed,

too

improbable,

r too

small,

and

of

only

cumulative

ig-

nificance"

Malott,

1984,

p. 200).

We

typically

escribe

an individual'sde-

cision to

study a

low-probability

ehavior)

rather

han watch television

a

high-probability

ehavior)

s an instance

f self-controlr

self-management.

Studying

may

be

immediately

versive;

however,

tudyingmay provide

ac-

cess to the

long-term

enefits f

good

grades

and associated

events.

Kazdin

(1978)

and

Brigham 1978)

contended

that

self-control

ccurs when an in-

dividual

responds

in a mannercounterto

obtaining

n

immediately

ein-

forcing

onsequence.

Self-control

may

be the

performance

f

a

response

that

appears

to act

against

the

immediate

contingencies.

In this

paper

we discuss theoretical ssues

related to the

concept

of

self-management.

opics

discussed nclude:

a)

theories

f

self-management,

including

perant

nd

cognitivexplanations,

b)

the role of self-reinforcement

in the

self-management

aradigm,

c)

the discriminative

timulus

for self-

management

ehavior,

d)

teaching

elf-management,

e) contemporary

p-

plications

f

self-management,

nd

(f)

recommendations

orfuture esearch.

WHAT

IS

SELF-MANAGEMENT?

Despite

minor

distinctions,

esponses

typically

lassified

under

the

rubric

of

self-management

nclude

self-control

cf.

Kazdin, 1978;

Skinner,

1953),

self-regulationcf.

Kanfer,

971),

and self-determination

cf.

Skinner,

1953).

Two theoretical

xplanations

f

self-management

s

a

process

domi-

nate

the literature:

a)

the

operant

explanation,

ncluding

basic

investiga-

tions

of

self-control

nd

theories

of

problem

solving cf. Brigham,

1978;

Catania, 1984; Kazdin, 1978; Rachlin, 1978; Skinner,1953) and the (b)

cognitive

nterpretation

cf.

Bandura,

1969;

Goldfried

&

Merbaum,

1973;

Kanfer, 1971;

Mahoney

&

Thoresen,

1974).

In this

section

we

discuss

the

literature

elated

to these

two

major

theories.



4/22

Self-Management

407

Operant

View

of

Self-Management

Skinner

1953)

may

have

been

the

first heorist o

propose

an

operant

view

of the

self-management

aradigm

Jones,

Nelson,

&

Kazdin,

1977).

Skinner

heorized

that

ndividuals ontrol

heir

behavior

s

they

would

con-

trol the

behavior of

anyone

else:

through

manipulation

f the variables

of

which

their

own behavior

s

a

function.

or

example,

to

avoid

smoking,

n

individual

ould

make

the

response

less

probable

by altering

functionally-

related

variables

(e.g.,

by

not

buyingcigarettes).

Skinner continued

that

anybehavior that succeeds in decreasingthe probability f the response

automatically

would

be

negatively

einforced

y

decreasing

versivestimu-

lation associated

with

he

response

e.g.,

shortness

f breathor

fear

of heart

failure).

Skinner's

paradigm

involves two

separate

responses:

the

controlling

response

the behavior

that

affects ariables

e.g.,

turning

ffthe

television)

in

such

a

way

as to

change

the

probability

f

the

controlled

esponse

the

behavior

to be increased

or

decreased

(e.g.,

studying).

An

individual'sbe-

havior

ultimately

s accounted for

by

variables

external

to the

individual,

but

these

external

events

typically

re mediated

by

events

accessible to the

individual lone

(e.g.,

the

"urge"

to

smoke).

Kazdin

(1978) suggested

that

individuals

re

in the best

position

to

observe

their wn

behavior and that

in

the

case of

private

events

(e.g.,

thoughts)

re the

only

ones that can

detect

their occurrence and administer

onsequences

for

their

control.

Basic

Investigations

f Self-Control

Basic

studies

with both

animals

and

humans

support

Skinner's con-

ceptualizationof self-controlCatania, 1984;Rachlin,1978). Behavior den-

tified

s

commitment

esponses

have been

observed

both

in

pigeons

(cf.

Fantino,

1966;

Rachlin

&

Green,

1972)

and

humans

cf.

Millar

&

Navarick,

1984;

Ragotzy, Blakely,

&

Poling,

1988). Specifically,

igeon

and

human

subjects

have

been observed

to make

responses

that

ncrease

the

chances

of

obtaining

a

large delayed

reinforcer

e.g., edible) by

making

an imme-

diate,

smaller

reinforcer navailable.

This

commitment

esponse

parallels

Skinner's

controlling

esponse).

In

contrast,

esponses

that result

n

accessing

the

smaller,

more im-

mediate

reinforcer

nstead

of

the

larger,

delayed

reinforcer

re classified

as impulsiveresponses.Because pigeons typically ehave more impulsively

than

human

subjects

Rachlin

&

Green, 1972;

Ragotzy

t

al.,

1988),

Catania

(1984)

and

Mawhinney

1982) speculated

hat

human

nstances

f

self-control

involve

erbal

behavior

cf.

Bem,

1967).

For

example,

Rachlin

1978)

suggested



5/22

408

Hughes

nd

Lloyd

that

a

student

may sign

(i.e.,

commit

to)

a written ontract

tating

re-

sponse

cost

(e.g.,

loss

of

privileges

r

money)

for

not

studying.

he contract

is

signed (a

form

of

verbal

behavior)

when the student's

perceived

value

of

studying

s

high

e.g.,

when

the

possibility

f

obtaining scholarship

s

contingent

n

maintaining ood grades).

The

verbal commitment

the

con-

tract)

decreases

the student's

hoice

due to the

impending esponse

cost

during

hose timeswhen

the value

of

studyingmay

wane

(e.g.,

when

there

are

competing

reinforcers).

Theories

f

Problem

Solving

The

problem-solving

rocess

described

by

Skinner

1953)

and Catania

(1984) exemplifies

he

operant

view

of

self-management.

kinner

uggested

that

a

problem

situation

s

one

in

which

"a

response

xists

n

strength

hich

cannot be emitted"

1953, p.

246).

The

strength

f

the

response typically

s

demonstrated

when the

response

occurs as soon

as

the

opportunity

s

avail-

able.

For

example,

a

locked

door

in a house is

a

problem

if

behavior re-

quiring

he door

to be

open

is

strong

nd

a

key

or other

means of

opening

thedoor is not available. The strengthf theresponse s inferred rom he

occurrence of behavior

that

previously

pened

the door

(e.g.,

"jimmying"

the

lock

with a

knife)

or the

behavior

that occurs

as

soon

as the door is

opened (e.g., dashing

inside

the

house).

