SELF-MANAGEMENT: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT
TYPES OF REINFORCEMENT
A Thesis Presented to the Faculty
of
California State University, Stanislaus
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
of Master of Arts in Psychology
By
Rafał S. Gebauer
July 2015
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
SELF-MANAGEMENT: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT
TYPES OF REINFORCEMENT
by
Rafał S. Gebauer
Signed Certification of Approval Page is
on file with the University Library
Dr. William Potter
Professor of Psychology
Date
Dr. Bruce Hesse
Professor of Psychology
Date
Dr. AnaMarie Guichard
Associate Professor of Psychology
Date
© 2015
Rafał S. Gebauer
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
List of Tables ..........................................................................................................
v
List of Figures .........................................................................................................
vi
Abstract ...................................................................................................................
vii
Introduction .............................................................................................................
1
Self-instruction ............................................................................................
Self-recording/monitoring...........................................................................
Self-reinforcement ......................................................................................
Different types of external reinforcement ...................................................
Weigh control techniques ...........................................................................
2
2
4
5
6
Method ....................................................................................................................
8
Participants ..................................................................................................
Apparatus and Materials .............................................................................
Design .........................................................................................................
Procedure ....................................................................................................
8
8
9
9
Results .....................................................................................................................
15
Participant 1 ................................................................................................
Participant 2 ................................................................................................
Participant 3 ................................................................................................
Participant 4 ................................................................................................
15
17
19
21
Discussion ...............................................................................................................
26
References ...............................................................................................................
32
Appendices
A. Consent form ...............................................................................................
B. Social validity questionnaire ......................................................................
C. Social validity questionnaire - results .........................................................
iv
38
41
45
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
1. Intervention contingency overview...................................................................
11
2. Feedback on daily gain or loss ..........................................................................
12
3. The average number of steps or amount of water during particular conditions
24
v
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
PAGE
1. The amount of water and number of steps for participant 1 .............................
16
2. The amount of water and number of steps for participant 2 .............................
18
3. The amount of water and number of steps for participant 3 .............................
20
4. The amount of water and number of steps for participant 4 .............................
22
vi
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of different types of
reinforcement in self-management settings. Four university students participated in
self-management program in order to increase water intake and walking. Multiple
baseline design across behaviors which included baseline (A) condition, positive
reinforcement (B) condition, negative reinforcement (C) condition and combination
of both (B+C), was introduced. The results suggest that there is no large differences
in effectiveness of different types of reinforcement contingencies. However, the study
did show that implementing a relatively low cost reinforcement contingency did seem
to increase both target behaviors.
Key words: self-management, reinforcement, water intake, walking
vii
INTRODUCTION
The skill of controlling one’s behavior is a crucial component of an
individual’s life. The founder of radical behaviorism B.F. Skinner (1953) recognized
the importance of self-control of behavior as a method for personal development
throughout the lifespan. Later on, the term self-management was introduced, which is
now more widely in use, and is considered “a practice of techniques of self-control”
(Epstein, 1997, p. 553). After reviewing the literature it is clear that there are many
varied techniques with confusing terms, unclear definitions and/or mixed results.
Thus, the current study was a next step in order to fill in the gap in behavior analytic
knowledge by examining the functionality of reinforcement for self-management
interventions. It attempted to investigate the relative efficacy as well as provide a
comparison of different types of reinforcement (i.e. positive, negative, combination of
both).
Self-management/control is a broad area of research which includes many
approaches and techniques such as self-instructing, self-monitoring, self-recording,
self-reinforcing/ punishing to name just a few (Burgio, Whitman and Johnson, 1980;
Cihak & Gama, 2008; Duarte and Baer, 1994; Fritz, Iwata, Rolider, Camp & Neidert,
2012; Glynn, 1970; McCarl, Svobodny & Beare 1991; Newman, Buffington &
Hemmes 1996; Newman, Tuntigian, Ryan & Reinecke, 1997; Stasolla, Perilli &
Damiani, 2014).
1
2
Self-instruction
Duarte and Baer (1994) defined self-instructing as “self-talk with instructional
content”, and used this technique to improve sorting skills in preschool children.
After the children were unable to sort on their own, naming of common attributes was
introduced but this proved to be insufficient to produce accurate sorting. Thus,
researchers introduced self-instructions evoked by experimenter question “So, what
are you looking for?”. This intervention proved to be effective improving children’s
sorting skills. Burgio et al. (1980) taught self-instructing to developmentally disabled
children in order to increase their attending behavior during training and subsequently
to generalize it to one to one and classroom situation. Participants were trained to
self-instruct and after an acquisition of the skill the experimenter introduced different
types of distractors (visual, audio and in vivo) to investigate the effectiveness of the
intervention and possible generalization.
Self-recording/monitoring
Researchers have different approaches and definitions of self-monitoring and
self-recording as well as mixed data about effectiveness of these techniques. Fritz et
al. (2012) investigated components of self-management intervention such as
differential reinforcement (DR) of accurate recording or self-recording by
implementing treatment for two adults and a boy diagnosed with autism in order to
decrease their stereotypy. They attempted to assess the effectiveness of self-recording
by isolation of this technique from the other components that are often an additional
part of the intervention. The results suggested that a self-recording procedure alone is
3
ineffective or at least insufficient in the reduction of stereotypy. In other studies selfrecording proved to be an effective tool in behavior change providing highly stable
levels of target behaviors. McCarl et al. (1991) used self-recording to improve on-task
attention and academic productivity in three highly distractible girls with mild to
moderate mental handicap. The intervention, which consisted of five phases training
of self-recording, increased on-task behavior of all three participants and for two out
of three, there was an improvement in productivity. In another study Stasolla et al.
