the effects of expectancy on the reactivity of self-recording

BEHAVIOR THERAPY 6, 337-349 (1975)

The Effects of Expectancy on the Reactivity of Self-Recording

ROSEMERY O. NELSON, DAVID P. LIPINSKI, AND JOHN L. BLACK

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Although it has been demonstrated that self-recording is a reactive process (self-recorders' behavior changes as a function of self-recording), the variables which influence the extent and direction of this reactive behavior change have not been fully investigated. The variable manipulated in the present study was the expectancy of this direction of behavior change given to self-recorders; the expectancy conditions were increase, decrease, no change, and no expectancy. The self-recorders were 20 college students who recorded their own face-touching during a class. Unobtrusive independent observers also recorded their face- touching throughout baseline, aware and unaware (of reliability estimates) self- recording conditions, and return-to-baseline conditions. The main conclusions were: (1) self-recording is reactive; (2) self-recorders are less reliable recorders when they are unaware of reliability assessments; and (3) despite the differential expectancies, all groups of subjects decreased face-touching while self-recording. Alternative variables which may be more effective in influencing the direction of reactive behavior changes produced by self-recording were discussed. These results for self-observation were compared with those obtained in other studies for observations by independent trained observers.

The primary assessment tool used in behavior modification therapy and research has been direct observations of behavior in naturalistic situations. In addition to observational data collected by trained or independent observers, clients are often required to self-monitor their own behaviors (e.g., Goldiamond, 1965; Stuart, 1967). Both independent observations and self-observations may be subject to the same methodological problems.

One of these methodological problems is the reactive effects of being observed. The presence of an independent observer has been shown to alter the behavior of nursery school children (Arsenian, 1943), delin- quent children (Polansky, Freeman, Horowitz, Irwin, Papanis, Rap- paport & Whaley, 1949), visitors to an art museum (Bechtel, 1967), fam- ily members (Patterson & Harris, 1968; White, 1972), and therapy

The authors are grateful for the funding provided by Research Council Grant No. 569 from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, The authors also thank Dr. Sigrid Trombley, and the students in Education 560 and Psychology 505 for their cooperation. Reprint requests should be sent to Rosemery Nelson, Department of Psychology, Univer- sity of North Carolina, Greensboro, NC 27412.

337

Copyright © 1975 by Academic Press. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

338 NELSON, LIPINSKI AND BLACK

clients (Roberts & Renzaglia, 1965). Self-recording seems to be as reactive as recording by independent observers. Fortunately, the direction of the behavior change produced by self-recording often is in a therapeutic direction. Self-recording has decreased the frequency of smoking (Mc- Fall, 1970; McFall & Hammen, 1971), disruptive talking in a classroom (Broden, Hall, & Mitts, 1971), reported hallucinations (Rutner & Bugle, 1969), mouth-biting (Ernst, 1973), inappropriate motor behaviors (Ma- letzky, 1974), whining (Kunzelmann, 1970), and vocal tics (Thomas, Abrams & Johnson, 1971). Self-recording has conversely increased the frequency of studying (Broden et al., 1971; Johnson & White, 1971), participation in class discussions (Gottman & McFall, 1972), swimming practice attendance and performance (McKenzie & Rushall, 1974), time spent in a room by a claustrophobic client (Leitenberg, Agras, Thompson & Wright, 1968), and parental attention to appropriate child behaviors (Herbert & Baer, 1972).

Despite these consistent demonstrations that the process of self- recording produces changes in behavior, the variables which contribute to the direction of this behavior change have been infrequently investigated. One of the purposes of the present experiment was to manipu- late one possible variable, subject expectancy of direction of change, and to assess its effect on the obtained direction of behavior change.