The

solution

to the

problem

is

simply response

that

alters

the

situation

o that

the

strong

response

can

be

emitted

e.g.,

finding

he

key

or

calling

a

locksmith).

imilarly,

atania

(1984) suggested

that

the discriminative

eatures

of

a situation

define

the

problem,

nd the

solution to

the

problem

serves

as the reinforcer.

Skinner

1953)

reminded

us that:

"Simply

mitting

. olution,owever,s not

olving

problem.

. . Problem-solving

may

e

defined s

any

behavior

hich,

hrough

he

manipulation

f

variables

(emphasis

dded),

makes he

appearance

f

a solutionmore

probable.

. .

[However],

he

ppearance

f

solution

oes

not

guarantee

hat

roblem-solving

has

taken

lace.

An

accidental

hange

n the

nvironment

ften

rings

bout

similaresult

[for

xample],

he

key

may

e found

by

hance]"

p.

247-248).

The

process

by

which

an individual

solves

a

problem

is

similar

to the

explanation

of how

one

manages

one's

own

behavior:

through

the

manipulation

f

variables

f

which

the

response

s

a

function.

In the

case of

self-management,

ne

controls

variables

(i.e.,

an ex-

ample ofSkinner's ontrollingesponse) to changetheprobabilityfa con-

trolled

response.

For

example,

people

count

to ten

to

prevent

making

abusive comments

r

enter

library

arrel

to increase

studying.

When

solv-

ing

a

problem,

one

manipulates

timuli

i.e.,

modifies

he

environment)

o



6/22


7/22

410

Hughes

nd

Lloyd

According

to

the

cognitive

view

of

self-management,

iscrimination

of one's behavior

s

followed

by

a decision

to controlor

change

one's

per-

formance o achieve

a

self-determined

utcome. Kanfer

1971)

claimed

that

this decision resulted

from

ndividuals'

observation of a

discrepancy

be-

tween their

behavior

and their

self-established

tandard of

performance.

Similarly,

andura

(1969)

argued

that

the:

"selection

f well-defined

bjectives

.. is

an essential

spect

f

any

elf-directed

program

f

change.

he

goals

hat

ndividualshoose

or hemselvesust e

specifiedufficiently

..

to

provide

dequate

uidance

or he

ctions

hat

must

be taken

aily

o attain

esired

utcomes"

p.255).

Goldfried nd Merbaum

1973)

concurred

hat

elf-managementrepresents

a

personal

decision arrived

at

through

conscious

deliberation

for the

purpose

of

integrating

ction

which

s

designed

to achieve certain

desired

outcomes or

goals

as determined

y

the individualhimself'

p. 12).

These

authors

cknowledged

that

their

viewpoint

s

well

as

those of Bandura

and

Kanfer stresses:

"the

mportance

f

mediating

ariables

n

dealing

ith he

rocess

f elf-control.

All

of

hese

cognitive]

onceptions

ean

heavily

n the

mportance

f

hought

nd

language

n

delayingmpulsive

ction,

ndfor

ntroducingcompetingognitive

alternativento he elf-regulatoryequence"p. 12).

Differences

nd

Similarities

Between

Operant

and

Cognitive

Perspectives

on

Self-Management

Rachlin

(1978)

and

other

operant

researchers

lso

referred

o

delay-

ing

impulsive

responses

within

he context

of basic

investigations

f

self-

control. These

researchers,

however,

focused

on

the individual's

con-

trolling

or commitment

response

in

which

variables

are

manipulated

to

make an impulsive response less probable. In contrast, the cognitive

viewpoint

stressed

the

mediation

of

variables

through

thoughtprocesses

in order to

delay

impulsive

action. To

illustrate,

Kanfer

(1971)

argued

that

"at

the

psychological

evel,

some

verbal,

perceptual

or

physiological

feedback for

activation of

the

self-regulation

equence

is

needed

as

a

trigger" p.

43).

Although

there

are

differences

etween

the

operant

and

cognitive

perspectives

on

self-management,

hey

share

characteristics.

ndeed,

both

views

arose from

a

behavioral

perspective,

not

from

a

psychoanalytic

r

other

non-empirical

radition.

urthermore,

ccording

to

both

views,

self-

management s not a trait.Whereas people on the streetmightreferto

concepts

such

as will

power

or other

psychological

qualities,

neither

the

cognitive

nor the

operant

views

of

self-management

equire

recourse

to

personality

ttributes.

Another

similarity

s

that

according

to

both

views,



8/22

Self-Management

4X1

individuals an

acquire greater

facility

n

exercising

elf-management.

n a

later

section,

we

discuss

some

examples

of

applications

f

self-management

and how t can

be

taught.

Before

turning

o that

opic,

however,

we

examine

the

events

that surround

elf-management

f

behavior,

sking

what

causes

and

supports

self-management.

WHY DO PEOPLE

MANAGE

THEIR

OWN BEHAVIOR?

Because bothhumanand infrahumanubjectshave been observedto

manage

their

own

behavior

i.e.,

to avoid

immediate

onsequences

in

favor

of

delayed reinforcement),

n

analysis

of

the

self-management

aradigm

should

consider

environmental

events

that

prompt

and maintain

that

behavior. The

issue is

particularly

ntriguing

hen

we

consider that the

individual

has

the

opportunity

o

obtain

reinforcement

t

any

time,

but

behaves in a manner

that

does not

result

in the

immediately

vailable

reinforcer

Kazdin,

1978;

Skinner,

953;

Thoreson

&

Mahoney,

1974).

To

describe

why

ndividuals

manage

their wn

behavior n

this

way,

we

discuss

perspectives

on the

antecedents

and

consequences

of

self-management,

respectively.

What

Prompts

Self-Management?

Because

television

watching

r

doodling

at

one's

desk

or

remaining

quiet

on

a

controversial

opic

at a

meeting

may

provide

more

immediate

reinforcement or

an individual

han

paying

bills or

solving

lgebraic equa-

tions

or

publiclypresenting

n

opposing

view,

the

question

remains

why

anyonewould ever engage in a behaviorthatprovidesdelayed

rather

han

immediatebenefits.

f

we

observed

a

young

man

who

was

guffawing

oudly

while

watching

elevision

uddenlyget

up,

turnoffthe

television,

it down

at

his

desk,

and

begin

figuring

is

income tax

in

mid-January,

e

may

be

curious to

know

what

prompted

his

change

in behavior.