(2014) implemented self-monitoring procedure to increase on-task behavior of two
boys with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactive disorder
(ADHD). Additionally, the intervention was also aimed to decrease stereotyped
behaviors and investigate its effects on the mood. They found self-recording as an
effective tool to improve on-task behavior and increase indices of happiness and
decrease stereotyped behaviors. Taking into account inconsistent outcomes of selfrecording procedures in literature (i.e. ineffectiveness or high stable increase of target
behavior after implementation of self-recording) the current study used self-recoding
as a procedure to collect baseline data as well as enable accurate administration of
reinforcement during intervention phases. This solution was provided to ensure
minimal or easy to detect interference of self-recording technique with subject matter
of the study i.e. reinforcement. For this purpose, the self-recording/monitoring part of
the procedure was defined following Dean, Malott and Fulton’s (1983) definition,
that is self-monitoring was treated as a part of wider self-recording technique which
includes monitoring of one’s behavior and recording it afterwards.
4
Self-reinforcement
Another self-management technique that has been used by researchers is selfreinforcement or punishment (Cihak & Gama, 2008; Glynn, 1970; Newman et al.,
1996; Newman et al., 1997). Glynn (1970) compared the effects of self-determined,
experimenter-determined and chance-determined token reinforcement with no tokens.
Three conditions were assigned to four classes of grade nine girls. The selfdetermined reinforcement proved to be as effective as the experimenter-determined
one in the learning of history and geography material in the classroom. Newman et al.
(1996) successfully increased appropriate conversation in teenagers with autism. The
intervention consisted of either external or self-reinforcement where both of them
proved to be an effective procedure. Newman et al. (1997) used a self-managed
differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) to decrease disruptive behavior
(out-of-seat or nail-flicking) in three students with autism. The intervention was
introduced using external reinforcement followed by fading realized by selfreinforcement with prompts to final unprompted self-reinforcement. This treatment
successfully decreased target behavior and allowed for the follow-up. Cihak and
Gama (2008), by using a negative self-reinforcement procedure such as noncontingent access to escape (i.e. access to a break independently of the target
behavior), were able to increase task engagement while simultaneously inappropriate
behaviors decreased. This proved to be an effective intervention for students with
moderate to severe disabilities. However, despite these somewhat successful uses of
self-reinforcement there are some significant concerns about the nature of self-
5
reinforcement as a proper term and possible procedures needed to implement it
(Catania, 1975; Goldiamond, 1976).
Different Types of External Reinforcement
The alternative to self-reinforcement in self-management interventions is
reinforcement provided by an external agent. It requires another person as an
additional component and thus increases the costs and dependence of the intervention.
It is more reliable and likely a more effective procedure since there is no reliance on
the individual’s usually poor self-control. A literature search did not find any studies
that directly targeted comparison of reinforcement methods in self-management
procedures in order to evaluate their effectiveness. Despite that, reinforcement is a
very common component of self-management studies, thus its evaluation seems to be
crucial. However, there were attempts in behavior analytic literature to investigate
different types of reinforcement (but not in a self-management context). DeLeon,
Neidert, Anders and Rodriguez-Catter (2001) compared positive and negative
reinforcement in treatment of escape maintained behaviors. They applied different
types of reinforcement in order to increase the compliance of child with autism and to
reduce her problem behaviors. The results showed that, overall, positive
reinforcement was more effective than negative. However, along with an increase in
task requirements and possible choice between reinforcements, the effects and
selection pattern became unstable (i.e., the participants chose the negative
reinforcement more often in comparison to the previous preference for positive
reinforcement). Bouxsein, Roane, and Harper (2011) investigated not only the
6
effectiveness of different types of reinforcement but also their combination. A boy
diagnosed with Down syndrome was exposed to positive or negative reinforcement or
both, contingent on compliance. In this study the data suggested that a combination of
positive and negative reinforcement was the most effective.
Weight Control Techniques
According to The World Health Organization (WHO, 2015) globally, there are
more than 1.9 billion overweight adults, 600 million of whom are obese. Hammond
and Levine (2010) report that obesity costs the United States more than 215 billion
dollars a year. Between 1980 and 2014 the number of people worldwide with a Body
Mass Index (BMI is calculated by body mass divided by the square of the body
height; the score equal to 25 or more indicates overweight) above 25 more than
doubled (WHO, 2015). This study will discuss two of the many suggestions given in
literature to change this trend.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014) recommends at least
150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity or 75 minutes of vigorousintensity physical activity per week to lose weight or, a least, maintain a healthy
weight. The current study examined walking as a target behavior, in order to provide
an effective tool for weight control.
Other studies suggest that besides physical activity, drinking water regularly
throughout the day might increase weight loss and facilitate the maintenance of a
healthy weight (Muckelbauer, Sarganas, Grüneis & Müller-Nordhorn, 2013). The
current study also targeted daily water intake as a second behavior.
7
Thanks to recent technological progress researchers have begun to use a wide
variety of electronic devices (such as cellphones, Ipods Touch, mobile handheld
computers), specifically for self-recording (Bedesem & Dieker, 2014; Blood,
Johnson, Ridenour, Simmons & Crouch, 2011; Gulchak, 2008), that can provide more
control over data validity without direct observation of participants and make the
process of data collection more attractive. The current study used cell phone
applications in particular, to facilitate self-recording and increase the data validity of
walking behavior since this type of application offers automatic tracking. This study
compared the effectiveness of different types of reinforcement procedures as well as
their combination for both the targeted physical activity and water consumption.
