J. B&W. mr. & Exp. Psychku. Vol. 6, pp. 323-326. Pergarr~~n Press ,L916. printed ita G=r Britdn.

THE PRESENT STATUS OF COVERT MODELING

. JOSEPH R. CALJTIZLA*

Boston College

Summary-In the covert modeling (CM) procedure, a client is asked to imagine he is observing
a model behaving in various situations. CM is a covert conditioning procedure analogous to
overt modeling. In this paper, the description of the procedure is presented together with tele-
vant experimental data which support the assumption that CM can be as effective as overt
modeling. Evidence is also cited which tends to indicate that the same parameters are involved
in both CM and overt modeling. Advantages and cautions in the use of CM are discussed.

IN RXENT papers (Cautela, 1967, 197Oa, b,
1971a, 1973), I have reiterated the assumption
that covert events obey the same laws as overt
events. This view is consistent with the views
of learning theorists such as Pavlov (1927);
Guthrie (1935); Skinner (1938); Hull (1943)
and Spence (1956). Experiments (Miller, 1935;
Cohen, 1969; Schwartz and Higgins, 1971)
comparing physiological responses during overt
and covert activity lend support to the assump-
tion. Indirect evidence is also presented by the
many anecdotal and empirical studies demon-
strating the effectiveness of procedures which
I have subsumed under the rubric of “covert
conditioning” (Cautela, 1973).
Studies on observational learning or modeling
(Bandura, 1969,1970,1971; Bandura and Barab,
1973) indicate that modeling effects can be
obtained without the presentation of live or
film models. Bandura theorizes that mediational
processes such as symbolic coding and covert
rehearsal are crucial elements in observational
learning. He also presents data to support this
assumption (Bandura and Barab, 1973).
In view of the above considerations, it ap-
peared that it would be fruitful, clinically and
otherwise, to devise a procedure in which all
the elements are manipulated covertly (Cautela,
1971b). The procedure is designated “covert
modeling” since the subject (in an experiment)
*Requests for reprints should be addressed to Joseph R. Cautela, 10 Phillips Road, Sudbury, Mass. 01776.
or the client (in a clinical setting) is given in-
structions to imagine observing a model per-
forming various behaviors with particular
consequences.
The procedure was initially developed for
clients who claimed they could not imagine
themselves performing behaviors in other covert
conditioning techniques. They claimed that
while it was dificult for them to imagine
themselves performing behaviors, they could
clearly imagine someone else doing the behavior.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCEDURE
First, the client is given the following rationale :
“The procedure we are going to use is based on a
number of experiments in which people learn new
habits by observing other people in various situations.
The way this is usually done is that people actually
observe others doing things. What I am going to do is
vary this procedure somewhat by having you observe
certain scenes in imagination rather than having you
directly observe a movie or actual interaction among
people. I am going to use scenes that I think will help
you change the behavior we agreed needs changing. In a
minute, I’ll ask you to close your eyes, and try to imagine,
as clearly as possible, that you are observing a certain
situation. Try to use all the senses needed for the par-
ticular situation, e.g. try to actually hear a voice or see
a person very clearly. After I describe the scene, I will
ask you some questions concerning your feelings about
the scene and how clearly you imagined it.”
The client is then given a specific scene to
imagine, and after that he is asked how clearly

