carolyn hughes - an analysis of self-management.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
1/22
Springeris collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Behavioral Education.
http://www.jstor.org
An Analysis of Self-ManagementAuthor(s): Carolyn Hughes and John W. LloydSource: Journal of Behavioral Education, Vol. 3, No. 4 (December 1993), pp. 405-425
Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41819757Accessed: 11-08-2014 11:05 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41819757http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41819757http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/ -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
2/22
Journal
f
Behavioralducation
Vol.
,
No.
4, 1993,
p.
405-425
An
Analysis
of
Self-Management
Carolyn Hughes,
Ph.D.,1,3
nd
John
W.
Lloyd,
Ph.D.2
Accepted:pril
0,
1993
Action
ditor:
irbhay
.
Singh
We
discuss
opics
related
o a
theoretical
nalysis
f self-management,ncluding
theories
f
elf-management,
elf-reinforcement
nd
self-management,
ntecedent
stimuli
for self-management,
eaching
of
self-management
ehaviors,
nd
applications
f self-management.
ur
analysis
ndicates
hat
elf-management's
roots n behavioralexplanations fphenomena
are
solid,
but
that
there re
important
ssues
yet
to be examined n
developing
thorough
nderstanding
of
self-management.
e
argue
hat
elf-management
ehaviors
lmost
certainly
must
be examined
n relation
o
the
contexts
n which
they
ccur
and the
consequences
that
they
roduce.
KEY
WORDS:
elf-management;
elf-control;
elf-regulation;
einforcement;
roblem-solving.
Human
situations
associated
with
self-control
r
self-management
typically
nvolve
behaving
n
a
way
that
causes one
or the other
of
two
competing onsequences to occur (Catania, 1984; Rachlin, 1978; Skinner,
1953).
Often,
for
simplicity,
eople
say
that an individual
hooses
between
two behaviors
having
different
onsequences.
For
example,
spending
one's
entire
weekly
paycheck
may
make
inexpensive
tems
such
as
magazines
or
cassette
tapes
available
immediately,
ut
may
prevent
the later
purchase
of a more
expensive
commodity
uch
as a new
car
(Catania,
1984).
Simi-
larly,
he immediate ffects
f
watching
elevision
ather han
studying
may
increase
the future ikelihood
of television
viewing,
ut the
delayed
effects
(e.g.,
poor
grades)
may
be
aversive.
1Assistantrofessor,epartmentfSpecial ducation,anderbiltniversity,ashville,
Tennessee.
2Professor,
urry
chool f
Education,
niversity
f
Virginia,
harlottesville,
irginia.
Correspondence
hould
e directed
o
Carolyn ughes, epartment
f
Special
ducation,
Vanderbilt
niversity,
ox
328,
eabody
ollege,
ashville,
N
37203.
405
1 5 -08
9/93/1
00-0405
07.00/0
1993 umanciences
ress,
nc.
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
3/22
406
Hughes
nd
Lloyd
Such situations
resent
hallenging
ilemmas o an
individualbecause
the
effects
f the
two
alternative
esponses
ccur at
differentimes
Rachlin,
1978).
In
contrast,
f
opportunities e.g.,
a
limitless
upply
of
funds)
to
buy
a
car
or
purchase
a video
player
occurred at
the same
time,
self-control
would
not be an issue.
One
simply
would
choose
a
purchase
based
upon
personal
preference i.e.,
a
high-probabilityehavior).
The dilemma
occurs
because a
high-probability
ctivity
or
an individual uch as
spending
one's
money
provides
mmediate
reinforcement,
hereas the
effect
f not
saving
funds
e.g.,
not
enough
money
s
accumulated
to
buy
a
car)
is
experienced
only after a delay (Bandura, 1969). Good grades (and possible related
events
such
as
honor
rolls,
cholarships,
r
recognition)
may
not
be
an ef-
fective
einforcer or
tudying
ecause,
as an
outcome,
grade averages may
be
"to
delayed,
too
improbable,
r too
small,
and
of
only
cumulative
ig-
nificance"
Malott,
1984,
p. 200).
We
typically
escribe
an individual'sde-
cision to
study a
low-probability
ehavior)
rather
han watch television
a
high-probability
ehavior)
s an instance
f self-controlr
self-management.
Studying
may
be
immediately
versive;
however,
tudyingmay provide
ac-
cess to the
long-term
enefits f
good
grades
and associated
events.
Kazdin
(1978)
and
Brigham 1978)
contended
that
self-control
ccurs when an in-
dividual
responds
in a mannercounterto
obtaining
n
immediately
ein-
forcing
onsequence.
Self-control
may
be the
performance
f
a
response
that
appears
to act
against
the
immediate
contingencies.
In this
paper
we discuss theoretical ssues
related to the
concept
of
self-management.
opics
discussed nclude:
a)
theories
f
self-management,
including
perant
nd
cognitivexplanations,
b)
the role of self-reinforcement
in the
self-management
aradigm,
c)
the discriminative
timulus
for self-
management
ehavior,
d)
teaching
elf-management,
e) contemporary
p-
plications
f
self-management,
nd
(f)
recommendations
orfuture esearch.
WHAT
IS
SELF-MANAGEMENT?
Despite
minor
distinctions,
esponses
typically
lassified
under
the
rubric
of
self-management
nclude
self-control
cf.
Kazdin, 1978;
Skinner,
1953),
self-regulationcf.
Kanfer,
971),
and self-determination
cf.
Skinner,
1953).
Two theoretical
xplanations
f
self-management
s
a
process
domi-
nate
the literature:
a)
the
operant
explanation,
ncluding
basic
investiga-
tions
of
self-control
nd
theories
of
problem
solving cf. Brigham,
1978;
Catania, 1984; Kazdin, 1978; Rachlin, 1978; Skinner,1953) and the (b)
cognitive
nterpretation
cf.
Bandura,
1969;
Goldfried
&
Merbaum,
1973;
Kanfer, 1971;
Mahoney
&
Thoresen,
1974).
In this
section
we
discuss
the
literature
elated
to these
two
major
theories.
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
4/22
Self-Management
407
Operant
View
of
Self-Management
Skinner
1953)
may
have
been
the
first heorist o
propose
an
operant
view
of the
self-management
aradigm
Jones,
Nelson,
&
Kazdin,
1977).
Skinner
heorized
that
ndividuals ontrol
heir
behavior
s
they
would
con-
trol the
behavior of
anyone
else:
through
manipulation
f the variables
of
which
their
own behavior
s
a
function.
or
example,
to
avoid
smoking,
n
individual
ould
make
the
response
less
probable
by altering
functionally-
related
variables
(e.g.,
by
not
buyingcigarettes).
Skinner continued
that
anybehavior that succeeds in decreasingthe probability f the response
automatically
would
be
negatively
einforced
y
decreasing
versivestimu-
lation associated
with
he
response
e.g.,
shortness
f breathor
fear
of heart
failure).