An

interpretation

of the

young

man's

actions

s

complex

because

of the influence

f

multiple

schedules

of reinforcement.

or

example,

the television

how

may provide

immediate

ositive

einforcement

ecause

of

its

relaxing

nd

entertaining

f-

fects. At

the same

time,

the

young

man

may

be

nagged

by

the

thought

that

his

income tax

isn't finished

nd he

knows

that

early filing ypically

results n earlyrefunds.He, therefore,mayreceive (a) immediatenegative

reinforcement

y avoiding nagging

thoughts

s he

begins

his income

tax,

(b)

delayed

positivereinforcement

or

early filing

when

he receives an

early

return,

nd

(c)

delayed

negative

einforcement

y preventing

he aversive



9/22

412

Hughes

nd

Lloyd

consequences

of not

filing e.g.,

a

fine).

To be

sure,

the

benefits f these

contingencies

must be

strong

enough

to overcome the

aversive

conse-

quences

that

are familiar

o most

people

who

complete

tax forms.

Competing

ontingencies

This scenario

provides

bases for

speculation

about

why

an

individual

may

act

in

a

way

that

eads

to access

to

immediate,

repotent onsequences

(i.e., why

he exerts

self-control). ccording

to our

scenario,

however,

he

young

man could reinforce imself t

any

time

i.e.,

he could turnthe tele-

vision

back on without

finishing

is

income

tax).

The fact

that

he does

not

requires

an

explanation.

One

explanation

concerns

the relative

trength

f

competing

ontin-

gencies.

For

example,

Herrnstein

1970)

suggested

that at

any given

time

an

individual

may

choose

to

behave

in

any

of several

ways,

ach associated

with

a

unique contingency.

he

proportion

or

strength

f

any

one

of

the

several

behaviors to

the total behavior

available to the

individualmatches

the

ratio between

the

contingency

orthatbehavior and the

total behavior.

Therefore, f several contingencies re in effect t a giventime (e.g., the

young

man

in our

example

could

either watch television or do his

taxes,

each

of which has

multiple

consequences),

the

proportion

of the individ-

ual's

responses

corresponds

to the relative

strength

f

the

contingency.

The

consequences

associated

with

completing

his income tax

may

have

been

more

powerful

o the

young

man

than those associated with

televi-

sion

viewing.

Further

nalysis

would lead

us to

question

what

nfluences

he relative

strength

f

competing

ontingencies.

everal

explanations

ppear plausible,

including

a)

an

individual's

reinforcement

istoiy (Ferster

&

Skinner,

1957; Kanfer,1971; Rachlin, 1978), (b) rule-governed ehavior (Catania,

1984; Malott,

1984),

(c)

the

perceived

value or

probability

f

occurrence

of

a

potential

reinforcer

Brigham,

1978;

Rotter,

1954),

(d)

discrimination

of

one's own

performance

Mahoney

&

Thoresen,

1974), (e)

an individual's

motivation o obtain

a

particular

reinforcer

Brigham,

1978),

and

(f)

the

operating

environmental

ontext

Nelson

&

Hayes,

1981;

Rachlin,

1978).

Cues

We now have an explanationfortheyoungman's behavior:He turns

off the television and

works on

his

taxes

because of

the

relative

strength

of

competing

ontingencies

hat

nfluence

his

behavior.

The

probability

f

an

early

refund

f his

taxes,

the

avoidance

of

penalties

such as

a

fine,

nd



10/22

Self-Management

413

other

consequences

are more

powerful

nfluences

han

the

enjoyment

he

currently

s

experiencing

watching

elevision.

We

still

do

not

know,

how-

ever,

what

prompts

him to turn

ff he television

uddenly

nd

begin

work-

ing

on the

aversive

tax forms.

Several

theories

have

been

proposed regarding

the

discriminative

stimulus

for

self-managing

ehavior.

Although

the ultimate

ncentiveto

manage

one's own behavior

may

be

accounted for

by

referring

o

environ-

mental

variables

Skinner,

1953),

events that

prompt elf-management

ypi-

cally

are

presumed

to

be

accessible

to the

individual

lone.

For

example,

Rachlin (1978) and Catania (1984) describedan individual's ommitment

response.

According

to this

perspective,

uring

period

in whichthe

value

of

a

particular

response (e.g.,

exercising)

s

high,

an

individual

makes

a

commitment

typically

onsidered

verbal

response)

to

perform

he

desired

behavior

with

a

particular requency.

he

commitment ecreases

the indi-

vidual's

choice and

prompts

he

performance

f

the behavior when

com-

peting

contingencies

re

prepotent

e.g.,

when one

would

ratherwatch TV

than

complete

tax

forms

r rather

tay

n

bed

than

get up

early

and

run).

Nelson

and

Hayes (1981)

extended

this

analysis,

uggesting

hat

the entire

controlling

esponse (self-management

ehavior) may

serve as

a

prompt

fordelayed consequences.

Premack

1970),

Kanfer

1971),

Kanfer nd

Karoly 1972),

and

Brigham

(1983)

referred o

an individual's

ttending

o

his

or

her own behavior or

private

vents

s

the stimulus or

elf-management

o occur.Kanfer

uggested

that:

"this

elf-monitoringystem ay o

nto ffect

nly

nderhose onditionsnwhich

the

normal

hains fbehavior

renot un ff

moothly

r

when

ther

xternal

r

internal

vents

rovide

ues forwhich o

highly

rained

esponse

s available'*

(p.

41).

That is, the individual assesses his or her behavior and, in finding t

unsatisfactory,

makes a decision to

change

that

performance.

Self-

monitoring,

therefore,

s

viewed

as the

stimulus

for

self-management;

however,

he

process

is

influenced

y

feedbackfrom nvironmental vents.

What

Reinforces

elf-Management?

Let's

return

o

observe the

young

man

doing

his income tax.

The

tele-

vision s

stilloff nd he sits

working

t his

desk which s covered

with

forms,

receipts, egal tablets,writing tensils, nd a calculator. We've speculated

on

why

he

went

to work

on

his

taxes,

but what

keeps

him

working

for

hours?

Explanations

related

to the

maintenance of

self-management

e-

havior

typically

nvolve ither

elf-reinforcementr external einforcement.



11/22

414

Hughes

nd

Lloyd

Self-Reinforcement

Self-reinforcement

ften has

been

proposed

as the

consequence

that

maintains

elf-management

ehavior

Bandura,

1974;

Kazdin,

1978;

Thoresen

&

Mahoney, 1974).