METHOD
Participants
The participants in this study were four California State University, Stanislaus
students. Two males and two females ages 19 to 21 years old were recruited by the
experimenter based on their willingness and having the time to run a selfmanagement procedure. Before collecting the baseline data, all of the participants
reported drinking no more than two cups of water per day. All of them had access to a
smartphone as well as to an internet connection to collect self-recording data using an
application on the phone and forward it to the researcher. The participants with prior
knowledge of self-management were excluded from the study - this was assessed by
questioning them. The participants may have obtained extra credit points for
participating if available. All of them were treated according to “Ethical Principles of
Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (American Psychological Association, 2010)
and read and signed an informed consent form (see Appendix A)
Apparatus and Materials
Various smartphone type phones with access to internet were used
(participants supplied the phones – they ranged from Samsung Galaxy S3, Samsung
Galaxy S5 to LG G3). Participants were asked to download two applications Noom
Walk Pedometer: Fitness (2015) and Water Your Body (2015). Noom Walk
Pedometer: Fitness was used to collect the data about walking behavior and Water
Your Body allowed the participants to provide information in regards to amount of
8
9
water they drank. Participants were asked to summarize their achievements on a daily
basis by sending, to the researcher, e-mail messages with screen shots from their
phone showing current data for each of the behaviors. This included the total number
of steps and total amount of water intake. As a part of that message, they were also
asked to self-evaluate by saying if they met the criteria and whether or not they
should get the reinforcement or avoid a loss. A google doc data sheet was used to
provide the questionnaires on social validity in this study. (See Appendix B)
Design
The study was a multiple baseline design across behaviors which included a
baseline (A) condition, positive reinforcement (B) condition, negative reinforcement
(C) condition and combination of both (B+C). To counterbalance possible order
effects participants were exposed to a randomly selected condition order. Thus, after
the baseline there was an equal chance for any participant to begin the intervention
with any of the three possible conditions followed by others also in random order.
Because of the applied nature of the study the transition to the next condition was
provided always after 7 days with an exception for the water intake baseline which
lasted for 4 days and last condition of the same behavior which lasted for 10 days in
order to satisfy the control requirements of multiple baseline design.
Procedure
After meeting the recruitment criteria the participants had an initial 45 minute
training session with the researcher. That session provided them with an overview of
the study requirements and prepared them for the self-recording phase of the study.
10
The session included a general discussion about the purpose and nature of the study,
lessons on self-management and the techniques that were going to be implemented.
Then, participants were instructed to download the relevant applications and the
researcher taught how to use them. To assure valid data collection of water intake
behavior the researcher provided a water bottle with volume markings for each of the
participants. Specific instructions about self-recording and the method of
reinforcement for participants were provided.
The reinforcer was a total of $52 per behavior ($58 for one of them because of
three additional days in the last condition to satisfy the multiple baseline design
requirements). This amount included $14 ($20 in the last condition of one of the
behaviors) available in each of the intervention’s conditions calculated by multiplying
the number of days in a condition by $2 as well as a $10 incentive for participation
and consistent self-recording provided at the end of the study. The researcher
explained that participants would gain $2 for every day they met a criteria during a
positive reinforcement condition and no consequence would be delivered if they
failed to meet a criteria during that condition. Subsequently, in a negative
reinforcement condition $2 was subtracted from the entire amount of money available
to the participant during that phase of the study (in this case number of condition days
* $2) every time they did not meet criteria. Therefore, they could lose the chance to
get $2, and no consequence was provided upon the success in fulfilling the criteria.
Thus, if they did not meet the goal each day for the behavior being considered, they
would lose all the money within 7 (10) days of not meeting the goal. Finally, during
11
the condition with both positive and negative reinforcement, participants received $2
every time they met a criteria, but $2 was subtracted from the total, every time they
did not meet a criteria. See Table 1 for a summary of the monies available and the
contingencies involved for each condition.
Table 1
Intervention Contingency Overview
Condition
Number of
days
Positive
7 (10)
Reinforcement
Total
Monies
$14 ($20)
Negative
Reinforcement
7 (10)
$14 ($20)
Positive and
Negative
Reinforcement
7 (10)
$14 ($20)
Self-recording Participation
28
$10
Contingency Stated
Each day the goal is met,
you will earn $2 of the
$14 ($20) available.
Each day the goal is not
met, you will lose $2 from
the pool of the $14 ($20)
available.
Each day the goal is met,
you will earn $2 of the $14
($20) available and each
day the goal is not met, you
will lose $2 of the $14
($20) available.
You will get additional $10
for providing self-recording
data every day throughout
the study
Additionally, participants were asked to share their achievements every day
via the e-mail messages and to keep track of their daily dollar gain or loss. In order to
provide immediate contact with the reinforcement contingency the researcher
provided daily feedback about participants’ achievements and currently accumulated
money for each phase (See Table 2 for a summary). After each week the researcher
12
totaled the amount of obtained reinforcement, met with participants to deliver the
money and provide information on the next actions.
Table 2
Feedback on daily gain or loss
Condition
Walking
Congratulations!
Criteria Today, you did: XX steps
was
You earned: $2
met
You’ve accumulated: $XX
Days to go in this phase: X
Positive
Reinforcement
Sorry.
Criteria Today, you only did: XX steps
was not You earned: $0.
met
You’ve accumulated: $XX
Days to go in this phase: X
Congratulations!
Criteria Today, you did: XX steps
was
You didn’t lose: $2
met
You’ve accumulated: $XX
Days to go in this phase: X
Negative
Reinforcement
Sorry.
Criteria Today, you only did: XX steps
was not You lost: $2
met
You’ve accumulated: $XX
Days to go in this phase: X
Congratulations!
Criteria Today, you did: XX steps
was
You earned: $2
met
You’ve accumulated: $XX
Positive and
Days to go in this phase: X
Negative
Sorry.
Reinforcement
Criteria Today, you only did: XX steps
was not You lost: $2
met
You’ve accumulated: $XX
Days to go in this phase: X
Water Intake
Congratulations!