Manipulation of expectancy of desired results has been demonstrated to alter the behavior of experimenters and/or subjects across a variety of settings: in the laboratory (Rosenthal, 1966), in therapeutic situations (Borkovec, 1972; Oliveau, Agras, Leitenberg, Moore & Wright, 1969), and in standardized test administrations (Egeland, 1969; Sattler, HiUix & Neher, 1970). On the other hand, attempts to modify the data recorded by independent observers through varying expectations of experimental results lead to a tentative negative conclusion. Earlier investiga- tions which reported observer bias due to induced expectancies were beset by methodological problems, including the use of minimally trained observers (Azrin, Holz, Ulrich & Goldiamond, 1961; Rapp, 1965; Scott, Burton, & Yarrow, 1967) and the confounding of observer pairs with expectancy conditions (Kass & O'Leary, 1970, as discussed in O'Leary, 1973). Skindrud (1972, 1973) found no evidence of observer bias. In a well-controlled study, Kent, O'Leary, Diament, and Dietz (1974) found that global evaluations of treatment effects were significantly affected by predicted results, but behavioral recordings were not. The data collected by self-recorders may similarly be uninfluenced by expectancy manipulations. Self-recorders, however, serve as both their own observers and their own subjects. Johnson and Lobitz (1974) have demonstrated that their subjects (parents) were able to modify their children's rate of deviant behavior as measured by trained observers in response to differential instructions.

REACTIVITY OF SELF-RECORDING 339

The reactivity of self-recording, although therapeutically useful, interferes with the utility of self-monitoring as an assessment device. More- over, although the data collected by self-recorders has sometimes reached a high level of agreement with data collected through external criteria (Azrin & Powell, 1969; Mahoney, Moore, Wade & Moura, 1973; Ober, 1968), this high reliability has not been consistently found (Broden et al., 1971; Fixsen, Phillips & Wolf, 1972; McFall, 1970; Risley & Hart, 1968), further limiting the utility of self-recording for data collection purposes. The reliability of trained observers has been found to be lower when the observers were unaware that their reliability was being assessed than when they were aware of assessment (Reid, 1970; Romanczyk, Kent, Diament & O'Leary, 1973; Taplin & Reid, 1973). Lipinski and Nelson (1974b) found that the reliability between self-recorders and independent observers similarly dropped from .86 to .52 when they were unaware that reliability was being evaluated. A further purpose of the present study was to replicate these latter effects by comparing conditions in which self-recorders were informed or uninformed of reliability assessment.

Self-recording, unlike recordings by trained observers, has been utilized to serve a therapeutic function as well as an assessment function. Reactivity and possible influence of expectancy of results, while negative aspects of independent recordings and of the assessment capacity of self-recording, may be therapeutically useful aspects of self-recording.

The purposes of the present study were: (a) to demonstrate the reactivity of self-recording; (b) to determine the influence of expectancy of the direction of predicted behavior changes on reactivity; and (c) to assess the differential reliabilities of self-recorders when they are aware or unaware of reliability assessment.

METHOD

Subjects

The subjects were 20 college students (6 males, 14 females) who were in two graduate classes, an education class and a continuing education course for teachers on behavioral principles. Each class met daily for 1½ hours for six weeks.

Trained Observers

Two male trained observers, who were unobtrusive behind a one-way mirror in an observation room adjacent to the classroom, were used for all experimental conditions. Relia- bility between these two observers was assessed, as well as reliability between the trained observers and the self-recorders. The former was accomplished by both trained observers simultaneously recording the same subject's behavior according to a pre-arranged schedule which was not revealed to one of the observers; this procedure parallels the random check procedure demonstrated by Taplin and Reid (1973) to maintain high reliability between observers. Reliability between the trained observers and the self-recorders was assessed by the trained observers and the subjects both using a data sheet of 18 5-rnin intervals. The

3 4 0 NELSON, LIP1NSKI AND BLACK

trained observers were unaware of the expectancy conditions to which the subjects had been assigned.

