不同归因取向的表扬对儿童失败后的影响效应

以103名小学五年级的儿童为被试,考察不同归因取向的表扬对儿童遭遇失败后的影响效应。结果发现：（1）接受能力取向表扬的儿童在遭遇失败后表现出无助取向的反应模式,接受努力取向表扬的儿童表现出掌握取向的反应模式;（2）接受能力取向表扬的儿童倾向于采取防御性的失败归因策略,将失败更多地归因于测试焦虑,但其对能力因素的归因仍高于努力组和控制组,接受努力取向表扬的儿童更多地将失败归因于努力因素;（3）接受能力取向表扬的儿童表现出自我设限倾向,他们报告更多的测试焦虑,并缩短后测的做题时间和更低的后测成绩。     

Establishing praise as a conditioned reinforcer: Pairing with one versus multiple reinforcers

Praise and other forms of attention may not function as reinforcers for the behavior of children with autism. Previous research demonstrated that contingently pairing praise with reinforcers (response stimulus) can establish praise as a conditioned reinforcer. We evaluated a procedure for establishing praise as a generalized conditioned reinforcer (pair praise with four reinforcers) and compared it with a procedure to establish praise as a conditioned reinforcer (pair praise with one reinforcer). We compared the two conditions in a reversal design with “praise” and “no programmed consequence” conditions rapidly alternated after pairing phases. With three out of five participants with autism, responding in the “pair‐with‐four” condition showed higher levels of responding or more increasing trends compared with that in “pair‐with‐one” condition. We also replicated previous contingent pairing research with two participants in a multiple baseline across participants design. A limitation was the absence of manipulating motivating operations in assessing the efficacy of praise as a generalized conditioned reinforcer. Nevertheless, these data contribute to the research on establishing praise as a reinforcer, and we recommend directions for future research.     

Evaluation of increasing antecedent specificity in goal statements on adherence to positive behavior‐management strategies

We evaluated the impact of antecedent specificity in goal statements on adherence to positive behavior‐management strategies. Teaching staff were recruited from 2 different school settings where there were routine expectations to use behavior‐specific praise in the classroom, but adherence was poor. In a concurrent multiple baseline design, the use of behavior‐specific praise by 4 participants was found to be unaffected by goal statements that increasingly specified the behavior to be used and the conditions under which the behavior should occur. However, adherence by 3 of the 4 participants did change when goal statements included teacher‐specified frequencies with which the behavior should occur. Results were systematically replicated in a second study in which, in a concurrent multiple baseline design, 3 participants showed marked increases in adherence when goal statements specified the target behavior, the conditions under which it should occur, and the frequency with which it should occur.     

Effects of the Good Behavior Game on student and teacher behavior in an alternative school

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a classroom behavior management procedure that has been shown to be effective in reducing disruptive behavior across many settings and populations (Flower, McKenna, Bunuan, Muething, & Vega, 2014). We investigated the effects of the GBG on student and teacher behavior in two classrooms containing fourth‐ to eighth‐grade students in an alternative school for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Results indicated the GBG reduced disruption and increased the teacher's use of praise relative to reprimands. Social validity measures, collected from both teachers and students, indicated strong approval of the GBG.     

批评/表扬与儿童反应模式的关系

该文在介绍了成人实施的批评与表扬的基本类型基础上,着重分析并阐述了成人的批评/表扬与儿童儿童反应模式之间关系的最新研究成果,即个人取向的批评/表扬导致儿童的无助反应模式而过程取向的批评/表扬引发儿童掌握取向的反应模式。然后,进一步从儿童社会认知的角度分析说明了批评/表扬与儿童反应模式之间关系的内在心理机制。不同类型的批评/表扬导致儿童持有不同的能力理论,引发儿童追求不同的成就目标,改变儿童对任务成绩的归因等,进而使儿童表现出不同的反应模式。最后,作者指出了该领域尚待进一步探讨的问题     

A COMPARISON OF TWO PAIRING PROCEDURES TO ESTABLISH PRAISE AS A REINFORCER

Some individuals with intellectual disabilities do not respond to praise as a reinforcer, which may limit their ability to learn. We evaluated 2 procedures (stimulus pairing and response—stimulus pairing), both of which involved pairing previously neutral praise statements with preferred edible items, to determine their usefulness in establishing praise as a reinforcer. Results of Study 1 indicated that stimulus pairing was not effective in conditioning praise as a reinforcer for 3 of 4 subjects; results were inconclusive for the 4th subject. Results of Study 2 indicated that response—stimulus pairing was effective in conditioning praise as a reinforcer for 4 of 8 subjects. After conditioning, praise also increased the occurrence of additional target responses for these 4 subjects.     