Today, you drank: XX oz.
You earned: $2
You’ve accumulated: $XX
Days to go in this phase: X
Sorry.
Today, you only drank: XX oz.
You earned: $0.
You’ve accumulated: $XX
Days to go in this phase: X
Congratulations!
Today, you drank: XX oz.
You didn’t lose: $2
You’ve accumulated: $XX
Days to go in this phase: X
Sorry.
Today, you only drank: XX oz.
You lost: $2
You’ve accumulated: $XX
Days to go in this phase: X
Congratulations!
Today, you drank: XX oz.
You earned: $2
You’ve accumulated: $XX
Days to go in this phase: X
Sorry.
Today, you only drank: XX oz.
You lost: $2
You’ve accumulated: $XX
Days to go in this phase: X
13
After discussion about the procedures and reinforcement the participants were
encouraged to ask questions and express any concerns. When everything was clear
they signed the informed consent. They were verbally prompted to immediately
inform the researcher about any health problems during the study and were given the
contact information for the CSU Stanislaus Student Health Center. Participants were
next assigned to a unique random order of conditions. At the end of the introductory
session, the researcher weighed participants and recorded it as their starting weight.
Finally, they were asked to start collecting daily baseline data until the researcher
contacted them with further instructions. Subsequent meetings were provided
separately for each participant based on the collected data in order to change the
condition at the appropriate time to meet the requirements of the multiple baseline
design. After the first training session, the researcher met with each participant a total
of seven times, once after each phase for each behavior (three phases with two
behaviors each) during the study and once after the study in order to summarize the
results, provide incentives, collect the data on weight and go through the debriefing
process.
The daily criteria for walking took into consideration The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (2014) recommendations about the suggested amount of
physical activity per week. However, the actual criteria were established using
baseline data to ensure an appropriate level of difficulty without unnecessary risk and
effort but to reveal potential differences between reinforcements. This was
14
accomplished by calculating the average from four days with the highest number of
steps during baseline and increasing it by 50%.
The daily water intake criteria took into consideration the WHO (2004)
recommendations. However, because of the minimal participants’ water intake prior
to the study that did not match the recommendations the criteria were determined by
increasing the average of two days with the highest water intake by 50 %.
The criteria levels for both behaviors were kept constant throughout the study.
Since the objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of different
reinforcements, the emphasis was placed on the consistency (i.e. performing the
behavior every day on the particular level). Because of that, the criteria were
relatively easy to achieve but enough of a challenge to reveal any differences among
the reinforcing contingencies during conditions.
Finally, a social validity measure was taken at the end of the study but before
debriefing to ensure objectivity (see Appendix B). It was provided to the participants
anonymously as an online survey.
15
RESULTS
The data indicated good control of the reinforcement contingency over the
behaviors. There was a significant increase from baseline, across all participants and
behaviors, when the intervention was introduced. Visual analysis suggests that there
were no differences among the different reinforcement conditions’ effectiveness.
However, in general (for 2 out of 4 participants) the data in the negative
reinforcement phase proved to be more stable in comparison to the other two: positive
reinforcement and combination of positive and negative reinforcement conditions.
None of the participants’ weight decreased during the study. For two the
weight stayed the same. For the other two, weight increased, but within the range of
normal body weight fluctuation (i.e. there are usually day to day changes in our
weight without any interference from outside), which makes this increase irrelevant
data to this research.
Participant 1 (see Figure 1)
The amount of water intake during baseline ranged between 12 and 32 oz.
There was large increase from the last data point of the initial condition (30 oz.) to the
first one of the intervention (52 oz.). In the first intervention phase (positive
reinforcement) water intake varied from 52 to 64 oz. During that phase Participant 1
met the criteria every day. In the subsequent condition (negative reinforcement) the
amount of water ranged between 51 and 64 oz. each day criteria were met. Finally, in
the last condition (combination of positive and negative reinforcement) water intake
varied between 52 and 64 oz. and again Participant 1 met the criteria every day.
16
The number of steps in baseline varied from 1751 to 4951 steps. Similar to
water intake, the data increased greatly from the last data point of the initial phase
(2527 steps) to the first one of intervention (6667 steps). In the first intervention
condition (positive reinforcement) the number of steps varied between 4553 and
6964. During that phase Participant 1 met the criteria every day but one. In the next
phase (negative reinforcement) the number of steps ranged from 6149 to 6983 and all
17
of the criteria were met. Finally in the last phase (combination of positive and
negative reinforcement) number of steps varied from 3618 to 8960 and Participant 1
met the criteria every day but one.
In Participant’s 1 walking data there are 3 data points which are significantly
different from the main data path. Participant 1 reported verbally, during last meeting,
that on day 9 and 23 scores were low and Participant 1 did only 4553 and 3618 steps
respectively because of the day off at work. However, on day 22 Participant 1 did
8960 steps, which was due to a trip to the zoo.
Participant’s 1 weight did not change. From the initial 108 lbs. it stayed as 108
lbs. as the final weight.
Participant 2 (see Figure 2)
The amount of water intake during baseline ranged between 48 and 75 oz.
There was a big increase from the last data point of the initial condition (75 oz.) to the
first one of the intervention (115 oz.). In the first intervention phase (negative
reinforcement) water intake varied from 114 to 124 oz. During that phase Participant
2 met the criteria every day. In the combination of positive and negative
reinforcement condition the amount of water intake ranged between 120 and 168 oz.
and all of the criteria were met. Finally, in the last condition (positive reinforcement)
water intake varied between 120 and 192 oz. and again the Participant 2 met the
criteria every day.