Target Behavior Face-touching occurring in a classroom setting was selected as the target behavior

because it is overt, rather than a covert behavior without public referrants (Kanfer, 1970; Simkins, 1971), is discrete, and is of high frequency. Face-touching was defined as touching the face, head, hair, or neck, with a hand, pen, or pencil. A new behavior oc- curred whenever a hand or object broke contact with the face and returned to the face (either the same or a different part of the face). If two hands touched two different parts of the face, it counted as two behaviors. Objects were equivalent to face or hands, e.g., touching glasses with hands or touching pen to mouth.

Manipulation of Expectancy Following baseline and prior to the initiation of self-recording, the 20 subjects were ran-

domly assigned to one of four expectancy conditions, describing the probable direction of change that self-recording would have on their face-touching behavior. The increase expectancy group was informed that previous research had shown that a behavior increases in frequency when a person becomes self-conscious of that behavior, and that they would most likely then find an increase in their face-touching. The decrease expectancy group was told that previous research had shown that a behavior decreases in frequency when a person becomes self-conscious of it and that they should expect a decrease in face- touching. The no change expectancy group was informed that previous research had shown that awareness of a behavior is ineffective in changing its frequency and that their face- touching should remain the same throughout the study. Subjects in the same classes received these differential expectancies by means of typed letters, addressed individually to each subject. These letters also briefly described the self-recording procedure and stated that the purpose of the study was to ascertain how reliable subjects could be in self- recording their own behavior. The no expectancy group was merely given this latter information with no specific expectancy. These letters were distributed to the appropriate subjects during the training session prior to the initiation of self-recording, and were then collected. They were redistributed to the subjects one week later to ensure their awareness of the expectancy. Class members who were not subjects also received expectancy letters and self-recorded, although their data were discarded because no independent observations were made of their face-touches. All class members were requested not to discuss the content of their written statement with anyone else prior to the completion of the study. The class members responded to a questionnaire after completing the self-recording phase of the experiment as a test of the expectancy manipulation.

Conditions

Baseline During baseline, the trained observers, without the subjects' knowledge, recorded from

behind the one-way mirror. Baseline lasted approximately ! .5 weeks with 10 data points gathered per subject; each data point consisted of the frequency of face-touches during a 5-min interval; subjects were recorded one at a time by the observers. The subjects w e r e

both unaware of the observers and unaware that they would later participate in an experiment.


Self-Recording (Uninformed and Informed Conditions) The subjects were privately requested to participate in an experiment which would

require them to accurately count face-touching behaviors. When all subjects agreed to participate, they were given a brief training session on the self-recording of face-touching during class time. The target behavior was described to them, they briefly practiced self- recording, and their assigned expectancy was presented to them. The subjects were reminded of their expectancy 1 week after the training session, by redistribution of the typed expectancy statements.

Two types of reliability assessment were conducted, one in which the self-recorders were informed that reliability was being assessed, and one in which they were not informed of this assessment.

The informed condition was interspersed among the uninformed condition for a 2-week period. When the informed condition was in effect, an observer entered the classroom and moved around the room in order to allow the subjects to see him. The subjects had previously met the observer, and they had been told that he would enter the class oc- casionally to check their accuracy. The independent observer in the classroom recorded data as well as the observer behind the one-way mirror.

In the uninformed condition, the self-observers did not know that data were being collected by trained observers. The trained observers remained behind the one-way mirror and no observer entered the classroom.

The rest of the procedure was the same for both conditions. The subjects recorded their own frequencies of face-touching during 18 5-min intervals per class period. The trained observers used similar data sheets, and simultaneously recorded the subjects' face-touching frequency, observing only one subject per 5-rain interval. Ten data points were obtained per subject in each of the informed and uninformed conditions. The subjects were then informed that the experiment was completed. As a check on the manipulation, all subjects completed a questionnaire; two of the questions were "What aspects of this study, if any, aroused your suspicion?" and "Before you began self-recording, what were you told concerning how self-recording would affect the frequency of your face-touching?"