Skinner's
paradigm
involves two
separate
responses:
the
controlling
response
the behavior
that
affects ariables
e.g.,
turning
ffthe
television)
in
such
a
way
as to
change
the
probability
f
the
controlled
esponse
the
behavior
to be increased
or
decreased
(e.g.,
studying).
An
individual'sbe-
havior
ultimately
s accounted for
by
variables
external
to the
individual,
but
these
external
events
typically
re mediated
by
events
accessible to the
individual lone
(e.g.,
the
"urge"
to
smoke).
Kazdin
(1978) suggested
that
individuals
re
in the best
position
to
observe
their wn
behavior and that
in
the
case of
private
events
(e.g.,
thoughts)
re the
only
ones that can
detect
their occurrence and administer
onsequences
for
their
control.
Basic
Investigations
f Self-Control
Basic
studies
with both
animals
and
humans
support
Skinner's con-
ceptualizationof self-controlCatania, 1984;Rachlin,1978). Behavior den-
tified
s
commitment
esponses
have been
observed
both
in
pigeons
(cf.
Fantino,
1966;
Rachlin
&
Green,
1972)
and
humans
cf.
Millar
&
Navarick,
1984;
Ragotzy, Blakely,
&
Poling,
1988). Specifically,
igeon
and
human
subjects
have
been observed
to make
responses
that
ncrease
the
chances
of
obtaining
a
large delayed
reinforcer
e.g., edible) by
making
an imme-
diate,
smaller
reinforcer navailable.
This
commitment
esponse
parallels
Skinner's
controlling
esponse).
In
contrast,
esponses
that result
n
accessing
the
smaller,
more im-
mediate
reinforcer
nstead
of
the
larger,
delayed
reinforcer
re classified
as impulsiveresponses.Because pigeons typically ehave more impulsively
than
human
subjects
Rachlin
&
Green, 1972;
Ragotzy
t
al.,
1988),
Catania
(1984)
and
Mawhinney
1982) speculated
hat
human
nstances
f
self-control
involve
erbal
behavior
cf.
Bem,
1967).
For
example,
Rachlin
1978)
suggested
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
5/22
408
Hughes
nd
Lloyd
that
a
student
may sign
(i.e.,
commit
to)
a written ontract
tating
re-
sponse
cost
(e.g.,
loss
of
privileges
r
money)
for
not
studying.
he contract
is
signed (a
form
of
verbal
behavior)
when the student's
perceived
value
of
studying
s
high
e.g.,
when
the
possibility
f
obtaining scholarship
s
contingent
n
maintaining ood grades).
The
verbal commitment
the
con-
tract)
decreases
the student's
hoice
due to the
impending esponse
cost
during
hose timeswhen
the value
of
studyingmay
wane
(e.g.,
when
there
are
competing
reinforcers).
Theories
f
Problem
Solving
The
problem-solving
rocess
described
by
Skinner
1953)
and Catania
(1984) exemplifies
he
operant
view
of
self-management.
kinner
uggested
that
a
problem
situation
s
one
in
which
"a
response
xists
n
strength
hich
cannot be emitted"
1953, p.
246).
The
strength
f
the
response typically
s
demonstrated
when the
response
occurs as soon
as
the
opportunity
s
avail-
able.
For
example,
a
locked
door
in a house is
a
problem
if
behavior re-
quiring
he door
to be
open
is
strong
nd
a
key
or other
means of
opening
thedoor is not available. The strengthf theresponse s inferred rom he
occurrence of behavior
that
previously
pened
the door
(e.g.,
"jimmying"
the
lock
with a
knife)
or the
behavior
that occurs
as
soon
as the door is
opened (e.g., dashing
inside
the
house).
The
solution
to the
problem
is
simply response
that
alters
the
situation
o that
the
strong
response
can
be
emitted
e.g.,
finding
he
key
or
calling
a
locksmith).
imilarly,
atania
(1984) suggested
that
the discriminative
eatures
of
a situation
define
the
problem,
nd the
solution to
the
problem
serves
as the reinforcer.
Skinner
1953)
reminded
us that:
"Simply
mitting
. olution,owever,s not
olving
problem.
. . Problem-solving
may
e
defined s
any
behavior
hich,
hrough
he
manipulation
f
variables
(emphasis
dded),
makes he
appearance
f
a solutionmore
probable.
. .
[However],
he
ppearance
f
solution
oes
not
guarantee
hat
roblem-solving
has
taken
lace.
An
accidental
hange
n the
nvironment
ften
rings
bout
similaresult
[for
xample],
he
key
may
e found
by
hance]"
p.
247-248).
The
process
by
which
an individual
solves
a
problem
is
similar
to the
explanation
of how
one
manages
one's
own
behavior:
through
the
manipulation
f
variables
f
which
the
response
s
a
function.
In the
case of
self-management,
ne
controls
variables
(i.e.,
an ex-
ample ofSkinner's ontrollingesponse) to changetheprobabilityfa con-
trolled
response.
For
example,
people
count
to ten
to
prevent
making
abusive comments
r
enter
library
arrel
to increase
studying.
When
solv-
ing
a
problem,
one
manipulates
timuli
i.e.,
modifies
he
environment)
o
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
6/22
-
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
7/22
410
Hughes
nd
Lloyd
According
to
the
cognitive
view
of
self-management,
iscrimination
of one's behavior
s
followed
by
a decision
to controlor
change
one's
per-
formance o achieve
a
self-determined
utcome. Kanfer
1971)
claimed
that
this decision resulted
from
ndividuals'
observation of a
discrepancy
be-
tween their
behavior
and their
self-established
tandard of
performance.
Similarly,
andura
(1969)
argued
that
the:
"selection
f well-defined
bjectives
.. is
an essential
spect
f
any
elf-directed
program
f
change.
he
goals
hat
ndividualshoose
or hemselvesust e
specifiedufficiently
..
to
provide
dequate
uidance
or he
ctions
hat
must
be taken
aily
o attain
esired
utcomes"
p.255).
Goldfried nd Merbaum
1973)
concurred
hat
elf-managementrepresents
a
personal
decision arrived
at
through
conscious
deliberation
for the
purpose
of
integrating
ction
which
s
designed
to achieve certain
desired
outcomes or
goals
as determined
y
the individualhimself'
p. 12).
These
authors
cknowledged
that
their
viewpoint
s
well
as
those of Bandura
and
Kanfer stresses:
"the
mportance
f
mediating
ariables
n
dealing
ith he
rocess
f elf-control.
All
of
hese
cognitive]
onceptions
ean
heavily
n the
mportance
f
hought
nd
language
n
delayingmpulsive
ction,
ndfor
ntroducingcompetingognitive
alternativento he elf-regulatoryequence"p. 12).
Differences
nd
Similarities
Between
Operant
and
Cognitive
Perspectives
on
Self-Management
Rachlin
(1978)
and
other
operant
researchers
lso
referred
o
delay-
ing
impulsive
responses
within
he context
of basic
investigations
f
self-
control. These
researchers,
however,
focused
on
the individual's
con-
trolling
or commitment
response
in
which
variables
are
manipulated
to
make an impulsive response less probable. In contrast, the cognitive
viewpoint
stressed
the
mediation
of
variables
through
thoughtprocesses
in order to
delay
impulsive
action. To
illustrate,
Kanfer
(1971)
argued
that
"at
the
psychological
evel,
some
verbal,
perceptual
or
physiological
feedback for
activation of
the
self-regulation
equence
is
needed
as
a
trigger" p.