18
The number of steps in baseline varied from 2469 to 11198 steps. Similar to
water intake the data showed a large increase from the last data point of the initial
phase (5630 steps) to the first one of intervention (11313 steps). In the first
intervention condition (negative reinforcement) the number of steps varied between
19
9820 and 17327. During that phase Participant 2 did not meet the criteria three times.
In the next phase (combination of positive and negative reinforcement) the number of
steps ranged from 15480 to 17851 and all of the criteria were met. Finally in the last
phase (positive reinforcement) number of steps varied from 15091 to 28818 and
Participant 2 met the criteria every day.
In Participant’s 2 walking data there were 4 data points that were significantly
different from the main data path. Participant 2 reported verbally that on day 8, 9, and
10 scores were low and Participant 2 did only 11313, 9820 and 11215 steps
respectively because he was surprised that the criteria was so high. However, on day
28 Participant 2 did 28818 steps which was due to a busy day on campus.
Participant’s 2 weight changed. From the initial 164.2 lbs. it increased to the
170.8 lbs. for the final weight. This change is within day to day body weight
fluctuation.
Participant 3 (see Figure 3)
The amount of water drunk by this participant during baseline ranged between
16 and 40 oz. There was a big increase from the last data point of the initial condition
(40 oz.) to the first one of the intervention (61 oz.). In the first intervention phase
(negative reinforcement) water intake varied from 61 to 72 oz. During that phase
Participant 3 met the criteria every day but one. In the next condition (positive
reinforcement) the amount of water ranged between 64 and 68 oz. and each days’
criterion was met. Finally, in the last condition (combination of positive and negative
20
reinforcement) water intake varied between 60 and 72 oz. and, again, Participant 3
met the criteria every day.
21
The number of steps in baseline varied from 1649 to 4218 steps. From the last
data point of the initial phase (4218 steps) to the first one of intervention (2772 steps)
there was a jump in the direction opposite to what was expected. However, the next
data point (6324 steps) showed an increase similar to the one in water intake. In the
first intervention condition (negative reinforcement) the number of steps varied
between 2772 and 12638. During that phase Participant 3 meet the criteria every day
but one. In next phase (positive reinforcement) the number of steps ranged from 6116
to 6494 and all of the criteria were met. Finally in the last phase (combination of
positive and negative reinforcement) the number of steps varied from 1027 to 7230
and Participant 3 failed to meet the criteria on two days.
In Participant’s 3 walking data there were 3 data points which were significantly
different from the main data path. Participant 3 reported verbally that on day 22 and
26 scores were low and Participant 3 did only 2746 and 1027 steps respectively
because of the days off of work. However, on day 11 Participant 3 did 12638 steps
which was due to a trip with friends to the another city to watch a baseball game.
Participant’s 3 weight changed slightly. From the initial 189.8 lbs. it increased
to the 190.4 lbs. of the final weight. This change is within day to day body weight
fluctuation or could be even treated as a measurement error.
Participant 4 (see Figure 4)
The amount of water intake during baseline ranged between 33 and 57 oz.
There was a large increase from the last data point of the baseline condition (46 oz.)
to the first one of the intervention (82 oz.). In the first intervention phase (positive
22
reinforcement) water intake varied from 82 to 102 oz. During that phase Participant 4
met the criteria every day. In the next condition (combination of positive and negative
reinforcement) the amount of water ranged between 81 and 93 oz. and all of the
criteria were met. Finally, in the last condition (negative reinforcement) water intake
varied between 84 and 90 oz. and again Participant 4 met the criteria every day.
23
The number of steps walked in baseline varied from 5531 to 17385 steps.
Similarly to the water intake the data showed a big increase from the last data point of
the initial phase (12489 steps) to the first one of intervention (22375 steps). In the
first intervention condition (positive reinforcement) the number of steps varied
between 22375 and 27384. During that phase Participant 4 met the criteria every day.
In the next phase (combination of positive and negative reinforcement) the number of
steps ranged from 22368 to 28249 and all of the criteria were met. Finally in the last
phase (negative reinforcement) the number of steps varied from 22256 to 23118 and
Participant 4 met the criteria every day.
In Participant’s 4 walking data there are 2 data points which are significantly
different from the main data path. Participant 4 reported verbally that on day 10 and
20 scores were high and Participant 4 did 27384 and 28249 respectively because he
participated in marathons.
Participant’s 4 weight did change. From the initial 173.4 lbs. it increased to
the 178 lbs. for the final weight. This change is within day to day body weight
fluctuation.
Table 3 shows the summary of the average number of steps and amount of
water for each participant. These data show that Participants 1 and 3, in general,
scored better in SR– condition and Participants 2 and 4 in general scored better in
SR+ & SR – condition and SR+ condition.
24
Table 3
The average number of steps or amount of water during particular conditions
Participant Behavior
SR + average SR – average SR + & SR –
number
(over 7 days) (over 7 days) average (over 7 days)
1
2
3
4
Walking
(steps)
Water intake
(oz.)
Walking
(steps)
Water intake
(oz.)
Walking
(steps)
Water intake
(oz.)
Walking
(steps)
Water intake
(oz.)
6265
6630
6529
57,1
58,4
57,7
18746
13882
16677
157,7
118,7
142,3
6208
6326
5146
64,6
64,9
65,7
23566
22513
23910
90,7
87,6
87,1
Social validity questionnaires which were introduced separately for each of
the behaviors indicate the following; 3 out of 4 participants agreed that this study was
beneficial for them. All of them stated that they would recommend this program to
their friends and were motivated to participate. None of the participants reported
dishonesty during data collection. All of the participants claimed that the rules they
had to follow during the experiment were clear and 2 out of 4 participants stated that
the amount of money available for daily goals corresponded with necessary effort and
2 neither agreed nor disagreed. When asked about willingness to use this program in
order to increase other behaviors the answers were varied and ranged from strongly
disagree to strongly agree (see Appendix C).