Bandura

noted

that

self-management

ehavior

may

be

hard to

maintain

because

it

is

supported

by

delayed

reinforcement hich

conflicts

with

immediate,

competing

contingencies.

ndividuals,

therefore,

often

re

taught

o

provide

their

wn reinforcementor

elf-managing

ntil

natural

consequences

are

operational.

For

example,

the

young

man whom

we observed completinghis income tax may reward himselfby eating a

pizza

after he has

completed

two

hours

of work. We

assume

that

eating

the

pizza

reinforces

ompleting

he income tax return

f

time-spent-working

increases

for the

young

man

in

the future

Bandura,

1969, 1974; Kanfer,

1971;

Kazdin,

1978).

This

explanation

of

the

self-reinforcement

f

self-management

ehav-

ior

appears

both

logical

and

parsimonious.

However,

its

verity

has

been

questioned by

several

investigators.

kinner

1953)

proposed

that:

"The

ultimate

uestion

s whetherhe

onsequence

as

any

trengthening

ffect

upon

he

ehavior

hich

recedes

t. s

the

ndividualore

ikely

o do a

similar

piece fworkn thefuture?t would otbesurprisingfhewere ot, lthough

we

must

gree

hat ehas

rranged

sequence

f ventsnwhich

ertain

ehavior

has

been

ollowed

y reinforcing

vent"

p.

238).

To

return o

the income

tax

scenario,

does

eating

a

pizza

increase future

sessions

working

n his income

tax

for

the

young

man?

Conversely,

would

futurework

sessions

be maintained

f

income

tax

refundswere

withdrawn

or

if

penalties

were no

longer

evied for failure

to

file returns?

Rachlin

(1978)

and

Catania

(1984)

argued

that

self-administered

e-

inforcement

s

not

what maintains

elf-management

ehavior.

nstead,

the

operantinvolved s a commitment esponse. In our example,Rachlin and

Catania would

arge

that

the

young

man has

made

a commitment

o eat

a

pizza only

if he has

worked

on his income

tax for

two

hours

because

completing

his returnhas

become

important

or other

reasons

(e.g.,

a

po-

tential

refund).

Whatever

originally

rought

he

young

man

to

make

the

commitment o reinforce

his own

working

n

the first

place probably

by

itself would make

completing

the

income tax

in the

future more

likely

(Catania,

1984).

Perhaps

self-reinforcement

perates

more

as

a

mediator

than

a

rein-

forcerof behavior.

Eating

the

pizza

might

have

increased

working

n the

income tax because of its stimuluspropertiesratherthan its reinforcing

properties Rachlin,

1978).

Rachlin

argued

that:

"This

hypothesis

ould

be

tested

y

ubstituting

eutral ut

trong

timuli

or

self-reinforcers.or

nstance,

student

ho

rewards

imself

y

ating

peanut



12/22

Self-Management

415

afterach10 min fstudyingughtostudyswell f, nsteadfeatingt,he

simply

ransfers

he

eanut

romne

dish o another

s a

way

f

ounting

0 min

study

eriods"

p.

253).

Self-reinforcement

ay

simply

erve

as

feedback

that

says

"I

did it"

to the

individual n the

same

way

that

a

feedback

click informs

pigeon

that it

has

just

pecked

a

key.

Similarly,

aer

(1984)

referred

o

marker

stimuli

such as

tokens in

a container

or

numbers

on

a

wrist

ounter

whose

"Functions

to

serve

s mediators

f

the

ong-term

utcomes

hat annot

eadily

be made irectnd

mmediate

utcomes

f the

behavior

hanges

hat re

being

programmed.. . They redirectnd mmediateonsequencesf

a

necessaryinitial

erformance;

hey

markhe orrectompletionfthat nitialerformance

and set theoccasion

or

subsequenterformance

hatnow an

lead

to

the

reinforcers

r avoid

he

punishers

n

those

earranged

ontingencies

hat he

self-controllingerson

s

attempting

o

use"

p.

212).

External

Reinforcement

Is

self-reinforcement

ufficient

o maintain

self-controllingesponse?

Bandura

(1974),

Kanfer

1971),

Kanfer

and

Karoly

(1972),

and Thoresen

and Mahoney (1974) proposedthat muchof humanbehavior s maintained

in the absence of immediate

nvironmental

upport

r feedback.

Jones

t

al.

(1977)

argued

that

lthough

heorists

cknowledge

he role of

the environment

in the

self-managementaradigm,

self-reinforcement

nvestigations

trongly

imply

hat he

self-delivery

f

consequences

s

responsible

or

behavior

hange

rather than

specific

external

contingencies

perating

n

the

experiment"

(p. 151).

Bandura

conceded

that

elf-reinforcingesponses

re

partly

ustained

by

periodic

xternal

einforcement,

ut he

claimed

that he

process

s

relatively

independent

f environmental

nfluence.

Other

investigators lace

more

weight

n the

role

of the environment

(Brigham,1978; Kazdin, 1978; Skinner, 953). Kazdin arguedthat research

suggests

that

self-management

ontingencies

depend upon

environmental

surroundings

o maintain

heir

upport

and

"although

theoretical

oncepts

of

self-control

vary

in

the

role

accorded

external

contingencies,

it is

generally greed

that

the]

environment

s crucial n

the execution

of self-

control

n

therapeutic

pplications"

p.

335).

Skinner

contended

that

indi-

viduals

control

their wn

behavior

by

manipulating

ariables

of which

their

behavior is

a

function,

ut that

ultimately

ontrol must

be

accounted

for

withvariables

lying

utside

ndividuals

hemselves.

kinner oncluded

that:

"A mereurveyf he echniquesf elf-controloesnot xplainhyhe ndividual

puts

hemnto ffect.

his

hortcoming

s all too

pparent

hen

e undertake

o

engender

elf-control.

.

. We

make

ontrolling

ehavior

ore

robable

y

arrangingpecial ontingencies

f reinforcement.

. .

Some f

these

dditional

consequences

re

supplied

y

nature,

ut

n

general

hey

re

arranged

y

the



13/22

416

Hughes

nd

Lloyd

community... Itappears,herefore,hatocietysresponsibleorheargerart

of

the

ehavior

f elf-control"

p.

240).

One

way

to

conceptualize

environmentalnfluences

n

self-managed

behaviors

s to

consider

the

concept

of

trapping.According

to the idea

of

trapping

Baer

&

Wolf,

1970),

it is

possible

that the levels

of

a

given

behavior are not

high or low)

enough

to come

into contact

with

reinforce-

ment

contingencies.

or

example,

children

may

not

read

at a fast

enough

rate

to meet a

criterion.