43).
Although
there
are
differences
etween
the
operant
and
cognitive
perspectives
on
self-management,
hey
share
characteristics.
ndeed,
both
views
arose from
a
behavioral
perspective,
not
from
a
psychoanalytic
r
other
non-empirical
radition.
urthermore,
ccording
to
both
views,
self-
management s not a trait.Whereas people on the streetmightreferto
concepts
such
as will
power
or other
psychological
qualities,
neither
the
cognitive
nor the
operant
views
of
self-management
equire
recourse
to
personality
ttributes.
Another
similarity
s
that
according
to
both
views,
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
8/22
Self-Management
4X1
individuals an
acquire greater
facility
n
exercising
elf-management.
n a
later
section,
we
discuss
some
examples
of
applications
f
self-management
and how t can
be
taught.
Before
turning
o that
opic,
however,
we
examine
the
events
that surround
elf-management
f
behavior,
sking
what
causes
and
supports
self-management.
WHY DO PEOPLE
MANAGE
THEIR
OWN BEHAVIOR?
Because bothhumanand infrahumanubjectshave been observedto
manage
their
own
behavior
i.e.,
to avoid
immediate
onsequences
in
favor
of
delayed reinforcement),
n
analysis
of
the
self-management
aradigm
should
consider
environmental
events
that
prompt
and maintain
that
behavior. The
issue is
particularly
ntriguing
hen
we
consider that the
individual
has
the
opportunity
o
obtain
reinforcement
t
any
time,
but
behaves in a manner
that
does not
result
in the
immediately
vailable
reinforcer
Kazdin,
1978;
Skinner,
953;
Thoreson
&
Mahoney,
1974).
To
describe
why
ndividuals
manage
their wn
behavior n
this
way,
we
discuss
perspectives
on the
antecedents
and
consequences
of
self-management,
respectively.
What
Prompts
Self-Management?
Because
television
watching
r
doodling
at
one's
desk
or
remaining
quiet
on
a
controversial
opic
at a
meeting
may
provide
more
immediate
reinforcement or
an individual
han
paying
bills or
solving
lgebraic equa-
tions
or
publiclypresenting
n
opposing
view,
the
question
remains
why
anyonewould ever engage in a behaviorthatprovidesdelayed
rather
han
immediatebenefits.
f
we
observed
a
young
man
who
was
guffawing
oudly
while
watching
elevision
uddenlyget
up,
turnoffthe
television,
it down
at
his
desk,
and
begin
figuring
is
income tax
in
mid-January,
e
may
be
curious to
know
what
prompted
his
change
in behavior.
An
interpretation
of the
young
man's
actions
s
complex
because
of the influence
f
multiple
schedules
of reinforcement.
or
example,
the television
how
may provide
immediate
ositive
einforcement
ecause
of
its
relaxing
nd
entertaining
f-
fects. At
the same
time,
the
young
man
may
be
nagged
by
the
thought
that
his
income tax
isn't finished
nd he
knows
that
early filing ypically
results n earlyrefunds.He, therefore,mayreceive (a) immediatenegative
reinforcement
y avoiding nagging
thoughts
s he
begins
his income
tax,
(b)
delayed
positivereinforcement
or
early filing
when
he receives an
early
return,
nd
(c)
delayed
negative
einforcement
y preventing
he aversive
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
9/22
412
Hughes
nd
Lloyd
consequences
of not
filing e.g.,
a
fine).
To be
sure,
the
benefits f these
contingencies
must be
strong
enough
to overcome the
aversive
conse-
quences
that
are familiar
o most
people
who
complete
tax forms.
Competing
ontingencies
This scenario
provides
bases for
speculation
about
why
an
individual
may
act
in
a
way
that
eads
to access
to
immediate,
repotent onsequences
(i.e., why
he exerts
self-control). ccording
to our
scenario,
however,
he
young
man could reinforce imself t
any
time
i.e.,
he could turnthe tele-
vision
back on without
finishing
is
income
tax).
The fact
that
he does
not
requires
an
explanation.
One
explanation
concerns
the relative
trength
f
competing
ontin-
gencies.
For
example,
Herrnstein
1970)
suggested
that at
any given
time
an
individual
may
choose
to
behave
in
any
of several
ways,
ach associated
with
a
unique contingency.
he
proportion
or
strength
f
any
one
of
the
several
behaviors to
the total behavior
available to the
individualmatches
the
ratio between
the
contingency
orthatbehavior and the
total behavior.
Therefore, f several contingencies re in effect t a giventime (e.g., the
young
man
in our
example
could
either watch television or do his
taxes,
each
of which has
multiple
consequences),
the
proportion
of the individ-
ual's
responses
corresponds
to the relative
strength
f
the
contingency.
The
consequences
associated
with
completing
his income tax
may
have
been
more
powerful
o the
young
man
than those associated with
televi-
sion
viewing.
Further
nalysis
would lead
us to
question
what
nfluences
he relative
strength
f
competing
ontingencies.
everal
explanations
ppear plausible,
including
a)
an
individual's
reinforcement
istoiy (Ferster
&
Skinner,
1957; Kanfer,1971; Rachlin, 1978), (b) rule-governed ehavior (Catania,
1984; Malott,
1984),
(c)
the
perceived
value or
probability
f
occurrence
of
a
potential
reinforcer
Brigham,
1978;
Rotter,
1954),
(d)
discrimination
of
one's own
performance
Mahoney
&
Thoresen,
1974), (e)
an individual's
motivation o obtain
a
particular
reinforcer
Brigham,
1978),
and
(f)
the
operating
environmental
ontext
Nelson
&
Hayes,
1981;
Rachlin,
1978).
Cues
We now have an explanationfortheyoungman's behavior:He turns
off the television and
works on
his
taxes
because of
the
relative
strength
of
competing
ontingencies
hat
nfluence
his
behavior.
The
probability
f
an
early
refund
f his
taxes,
the
avoidance
of
penalties
such as
a
fine,
nd
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
10/22
Self-Management
413
other
consequences
are more
powerful
nfluences
han
the
enjoyment
he
currently
s
experiencing
watching
elevision.
We
still
do
not
know,
how-
ever,
what
prompts
him to turn
ff he television
uddenly
nd
begin
work-
ing
on the
aversive
tax forms.
Several
theories
have
been
proposed regarding
the
discriminative
stimulus
for
self-managing
ehavior.
Although
the ultimate
ncentiveto
manage
one's own behavior
may
be
accounted for
by
referring
o
environ-
mental
variables
Skinner,
1953),
events that
prompt elf-management
ypi-
cally
are
presumed
to
be
accessible
to the
individual
lone.
For
example,
Rachlin (1978) and Catania (1984) describedan individual's ommitment
response.