THE INFLUENCE OF BEHAVIOR PRECEDING A REINFORCED RESPONSE ON BEHAVIOR CHANGE IN THE CLASSROOM1

The influence of behavior that immediately precedes a reinforced target response on the effectiveness of a reinforcement contingency was examined in two experiments with mentally retarded children in a special-education classroom. Two reinforcement schedules were examined in each experiment. For each schedule, a prespecified period of attentive behavior served as the target response. The schedules differed in whether inattentive or attentive behavior was required immediately to precede the target response. These schedules were examined with one child in a simultaneous treatment design using praise as the reinforcer (Experiment I), and with two children in separate reversal designs using tokens as the reinforcer (Experiment II). While attentive behavior increased under each schedule, the increase was greater when attentive rather than inattentive behavior preceded the reinforced response. The results indicated that the effect of a contingency may be determined not only by the specific response reinforced but also by the behavior that immediately precedes that response.     

“DO I HAVE TO BE GOOD ALL DAY?” THE TIMING OF DELAYED REINFORCEMENT AS A FACTOR IN GENERALIZATION

Delayed reinforcement, sometimes delivered just after the setting in which the critical behavior had occurred (Early), and sometimes delivered only after several further settings had been encountered (Late), was used to improve a variety of behaviors in seven preschool children, and to control their generalization. Performance of those behaviors was measured in two classroom settings: the Contingent setting, within which performance of the specified behavior determined the later (Early or Late) reinforcement, and the Generalization setting, in which there were no experimental contingencies, immediate or delayed, for the performance of the same behavior. Performances by all children in the Contingent setting were controlled by delayed reinforcement, whether Early or Late. All children showed consistent generalization from the Contingent setting to the Generalization setting during the Late condition, when reinforcement was delivered at the end of the school day. Generalization did not occur during the Early condition, when reinforcement was provided immediately after the Contingent setting (prior to the Generalization setting), unless that condition had been preceded by a Late condition (as it was for S₆ and S₇). The results suggest that the Late timing of delayed reinforcement was an effective and efficient generalization-promotion technique for performances that did not generalize spontaneously.     

Effects of setting and number of observations on generalizability of parent-child interactions in childhood obesity treatment

The generalizability of behaviors across observational conditions is a critical issue in behavioral assessment. Generalizability theory was used to examine two aspects of audio recorded parent-child interactions recorded over 6 days of home measurement and 1 day of laboratory measurement in a behavioral treatment program for childhood obesity. Families audiotaped parent-child home meetings during which they reviewed self-monitored diet and exercise records that were coded for the following types of interactions: praise statements, negative statements, prompts for new behaviors, and statements promoting problem solving. A similar meeting was audiotaped in our laboratory. The first question explored was the number of measurements needed to generalize to the universe of the six home measures. Results showed an increase in generalizability over measurements for each behavioral category. Using generalizability coefficients of .60 or more, praise, negative comments and prompts, respectively, could be reliably observed based on 1, 4, or 4 days of measurement. Second, the effects of setting (laboratory versus home) were assessed for 1 day of measurement in each environment. Again using generalizability coefficients of .60, generalizability analysis showed that the lab setting could not be generalized to the home setting based on 1 day of measurement, with generalizability coefficients ranging from .27 for negative comments to .57 for praise. Results suggest that 4 days of behavioral assessment in the home can be used to establish generalizable data for all the dependent measures studied. However, generalizability coefficients suggested that 1 day of laboratory measurement was not adequate to generalize to typical home behavior.This research was supported in part by Grant NIH HD 23713 awarded to the third author.