However,

when an

individual

perhaps

because

she

exercises

a

self-management echnique begins

to

respond

at

higher

levels, she comes into contactwith reinforcementontingencies;at the

same

time,

her

behavior

may

be

trapped

at a

higher

evel because it also

comes

into

contact

with other

naturally

ccurring ontingencies

uch as

understanding

what

she

read,

keeping peers

from

hiding

her

for

reading

without

nflection,

r other

positive

or

negative

reinforcers.

hus,

the self-

management

echnique provides

means to

gain

access to

naturally

ccur-

ring

reinforcers.

Another

way

to

conceptualize

environmental influences on

self-

management

s to

consider

self-management

s

a

behavior itself.

That

is,

if

self-management

r

controlling

esponses

are a

functional

esponse

class,

thenas a

group

they

re

likely

o be influenced y

consequences. Perhaps

the

environment

ifferentially

rovides

more and

stronger

positive

conse-

quences

for behaviors that

bring

people

in contact with

onger-term

on-

tingencies.

n this

way,

we

can

reconsider

self-management

ehaviors

as

less

discrete and more similar

o an

operant;

as a

group,

self-management

behaviors

operate

on the

environment

o

bring

the behavior

into contact

with more

powerful

reinforcers.

Both of the alternatives

we

discussed in

the

previous

paragraphs

also

correspond

to an

alternative

conceptualization

of the

relationship

between self-managedbehavior and the environment.According to this

view,

people may

exhibit

elf-control

ot

just

because

such

behavior

re-

sults in

greater

reinforcement,

ut because

it obtains reinforcement

more

effectively.

urthermore,

here

may

be some reinforcement

alue

in

how

one's

behavior affects

ne's

world;

as Skinner

noted,

"The

human

organ-

ism is

reinforced

imply

by being

effective"

Evans,

1968,

p.

62).

Thus,

one

potential

reinforcer

or

self-management

s that the

controlling

be-

haviors of an individual

xercising

elf-control

re reinforced

not so much

by

their

specific

effects

n

the

environment,

ut that

they

have

effects.

Given the idea of

multiple

schedules

operating

at

essentially

the same

time on behavior, perhaps self-managingbehavior produces multiple

changes

in the environment

hat

are,

in

sum,

reinforcing.

or

example,

perhaps

exercising

what

we

are

calling

self-management

educes

the

value

of

certain,

short-term

negative

consequences

as well

as

making

certain



14/22

Self-Management

417

longer-term onsequences

more

accessible. We

suggested

this in the ex-

ample

of the

person

preparing

tax

returns:

As

a

consequence

of

turning

offthe television

and

completing

ax

forms,

he

may

have

(a)

reduced the

"nagging"

associated

with not

having completed

his

taxes,

(b)

made his

return

rrive

earlier,

c)

provided

himself

with

a means

for

soliciting

o-

cial

reinforcement

rom

his

associates

("Wow

You've done

it

already?

I'm

dreading it."),

and

(e)

operated

on his

environment n

other

ways,

as well

as

simply

ausing

effects

r

changes

n

his

environment.

erhaps

all

of these

consequences

may

have

been

reinforcing,

more

reinforcing

han

those associated with watching television. Perhaps the individual has

learned

that

his behavior

has

effects

on the

environment n these sorts

of

ways,

that

self-management

ehavior

has

simply cquired

the effects

that are characteristic f

secondary

reinforcers.

The view

of

the

environment

s

the ultimate

ource of behavioral

on-

trol

may

seem

to limit

ne's

personal

responsibility

ith

respect

o behavior

management,

point

consistent

with

radical

behaviorism

Skinner, 1971).

A focus on the

environmental

nfluences

on

self-management

rocesses,

however,

has the

benefit

f

making

hese

processes

more amenable to

edu-

cational

influences

we

can

manipulate

environmental

ariables. In the

nextsection,we turnto discussing trategies orteaching elf-management.

HOW

TO TEACH

SELF-MANAGEMENT

According

to

the

paradigm

we have

advocated

in

this

paper,

self-

management

refers

o instances

n

which

the individual

orgoes

mmediate

reinforcementn favor of

highly

alued,

long-term

enefits.

The

process

appears simple enough

for

anyone

to

follow,yet

there

is

ample

evidence

that

many

people

may

not

practice

efficient

elf-management

kills.

For

example,

individuals

engage

in excessive

consummatory

ehavior

despite

harmful ffects uch

as

obesity,

heart

disease,

alcoholism, istlessness,

nd

general

ill

health. Or

they

engage

in

inappropriate

social interactions

regardless

of

loss

of

friends

r business

colleagues.

Conversely,

eople

fail

to

speak

up

when it comes

timefor

nnual

pay

raises

despite

dissatisfaction

with

their

current

salary,

or

they may

fail

to

study

torts

well

enough

to

pass

a bar

exam for

a law

degree.

Communities

pollute

streams

and

drinking

water

despite

threatsto

health

and

loss of

wildlife nd

nations

engage in warfare and fail to negotiatesettlementsn the face of loss of

life

and

natural resources.

Assuming

that

these

cases

represent

xamples

of

long-term

enefits

that are sacrificed

for short-term

ewards,

t

would

appear

that the need to learn

self-management

kills

s

pervasive.



15/22

418

Hughes

nd

Lloyd

Rachlin

(1978) suggested

hat environmentalventsthat can

generate

self-management y

shifting

he

locus of

behavioral

controlfrom hort- o

long-term

vents

have not been examined

ystematically.

ince

investigators

have

analyzed

the

variables of

which

behavior is a

function,

owever,

t

should be

possible

to

teach

ndividuals o

manipulate

ariables hat

nfluence

their

wn

behavior

cf.

Skinner,

953).

Rachlin

1978)

and

Baer

(1984)

sug-

gested

that t is

possible

to

make

people

more aware of the

contingencies

that are in

effect

n

their

ives

by

increasing

he

saliency

f

the antecedents

and

consequences

of environmental vents.

Through

the

use of direct

n-

structional rinciples uch as prompting,modeling,practice, nd corrective

feedback,

people

have been

taught

to

observe

instances

of their

undesired

behavior and

the environmental

vents

affecting

heirbehavior.

The use

of

recording

evices

may

help

to make these

events and

their

consequences

more

salient to the individual.