According
to this
perspective,
uring
period
in whichthe
value
of
a
particular
response (e.g.,
exercising)
s
high,
an
individual
makes
a
commitment
typically
onsidered
verbal
response)
to
perform
he
desired
behavior
with
a
particular requency.
he
commitment ecreases
the indi-
vidual's
choice and
prompts
he
performance
f
the behavior when
com-
peting
contingencies
re
prepotent
e.g.,
when one
would
ratherwatch TV
than
complete
tax
forms
r rather
tay
n
bed
than
get up
early
and
run).
Nelson
and
Hayes (1981)
extended
this
analysis,
uggesting
hat
the entire
controlling
esponse (self-management
ehavior) may
serve as
a
prompt
fordelayed consequences.
Premack
1970),
Kanfer
1971),
Kanfer nd
Karoly 1972),
and
Brigham
(1983)
referred o
an individual's
ttending
o
his
or
her own behavior or
private
vents
s
the stimulus or
elf-management
o occur.Kanfer
uggested
that:
"this
elf-monitoringystem ay o
nto ffect
nly
nderhose onditionsnwhich
the
normal
hains fbehavior
renot un ff
moothly
r
when
ther
xternal
r
internal
vents
rovide
ues forwhich o
highly
rained
esponse
s available'*
(p.
41).
That is, the individual assesses his or her behavior and, in finding t
unsatisfactory,
makes a decision to
change
that
performance.
Self-
monitoring,
therefore,
s
viewed
as the
stimulus
for
self-management;
however,
he
process
is
influenced
y
feedbackfrom nvironmental vents.
What
Reinforces
elf-Management?
Let's
return
o
observe the
young
man
doing
his income tax.
The
tele-
vision s
stilloff nd he sits
working
t his
desk which s covered
with
forms,
receipts, egal tablets,writing tensils, nd a calculator. We've speculated
on
why
he
went
to work
on
his
taxes,
but what
keeps
him
working
for
hours?
Explanations
related
to the
maintenance of
self-management
e-
havior
typically
nvolve ither
elf-reinforcementr external einforcement.
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
11/22
414
Hughes
nd
Lloyd
Self-Reinforcement
Self-reinforcement
ften has
been
proposed
as the
consequence
that
maintains
elf-management
ehavior
Bandura,
1974;
Kazdin,
1978;
Thoresen
&
Mahoney, 1974).
Bandura
noted
that
self-management
ehavior
may
be
hard to
maintain
because
it
is
supported
by
delayed
reinforcement hich
conflicts
with
immediate,
competing
contingencies.
ndividuals,
therefore,
often
re
taught
o
provide
their
wn reinforcementor
elf-managing
ntil
natural
consequences
are
operational.
For
example,
the
young
man whom
we observed completinghis income tax may reward himselfby eating a
pizza
after he has
completed
two
hours
of work. We
assume
that
eating
the
pizza
reinforces
ompleting
he income tax return
f
time-spent-working
increases
for the
young
man
in
the future
Bandura,
1969, 1974; Kanfer,
1971;
Kazdin,
1978).
This
explanation
of
the
self-reinforcement
f
self-management
ehav-
ior
appears
both
logical
and
parsimonious.
However,
its
verity
has
been
questioned by
several
investigators.
kinner
1953)
proposed
that:
"The
ultimate
uestion
s whetherhe
onsequence
as
any
trengthening
ffect
upon
he
ehavior
hich
recedes
t. s
the
ndividualore
ikely
o do a
similar
piece fworkn thefuture?t would otbesurprisingfhewere ot, lthough
we
must
gree
hat ehas
rranged
sequence
f ventsnwhich
ertain
ehavior
has
been
ollowed
y reinforcing
vent"
p.
238).
To
return o
the income
tax
scenario,
does
eating
a
pizza
increase future
sessions
working
n his income
tax
for
the
young
man?
Conversely,
would
futurework
sessions
be maintained
f
income
tax
refundswere
withdrawn
or
if
penalties
were no
longer
evied for failure
to
file returns?
Rachlin
(1978)
and
Catania
(1984)
argued
that
self-administered
e-
inforcement
s
not
what maintains
elf-management
ehavior.
nstead,
the
operantinvolved s a commitment esponse. In our example,Rachlin and
Catania would
arge
that
the
young
man has
made
a commitment
o eat
a
pizza only
if he has
worked
on his income
tax for
two
hours
because
completing
his returnhas
become
important
or other
reasons
(e.g.,
a
po-
tential
refund).
Whatever
originally
rought
he
young
man
to
make
the
commitment o reinforce
his own
working
n
the first
place probably
by
itself would make
completing
the
income tax
in the
future more
likely
(Catania,
1984).
Perhaps
self-reinforcement
perates
more
as
a
mediator
than
a
rein-
forcerof behavior.
Eating
the
pizza
might
have
increased
working
n the
income tax because of its stimuluspropertiesratherthan its reinforcing
properties Rachlin,
1978).
Rachlin
argued
that:
"This
hypothesis
ould
be
tested
y
ubstituting
eutral ut
trong
timuli
or
self-reinforcers.or
nstance,
student
ho
rewards
imself
y
ating
peanut
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
12/22
Self-Management
415
afterach10 min fstudyingughtostudyswell f, nsteadfeatingt,he
simply
ransfers
he
eanut
romne
dish o another
s a
way
f
ounting
0 min
study
eriods"
p.
253).
Self-reinforcement
ay
simply
erve
as
feedback
that
says
"I
did it"
to the
individual n the
same
way
that
a
feedback
click informs
pigeon
that it
has
just
pecked
a
key.
Similarly,
aer
(1984)
referred
o
marker
stimuli
such as
tokens in
a container
or
numbers
on
a
wrist
ounter
whose
"Functions
to
serve
s mediators
f
the
ong-term
utcomes
hat annot
eadily
be made irectnd
mmediate
utcomes
f the
behavior
hanges
hat re
being
programmed.. . They redirectnd mmediateonsequencesf
a
necessaryinitial
erformance;
hey
markhe orrectompletionfthat nitialerformance
and set theoccasion
or
subsequenterformance
hatnow an
lead
to
the
reinforcers
r avoid
he
punishers
n
those
earranged
ontingencies
hat he
self-controllingerson
s
attempting
o
use"
p.
212).
External
Reinforcement
Is
self-reinforcement
ufficient
o maintain
self-controllingesponse?
Bandura
(1974),
Kanfer
1971),
Kanfer
and
Karoly
(1972),
and Thoresen
and Mahoney (1974) proposedthat muchof humanbehavior s maintained
in the absence of immediate
nvironmental
upport
r feedback.
Jones
t
al.
(1977)
argued
that
lthough
heorists
cknowledge
he role of
the environment
in the
self-managementaradigm,
self-reinforcement
nvestigations
trongly
imply
hat he
self-delivery
f
consequences
s
responsible
or
behavior
hange
rather than
specific
external
contingencies
perating
n
the
experiment"
(p. 151).
Bandura
conceded
that
elf-reinforcingesponses
re
partly
ustained
by
periodic
xternal
einforcement,
ut he
claimed
that he
process
s
relatively
independent
f environmental
nfluence.