Return-to-Baseline Period Although the subjects believed that the experiment had terminated, the two trained ob-

servers continued to record the subjects' behavior for the remainder of the experiment from behind the one-way mirror. Ten additional data points, each consisting of the frequency of face touches during a 5-min interval, were recorded for each subject.

RESULTS

Reactivity and Effects of Expectancy Manipulation

T h e averaged data of Fig. 1 are the means of the obse rva t ions made

by the two t ra ined obse rve r s f rom beh ind the o n e - w a y mirror . All

groups , regardless of e x p e c t a n c y man ipu la t ion , showed a decrease in face - touch ing dur ing both se l f - recording cond i t ions as c o m p a r e d with

their base l ine pe r fo rmance . A n i n c r e m e n t in face - touch ing occur red

w h e n se l f - recording was te rmina ted . (See T a b l e 1.) T h e four expe r imen ta l cond i t ions differ significantly. A N e w m a n -

Keuls test indica tes tha t there is a s ignif icant difference ne i the r b e t w e e n

base l ine ( ~ ' = 11.93 face touches per 5-min in terval ) and re turn- to-


2 0

1B

z

z o ~ S 0

4 Z ~ 2 X

ase l ine

i , ; ~.'.

.~,. , . o-~ °

', / ',+ " " I V

Jnknowrl

,,, A

~,,+, .', : ",, ,,o + .,

~ , . . . "

return-to-basel ine

. . . . . . increase *,,.,..decrease

no change - - ~ - - n o e x p e c t a n c y

3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 S E S S I O N S

F]o. 1. Mean face-touching behavior for the four groups of subjects per 5-min interval. The unknown and known conditions were interspersed among each other but are presented separately.

baseline (X--- 8.81), nor between the two self-recording conditions (X aware = 2.45; .~' unaware = 3.44). There is a significant difference between both baseline and return-to-baseline, and each of the two self- recording conditions. Thus, face touching showed a significant decrease during the self-recording conditions, regardless of expectancy manipulation, which was followed by an increase after discontinuing the self- recording. All data are those of the trained observers, thus demon- strating that self-recording is reactive, independent of the reliability of

T A B L E 1 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR FACE-TOUCHING DURING BASELINE,

S E L F - R E c o R D I N G , AND RETURN-TO-BASELINE

Source d f MS F

Between Ss Expectancy (A) 3 182.20 .978

Within Ss Experimental condition (B) 3 4034.67 83.900** Repeated observations (C) 9 22.60 1.100

A x B 9 38.06 .792 A × C 27 21.32 1.037 B × C 27 29.023 1.541" A x B x C 81 22.619 1.201

* p < .05. ** p < .01.


the self-recorders. There is a significant interaction between experimental conditions and repeated observations because the blocks of observations within baseline and return-to-baseline differ from the blocks of observations in the two self-recording conditions.

Although the expectancy manipulation did not produce differential results in terms of the trained observers' data, a further analysis of variance was performed to assess if the expectancy manipulation produced differences in the self-recorders' data, during the self-recording, informed and uninformed, conditions. Differential expectancies of direction of reactive change produced by self-recording failed to produce differences in the self-recorders' data (F(3,16)= .585; p > .10), as was also the case with the trained observers' data.

Reliability

The reliability between the two trained observers was calculated separately for each condition. The data used were frequency counts per 5-min recording intervals. The Pearson correlations were: for baseline, .996; for the self-recording, uninformed condition, .983; for the self- recording, informed condition, .976; and for the return-to-baseline condition, .992.

The reliability of the self-observers was calculated for each of the two self-recording conditions. A mean was computed for the two independent observers, and this mean was compared with the self-observers' values. When the self-recorders were aware that reliability was being assessed, their reliability coefficient was .810. This reliability dropped to .554 when they were unaware of reliability assessment. It appears that subjects were more accurate when they were aware that reliability was being assessed.

