SELF‐REGULATION IN THE MODIFICATION OF DISRUPTIVE CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR¹

Abstract

This study compared self-regulation and external regulation procedures in the treatment of children's disruptive dassroom behavior. After baseline data were collected, three of the four most disruptive children in each of 10 first-and second-grade dassrooms received reinforcement for achieving low rates of disruptive behavior. The fourth child served as a control subject throughout the experiment. Two of the three experimental subjects were then taught to self-observe their own disruptive behavior. In the final reinforcement period, these subjects were given control over dispensing reinforcers to themselves, based on their self-collected behavioral data while subjects in the other experimental group continued with the externally managed reinforcement In extinction, reinforcement was discontinued for all subjects, but one of the self-regulation subjects in each classroom continued overtly to self-observe. Results indicated that both reinforcement programs reduced disruptive behavior. The self-regulation procedures were slightly more effective in reducing disruptiveness than was the external regulation procedure, and this advantage persisted into extinction. These results suggest that selfregulation procedures provide a practical, inexpensive, and powerful alternative in dealing with disruptive behavior in children.Disruptive classroom behavior has often been the target of behavior modification technology. Many studies have demonstrated that rates of disruptive behavior can be substantially reduced by the systematic application of externally managed contingencies (e.g., Allen, Hart, Buell, Harris, and Wolf, 1964;Patterson, 1965;Homme, DeBaca, Devine, Steinhorst, and Rickert, 1963;Schmidt and Ulrich, 1969;Wasik, Senn, Welch, and Cooper, 1969;O'Leary, Becker, Evans, and Saudargas, 1969;Thomas, Becker, and Armstrong, 1968 (1969) demonstrated the potential of self-regulation for increasing a student's academic response rate. They found that higher academic rates occurred when the pupil arranged the contingency requirements than when the teacher specified them. In another classroom study, Glynn (1970) found that selfdetermined reinforcement was as effective as experimenter-determined reinforcement in increasing academic response rate and that differential token reinforcement experience influenced subsequent rates of self-determined reinforcement. Several other studies conducted in laboratory settings have further suggested the potential utility of self-monitoring and self-reinforcement in the modification of behavior. The results of studies on self-administered reinforcement have consistently demonstrated that behavior may be modified and maintained as well with a self-administered token reinforcement system as with an externally managed reinforcement system. Marston and Kanfer (1963)

A Social Learning Approach to Organizational Behavior

“…For instance, the manager may give himself an extra coffee break for having a clean desk the preceding day or stay after work for a half hour for each day that the paperwork is not taken care of. A number of studies in educational and clinical psychology have clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of self-recording, self-reward, and self-punishment [Bucher & Fabricatore, 1970;Broden, Hall, & Mitts, 1971;Johnson & White, 1971;Bolstad & Johnson, 1972;Flannery, 1972;Sobell & Sobell, 1973;Axelrod, Hall, Weiss, & Rohrer, 1974] and our own work has shown that it works in a managerial setting .…”

AN IMPLICIT TECHNOLOGY OF GENERALIZATION1

“…For example, peer-group control of inappropriate behavior has often been suspected and sometimes documented (Buehler, Patterson, and Furniss, 1966;Gelfand, Gelfand, and Dobson, 1967;Solomon and Wahler, 1973 Bolstad and Johnson (1972) presented data that showed that both experimental and control subjects in the same classroom were all affected (although not to the same extent) by experimental manipulation of the reinforcement contingency for the experimental subjects, whereas control subjects in a different classroom were not so affected. The authors presented data that may account for these differences.…”

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

“…Self-control training, diffusely defined, encompasses a variety of techniques which are designed to help students assume more and more of the direct management of their own academic achievement and classroom deportment. 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.…”