Other
investigators lace
more
weight
n the
role
of the environment
(Brigham,1978; Kazdin, 1978; Skinner, 953). Kazdin arguedthat research
suggests
that
self-management
ontingencies
depend upon
environmental
surroundings
o maintain
heir
upport
and
"although
theoretical
oncepts
of
self-control
vary
in
the
role
accorded
external
contingencies,
it is
generally greed
that
the]
environment
s crucial n
the execution
of self-
control
n
therapeutic
pplications"
p.
335).
Skinner
contended
that
indi-
viduals
control
their wn
behavior
by
manipulating
ariables
of which
their
behavior is
a
function,
ut that
ultimately
ontrol must
be
accounted
for
withvariables
lying
utside
ndividuals
hemselves.
kinner oncluded
that:
"A mereurveyf he echniquesf elf-controloesnot xplainhyhe ndividual
puts
hemnto ffect.
his
hortcoming
s all too
pparent
hen
e undertake
o
engender
elf-control.
.
. We
make
ontrolling
ehavior
ore
robable
y
arrangingpecial ontingencies
f reinforcement.
. .
Some f
these
dditional
consequences
re
supplied
y
nature,
ut
n
general
hey
re
arranged
y
the
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
13/22
416
Hughes
nd
Lloyd
community... Itappears,herefore,hatocietysresponsibleorheargerart
of
the
ehavior
f elf-control"
p.
240).
One
way
to
conceptualize
environmentalnfluences
n
self-managed
behaviors
s to
consider
the
concept
of
trapping.According
to the idea
of
trapping
Baer
&
Wolf,
1970),
it is
possible
that the levels
of
a
given
behavior are not
high or low)
enough
to come
into contact
with
reinforce-
ment
contingencies.
or
example,
children
may
not
read
at a fast
enough
rate
to meet a
criterion.
However,
when an
individual
perhaps
because
she
exercises
a
self-management echnique begins
to
respond
at
higher
levels, she comes into contactwith reinforcementontingencies;at the
same
time,
her
behavior
may
be
trapped
at a
higher
evel because it also
comes
into
contact
with other
naturally
ccurring ontingencies
uch as
understanding
what
she
read,
keeping peers
from
hiding
her
for
reading
without
nflection,
r other
positive
or
negative
reinforcers.
hus,
the self-
management
echnique provides
means to
gain
access to
naturally
ccur-
ring
reinforcers.
Another
way
to
conceptualize
environmental influences on
self-
management
s to
consider
self-management
s
a
behavior itself.
That
is,
if
self-management
r
controlling
esponses
are a
functional
esponse
class,
thenas a
group
they
re
likely
o be influenced y
consequences. Perhaps
the
environment
ifferentially
rovides
more and
stronger
positive
conse-
quences
for behaviors that
bring
people
in contact with
onger-term
on-
tingencies.
n this
way,
we
can
reconsider
self-management
ehaviors
as
less
discrete and more similar
o an
operant;
as a
group,
self-management
behaviors
operate
on the
environment
o
bring
the behavior
into contact
with more
powerful
reinforcers.
Both of the alternatives
we
discussed in
the
previous
paragraphs
also
correspond
to an
alternative
conceptualization
of the
relationship
between self-managedbehavior and the environment.According to this
view,
people may
exhibit
elf-control
ot
just
because
such
behavior
re-
sults in
greater
reinforcement,
ut because
it obtains reinforcement
more
effectively.
urthermore,
here
may
be some reinforcement
alue
in
how
one's
behavior affects
ne's
world;
as Skinner
noted,
"The
human
organ-
ism is
reinforced
imply
by being
effective"
Evans,
1968,
p.
62).
Thus,
one
potential
reinforcer
or
self-management
s that the
controlling
be-
haviors of an individual
xercising
elf-control
re reinforced
not so much
by
their
specific
effects
n
the
environment,
ut that
they
have
effects.
Given the idea of
multiple
schedules
operating
at
essentially
the same
time on behavior, perhaps self-managingbehavior produces multiple
changes
in the environment
hat
are,
in
sum,
reinforcing.
or
example,
perhaps
exercising
what
we
are
calling
self-management
educes
the
value
of
certain,
short-term
negative
consequences
as well
as
making
certain
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
14/22
Self-Management
417
longer-term onsequences
more
accessible. We
suggested
this in the ex-
ample
of the
person
preparing
tax
returns:
As
a
consequence
of
turning
offthe television
and
completing
ax
forms,
he
may
have
(a)
reduced the
"nagging"
associated
with not
having completed
his
taxes,
(b)
made his
return
rrive
earlier,
c)
provided
himself
with
a means
for
soliciting
o-
cial
reinforcement
rom
his
associates
("Wow
You've done
it
already?
I'm
dreading it."),
and
(e)
operated
on his
environment n
other
ways,
as well
as
simply
ausing
effects
r
changes
n
his
environment.
erhaps
all
of these
consequences
may
have
been
reinforcing,
more
reinforcing
han
those associated with watching television. Perhaps the individual has
learned
that
his behavior
has
effects
on the
environment n these sorts
of
ways,
that
self-management
ehavior
has
simply cquired
the effects
that are characteristic f
secondary
reinforcers.
The view
of
the
environment
s
the ultimate
ource of behavioral
on-
trol
may
seem
to limit
ne's
personal
responsibility
ith
respect
o behavior
management,
point
consistent
with
radical
behaviorism
Skinner, 1971).
A focus on the
environmental
nfluences
on
self-management
rocesses,
however,
has the
benefit
f
making
hese
processes
more amenable to
edu-
cational
influences
we
can
manipulate
environmental
ariables. In the
nextsection,we turnto discussing trategies orteaching elf-management.
HOW
TO TEACH
SELF-MANAGEMENT
According
to
the
paradigm
we have
advocated
in
this
paper,
self-
management
refers
o instances
n
which
the individual
orgoes
mmediate
reinforcementn favor of
highly
alued,
long-term
enefits.
The
process
appears simple enough
for
anyone
to
follow,yet
there
is
ample
evidence
that
many
people
may
not
practice
efficient
elf-management
kills.
For
example,
individuals
engage
in excessive
consummatory
ehavior
despite
harmful ffects uch
as
obesity,
heart
disease,
alcoholism, istlessness,
nd
general
ill
health. Or
they
engage
in
inappropriate
social interactions
regardless
of
loss
of
friends
r business
colleagues.
Conversely,
eople
fail
to
speak
up
when it comes
timefor
nnual
pay
raises
despite
dissatisfaction
with
their
current
salary,
or
they may
fail
to
study
torts
well
enough
to
pass
a bar
exam for
a law
degree.
Communities
pollute
streams
and
drinking
water
despite
threatsto
health
and
loss of
wildlife nd
nations
engage in warfare and fail to negotiatesettlementsn the face of loss of
life
and
natural resources.
Assuming
that
these
cases
represent
xamples
of
long-term
enefits
that are sacrificed
for short-term
ewards,
t
would
appear
that the need to learn
self-management
kills
s
pervasive.