Check on Manipulation

After the subjects had completed self-recording, each completed a questionnaire. To assess the unobtrusiveness of the independent observers who were behind a one-way mirror during the baseline, self- recording, uninformed, and return-to-baseline conditions, one question asked "What aspects of this study, if any, aroused your suspicion?" Although this experiment was the second study conducted at this university investigating the self-recording of face-touching in a classroom with observers behind a one-way mirror, the first experiment (Lipinski & Nelson, 1974b) utilized regular college students as subjects who were only partially debriefed; the subjects in the present study were generally teachers from the community who most likely had little contact with the previous subjects. Only three of the 20 subjects specifically commented on the one-way mirror; these three subjects were evenly distributed


across the decrease, no expectancy, and no change expectancy manipulations.

As a check on the expectancy manipulation, another question on the post-self-recording questionnaire asked "Before you began self- recording, what were you told concerning how self-recording would affect the frequency of your face-touching?" Four alternatives, repre- senting the four expectancy conditions, were offered. All five subjects in the increase and decrease expectancy conditions checked their appropriate expectancies; four of five subjects in the no change and no expectancy conditions checked their appropriate alternatives. An adjunct question to the expectancy manipulation asked "How certain were you that this would happen?"; the response was on a five-point rating scale of certainty. The subjects in the three expectancy conditions (increase, decrease, no change) did not differ in the certainty of their belief in their respective expectations (F(2,1 l) -- 1.421, p > .05). With a certainty rating of two indicating "uncertain" and three indicating "somewhat certain," the mean certainty for the increase expectancy group was 2.2; for the decrease expectancy group, 3.0; and for the no change expectancy group, 2.2.

DISCUSSION

The results utilizing self-recorders seem to parallel those obtained with independent trained observers. Confirming previous studies (Broden et al., 1971; Ernst, 1973; Gottman & McFall, 1972; Herbert & Baer, 1972; Johnson & White, 1971; Kunzelmann, 1970; Leitenberg et al., 1968; Lipinski & Nelson, 1974b; Maletzky, 1974; McFall, 1970; McFall & Hammen, 1971; McKenzie & RushalL 1974: Rutner & Bugle, 1969; Thomas et al., 1971), when self-recording was in progress, all groups of subjects decreased their face-touching from the baseline level. Thus, the process of being observed is reactive, whether the subject is being observed by a trained recorder (Arsenian, 1943; Bechtel, 1967; Patterson & Harris, 1968; Polansky et al., 1949; Roberts & Renzaglia, 1965; White, 1972) or by oneself (observee reactivity).

Reliability of recording is lower when the observer, trained- or self-observer, is unaware that reliability is being assessed (observer reactivity). In the present study, the reliability of self-recorders dropped from .810 to .554 when they were unaware of reliability assessment, replicating the drop from .86 to .52 reported by Lipinski and Nelson (1974b). These findings about self-recorders parallel those about independent observers. Romanczyk et al. (1973) found that the reliability for trained observers aware of reliability assessment and of the specific reliability checker was .77; reliability dropped to .53 under overt assessment with an uniden- tiffed assessor; reliability was reduced to .33 when the observers were


unaware of reliability assessment. Reid (1970) found that observer reliability dropped from a median of .76 to .51 when observers were led to believe that reliability was no longer being assessed. Taplin & Reid (1973) found that the level of reliability fell from .81 on the last day of observer training to .65 on the first day of covert reliability assessment.

Knowledge of predicted results did not alter the direction of reactive change found in the present study; when self-recording began, all groups regardless of their expectancy of direction of change, decreased their face-touching. Information regarding expected results also does not seem to affect the data recorded by trained observers (Kent et al., 1974).

The central function served by trained independent observers is that of data collection. Although it is fortunate that expectancy concerning experimental outcome does not seem to influence the data collected by observers, problems of observer and observee reactivity must be over- come in order to achieve valid and reliable data (Johnson & Bolstad, 1973; Lipinski & Nelson, 1974a).