323
324 JOSEPH R. CAUTELA
he imagined it and to describe his feelings
during particular parts of it-whether they were
pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral? He is also
asked if the therapist described the scene
too rapidly. On the basis of his replies, the
scene may be modified before being presented
again. When the client is able to report that the
scene was clearly imagined, and the rate of
presentation was satisfactory, he is asked to
repeat the whole scene by himself. The scene is
then repeated four times more by the therapist
and four times by. the client. The client is asked
to practice each scene at home at least ten times
per day. He is cautioned not to go through the
scenes in a perfunctory or mechanical manner,
but to imagine them as clearly as possible, in
great detail.
Constructionof scenes
Factors relating to the clients’ specific
problems and parameters known to affect overt
modeling are taken into account in the con-
struction of modeling scenes. Some of these
parameters are: behaviors that follow the
behavior of the model, attentional processes,
retention capacity of the observer, the number of
trials of overt rehearsal of modeled responses,
the covert practicing of modeled responses, the
prestige of the model (Bandura, 1969, pp. 118-
216), drive state (Schacter, 1964), age of the
model (Bandura and Kupers, 1964) and con-
sequences of behavior (Bandura, 1969, p. 128).
Examples of scenes used clinically are as
follows :
(1) A client used to blush every time that
words relating to homosexuality were spoken.
He was afraid that his blushing would cause
others to think that he was a homosexual. He
reported that he could not obtain clear imagery
of himself in situations concerning his blushing.
However, he could clearly imagine someone else
in those same situations. The imaginary model
was meant to be used to extinguish his fear of
the consequences of blushing.
“I want you to imagine that there are two couples
(about the same age as you) seated at a table in a res-
taurant. The restaurant is quite busy. All the tables are
occupied and waiters are walking by the table. The people
at the table seem to be enjoying their dinner. One of the
men at the table says loudly, ‘There’s a gay bar next
door’. The other fellow blushes, but nobody seems to
notice and they start talking about how delicious the
food is.”
Thereafter, in a nearly identical situation the
model did not blush at hearing the homosexual-
related words. Similar modeling scenes were
employed for other social situations.
(2) A client who liked to brag in front of
women (for their approval) but who was ex-
tremely hurt by their criticism was given the
following scene. The model, simiIar to the client
in age, sex and occupation, displays coping
behaviors.
“I want you to imagine that you see a man about your
age and a woman working together behind a counter in a
restaurant. (The restaurant is described in some detail.)
The man says to the woman, ‘Next week I’m going to
New York &d have an audition for a play. Th& marbe
I’ll get a job and make lots of money.’ The woman looks
dl~&ted and says, ‘Boy, do you b&e pipe dreams; and
besides, why are you always thinking about money?
After she says this. the man starts to look upset and
then sort of &hs -to himself and continues l&s work,
whistling. It is clear that criticism didn’t bother him at
all.” -
Other modeling scenes used in this case involved
the model attenuating the bragging behavior
and then being very socially reinforced.
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
The assumption of functional similarity
between overt and covert events leads to a
number of important empirical questions con-
cerning CM. How does CM compare with
overt modeling in terms of efficacy of behavior
modification? Are the same parameters in-
volved in both overt modeling and CM?
Can the efficacy of CM be demonstrated experi-
mentally with a clinical population? Cautel?,
Flannery and Hanley (1974) have attempted to
provide some data bearing on the first question.
Kaxdin (1973,1974a, 1974b) in a series of studies
has addressed himself to the investigation of the
parameters of covert modeling and its e5cacy
on a clinical population under controlled
conditions.
The 8rst obvious step in a research strategy
 THE PRESENT STATUS OF COVERT MODELING
was to determine if CM would exhibit an effect
under laboratory conditions while at the same
time comparing its efficacy with overt modeling.
Cautela, Flannery and Hanley (1974) found
overt modeling and CM equally effective in the
reduction of fear of rats in a laboratory situation.
Kazdin (1973, 1974a, b) has set out to sys-
tematically explore the effectiveness and para-
meters of CM. Kaxdin (1973) investigated the
efficacy of CM in reducing snake avoidance. He
also tried to determine if the same parameters
of overt modeling applied to CM. Kazdin
found that treatment effects were better with
CM using a coping model as compared with a
mastery model. This tiding is similar to that
observed in overt modeling (Meichenbaum,
1971).
In another study, Kazdin (1974a) replicated
the tiding of the superiority of coping models
in CM and also demonstrated that perceived