DISCUSSION
Across all of the participants and behaviors there is a fairly large increase
from baseline to intervention, which suggests good control over the behaviors. A
visual analysis of the data does not reveal any significant differences in effectiveness
of different types of reinforcement since the aforementioned change is maintained
across all of the conditions. These results are different from the previous findings of
DeLeon et al. (2001) and Bouxsein et al. (2011). They found that, at least in regards
to compliance, positive reinforcement is more effective than negative reinforcement
but the combination of both is the most effective approach. There are several possible
reasons for these discrepancies.
Firstly, it should be noted that DeLeon et al. (2001) as well as Bouxsein et al.
(2011) attempted to decrease escape maintained behaviors by increasing compliance
to demand. This is important because any positive reinforcement such as access to
tangibles was by default more reinforcing than negative reinforcement since it also
included a break from the demand necessary for delivery of reinforcement and time to
eat the edibles, listen to music. In the current study the amount of reinforcement ($2)
and hence its value was the same for all of the conditions. Thus one of the
explanations could be that the differences among reinforcement effectiveness in
DeLeon et al. (2001) and Bouxsein et al. (2011) studies were not a result of the
different nature of positive and negative reinforcement but, rather, the actual
difference in value of the reinforcers.
25
26
On the other hand, a part of the current data seems to be consistent with
previous findings (DeLeon et al., 2001; Bouxsein et al., 2011). For 2 out of 4
participants the data show that the behavior in the negative reinforcement phase was
stable, usually just above the daily criteria. Positive reinforcement and combination of
positive and negative reinforcement conditions produced more variability in data.
Participants were more likely to not only meet the criteria but also exceed it by a fair
amount sometimes. However, the interesting issue was that these two participants
(number 2 and 4) were men and when we look at the other two, which were women
(number 1 and 3) the situation is almost the opposite. They were more likely to
exceed the criteria in negative reinforcement condition alone then in conditions which
included positive reinforcement. However it is important to emphasis that these are
only observations and any generalized assumptions should not be made; especially,
taking into account the small number of participants and specific narrow population.
Interestingly, all of the participants reported verbally at the last meeting that
they were feeling most motivated during the combination of positive and negative
reinforcement condition. For summary see Table 3.
Another difference between this study and previous research was the
participants. It seems reasonable to claim that particular arrangements of
reinforcement contingencies could have a different impact on typically developing
adults (university students) in comparison to the children with Autism or Down
syndrome. It is likely that the former had a much more extensive history with
27
aversive control than the latter which could have contributed to the similar results
across all of the phases.
The other possible explanation of these results is the fact that the independent
variable was a verbal behavior manipulation. This means that there was no actual
difference in contingency among conditions; it was only the matter of the words used
to describe the rule. The actual consequence was the same everyday [i.e. participants
could earn $2 either by meeting the criteria (positive reinforcement) or by avoiding
the loss of previously assigned money but that money was not in their possession
(negative reinforcement)]. There is a chance that the participants were responding to
the underlying contingencies not the rules that they were given. To test that
possibility future researchers should introduce a negative reinforcement condition
where participants could actually lose something of value (e.g., their own money). It
could be realized by asking them to deposit a certain amount of money prior to the
study which would be given back only when they met the criteria. It is also worth
mentioning that following debriefing, all of the participants reported that they felt
differently in each of the conditions and that they were focusing on the described rule.
They claimed that they were not aware of the artificial difference among phases
created only by wording so they behaved in accordance with the actual contingency.
In regards to the independent variable, even if participants reported via the
social validity survey (see Appendix C) that the amount of money corresponded with
the effort necessary to meet the criteria, it is not clear if the value was too high or too
low to reveal differences since it was arbitrarily determined based on available
28
resources. Simultaneously, perhaps if the criteria itself was higher and hence more
difficult to meet, then it would be possible to observe potential differences. Thus, the
issue should be addressed in future research.
Another important issue is the dependent variable. As mentioned, it is possible
that the effort necessary to complete the task can modulate the value of
reinforcement. This is consistent with DeLeon et al. (2001) results where the
participant changed his preference in regards to the type of reinforcement based on
the increasing task difficulty. Thus, a factor that could have influenced data is not
only the actual amount of reinforcement but its relative value that could be interfered
by the required effort to complete the task. In this study all of the participants
commented that drinking water was easier when compared to walking which required
time spent on additional activities to meet the criteria and often interfered with the
type of participant’s work. Future studies should address that issue by using behaviors
of equal effort.
Also, the data collection system should be discussed. Despite the attempt to
control self-recording validity, there are several issues which should be considered
when analyzing data. There was no objective control over the participant’s honesty.
The applications used did not offer automatic online data tracking or even automatic
data recording (it is currently impossible to easily measure someone’s water intake
without the participant’s contribution). Thus, the only system of control was the
participants’ every day e-mails with screen shots of the daily achievement in
application. However, all of the participants, in the anonymous online survey,
29
reported being honest in data collection (see Appendix C) this should be treated with
caution. Future research should test that issue perhaps using more sophisticated
technology which would allow eliminating the possibility of participant dishonesty.
Taking these issues into account it is possible that data from both behaviors
are misleading. However, it is important to note that the method of data collection
was chosen because of the type of population (which is difficult to observe directly)
as well as an attempt to keep the situation as close to the natural environment as
possible. Applied research involves many compromises over laboratory research
methodology, however the use of technology seems to be a promising direction in the
area of self-management studies.
Each phase in this study lasted only one week, it would be beneficial for
future researchers to extend the period of time when a particular reinforcement is in
place. It is possible that in a longer term perspective the differences are more
significant and particular types of reinforcement have some additional side effects.