The same two problems of observer and observee reactivity which beset independent recordings also limit the validity and reliability of data obtained by self-monitoring. Behavior emitted and counted during self- recording is not likely to reflect behavioral rates during periods of non- self-recording. Random checks of reliability (Taplin & Reid, 1973) could be used with self-recorders to maintain high reliability. In research, these methodological problems for self-recorders may be less critical than with trained observers, since in the former case the investigator utilizing self-recording necessarily samples observers as widely as subjects are sampled, whereas in the latter case, all data are generated by a handful of observers.

Self-recording, unlike recording by trained observers, has been used to serve a therapeutic function as well as an assessment function. When self-recording is used primarily as a therapeutic tool, its lack of reliability may be unimportant. Despite the lack of reliability of data collected by self-recorders, the reactive effects of self-recording are reliable (Li- pinski & Nelson, 1974b). Some external assessment technique would be needed, however, in order to reliably assess the reactive effects of self- recording (Nelson & McReynolds, 1971). The reactivity of self- recording, which interferes with its utility as an assessment device, is the prime vehicle for its therapeutic effectiveness. In order to maximize therapeutic gains, the variables which influence the direction and extent of reactive changes produced by self-recording must be discovered and therapeutically employed. In this particular experimental situation, expectancy of direction of behavior change was found to be a weak variable that did not alter the direction of reactive changes produced by self-


recording of face-touching. Some other variables, which may be more powerful in influencing the direction and extent of therapeutic reactive behavior changes during self-recording, are suggested below.

One possible variable is explicit reinforcement by the experimenter for behavior changes in particular directions (Kanfer, 1970). Thus, following baseline recordings by first an independent observer, and then by self- recorders, different groups of self-recorders could be reinforced for increases, decreases, or no change in the target behavior.

Another variable that might influence the direction of reactive behavior changes in self-recorders could be the differential instructions given the self-recorders about recording procedures (Kanfer, 1970). McFall and Hammen (1971) found that despite varying sets of instructions (self- monitoring the number of cigarettes smoked without explicit instructions, self-monitoring of the number of times subjects could not resist smoking, self-monitoring of the number of times subjects successfully resisted smoking, and the last condition with the added fixed factor that at least 20 "temptations" must be conjured up and resisted per day), all groups of subjects equally decreased smoking by self-recording. On the other hand, McFaU (1970) found that subjects who were told to record the number of cigarettes they smoked did not decrease smoking, whereas subjects who were told to count the number of times they resisted smoking urges did decrease smoking. Similarly, Gottman and McFall (1972) found that subjects who were told to record the number of times they talked during a class discussion increased their classroom participation, while subjects who were told to record the number of times they wanted to talk but did not, failed to increase their classroom participation. Thus the instructions given to self-recorders have some potential in controlling direction of behavior changes produced by self- recording.

A third variable which also might influence behavior change through self-recording is the implicit value judgment attached to the response class that is selected as the target behavior (Kanfer, 1970). Thus it is "good" to reduce smoking or classroom disruptions (or face-touching), while it is "good" to increase studying or classroom participation. Nelson, Lipinski, and Black (1974) found that self-recording increased the frequency of a "good" behavior (social conversation) and decreased the frequencies of "bad" (face-touching) and "neutral" (object-touching) behaviors.

Related to the value judgment given a target behavior is a final possible variable, the timing of the act of self-recording in relation to the behavior that is to be recorded. If the behavior were preceived as un- desirable, self-recording prior to the execution of the behavior would interrupt the undesired behavior sequence by offering an alternative


response, and thus decreasing the number of occurrences of the behavior (Kanfer, 1970). Bellack, Rozencsky, and Schwartz (1974) did find that self-recording early in a behavior chain, that is, prior to eating, produced greater weight loss than self-recording after eating. On the other hand, if the behavior were judged as desirable, timing of the act of self-recording should not alter its number of occurrences because self- reinforcement might be the more potent variable in this case.