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
15/22
418
Hughes
nd
Lloyd
Rachlin
(1978) suggested
hat environmentalventsthat can
generate
self-management y
shifting
he
locus of
behavioral
controlfrom hort- o
long-term
vents
have not been examined
ystematically.
ince
investigators
have
analyzed
the
variables of
which
behavior is a
function,
owever,
t
should be
possible
to
teach
ndividuals o
manipulate
ariables hat
nfluence
their
wn
behavior
cf.
Skinner,
953).
Rachlin
1978)
and
Baer
(1984)
sug-
gested
that t is
possible
to
make
people
more aware of the
contingencies
that are in
effect
n
their
ives
by
increasing
he
saliency
f
the antecedents
and
consequences
of environmental vents.
Through
the
use of direct
n-
structional rinciples uch as prompting,modeling,practice, nd corrective
feedback,
people
have been
taught
to
observe
instances
of their
undesired
behavior and
the environmental
vents
affecting
heirbehavior.
The use
of
recording
evices
may
help
to make these
events and
their
consequences
more
salient to the individual.
Additionally,
n individual's
ehavior
nitially
may
be
brought
nto
conformity
ith
ong-term
onsequences
by
employing
techniques
such as
(a)
commitment
trategies e.g., arranging
o have a
wake-up
call in order to arrive
t an
appointment
n
time) (Rachlin,
1978),
(b)
rules and verbal behavior
e.g.,
raising
one's hand before
speaking
in
class to
avoid loss
of
privileges)
Catania,
1984;
Malott,
1984),
or
(c)
stimulus
control
e.g., eating
onlywhensitting t a table to avoid snackingbetween
meals)
(Kazdin,
1978;
Skinner,
953).
Goldiamond
(1965),
Mahoney
and
Thoresen
(1974),
and
Brigham
(1978)
proposed
that
through
irect nstruction
ndividuals
an be
taught
to
analyze
their
nvironments
o
identify
unctional
ariables
that nfluence
theirbehavior. The next
step,
therefore,
s
to
teach
people
to
modify
he
variables
that control
the behavior
they
wish
to
charge.
Skinner
1953)
and
Brigham 1978)
suggested
that because
any
of the
variables of
which the
target
behavior
is a
function
may
be
manipulated,
many
self-management
proceduresare available and one maybe chosen that is appropriatefora
particular
nvironmental
ontext.
The next
section
discusses
effective
p-
plications
of
self-management
trategies.
CONTEMPORARY
APPLICATIONS
OF
SELF-MANAGEMENT
As we
developed
in
an earlier
section,
elf-management
stablishes
relationship
between
controlling
nd
controlled
esponses
(Skinner,
1953).
Thiscontrastlignswith distinctionetween echniquesor self-management
behaviors)
and the
problem
ehaviors
hat
those
techniques
have
been
used
to
change.
In this
section,
we
examine
that
distinction
with
reference
to
interventions.
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
16/22
Self-Management
419
ControllingResponses
People may
manage
their
wn
behavior n
myriadways.
For
example,
when
one
is
writing
while
sitting
next
to an
open
window on
a
pleasant
afternoon,
he
may
manage
her behaviorof
looking
out the
window
rather
than
ooking
t
what she is
writing y
altering
er
environment
e.g.,
closing
curtainsor
turning
her back
to the
window).
Similarly,
person
may
act
in a
way
that
s
incompatible
with
cting
n another
way,
as
exemplified
n
the
song,
"Whistle a
Happy
Tune."
Skinnerdiscussedtechniques f self-management.e cataloguedand
gave
examples ncluding a) physical
estraint
nd
physical
id,
(b)
changing
the
stimulus,
c)
depriving
nd
satiating, d)
manipulating
motional
condi-
tions,
e) using
aversive
timulation,
f)
drugs, g)
operant conditioning,
h)
punishment,
nd
(i) "doing
omething
lse"
(see
Skinner, 953,
pp. 231-240).
Kazdin
(1984) provided
slightly
ifferent
atalog.
He included
a)
stimulus
control,
b) self-monitoring,
c)
self-reinforcement
nd
self-punishment,
nd
(d)
alternate
esponse training.
Models
proposed
by
others
e.g.,
Bandura
&
Perloff,
967:
Glynn,
homas,
&
Shee,
1973; Kanfer,
970)
included
a)
self-
assessment,b) self-evaluation,c) self-recording,
nd
(d)
self-reinforcement.
The last
examples
have a
more substantial heoretical
asis: the
behaviors
described
by
Kazdin
(1978)
and Skinner
1953) comprise
more of an un-
structured
ollection. But these
lists are not
exhaustive;
other
techniques
that
have
been tested under
the
general
rubric f
self-management
nclude
goal-setting
nd
self-instruction.
As
is
apparent,
here re
many
ifferent
ays
o
classifyelf-management
techniques.
A
thorough
xamination
f these
taxonomies
would reveal
both
similarities nd differences
mong categories
of
techniques.
But,
at
present,
we
do not
think hat there
s a
comprehensive, nifying
eans
of
classifying
these techniques.
Controlled
Responses
An
exhaustive ist of
the different
ehaviors
that
have been
changed
using any
of
these various
techniques
would be
tedious,
in
part
because
self-management rocedures
have been used to address
many
responses
generally
outside
of the realm of
education.
These
response range
from
ceasing
smoking
Abueg,
Colletti,
&
Kopel,
1985; McConnell,
Biglan,
&
Severson,1984; Singh& Leung,1988) to losingweight e.g., Horton,1981;
Israel,
Silverman,
&
Solotar,
1987),
and from
reducing
depression
(e.g.,
Singer,
rvin,
&
Hawkins, 1988; Stark,
Reynolds,
&
Kaslow,
1987)
to
man-
aging
diabetes
(Wing, Epstein,
Nowalk,
&
Scott,
1988).
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
17/22
420
Hughes
nd
Lloyd
Examples
of
controlled
responses
withineducation are
abundant,
also. Some
studies
have
examined
the effects
f
controlling esponses
on
social
behavior in
schools;
for
example,
Martella,
Leonard,
Marchand-
Martella,
and
Agran
(1993)
used
self-monitoring
o reduce a student's
negative
statements.Other
controlled
responses
have been
academic;
for
example,
Laird
and
Winton
1993)
examined
the effects
f different elf-
evaluation
procedures
on
students'
mistakes
n mathematics
roblems.
Still
other tudies
have examined
ffects
n
combinations
f controlled
esponses;
for
example,
Maag,
Reid,
and
DiGangi
(1993)
used
self-recording
o ad-
dress these controlledresponses: (a) attending o mathwork sheets, (b)
answering
math
problems,
and
(c)
answering
those
problems correctly.
Controlled
responses
may
vary
n
complexity,
oo;
whereas
attending
s
a
relatively imple response,
answering
uestions
correctly
s more
complex
(i.e.,
it
requires
multiple
eparate
responses).
The
controlled
educational
responses
do not have
to be limited
to
school
settings,
however.