It would be also interesting to see how the data would look like if there was no
learning effect, since all of the participants reported that with time the behaviors were
easier to perform. Perhaps future studies should address that issue by introducing
different behaviors for each of conditions but which require equal effort or by
changing criteria to keep the necessary effort consistent by contracting against
learning effect. These could not be incorporated in this research due to limited time
and resources.
30
In conclusion, despite previous research that suggested differences in the
effectiveness of different types of reinforcement, the current study does not support
those findings. The data obtained in this research shows no large differences between
different reinforcement contingencies. However, the study did show that
implementing a relatively low cost reinforcement contingency did seem to increase
both exercise and water drinking. Further research may be able to clarify the best type
of reinforcement system, as well as maximize the behavioral change.
REFERENCES
32
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and
code of conduct. Retrieved from http://apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
Bedesem, P. L., & Dieker, L. A. (2014). Self-monitoring with a twist: using cell
phones to CellF-monitor on-task behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 16(4), 246-254. doi:10.1177/1098300713492857
Blood, E., Johnson, J. W., Ridenour, L., Simmons, K., & Crouch, S. (2011). Using an
iPod Touch to Teach Social and Self-Management Skills to an Elementary
Student with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders. Education & Treatment of
Children, 34(3), 299-321.
Bouxsein, K. J., Roane, H. S., & Harper, T. (2011). Evaluating the separate and
combined effects of positive and negative reinforcement on task
compliance. Journal Of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(1), 175-179.
Burgio L, D., Whitman T, L., & Johnson M, R. (1980). A self-instructional package
for increasing attending behavior in educable mentally retarded
children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13(3), 443-459.
Catania, A. C. (1975). The myth of self-reinforcement. Behaviorism, 3192-199.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, The. (2014) How much physical activity
do adults need? Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/guidelines/adults.html
33
Cihak, D. F., & Gama, R. I. (2008). Noncontingent escape access to selfreinforcement to increase task engagement for students with moderate to
severe disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental
Disabilities, 43(4), 556-568.
Dean, M. R., Malott, R. W., & Fulton, B. J. (1983). The effects of self-management
training on academic performance. Teaching Of Psychology, 10(2), 77.
DeLeon, I. G., Neidert, P. L., Anders, B. M., & Rodriguez-Catter, V. (2001). Choices
between positive and negative reinforcement during treatment for escapemaintained behavior. Journal Of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(4), 521-525.
doi:10.1901/jaba.2001.34-521
Duarte, A. M., & Baer, D. M. (1994). The effects of self-instruction on preschool
children's sorting of generalized in-common tasks. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 57(1), 1-25. doi:10.1006/jecp.1994.1001
Epstein, R. (1997). Skinner as self-manager. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 30545-568.
Fritz, J. f., Iwata, B. A., Rolider, N. U., Camp, E. M., & Neidert, P. L. (2012).
Analysis of self-recording in self-management interventions for
stereotypy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45(1), 55-68.
Glynn, E. L. (1970). Classroom applications of self-determined
reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3(2), 123-132.
34
Grandjean, A. (2004). Water Requirements, Impinging Factors, and Recommended
Intakes. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutwaterrequir.pdf
Goldiamond, I. (1976). Self-reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 9(4), 509-514. doi:10.1901/jaba.1976.9-509
Gulchak, D. J. (2008). Using a mobile handheld computer to teach a student with an
emotional and behavioral disorder to self-monitor attention. Education &
Treatment of Children, 31(4), 567-581.
Hammond, R. A., & Levine, R. (2010). The economic impact of obesity in the United
States. Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity : Targets and Therapy, 3,
285–295. doi:10.2147/DMSOTT.S7384
McCarl, J. J., Svobodny, L., & Beare, P. L. (1991). Self-recording in a classroom for
students with mild to moderate mental handicaps: Effects on productivity and
on-task behavior. Education & Training in Mental Retardation, 26(1), 79-88.
Muckelbauer, R., Sarganas, G., Grüneis, A., & Müller-Nordhorn, J. (2013).
Association between water consumption and body weight outcomes: a
systematic review. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 98(2), 282299. doi:10.3945/ajcn.112.055061
Newman, B., Buffington, D. M., & Hemmes, N. S. (1996). Self-reinforcement used to
increase the appropriate conversation of autistic teenagers. Education &
Training in Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 31(4), 304309.
35
Newman, B., Tuntigian, L., Ryan, C. S., & Reinecke, D. R. (1997). Self-management
of a DRO procedure by three students with autism. Behavioral
Interventions, 12(3), 149-156.
NorthPark.Android. (2015). Water Your Body (Version 3.081) [Mobile application
software]. Retrieved from https://play.google.com/store?hl=en
Noom Inc. (2015). Noom Walk Pedometer: Fitness (Version 1.1.1) [Mobile
application software]. Retrieved from https://play.google.com/store?hl=en
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Stasolla, F., Perilli, V., & Damiani, R. (2014). Self-monitoring to promote on-task
behavior by two high functioning boys with autism spectrum disorders and
symptoms of ADHD. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8(5), 472-479.
doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2014.01.007
World Health Organization, The. (2015) Obesity and overweight [Fact sheet No311].
Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/
APPENDICES
37
APPENDIX A
CONSENT FORM
1. This research will examine the effectiveness of self-management techniques in
increasing daily walking and water intake. If you agree to participate, you will
be asked to follow the instructions given to you by researcher during the
initial training and throughout the course of the study.
2. You are free to discontinue your participation at any time without penalty.
Even if you withdraw from the study, you will receive any entitlements that
have been promised to you in exchange for your participation, such as extra
credit (if available) and free water bottle.
3. Participation in this research study does not guarantee any benefits to you.
However, possible benefits include the fact that you may learn something
about how research studies are conducted and you may learn something about
this area of research (i.e. self-management techniques and their possible
application in everyday life).