similarity to the model in CM enhances imita-
tion. This result replicates the &ding in obser-
vational learning that the greater the perceived
similarity of a model to the observer, the greater
the imitation (Bandura, Ross and Ross, 1963 ;
Bumstein, Stotland and Zander, 1971; Stotland,
Zander and Natsoulas, 1961).
Kazdin (1974b) also examined CM with
persons referred from a clinic for their poor
assertive behavior. He found that CM which
resulted in favorable consequences to the model’s
behavior was more effective than modeled
behavior with no consequences.
The above results indicate that:
(1) CM can be as effective as overt modeling
in modifying behavior (Cautela, Flannery and
Hanley, 1974).
(2) The same parameters that effect overt
modeling should have similar effects on CM
(Kazdin, 1973, 1974a).
(3) CM can be tested and shown effective
with clinical populations (Kazdin, 1974b).
(4) CM can be made more effective if the
consequences of the model’s behavior are also
manipulated (Kazdin, 1974b).
325
AREAS CALLING FOR RESEARCH
Besides further ver%cation of the general
efficacy of the procedure, a number of empirical
questions need investigation:
(1) What are the determinants of particular
persons’ inability to imagine themselves in
situations while able to imagine others?
(2) Does it affect clinical effectiveness if the
client observes himself rather than someone
else as the model?
(3) How does the efficacy of CM compare
with that of desensitization?
(4) How does CM compare with overt
modeling on such parameters as prestige of
model?
(5) What is the relevance of particular model
characteristics, such as an idealized model,
abstract model without particular features, a
specific individual known and admired by the
client?
REFERENCES
BANDURA A. (1969) Prtiipbs of Behavior Modification.
Holt. Rinehart & Winston. New York.
BAND& A. (1970) Model& theory, Psychology of
Lear&g: Systems, M&h, and Theories (Edited by
SAIuguN w. S.), Markhart& Chicago.
BANDURA A. (1971) Psychotherapy based upon modeling
principles, Handbook of Psychotherapy and Be-
havior Ckange (Edited by BERGENA. E. and Gm
S. L.), Wiley, New York.
BANDURA A. and BARABP. G. (1973) Processes goveming
disinhibitory e&cts through symbolic modeling,
J. atmorm. Psychol. 82, l-9.
BANDURA A. and KUP~ C. J. (1964) Transmission of
pattems of self-reinforcemeut through modeling,
J. obnorm. sot. Psychol. 69, l-9.
BANDURA A., Ross D. and Ross S. A. (1963) Imitation
of &wnediated aggressive models, J. abnorm. sot.
Psychol. 66,3-l 1.
BUR&EIN E., SXYIXANDE. and ZANDERA. (1961)
Similarity to a model and self-evaluation, J. ubnorm.
sot. Psychol. 62,257-264.
CAUTISLA J. R. (1967) Covert sensitization, Psychol. Rep.
20,459468.
CAUTELAJ. R. (197Oa) Covert negative reinforcement,
J. Behav. l&r. & Exv. Pswhiat. 1.273-278.
CAUTILA J. R. (19706) C&rt rei&orcement, Behuv.
Therapy 1, 33-50.
CAUTELAJ. R. (1971a) Covert extinction, Behav. Therapy
2,192~200.
CAUTM J. R. (1971b) Covert modeling, Paper presented
326 JOSEPH R. CAUTELA
to the Association for the Advancement of Behavior
Therapy, Washington, D.C.
CAIJTELAJ. R. (1973) Covert processes and behavior
modification, J: ne& ment. Dii. 157,27-36.
CAUTIXA J. R. FLANNERYR. and HANLEY S. (1974)
Covert modeling: An experimental test, iehavl
Therapy, in press.
c4XIEN J. (1969) Very slow brain waves relating to
expectancy: The contingent negative variation (CNV),
Average Evoked Potentials: Results and Evaluations
(Edited by DUCHIN E. and LINDSLEY D. B.), U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
GUTHME E. R. (1935) The Psychology of Learning,
Harper, New York.
HULL C. L. (1943) Principles of Behavior, Appleton-
Century-Crofts, New York.
KAZDIN A. E. (1973) Covert modeling and the reduction
of avoidance behavior. J. abnorm. Psychol. 81, 78-95.
KA~DIN A. E. (1974a) Covert modeling, model similarity,
and the reduction of avoidance behavior, Behav.
Therapy 5,325-340.
-DIN A. E. (1974b) Effects of covert modeling and
the reinforcement of assertive behavior, J. abnorm.
Psychol. (ill press).
MEICHENBAUMD. H. (1971) Examination of model
characteristics in reducing avoidance behavior. J.
Pers. Sot. Psychol. 17, 298-307.
MILLER N. E. (1935) The influence of past experience
unon the transfer of subseauent training. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Yale University. _
PAVLOV 1. P. (1927) Conditioned Reflexes (Translated bv
ANREP G. 3.). Oxford UniversityPress, London. *
SC~CHTER S. (1964) The interaction of cognitive and
physiological determinants of emotional state,
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Edited
by BERKOWITZL.), Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York,
pp. 49-60.
SCHWARTZ G. E. and HIGGINS J. D. (1971) Cardiac
activity preparatory to overt and covert behavior,
Science 173, 1144-l 146.
SKINNER B. F. (1938) The Behavior of Organisms: ,tin
Experimental Analysis, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New
York.
SPENCE K. W. (1956) Behavior Theory and Conditioning,
Yale University Press, New Haven.
STOTLANDE.. ZANDER A. and NATS~ULAS T. (1961) The
generalization of interpersonal similarity, J. afmorm.
sot. Psychol. 62,250-256.