Rusch, McKee,
Chadsey-Rusch,
and
Renzaglia
(1988)
used
self-instruction
o
address
a
conceptually
imple
response,
eek-
ing
assistance,
n
a
job
setting.
imilarly, agomarcino
and Rusch
(1989)
used
self-instruction
echniques
to increase
the
relatively
omplex
work
responsesperformed ya personwithprofound etardationna community
work
setting.
This
brief
set of
examples
illustrates
hat diverse
self-management
techniques
have been
applied
in
diverse
settings
with
diverse
responses
by
membersof diverse
groups.
Apparently,
echniques,
ettings, esponses,
and
group
membership
do
not
impose
obvious
limitations
n
the useful-
ness
of
self-management.
ather,
theyprimarily
est
the
capability
of
the
people
who
are
teaching
self-management:
Can
we determine
how
to
teach
pretty
much
anyone
how
to
manage
her
own
behavior
under
given
circumstances?
Because
of
the
extent
of
the
literature
n
self-control,
eaders
who
are new to it and
are
interested
n
examining
tudies
of
self-management
should
read research
reviews
as
a first
tep.
Both
earlier
reviews
(e.g.,
Kazdin,
1984;
McLaughlin,
1976)
and
more
recent
works
addressing par-
ticular
opics
in
self-management
e.g.,
Hughes,
1991;
Mace
&
Kratochwill,
1988) provide
informative
ntroductions.
CONCLUSION
Despite
the
extensive
iterature
n
self-management,
ncluding
both
theoretical
nd
applied
papers,
there
s much
about
self-management
hat
is unknown.
Our
discussion
has
hinted
t some
areas
of
potentially
ruitful
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
18/22
Self-Management
421
research.
n this
ection,
we
suggest
few
areas as
illustrations
f the
range
of
topics
that
may
be studied.
Although
we have
an
abiding
nterest n
the
study
f
procedures
for
teaching
elf-management
ehaviors,
n these
com-
ments
we
focus
on
issues relevant
o
understanding
he
phenomenon
self-
management.
We
think it
would be
particularly
valuable
to
examine
the
consequences
of
self-management.
or
example,
we wonder
whether
the idea
of
trapping
Baer
&
Wolf,
1970)
is
operating
in
self-
management.Does managing ne's own behaviorpermit ccess to
other environmental einforcers?
We
wonder about
whethervarious
self-management
ehaviors
or
techniques
might
form
a
response
class.
Does
exercising
various
self-management
ehaviors
produce
a
higher
probability
f
using
those behaviors
n
other
settings?
We
think
that
the
question
of
why
self-management
echniques
work remains
unanswered.
Although
here re
substantial ata
that
bear
on
the
question,
we
would
like to know what
are the
key
ingredients n self-management nd how do they interactwith
other variables
to enhance or
inhibit ffects.
Similarly,
we
wonder
how
successful ducators
may
be in
teaching
the
use
of
self-management echniques
to
change
an individual's
behavior when the
individualherself
does
not want to
change
it.
For
example,
eachers
may
want
tudents o
workharder o
improve
their
grades, mployers
may
desire
employees
o
decrease
absences,
or
parents
may
wishthattheir
hildrenmore
consistently
ompleted
their household
chores.
Self-management
techniques
may
be
appropriate n each case; however, fan individualdoes notwant
to
change
a
targeted
behavior,
will
self-management
e effective
in
promoting
behavior
change?
We
believe that in such
a
case,
individuals
need to learn what
contingencies
re
operating
n
their
environments.
his
earning
s
facilitated
y
making
he
consequences
of one's actions more salient. For
example,
students could
be
instructed
hat
he results
f
continued
oor grades
will
be academic
probation
and eventual
dismissal
from chool.
Smokers
could
be
shown
x-rays
f
lungs
that have
been
damaged by
the effects
f
long-term
moke inhalation.
t
may
be that
reluctance
to
change
a behavior that s potentially amagingto an individual s due in
part
to
a
failure of the individual to associate
delayed
aversive
consequences
with an immediate
response.
A
prerequisite
for
teaching elf-management
may
be
to
cause the individual o
attend
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
19/22
422
Hughes
nd
Lloyd
to
potential
consequences
by making
these
consequences
more
salient.
Empirical
testing
of
this
hypothesis
in addition
to
investigation
of
the most
effective
methods
for
increasing
the
saliency
of
delayed
consequences
under
various
conditions hould
be
conducted.
We
think hat
the
wealth of
techniques
onsidered
under the rubric
of
self-management
s both
a benefit and
a
liability.Although
it
indicates
that
there
are
many
different
possible
techniques
(controlling ehaviors)
that
we can
teach,
we
fear
thiswealth
also
indicates
a lack
of
conceptual
clarity.
How
are
self-monitoring
nd
self-recording
he
same
and
different?
o what
extent
s
goal-setting
implicit
n
self-evaluation?
We need
a
rigorous
examination
and
classification f
these
procedures.
Such an
examination
hould also
propel
us
toward
more
complete
understanding
f
the
phenomenon
we call
self-management.
We also
expect
that
there
is much
to
be
gained
by
studying
elf-
management
behaviors
in
a
broader
context.
Self-management
behavior occurs
within
a context
n
which
some antecedent
and
consequent
eventsinfluence t. We have too littleunderstanding
of how
the
various
factors
n
the
environment
romote
or inhibit
self-management
nd how
self-management,
tself,
ffects
those
environmental
variables.
To
gain greater
understanding
of
the
interactions
between
self-management
and the
environments
within
which
it
occurs,
we
probably
must
adopt
an
ecobehavioral
approach
to
studying
hese
phenomena
(e.g.,
Greenwood,
Carta,
Arreaga-Mayer,
&
Rager,
1991).
We think
hat
some
of
the
problems
nd
issues
we have
identified
are the resultof havingno fully pecifiedand extensively ested
theory
of
self-management.
Although
cognitive
views
of self-
management
have
offered
working
models
of
self-control
e.g.,
Kanfer
&
Karoly,
1972),
there
are difficulties
ith
them.
Likewise,
it is
not clear
that more
operant
models
are sufficient
Nelson
&
Hayes,
1981).
But,
we doubt
that
we shall
be
able
to resolve
many
of the
more
difficult
ssues
in
self-management
e.g.,
what's
needed
to make
it
work?)
until
we
have
a
well-developed
model
to
critique,
test,
and revise.
Despite these questions about self-management, e thinkthat the
area has
much
to offer
ducation.
Self-management
echniques
appear
to
appeal
to
teachers
and
other
educators;
to be
applicable
in
diverse
ettings,
with diverse
populations,
and
to
diverse
controlled
responses;
and
to
be
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
20/22
Self-Management
423
robust.
Likewise,
they
have
advantages
for individuals
because
they
offer
a
potential
means
of
changing
behaviors
mportant
and
therefore
ocially
valid)
to
individuals
hemselves.
REFERENCES
Abueg,
.
R.,Colletti,.,
&
Kopel,
. A.