In conclusion, comparable results were found between self-recorders and trained observers: the process of being observed is reactive; reliability of recording is lower when the observer is unaware of reliability assessment; and knowledge of predicted experimental results does not seem to affect the data collected. Observer and observee reactivity interferes with the assessment functions of independent trained observers and of self-recorders.

REFERENCES

Arsenian, J. Young children in an insecure situation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy- chology, 1943, 38, 225-249.

Azrin, N. H., Holz, W., Ulrich, R., & Goldiamond, I. The control of the content of con- version through reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1961, 4, 25-30.

Azrin, N, H., & Powell, J. Behavioral engineering: The use of response priming to improve prescribed self-medication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 39-42.

Bechtel, R. B. The study of man: Human movement and architecture. Transaction, 1967, 4, 53-56.

Bellack, A. S., Rozencsky, R., & Schwartz, J. A comparison of two forms of self-monitoring in a behavioral weight reduction program. Behavior Therapy, 1974, 5, 523-530.

Borkovec, T. D. Effects of expectancy on the outcome of systematic desensitization and implosive treatments for analogue anxiety. Behavior Therapy, 1972, 3, 29-40.

Broden, M., Hall, R. V., & Mitts, B. The effect of self-recording on the classroom behavior of two eighth-grade students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1971, 4, 191-199.

Egeland, B. Examiner expectancy: Effect on the scoring of the WlSC. Psychology in the Schools, 1969, 6, 313-315.

Ernst, F. Self-recording and counterconditioning of a self-mutilative compulsion. Behavior Therapy, 1973, 4, 144-146.

Fixen, D. L., Phillips, E. L., & Wolf, M. M. Achievement place: The reliability of self- reporting and peer-reporting and their effects on behavior. Journal of Applied Behav- iorAnalysis, 1972, 5, 19-30.

Goldiamond, I. Self-control procedures in personal behavior problems. Psychological Reports, 1965, 17, 851-868.

Gottman, J. M., & McFall, R. M. Self-monitoring effects in a program for potential high school dropouts: A time-series analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol- ogy, 1972, 39, 273-281.

Herbert, E. W., & Baer, D. M. Training parents as behavior modifiers: Self-recording o f contingent attention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1972, 5, 139-149.

Johnson, S. M., & Bolstad, O. D. Methodological issues in naturalistic observation: Some


problems and solutions for field research. In L. A. Hamerlynck, L. C. Handy, & E. J. Mash (Eds.), Behavior change: Methodology concepts, and practice. Champaign, IL: Research Press, 1973. Pp. 7-67.

Johnson, S. M., & Lobitz, G. K. Parental manipulation of child behavior in home observations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7, 23-31.

Johnson, S. M., & White, G. Self-observation as an agent of behavioral change. Behavior Therapy, 1971,2, 488-497.

Kanfer, F. Self-monitoring: Methodological limitations and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 35, 148-152.

Kass, R. E., & O'Leary, K. D. The effects of observer bias in field-experimental settings. Paper presented at a symposium Behavior Analysis in Education, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, April 1970.

Kent, R. N., O'Leary, K. D., Diament, C., & Dietz, A. Expectation biases in observational evaluation of therapeutic change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol- ogy, 1974, 42, 774-780.

Kunzelmann, H. D. (Ed.) Precision teaching. Seattle, WA: Special Child Publications, 1970.

Leitenberg, H., Agras, W. S., Thompson, L. E., & Wright, D. E. Feedback in behavior modification: An experimental analysis in two phobic cases. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 131-137.

Lipinski, D., & Nelson, R. O. Problems in the use of naturalistic observation as a means of behavioral assessment. Behavior Therapy, 1974, 5, 341-351.(a)

Lipinski, D. P., & Nelson, R. O. The reactivity and unreliability of self-recording. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 118-123.(b)

Mahoney, M. J., Moore, B. S., Wade, T. C., & Moura, N. G. M. The effects of continuous and intermittent serf-monitoring on academic behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 41, 65-69.