Additionally,

n individual's

ehavior

nitially

may

be

brought

nto

conformity

ith

ong-term

onsequences

by

employing

techniques

such as

(a)

commitment

trategies e.g., arranging

o have a

wake-up

call in order to arrive

t an

appointment

n

time) (Rachlin,

1978),

(b)

rules and verbal behavior

e.g.,

raising

one's hand before

speaking

in

class to

avoid loss

of

privileges)

Catania,

1984;

Malott,

1984),

or

(c)

stimulus

control

e.g., eating

onlywhensitting t a table to avoid snackingbetween

meals)

(Kazdin,

1978;

Skinner,

953).

Goldiamond

(1965),

Mahoney

and

Thoresen

(1974),

and

Brigham

(1978)

proposed

that

through

irect nstruction

ndividuals

an be

taught

to

analyze

their

nvironments

o

identify

unctional

ariables

that nfluence

theirbehavior. The next

step,

therefore,

s

to

teach

people

to

modify

he

variables

that control

the behavior

they

wish

to

charge.

Skinner

1953)

and

Brigham 1978)

suggested

that because

any

of the

variables of

which the

target

behavior

is a

function

may

be

manipulated,

many

self-management

proceduresare available and one maybe chosen that is appropriatefora

particular

nvironmental

ontext.

The next

section

discusses

effective

p-

plications

of

self-management

trategies.

CONTEMPORARY

APPLICATIONS

OF

SELF-MANAGEMENT

As we

developed

in

an earlier

section,

elf-management

stablishes

relationship

between

controlling

nd

controlled

esponses

(Skinner,

1953).

Thiscontrastlignswith distinctionetween echniquesor self-management

behaviors)

and the

problem

ehaviors

hat

those

techniques

have

been

used

to

change.

In this

section,

we

examine

that

distinction

with

reference

to

interventions.



16/22

Self-Management

419

ControllingResponses

People may

manage

their

wn

behavior n

myriadways.

For

example,

when

one

is

writing

while

sitting

next

to an

open

window on

a

pleasant

afternoon,

he

may

manage

her behaviorof

looking

out the

window

rather

than

ooking

t

what she is

writing y

altering

er

environment

e.g.,

closing

curtainsor

turning

her back

to the

window).

Similarly,

person

may

act

in a

way

that

s

incompatible

with

cting

n another

way,

as

exemplified

n

the

song,

"Whistle a

Happy

Tune."

Skinnerdiscussedtechniques f self-management.e cataloguedand

gave

examples ncluding a) physical

estraint

nd

physical

id,

(b)

changing

the

stimulus,

c)

depriving

nd

satiating, d)

manipulating

motional

condi-

tions,

e) using

aversive

timulation,

f)

drugs, g)

operant conditioning,

h)

punishment,

nd

(i) "doing

omething

lse"

(see

Skinner, 953,

pp. 231-240).

Kazdin

(1984) provided

slightly

ifferent

atalog.

He included

a)

stimulus

control,

b) self-monitoring,

c)

self-reinforcement

nd

self-punishment,

nd

(d)

alternate

esponse training.

Models

proposed

by

others

e.g.,

Bandura

&

Perloff,

967:

Glynn,

homas,

&

Shee,

1973; Kanfer,

970)

included

a)

self-

assessment,b) self-evaluation,c) self-recording,

nd

(d)

self-reinforcement.

The last

examples

have a

more substantial heoretical

asis: the

behaviors

described

by

Kazdin

(1978)

and Skinner

1953) comprise

more of an un-

structured

ollection. But these

lists are not

exhaustive;

other

techniques

that

have

been tested under

the

general

rubric f

self-management

nclude

goal-setting

nd

self-instruction.

As

is

apparent,

here re

many

ifferent

ays

o

classifyelf-management

techniques.

A

thorough

xamination

f these

taxonomies

would reveal

both

similarities nd differences

mong categories

of

techniques.

But,

at

present,

we

do not

think hat there

s a

comprehensive, nifying

eans

of

classifying

these techniques.

Controlled

Responses

An

exhaustive ist of

the different

ehaviors

that

have been

changed

using any

of

these various

techniques

would be

tedious,

in

part

because

self-management rocedures

have been used to address

many

responses

generally

outside

of the realm of

education.

These

response range

from

ceasing

smoking

Abueg,

Colletti,

&

Kopel,

1985; McConnell,

Biglan,

&

Severson,1984; Singh& Leung,1988) to losingweight e.g., Horton,1981;

Israel,

Silverman,

&

Solotar,

1987),

and from

reducing

depression

(e.g.,

Singer,

rvin,

&

Hawkins, 1988; Stark,

Reynolds,

&

Kaslow,

1987)

to

man-

aging

diabetes

(Wing, Epstein,

Nowalk,

&

Scott,

1988).



17/22

420

Hughes

nd

Lloyd

Examples

of

controlled

responses

withineducation are

abundant,

also. Some

studies

have

examined

the effects

f

controlling esponses

on

social

behavior in

schools;

for

example,

Martella,

Leonard,

Marchand-

Martella,

and

Agran

(1993)

used

self-monitoring

o reduce a student's

negative

statements.Other

controlled

responses

have been

academic;

for

example,

Laird

and

Winton

1993)

examined

the effects

f different elf-

evaluation

procedures

on

students'

mistakes

n mathematics

roblems.

Still

other tudies

have examined

ffects

n

combinations

f controlled

esponses;

for

example,

Maag,

Reid,

and

DiGangi

(1993)

used

self-recording

o ad-

dress these controlledresponses: (a) attending o mathwork sheets, (b)

answering

math

problems,

and

(c)

answering

those

problems correctly.

Controlled

responses

may

vary

n

complexity,

oo;

whereas

attending

s

a

relatively imple response,

answering

uestions

correctly

s more

complex

(i.e.,

it

requires

multiple

eparate

responses).

The

controlled

educational

responses

do not have

to be limited

to

school

settings,

however.

Rusch, McKee,

Chadsey-Rusch,

and

Renzaglia

(1988)

used

self-instruction

o

address

a

conceptually

imple

response,

eek-

ing

assistance,

n

a

job

setting.

imilarly, agomarcino

and Rusch

(1989)

used

self-instruction

echniques

to increase

the

relatively

omplex

work

responsesperformed ya personwithprofound etardationna community

work

setting.

This

brief

set of

examples

illustrates

hat diverse

self-management

techniques

have been

applied

in

diverse

settings

with

diverse

responses

by

membersof diverse

groups.

Apparently,

echniques,

ettings, esponses,

and

group

membership

do

not

impose

obvious

limitations

n

the useful-

ness

of

self-management.

ather,

theyprimarily

est

the

capability

of

the

people

who

are

teaching

self-management:

Can

we determine

how

to

teach

pretty

much

anyone

how

to

manage

her

own

behavior

under

given

circumstances?

