Self-control in school children: Stringency and leniency in self-determined and externally imposed performance standards

The Use of Goal Setting and Contingency Contracting for Improving Children's Homework Performance

“…Goal setting consists of comparisons of performance goals against present performance level and may be viewed as a form of self-monitoring, in which children evaluate their own performance (Bandura, 1977). Goal setting has been applied in laboratory and classroom settings and is effective with children across a wide range of ages and abilities (Bandura & Schunk, 1981;Brownell, Colletti, Ersner-Hershfield, Hershfield, & Wilson, 1977;Schunk, 1983Schunk, , 1985.…”

Application of the “Generalization Map” to a Self‐control Intervention With School‐aged Children

“…Prior to the first day of treatment, the treated student met with the employer to select: (a) his goal for the daily number of math problems to complete accurately (although the treated student's selection was not restricted, he was told his mean base rate and was prompted to choose a stringent criterion in a manner similar to the one used by Brownell et al, 1977); (b) his backup reinforcers from a long list of reinforcers in the school and home environments; and (c) the number of gold stars each backup reinforcer was worth. During each treatment session, he obtained his math sheet from his teacher after she had corrected it and counted the number of problems that he had completed accurately.…”

“…Self-control researchers have demonstrated: (a) Grade school children can effectively be taught to self-monitor, self-evaluate, and self-reinforce contingently for academic and classroom behaviors under externally imposed, experimenter contingencies (Ballard & Glynn, 1975;Bolstad & Johnson, 1972;Clement, Anderson, Arnold, Butman, Fantuzzo, & May, 1978;Glynn, Thomas, & Shee, 1973 (SUMMER 1984) equally effective (Bolstad & Johnson, 1972;Fredericksen & Fredericksen, 1975) or more effective (Edgar & Clement, 1980;Parks, Fine, & Hopkins, 1974) than externally administered and determined procedures. (c) Students can determine their own performance standards and contingencies, and when combined with reinforcement, these self-determined contingencies are either as effective (Felixbrod & O'Leary, 1973 or more effective (Brownell, Colletti, Ersner-Hershfield, Hershfield, & Wilson, 1977;Lovitt & Curtiss, 1969) than externally determined contingencies. (d) In comparison with externally determined reinforcers, some data suggest that grade school children are more productive and will work harder for self-selected reinforcers and the opportunity to choose reinforcers (Brigham & Stoerzinger, 1976).…”

“…(d) In comparison with externally determined reinforcers, some data suggest that grade school children are more productive and will work harder for self-selected reinforcers and the opportunity to choose reinforcers (Brigham & Stoerzinger, 1976). Moreover, these self-control procedures have evidenced a greater generalization capability than externally mediated procedures (Brownell et al, 1977;Fantuzzo & Clement, 1981;Johnson, 1970;Parks et al, 1974). To maximize this treatment impact and generality, O'Leary and Dubey (1979) have urged researchers and clinicians to combine these effective self-control skills into comprehensive intervention packages.…”

“…The rationale is that the child is the best contingency manager because she or he can deliver reinforcement immediately at all times and across all settings (Clement, 1973). Despite the logic of this hypothesis, only a handful of studies have investigated the generality of self-control interventions across persons (Fantuzzo & Clement, 1981;Fantuzzo, Harrell, & McLeod, 1979), settings (Burgio, Whitman, & Johnson, 1980;Drabman, Spitalnik, & O'Leary, 1973;Robertson, Simon, Pachman, & Drabman, 1979;Turkewitz, O'Leary, & Ironsmith, 1975;Varni & Henker, 1979), behaviors (Ballard & Glynn, 1975), and time periods (Arnold & Clement, 1981;Brownell et al, 1977;Felixbrod & O'Leary, 1974;Robertson et al, 1979). These studies differ from our investigation in that they were either conducted in contrived settings or the assessment of generalization was not the primary focus.…”