Maletzky, B. M. Behavior recording as treatment: A brief note. Behavior Therapy, 1974, 5, 107-111.

McFall, R. M. Effects of serf-monitoring on normal smoking behavior. Journal of Con- sulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 35, 135-142.

McFall, R. M., & Hammen, C. L. Motivation, structure, and self-monitoring: Role of nonspecific factors in smoking reduction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol- ogy, 1971,37, 80-86.

McKenzie, T. L., & Rushall, B. S. Effects of self-recording on attendance and performance in a competitive swimming training environment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7, 199-206.

Nelson, C., & McReynolds, W. Self-recording and control of behavior: A reply to Simkins. Behavior Therapy, 1971,2, 594-597,

Nelson, R. O.. Lipinski. D. P., & Black, J. L. Adult retardates' self-recording of behaviors with different desirabilities. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Chicago, November, 1974.

Ober, D. C. Modification of smoking behavior, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy- chology, 1968, 32, 543-549.

O'Leary, K. D. The effects of observer bias in field-experimental settings. Final Report, U. S. Office of Education, Grant No. OEG-2-71-0017, 1973.

Oliveau, D. C., Agras, W. S., Leitenberg, H., Moore, R. C., & Wright, D. E. Systematic desensitization, therapeutically oriented instructions, and selective positive reinforcement. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1969, 7, 27-33.

Patterson, G. R., & Harris, A. Some methodological considerations for observation procedures. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, September, 1968.


Polansky, N., Freeman, W., Horowitz, M., Irwin, L., Papanis, N., Rappaport, D., & Whaley, F. Problems of interpersonal relations in research on groups. Human Rela- tions, 1949, 2, 281-291.

Rapp, D. W. Detection of observer bias in the written record. Unpublished manuscript, University of Georgia, 1965.

Reid, J. Reliability assessment of observation data: A possible methodological problem. Child Development, 1970, 41, 1143-1150.

Risley, T. R., & Hart, B. Developing correspondence between the non-verbal and verbal behavior of preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 267-281.

Roberts, R. R., & Renzaglia, G. A. The influence of tape recording on counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1965, 12, 10-16.

Romanczyk, R. G., Kent, R. N., Diament, C., & O'Leary, K. D. Measuring the reliability of observational data: A reactive process. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973, 6, 175-184.

Rosenthal, R. Experimenter effects in behavioral research. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1966.

Rutner, I. T., & Bugle, C. An experimental procedure for the modification of psychotic behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 651-653.

Sattler, J., Hillix, W., & Neher, L. Halo effect in examiner scoring of intelligence test responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 34, 172-176.

Scott, P., Burton, R., & Yarrow, M. Social reinforcement under natural conditions. Child Development, 1967, 38, 53-63.

Simkins, L. The reliability of self-recorded behavior. Behavior Therapy, 1971, 2, 83-87. Skindrud, K. An evaluation of observer bias in experimental-field studies of social interac-

tion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1972. Skindrud, K. Field evaluation of observer bias under overt and covert monitoring. In L. A.

Hamerlynck, L. C. Handy, & E. J. Mash (Eds.), Behavior change: Methodology, concepts, and practice. Champaign, IL: Research Press, 1973. Pp. 97-118.

Stuart, R. B. Behavioral control of overeating. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1967, 5, 357-365.

Taplin, P. S., & Reid, J. B. Effects of instructional set and experimenter influence on observer reliability. Child Development, 1973,44, 547-554.

Thomas, E. J., Abrams, K. S., & Johnson, J. B. Self-monitoring and reciprocal inhibition in the modification of multiple tics of Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1971,2, 159-171.

White, G. D. Effects of observer presence on mother and child behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, September, 1972.

the effects of expectancy on the reactivity of self-recording

Documents