4. You will be given additional information about the study after your
participation is complete.
5. If you agree to participate in the study, you will be also asked to download
two free applications to your phone and to provide to the researcher the data
collected by them. Any personal information obtained during this process of
data collection will be kept on the researcher’s computer in a separate folder
protected by a password and will be accessible only to the researcher or his
supervisor. Any personal information downloaded to the researcher’s
smartphone will be deleted immediately that information has been transferred
to the computer folder.
6. If you agree to participate in the study, due to the way of communication
(sharing of information via smartphone) with researcher, you will take
responsibility for any additional data and messaging fees which may be
potentially associated with your participation.
7. If you agree to participate in the study, you will be asked to attend the initial
session which will last approximately 2 hours and during that time the
researcher will provide any necessary information to participate in this study.
Additionally, your weight will be measured at the beginning and at the end of
the study. The subsequent meetings will last no more than half an hour.
38
Furthermore, since walking and drinking water are relatively unobtrusive
behaviors and can be performed throughout the day, there is no specific time
frame and amount of time you need to spend on them every day, thus you are
free to reach your goals at any time during each 24 hour period.
8. All data from this study will be kept from inappropriate disclosure and will be
accessible only to the researcher and his faculty advisor. To assure
confidentiality any information which could allow to identify particular
individual will be replaced with artificial data.
9. The present research is designed to reduce the possibility of any negative
experiences as a result of participation. Risks to participants are kept to a
minimum. However, if your participation in this study causes you any
concerns, anxiety, or distress, please contact the Student Counseling Center at
(209) 667-3381 to make an appointment to discuss your concerns.
10. This research study is being conducted by Rafał S. Gebauer. The faculty
supervisor is
Dr. William Potter, Professor and Chair, Department of Psychology and Child
Development, California State University, Stanislaus. If you have questions or
concerns about your participation in this study, you may contact the
researchers through Dr. Potter at (209)667-3518.
11. You may obtain information about the outcome of the study at the end of the
academic year by contacting Rafał S. Gebauer at rgebauer@csustan.edu.
12. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you may
contact the Campus Compliance Officer of California State University
Stanislaus at IRBadmin@csustan.edu.
13. You will be provided with a blank, unsigned copy of this consent form at the
beginning of the study.
14. By signing below, you confirm that you are in a good health condition and
you have no contraindications for participating in the study that involves
walking. You also agree to immediately inform researcher about any health
problems during the study.
15. By signing below, you confirm your availability for the period of 31 days
starting from the initial session.
16. By signing below, you attest that you are 18 years old or older.
39
17. By signing below, you are indicating that you have freely consented to
participate in this research study.
PARTICIPANT’S SIGNATURE:
DATE: ___________
40
APPENDIX B
SOCIAL VALIDITY QUESTIONNAIRE
Social Validity Questionnaire - Water Intake
*Required
I think that this study was beneficial for me. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
I especially liked the condition in which I could gain money every time I drank
water. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
I especially liked the condition in which I could lose money every time I did not
drink water. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
I especially liked the condition in which I could gain money every time I drank
water and could lose money every time I did not drink water. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
I would recommend this program to my friend. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
I was motivated to participate in this study. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
I cheated on data collection. *
1
2
3
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
4
5
Strongly Agree
The rules which I should follow during experiment were clear. *
1
2
3
4
5
41
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
The amount of money available for daily goal corresponded with necessary effort. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
There were things I would change to increase effectiveness of that intervention. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
What?
I would like to carry on this program to constantly improve or maintain my water
intake. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
I would like to use this program in order to increase my other behaviors. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Please provide any additional comments:
Strongly Agree
42
Social Validity Questionnaire - Walking
*Required
I think that this study was beneficial for me. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
I especially liked the condition in which I could gain money every time I did walk. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
I especially liked the condition in which I could lose money every time I did not
walk. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
I especially liked the condition in which I could gain money every time I did walk
and could lose money every time I did not walk. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
I would recommend this program to my friend. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
I was motivated to participate in this study. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
I cheated on data collection. *
1
2
3
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
4
5
Strongly Agree
The rules which I should follow during experiment were clear. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
The amount of money available for daily goal corresponded with necessary effort. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
There were things I would change to increase effectiveness of that intervention. *
1
2
3
4
5
43
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
What?
I would like to carry on this program to constantly improve or maintain my
walking. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
I would like to use this program in order to increase my other behaviors. *
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Strongly Agree
44
APPENDIX C
SOCIAL VALIDITY QUESTIONNAIRE – RESULTS
Social Validity Questionnaire - Water Intake – Results
1 - strongly disagree; 2 – disagree;3 – neither disagree nor agree; 4 – agree; 5 – strongly agree
45
Why?
 to be part of an actual study and to get rewarded with
money
 It allowed me to earn money as well as do something
for my health.
 for the money and to stay hydrated
 I was interested in the results that it may bring
46
Please provide any additional comments:
 This program has been very helpful to me to increase my water intake. Before
it was very hard for me to drink more than a bottle of water a day. Now I find
myself getting more thirsty during the day and wanting to drink water
47
Social Validity Questionnaire – Walking
1 - strongly disagree; 2 – disagree;3 – neither disagree nor agree; 4 – agree; 5 – strongly agree
48
Why?




the step goals were a little harder to reach because my occupation requires me
to be seated a lot so I had to walk around more often than I normally would
I earned money and did something to better my help.
for the money
I currently have an office job so I do not walk a lot. I was interested in the
results that could come from walking more
49
Please provide any additional comments:
 The only problem I found was that at times the app used to keep track of the
steps would either give me steps for no reason, or just not keep track of the
steps I took properly.