1985).
study
f
reactivity:
he
ffects
f
ncreased
relevancend aliencyfself-monitoredmokinghroughnhancedarbonmonoxidefeedback.
ognitiveherapy
ndResearch9,321-333.
Baer,
.
M.
1984).
oes
research
n elf-control
eed
more
ontrol?
nalysis
nd
ntervention
in
Developmental
isabilities,,
211-218.
Baer,
.
M.,
&
Wolf,
M.
M.
1970).
he
entry
nto aturalommunitiesf
reinforcement.
In R.
Ulrich,
.
Stachnik,
J.
Mabry
Eds.),
Control
f
humanehavior
Vol.
,
pp.
19-
324).
Glenview,
L:
Scott,
oresman.
Bandura,
.
1971).
icarious
nd elf-reinforcement
rocesses.
n
R. Glaser
Ed.),
The ature
of
reinforcement
pp.
228-278).
ewYork:
Academicress.
Bandura,
.
(1969).
Principles
f
behavior
odification
NewYork:
Holt,
Rinehartnd
Winston,
nc.
Bandura,
.
1974).
elf-reinforcement
rocesses.
n
M.
J.
Mahoney
C. E. Thoresen
Eds.),
Self-control
Power
o
he
erson
pp.
86-110).
onterey,
A:
Brooks/Cole
ublishing.
Bandura, .,& Perloff,. 1967). elativeflicacyt ell-monitorednd xternallymposed
reinforcement
ystems.
ournal
f
Personality
ndSocial
sychology,
,
111-116.
Bem,
.
L.
(1967).
Verbalelf-control:
he
stablishmentf ffectiveelf-instruction.
ournal
of
Exceptionalsychology,
4,
85-491.
Brigham,
.
(1983). elf-management:
radical ehavioral
erspective.
n P.
Karoly
F.
H.
Kanfer
Eds.),
elf-management
ndbehavior
hange:
rom
heory
o
practice
pp.
32-59).
New
York:
ergamon
ress.
Brigham,
.
A.
(1978).
Self-control:
art I.
In A. C. Catania
T. A.
Brigham
Eds.),
Handbook
f
applied
ehavior
nalysis:
ocial
nd
nstructional
rocessespp.
259-274).
NewYork:
rvington
ublishers.
Catania,
. C.
(1984). earning2nd
d.). Englewood
liffs,
J:
rentice-Hall,
nc.
Evans,
. I.
(1968).
.
F.
Skinner:he
man nd
his
deas.
NewYork: utton.
Fantino,
.
(1966).
mmediate
eward ollowed
y
xtinctionersus
ater
eward ithout
extinction.sychonomiccience,,233-234.
Ferster,
.
B.,
&
Skinner,
. F.
(1957).
chedule
freinforcement.
ew
York:
Appleton-
Century-Crofts,
nc.
Glynn,
.
L.,
Thomas,
.
D.,
&
Shee,
. M.
1973).
ehavioral
elf-control
f n-taskehavior
in
an
elementary
lassroom.
ournal
fApplied
ehavior
nalysis,
,
105-113.
Goldfried,
.
R.,
&
Merbaum,
.
1973).
A
perspective
n self-control.
n M. R.
Goldfned
&
M.
Merbaum
Eds.),
ehavior
hange
hrough
elf-control
pp.
3-34).
NewYork:
Holt,
Rinehart
nd
Winston,
nc.
Goldiamond,
.
(1965).
elf-control
rocedures
n
personal
ehavior
roblems.
sychological
Reports,
7,
851-868.
Greenwood,
.
R.,Carta,
.
J.,
Arreaga-Mayer,
.,
&
Rager,
.
1991).
hebehavior
nalyst
consulting
odel:
dentifying
nd
validating
aturally
ffectivenstructional
odels.
JournalfBehavioralducation,,165-191.
Herrnstein,
.
J.
1970).
n the aw f
ffect.ournal
f
he
xperimental
nalysis
f
Behavior,
13,
243-266.
Horton,
.
M.
1981).
elf-recording
n he
reatmentf
besity:
six-yearollow-up.
ournal
of
Obesity
nd
Weightegulation,
(2),
93-95.
This content downloaded from 84.240.46.41 on Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:05:34 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Carolyn Hughes - An Analysis of Self-Management.pdf
21/22
424
Hughes
nd
Lloyd
Hughes,
.
(1991).
ndependent
erformance
mong
ndividualsithmentaletardation:
Promotingeneralization
hrough
elf-instruction.n M.
Hersen,
. M.
Eisler,
P. M.
Miller
Eds.),
rogress
n
behavior
odification
Vol.
7,
p.
-35).
ewbury
ark,
A:
Sage.
Israel,
.
C.,
Silverman,
.
K.,
&
Solotar,
. C.
(1987).
aseline
dherence
s
a
predictor
of
dropout
n
a
children's
eight-reduction
rogram.
ournal
f
Consulting
nd
Clinical
Psychology
55,
791-793.
Jones,
.
T.,
Nelson,
.
E.,
&
Kazdin,
. E.
(1977).
he role
f
externalariables
n self-
reinforcement.
ehavior
odification
2,
147-203.
Kanfer,
.
H.
(1971).
The
maintenancef behavior
y
self-generated
timuli nd
reinforcement.
n A. Jacobs
L.
B. Sachs
Eds.),
The
sychology
f
private
vents
Perspectives
n covert
esponse
ystems
pp.
39-59).
ewYork:Academic
ress.
Kanfer,
.
H.,
&
Karoly,
.
(1972).
elf-control:behavioristicxcursionnto
he
ion's en.
Behaviorherapy3,398-416.
Kanfer,
.
F.
(1970).
elf-monitoring:
ethodological
ssues
nd
linical
pplications.
ournal
of
Consulting
nd
Clinical
sychology
35,
143-152.
Kazdin,
A.
E.
(1978). Historyf
behavior
odification:
xperimental
oundations
f
contemporary
esearch.
altimore,
D:
University
ark
ress.
Kazdin,
.
E.
(1984).
Behavior
odification
n
appliedettings
3rd
d.).
Homewood,
L:
Dorsey.
Lagomarcino,
.
R.,
&
Rusch,
. R.
(1989).
Utilizingelf-managementrocedures
o
teach
independenterformance.
ducation
nd
Training
n
Mental etardation
24,
297-305.
Laird,
.,
Winton,
. S.
(1993).
A
comparison
f elf-instructional
heckingrocedures
or
remediating
athematicaleficits.
ournal
f
Behavioral
ducation,
,
143-164.
Maag,
J.
W.,Reid,R.,
&
DiGangi,
.
A.
(1993).
ifferentialffectsf
attention,
ccuracy,
and
productivityelf-monitoring.
ournal
fApplied
ehavior
nalysis,
6,
329-344.
Mace, . C.,& Kratochwill,. R. (1988). elf-monitoring.n J.C.Witt,. N.Eliott, F.
M.
Gresham
Eds.),
Handbook
f
behavior
herapy
n ducation
pp.
489-522).
ewYork:
Plenum.
Mahoney,
.
J.,
&
Thoresen,
.
E.
(1974).
ehavioralelf-