A rose by any other name . . . : Labelling bias and attitudes toward behavior modification.

Woolfolk, Anita E.; Woolfolk, Robert L.; Wilson, Glenn F.

doi:10.1037/0022-006x.45.2.184

Cited by 90 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The present study was therefore a constructive replication of the earlier study of Woolfolk et al (1977), in that the possible influence of the label "organizational behavior modification" on subsequent attitudes was examined. It was predicted that a negative labeling bias would exist against behavior modification in the industrial and organizational milieu.…”

mentioning

confidence: 78%

“…This consisted of four different subscales, viz., decision-making practices (4 items), human resources primacy (3 items), communication flow (3 items), and motivational conditions (3 items). The 18-item Likert-type scale and 15-item semantic differential of Woolfolk et al (1977) were slightly reworded to reflect the work context (e.g., "teacher warmth" became "manager warmth; .... teacher was a good model for me" became "manager was a good model for me"). The eight factors generated from their study, viz., manager evaluation (6 items), method efficacy (5 items), interest in method (4 items), manager flexibility (2 items), method quality (7 items), emotionality (4 items), tedium (2 items), and idealism (1 item) were thus administered.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two different paragraphs were used to introduce the experimental manipulations and were based on the descriptions of Woolfolk et al (1977). The organizational behavior modification descriptions were introduced as follows:…”

Section: Barl1ng and Wainsteinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, Reppucci and Saunders (1974) documented an attempted implementation of a behavior modification program which was not accepted by the staff members concerned until the terminology of the program was changed, "behavior modification" becoming the less value-charged term "social learning." Second, Woolfolk, Woolfolk, and Wilson (1977) found that a humanistic description of an educational strategy was accepted more readily than a behavior modification description, although prior attitudes to behavior modification in general were not controlled.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Attitudes, labeling bias, and behavior modification in work organizations

Barling

Wainstein

1979

Behavior Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Barl1ng and Wainsteinmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Attitudes, labeling bias, and behavior modification in work organizations

Barling

Wainstein

1979

Behavior Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…If the video material was labeled as "humanistic education" it was rated more favorably and as more likely to promote academic learning and emotional growth, than if it was labeled as "behavior modification" (Woolfolk, Woolfolk, & Wilson, 1977). A similar phenomenon is evident in the results of a survey where several student groups were asked whether behavior modification should be used with various target groups (Boivin, Sewell, & Scott, 1986).…”

mentioning

confidence: 84%

Ethical Implications of Behavior Modification: Historical and Current Issues

Leslie¹

1997

Psychol Rec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of social factors are combining to raise the profile of ethical issues for behavior analysts and behavior-modification professionals, as for all psychologists . Some popular misconceptions have led to behavior modification being seen as coercive. These misconceptions are rebutted , and the ethical basis of behavior modification in behavioral analysis is examined. The key features of contemporary behavioral analysis and behavior modification are the public specification of objectives and methods, and the use of functional analysis. However, current problems with functional analysis may make the use of higher order principles such as professional codes of ethics appropriate. Ethical concerns raised by the particular examples of social validity measures and parent training programs are reviewed . These emphasize the importance of putting behavior modification into its social context and thus ensuring that the values of the wider community are acknowledged.According to the ''folk psychology" of Western societies, individuals are generally held to be responsible for their own actions. Occasionally, however, behavior is said to be caused by other, external, factors, or responsibility is attributed to other individuals. This is a "mixed model," and it could be said to be either philosophically sophisticated or even confused. Is it reasonable to state that one general class of cause (for example, the external environment) is sometimes effective but otherwise not? Hineline (1992) suggests that this tendency to vary our explanatory model derives from our using "bipolar causal talk" in the explanation of psychological phenomena (and thus mimicking the sort of bipolar explanation common in many other areas of discourse) even though three entities, the environment, the person, and his or her behavior, are involved. It certainly seems to be true that we switch from time to time between speaking of a I am indebted to Ronny Swain and Bryan Roche for their incisive comments on an earlier version of this paper. Reprint requests may be sent to J. C. Leslie,

show abstract

Increasing Treatment Acceptability Through Video

Foxx¹,

Bremer²,

Shultz³

et al. 1996

Behav. Intervent.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of a video vignette on the treatment acceptability ratings of four behavioral interventions were evaluated. Two interventions involved positive reinforcement (DRO and DRI) and two negative consequences (contingent physical restraint and contingent electric shock). Seventy‐four undergraduate psychology students were randomly assigned into two groups. The experimental group (n=36) viewed a video vignette of a self‐abusive individual whereas the control group (n=38) did not. Acceptability ratings prior to the video showed no differences between the experimental and control groups. The post video ratings indicated significant acceptability increases for physical restraint for the experimental group. There also was a significant group by testing effect because the means for the experimental group rose whereas the control group's means were stable. These results replicated and extended Foxx, McHenry and Bremer (in press) who showed that treatment acceptability is alterable through video.

show abstract

A rose by any other name . . . : Labelling bias and attitudes toward behavior modification.

Cited by 90 publications

References 12 publications

Attitudes, labeling bias, and behavior modification in work organizations

Attitudes, labeling bias, and behavior modification in work organizations

Ethical Implications of Behavior Modification: Historical and Current Issues

Increasing Treatment Acceptability Through Video

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About