Because

of

the

extent

of

the

literature

n

self-control,

eaders

who

are new to it and

are

interested

n

examining

tudies

of

self-management

should

read research

reviews

as

a first

tep.

Both

earlier

reviews

(e.g.,

Kazdin,

1984;

McLaughlin,

1976)

and

more

recent

works

addressing par-

ticular

opics

in

self-management

e.g.,

Hughes,

1991;

Mace

&

Kratochwill,

1988) provide

informative

ntroductions.

CONCLUSION

Despite

the

extensive

iterature

n

self-management,

ncluding

both

theoretical

nd

applied

papers,

there

s much

about

self-management

hat

is unknown.

Our

discussion

has

hinted

t some

areas

of

potentially

ruitful



18/22

Self-Management

421

research.

n this

ection,

we

suggest

few

areas as

illustrations

f the

range

of

topics

that

may

be studied.

Although

we have

an

abiding

nterest n

the

study

f

procedures

for

teaching

elf-management

ehaviors,

n these

com-

ments

we

focus

on

issues relevant

o

understanding

he

phenomenon

self-

management.

We

think it

would be

particularly

valuable

to

examine

the

consequences

of

self-management.

or

example,

we wonder

whether

the idea

of

trapping

Baer

&

Wolf,

1970)

is

operating

in

self-

management.Does managing ne's own behaviorpermit ccess to

other environmental einforcers?

We

wonder about

whethervarious

self-management

ehaviors

or

techniques

might

form

a

response

class.

Does

exercising

various

self-management

ehaviors

produce

a

higher

probability

f

using

those behaviors

n

other

settings?

We

think

that

the

question

of

why

self-management

echniques

work remains

unanswered.

Although

here re

substantial ata

that

bear

on

the

question,

we

would

like to know what

are the

key

ingredients n self-management nd how do they interactwith

other variables

to enhance or

inhibit ffects.

Similarly,

we

wonder

how

successful ducators

may

be in

teaching

the

use

of

self-management echniques

to

change

an individual's

behavior when the

individualherself

does

not want to

change

it.

For

example,

eachers

may

want

tudents o

workharder o

improve

their

grades, mployers

may

desire

employees

o

decrease

absences,

or

parents

may

wishthattheir

hildrenmore

consistently

ompleted

their household

chores.

Self-management

techniques

may

be

appropriate n each case; however, fan individualdoes notwant

to

change

a

targeted

behavior,

will

self-management

e effective

in

promoting

behavior

change?

We

believe that in such

a

case,

individuals

need to learn what

contingencies

re

operating

n

their

environments.

his

earning

s

facilitated

y

making

he

consequences

of one's actions more salient. For

example,

students could

be

instructed

hat

he results

f

continued

oor grades

will

be academic

probation

and eventual

dismissal

from chool.

Smokers

could

be

shown

x-rays

f

lungs

that have

been

damaged by

the effects

f

long-term

moke inhalation.

t

may

be that

reluctance

to

change

a behavior that s potentially amagingto an individual s due in

part

to

a

failure of the individual to associate

delayed

aversive

consequences

with an immediate

response.

A

prerequisite

for

teaching elf-management

may

be

to

cause the individual o

attend



19/22

422

Hughes

nd

Lloyd

to

potential

consequences

by making

these

consequences

more

salient.

Empirical

testing

of

this

hypothesis

in addition

to

investigation

of

the most

effective

methods

for

increasing

the

saliency

of

delayed

consequences

under

various

conditions hould

be

conducted.

We

think hat

the

wealth of

techniques

onsidered

under the rubric

of

self-management

s both

a benefit and

a

liability.Although

it

indicates

that

there

are

many

different

possible

techniques

(controlling ehaviors)

that

we can

teach,

we

fear

thiswealth

also

indicates

a lack

of

conceptual

clarity.

How

are

self-monitoring

nd

self-recording

he

same

and

different?

o what

extent

s

goal-setting

implicit

n

self-evaluation?

We need

a

rigorous

examination

and

classification f

these

procedures.

Such an

examination

hould also

propel

us

toward

more

complete

understanding

f

the

phenomenon

we call

self-management.

We also

expect

that

there

is much

to

be

gained

by

studying

elf-

management

behaviors

in

a

broader

context.

Self-management

behavior occurs

within

a context

n

which

some antecedent

and

consequent

eventsinfluence t. We have too littleunderstanding

of how

the

various

factors

n

the

environment

romote

or inhibit

self-management

nd how

self-management,

tself,

ffects

those

environmental

variables.

To

gain greater

understanding

of

the

interactions

between

self-management

and the

environments

within

which

it

occurs,

we

probably

must

adopt

an

ecobehavioral

approach

to

studying

hese

phenomena

(e.g.,

Greenwood,

Carta,

Arreaga-Mayer,

&

Rager,

1991).

We think

hat

some

of

the

problems

nd

issues

we have

identified

are the resultof havingno fully pecifiedand extensively ested

theory

of

self-management.

Although

cognitive

views

of self-

management

have

offered

working

models

of

self-control

e.g.,

Kanfer

&

Karoly,

1972),

there

are difficulties

ith

them.

Likewise,

it is

not clear

that more

operant

models

are sufficient

Nelson

&

Hayes,

1981).

But,

we doubt

that

we shall

be

able

to resolve

many

of the

more

difficult

ssues

in

self-management

e.g.,

what's

needed

to make

it

work?)

until

we

have

a

well-developed

model

to

critique,

test,

and revise.

Despite these questions about self-management, e thinkthat the

area has

much

to offer

ducation.

Self-management

echniques

appear

to

appeal

to

teachers

and

other

educators;

to be

applicable

in

diverse

ettings,

with diverse

populations,

and

to

diverse

controlled

responses;

and

to

be



20/22

Self-Management

423

robust.

Likewise,

they

have

advantages

for individuals

because

they

offer

a

potential

means

of

changing

behaviors

mportant

and

therefore

ocially

valid)

to

individuals

hemselves.

REFERENCES

Abueg,

.

R.,Colletti,.,

&

Kopel,

. A.

1985).

study

f

reactivity:

he

ffects

f

ncreased

relevancend aliencyfself-monitoredmokinghroughnhancedarbonmonoxidefeedback.

ognitiveherapy

ndResearch9,321-333.

Baer,

.

M.

1984).

oes

research

n elf-control

eed

more

ontrol?

nalysis

nd

ntervention

in

Developmental

isabilities,,

211-218.

Baer,

.

M.,

&

Wolf,

M.

M.

1970).

he

entry

nto aturalommunitiesf

reinforcement.

In R.

Ulrich,

.

Stachnik,

J.

Mabry

Eds.),

Control

f

humanehavior

Vol.

,

pp.

19-

324).

Glenview,

L:

Scott,

oresman.

Bandura,

.

1971).

icarious

nd elf-reinforcement

rocesses.

n

R. Glaser

Ed.),

The ature

of

reinforcement

pp.

228-278).

ewYork:

Academicress.

Bandura,

.

(1969).

Principles

f

behavior

odification

NewYork:

Holt,

Rinehartnd

Winston,

nc.

Bandura,

.

1974).

elf-reinforcement

rocesses.

n

M.

J.

Mahoney

C. E. Thoresen

Eds.),

Self-control

Power

o

he

erson

pp.

86-110).

onterey,

A:

Brooks/Cole

ublishing.

Bandura, .,& Perloff,. 1967). elativeflicacyt ell-monitorednd xternallymposed

reinforcement

ystems.

ournal

f

Personality

ndSocial

sychology,

,

111-116.

Bem,

.

L.

(1967).

Verbalelf-control:

he

stablishmentf ffectiveelf-instruction.

ournal

of

Exceptionalsychology,

4,

85-491.

Brigham,

.

(1983). elf-management:

radical ehavioral

erspective.

n P.

Karoly

F.

H.

Kanfer

Eds.),

elf-management

ndbehavior

hange:

rom

heory

o

practice

pp.

32-59).

New

York:

ergamon

ress.

Brigham,

.

A.

(1978).

Self-control:

art I.

In A. C. Catania

T. A.

Brigham

Eds.),

Handbook

f

applied

ehavior

nalysis:

ocial

nd

nstructional

rocessespp.

259-274).

NewYork:

rvington

ublishers.

Catania,

. C.

(1984). earning2nd

d.). Englewood

liffs,

J:

rentice-Hall,

nc.

Evans,

. I.

(1968).

.

F.

Skinner:he

man nd

his

deas.

NewYork: utton.

Fantino,

.

(1966).

mmediate

eward ollowed

y

xtinctionersus

ater

eward ithout

extinction.sychonomiccience,,233-234.

Ferster,

.

B.,

&

Skinner,

. F.

(1957).

chedule

freinforcement.

ew

York:

Appleton-

Century-Crofts,

nc.

Glynn,

.

L.,

Thomas,

.

D.,

&

Shee,

. M.

1973).

ehavioral

elf-control

f n-taskehavior

in

an

elementary

lassroom.

ournal

fApplied

ehavior

nalysis,

,

105-113.

Goldfried,

.

R.,

&

Merbaum,

.

1973).

A

perspective

n self-control.

n M. R.

Goldfned

&

M.

Merbaum

Eds.),

ehavior

hange

hrough

elf-control

pp.

3-34).

NewYork:

Holt,

Rinehart

nd

Winston,

nc.

Goldiamond,

.

(1965).

elf-control

rocedures

n

personal

ehavior

roblems.

sychological

Reports,

7,

851-868.

Greenwood,

.

R.,Carta,

.

J.,

Arreaga-Mayer,

.,

&

Rager,

.

1991).

hebehavior

nalyst

consulting

odel:

dentifying

nd

validating

aturally

ffectivenstructional

odels.

JournalfBehavioralducation,,165-191.

Herrnstein,

.

J.

1970).

n the aw f

ffect.ournal

f

he

xperimental

nalysis

f

Behavior,

13,

243-266.

Horton,

.

M.

1981).

elf-recording

n he

reatmentf

besity:

six-yearollow-up.

ournal

of

Obesity

nd

Weightegulation,

(2),

93-95.



21/22

424

Hughes

nd

Lloyd

Hughes,

.

(1991).

ndependent

erformance

mong

ndividualsithmentaletardation:

Promotingeneralization

hrough

elf-instruction.n M.

Hersen,

. M.

Eisler,

P. M.

Miller

Eds.),

rogress

n

behavior

odification

Vol.

7,

p.

-35).

ewbury

ark,

A:

Sage.

Israel,

.

C.,

Silverman,

.

K.,

&

Solotar,

. C.

(1987).

aseline

dherence

s

a

predictor

of

dropout

n

a

children's

eight-reduction

rogram.

ournal

f

Consulting

nd

Clinical

Psychology

55,

791-793.

Jones,

.

T.,

Nelson,

.

E.,

&

Kazdin,

. E.

(1977).

he role

f

externalariables

n self-

reinforcement.

ehavior

odification

2,

147-203.

Kanfer,

.

H.

(1971).

The

maintenancef behavior

y

self-generated

timuli nd

reinforcement.

n A. Jacobs

L.

B. Sachs

Eds.),

The

sychology

f

private

vents

Perspectives

n covert

esponse

ystems

pp.

39-59).

ewYork:Academic

ress.

Kanfer,

.

H.,

&

Karoly,

.

(1972).

elf-control:behavioristicxcursionnto

he

ion's en.

Behaviorherapy3,398-416.

Kanfer,

.

F.

(1970).

elf-monitoring:

ethodological

ssues

nd

linical

pplications.

ournal

of

Consulting

nd

Clinical

sychology

35,

143-152.

Kazdin,

A.

E.

(1978). Historyf

behavior

odification:

xperimental

oundations

f

contemporary

esearch.

altimore,

D:

University

ark

ress.

Kazdin,

.

E.

(1984).

Behavior

odification

n

appliedettings

3rd

d.).

Homewood,

L:

Dorsey.

Lagomarcino,

.

R.,

&

Rusch,

. R.

(1989).

Utilizingelf-managementrocedures

o

teach

independenterformance.

ducation

nd

Training

n

Mental etardation

24,

297-305.

Laird,

.,

Winton,

. S.

(1993).

A

comparison

f elf-instructional

heckingrocedures

or

remediating

athematicaleficits.

ournal

f

Behavioral

ducation,

,

143-164.

Maag,

J.

W.,Reid,R.,

&

DiGangi,

.

A.

(1993).

ifferentialffectsf

attention,

ccuracy,

and

productivityelf-monitoring.

ournal

fApplied

ehavior

nalysis,

6,

329-344.

Mace, . C.,& Kratochwill,. R. (1988). elf-monitoring.n J.C.Witt,. N.Eliott, F.

M.

Gresham

Eds.),

Handbook

f

behavior

herapy

n ducation

pp.

489-522).

ewYork:

Plenum.

Mahoney,

.

J.,

&

Thoresen,

.

E.

(1974).

ehavioralelf-

Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf