Behavioral Self-Modification in
Instructional Settings: A Review
Robert J. Menges and Bernard J. Dobroski
Northwestern University
Behavioral self-modification projects are attempts by
students to apply systematically the principles of behavioral
psychology to their own behavior. Such projects are con-
ducted in instructional rather than therapeutic settings. In
this review we are concerned with projects done in courses
and workshops offered to college students.
Student behavioral self-modification projects have been
justified (a) as vehicles for subject matter learning, i.e., they
facilitate learning behavioral principles and the skills of
behavior analysis; (b) as representing worthy outcomes in
themselves, i.e., the ability to plan and carry out a behavior
change project is seen as an important characteristic of
individuals who are well-integrated, intentional, and mature;
and (c) as a means of sensitizing students to ethical issues
raised by applied behavioral psychology, thereby assuming
that a person who has self-applied behavioral principles will
be more sensitive in using such principles with others.
Finally, as one of us has argued elsewhere (Menges, 1977),
some of the criticisms directed against behavior modifica-
tion are less cogent when one's own behavior rather than the
behavior of others is the target of attempted change.
Reports of the instructional use of behavioral self-
modification projects are reviewed below in terms of their
impact on student learning, the extent of student behavior
change, and adequacy of their research design.
Toward A Definition of Self Control
The Socratic injunction, "Know thyself," becomes for
humanistic behaviorists, "Know thy controlling variables"
(Thoresen & Mahoney, 1974) and thus requires the analysis
of behavior, particularly the identification and manipulation
of behavioral antecedents and consequences.
Explanations of self-control beginning with Freud are re-
viewed by Lopatto and Williams (1976). They contend that
the complexities of self-control behavior are greater than
stimulus-response theories can encompass, and they pro-
pose a more cognitive orientation (see also Michenbaum,
1974) in which self-control is viewed as an instance of rule
acquisition. "Thus, 'what is learned' by an individual in all
self-control situations is that the presentation of reinforce-
ment is determined by occurrence, or lack of occurrence, of
a specific pattern of behavior" (Lopatto & Williams, 1976,
p. 5). They find support for their position in an experiment
This critical survey of the topic points out
the impact o n learning, the extent of behavioral
change, and areas where research is needed.
with eight-year-old children whose self-control behavior
generalized to behaviors beyond those of their training.
Champlin and Karoly (1975, p. 724) state the familiar,
less cognitive view: "For an act to qualify as an instance of
self-control, an individual must (a) decide that a highly
probable behavior in his repertoire produces both positive
and aversive consequences separated in time and (b) then
introduce a controlling response, prior to executing the
conflictful behavior, which alters the likelihood of occur-
rence of the problematic behavior."
We suggest that self-control training IS appropriately
conceptualized as rule acquisition, although not all studies
described below explicitly reflect that position.
Instructional Materials and Content Learning
Courses requiring self-modification projects are more
appropriately conceptualized as training activities than as
treatment activities (Spinelli & Packard, Note 1). They are
more likely concerned with enhancing strengths or prevent-
ing difficulties than with remedying serious problems as in
psychotherapy. These courses involve study of the concepts,
principles, and skills of behavior psychology, and they also
require the d e s ~ g nand usually the execution of a self-
modification project. Consequently, they are experiential as
well as didactic.
The text most frequently used in such courses is Watson
and Tharp (1972). Its sequence of chapters parallels the
steps students follow in d o ~ n gprojects and is easily adapted
for Keller Plan courses. A text by Foster (1974) gives less
attention to research and covers fewer principles and
intervention strategies, but its brevity may make it attractive
A third guidebook for self-modification (Williams & Long,
1975) gives considerable attention to theory and research
and includes applications to health problems, sex role
behaviors, and sport skills. Two chapters in Goodwin and
Coates (1976) deal with teaching self-control skills to pupils
in the schools and might be used fruitfully in teacher
education programs. More advanced volumes on self-
control which are less clearly focused on imparting self-
change skills include Goldfried and Merbaurn (1973),
Mahoney and Thoresen (1974), and Thoresen and Mahoney
(1974).
Some instructors have generated their own materials.
Teaching of Psychology
Spinelli and Packard (Note I ) , for example, prepared mate-
rials for three topics within their course: behavioral self-
control (including rnonitoring and charting; self-reward and
punishment), cognitiveself-control (including useof positive
self-statements), and affective self-control (including anxiety
management). Self-instructional units on self-management
as described by Brown and Brown (1971-72), might be
developed by instructors or by students and serve as an
economical adjunct to commercially available materials. A
"behavioral diary" is kept by students of Kempel and Collins
(Note 2). This diary helps students identify targets for
behavior change and it provides practice in recognizing
behavioral antecedents and consequences.
What do studer~tslearn from their readings, examina-
tions, and projects? The literature contains little hard data on
cognitive and affective outcomes of these courses. In one
study for example, the Keller Plan format (Barrera & Glas-
gow, 1976) produced avery high level of mastery buttoo little
variability to study correlation between achievement and
other variables.
Content mastery under instructor-mediated and
computer-mediated delivery was studied by Dobroski, Bel-
lis, and Menges (Note 3). Students meeting in groups with
the instructor scored no higher on course exams than those
who dealt with the computer, although both outperformed a
control group. In the same study, some students used
instructional materials oriented toward self-modification and
others received instruction oriented toward modifying the
behavior of others, the latter being the traditional mode of
presenting the content of behavior modification. Results
suggested (weakly) that content learning was facilitated in
the self-oriented condition. Planning (but not executing) a
project produced no increase in internal locus of control or in
positive attitudes toward behavior modification. Other re-
search discussed below, however, does suggest that the
completion of self-modification projects may alter locus of
control.
Group meetings were compared with independent study
by ene eke and Harris (1972). These conditions were found to
be equally effective for learning and both were superior to a
no-treatment control group.
When studies have reported student attitudes toward
such instruction, they areuniformly positive, especially when
a self-pacing feature is included (e g., Barrera & Glasgow,
1976).
Documenting cognitive and affective outcomes is essen-
tial if alternative instructional materials are to be evaluated
and if the relationship between cognitive learning and
self-change outcomes is to be understood. A reasonable
hypothesis which requires systematic achievement data is
that incomplete cognitive mastery IS likely to handicap
students who plan a r ~ dexecute projects.
Project Outcomes and Behavior Change
Project success is inferred from comparing frequency of
target behavior before and after the intervention. Students
themselves usually select targets, although in some cases
the general target, e g. study habits, is specified by the
course in which the project is done. Intervention strategies
are typically designed by the student with the consultation or
at least with the approval of the instructor.
Vol. 4 No. 4 December 1977
Procedures for Recording Data. Project results are usu-
ally documented from student observations of their own
behavior, and most studies provide no data on the accuracy
of self-observation. Jeffrey (1974) discusses some problems
in assuming the reliability and validity of such self-report
data. Conclusions about project success should perhaps
take into account judgments not only of the student but also
of the instructor and if feasible of an independent judge (e.g.
Mencke, 1973).
Worthington (1977) raises questions about thevalidity of
outcorne data reported by students. On an anonymous
end-of-course questionnaire completed by 109 of his 131
studerlts in a personal adjustment course, only about 25%
indicated that they had been completely honest in their
project writeups, although most said they had been honest
most of the time. Factors responsible for such falsification
should be investigated. To insure accuracy, outcomes
should be documented independently of the course grading
structure.
A useful technique for goal setting and for reporting
project outcomes is illustrated by goal attainment scaling. In
using this technique, each student identifies the expected
level of success for a particular goal and assigns it "0." Then
two higher-than-expected levels are identified ( + I and +2)
as are two lower-than-expected levels (-1 and -2) The
resulting five point scale can be used to locate frequency
both ar baseline and at termination. Each student uses
several appropriately weighted scales, e.g., a behavior
scale and an emotion scale. Standardized outcome scores
may be derived from goal attainment scales and used as
criteria to investigate predictors of success or to assess
alternative intervention strategies. McGaghie and Menges
(1975) have used goal attainment scores with self-
modification projects and report adequate internal consis-
tency and stability. It is likely that such scales are useful in
self-modification both in enhancing students' clarity about
the projects (cf. Smith, 1976) and in increasing objectivity
and cornparability of outcome data.
Instruments with known psychometric characteristics
may also be appropriate for assessing the impact of self-
modific,3tiontraining. For example, Tharp, Watson, and Kaya
(1974) found decreases in MMPl depression scores for four
undergraduate women who, after a course in self-
modification, attempted to change their depressivefeelings.
They were successful even though their only "instruction"
during the project was from an undergraduate monitor.
Locus of control is intuitively appealing as a correlate of
self-modification knowledge and skills. Compared with a
no-treatment control group, 18 participants in an Eliminating
Self-Defeating Behaviors Workshop showed a significant
shift toward internality which persisted at a four month
followup (Parks, Becker, Chamberlain, & Crandell, 1975). A
similar change was found for twelve participants in a Life
Planning Workshop (Lynch, Ogg & Christensen, 1975). This
latter wc'rkshop seems not to be as clearly based in be-
havioral osychology as was the former study, but the before
and after use of the Locus of Control Scale appears worthy of
continued investigation, despite the absence of significant
results in the Dobroski, Bellis & Menges (Note 3) s t ~ ~ d y
described above.
A relationship between increase in internality and the
Personalized System of Instruction was found by Johnson
and Croft (1975) for students in a personality course. A useful
study might explore interrelationships in a self-modification
course among content learning, behavior change, instruc-
tional mode (conventional versus PSI, and locus of control.
Behavior Change. Project outcomes are not always re-
ported in detail or treated statistically and are sometimes
given merely as impressions. Selected immediate outcomes
as well as positive comments collected one year later are
provided by Mencke (1973) and are highly positive. Sprinkle
(Note 4) surveyed a large number of persons who had
participated over several years in anxiety management
courses and reported that respondents felt the techniques
learned were usable in daily life.
All but two or three of Barrera and Glasgow's (1976) 20
students were found by independent judges to have suc-
cessful projects. In their questionnaire followup at the end of
the next term, 39% reported improvement in their target
behavior, 17% reported worsening and the rest saw little
change.
Using the goal attainment scale procedure described
above, McGaghie and Menges (1975) found a success rate
of about 70% (n=49) with little deterioration at the time of 8
week followup telephone interviews. They reported a similar
overall success rate in a larger sample (n=191) based on
student-instructor judgments.
Very little explicit information is available on the
generalizability of self-modification to settings and be-
haviors different from the original project. Students do report
confidence in their ability to generalize these skills, e.g.,
most of the students of Barrera and Glasgow (1 976) reported
high confidence in their ability to design a change program
for behaviors other than those they worked on during the
term.
Grades were a measure of generalization in one investi-
gation. Study skills training produced subsequent gains in
GPA for those who attended sessions at which behavioral
principles were discussed and for those who studied the
same content independently. Although performance of those
two groups d i d not differ, no gains were found for students in
a control group (Beneke & Harris, 1972).
In subsequent studies researchers should give in-
creased attention to the conditions that facilitate generaliza-
tion of self-modification skills across time and across situa-
tions.
Methodological Issues
Issues important in research on self-control in instruc-
tional settings parallel issues raised by research on self-
modification in clinical settings. Two reviews of clinical
research are particularly pertinent (Jeffrey, 1974, and
Mahoney, 1974b). This section deals with four methodologi-
cal issues: selection of research participants, nature of
control and comparison groups, predictors of success in
self-modification, and amelioration of demand characteris-
tics that may affect project outcomes.
Selection of Research Participants. Participants in the
studies reviewed here have typically been students who
choose to enroll in a course, minicourse or workshop, the
announced purposes of which include learning and doing
self-modification. In some cases students in a course choose
self-modification as an optional activity. Thus research
populations are usually self-selected, and assignment to
control and alternative treatment groups is seldom random.
Consequently, these studies can be criticized for their very
limited external validity.
Control a n d Comparison Groups. We shall discuss
groups formed around no-treatment, dismantled treatments.
and alternative treatments.
Researchers have formed no-treatment comparison
groups from those who drop the course afterthe first meeting
(Beneke & Harris, 1972) and from peers matched on desig-
nated variables but who d o not seek the self-modification
experience (Parks, Becker, Chamberlain, & Crandell, 1975).
Random assignment is feasible in situations where more
persons seek the experience than can be accommodated.
Those who are not randomly assigned to the experience
comprise a waiting list control group. Assignment to groups
in this way permits generalization, at least to a population of
volunteers.
A no-treatment control group is important except when
intrasubject designs are used. In the intrasubject design,
students serve as their own controls by introducing and then
removing an intervention strategy and observing the results.
In one study, student data were examined using an inter-
rupted time series analysis (Schallow, 1975) from which t
values for change in level and slope were computed. Those
students (14 of 45) whose changes in level, slope or both
were significant (p<.05) were designated high changers
and found to b e more internal than the 14 students whose t
values ranked lowest on level and slope.
Another basis for forming groups in self-modification
research involves analysis of the treatment into its compo-
nents and comparing the resulting dismantled treatment
groups. For example, the type of contract between a self-
change client and, In this case, a therapist was investigated
by Champlin and Karoly (1975). All students attempted to
modify their study habits, but those with negotiated contracts
showed more success than those with imposed contracts. Of
interest is the yoked subject design employed in this study.
After a subject negotiated a behavior change contract, a
contract with the same terms was Imposed upon that
subject's yoked partner. This design seems particularly
useful for dismantled treatment research.
The degree to which a treatment meets the student's
expectations is another component open to study. In a weight
reduction study (not with students), Murray (1976) assigned
some participants to their preferred and others to their
nonpreferred condition. He found no differences in weight
loss.
The component of reinforcement was dismantled in
another investigation. In a study skills course, some students
were assigned to self-re~nforcement,some to external rein-
forcement, and others to no reinforcement. Both reinforce-
ment conditions produced gains in study habits but effects
did not generalize to academic performance (Jackson &Van
Zoost, 1972).
Components of instructional content were studied by
Richards (1975). Students received study skills advice with
Teaching of Psychology
or without material on stimulus control and with or without
material on self-monitoring. Course examination perfor-
mance was facilitated by the latter but not the former. Study
skills advice with or without supplementary material was
superiorto no-contact and no-treatment comparison groups.
The baseline effect is a major issue in self-control
research. Some students achieve their targets before inter-
vention, apparently as a result of self-observation during the
baseline period. The effects of self-observation have re-
ceived considerable attention in clinical research (Johnson
& White, 1971; Kazdin, 1974), but little attention in instruc-
tional settings. When researchers dismantle the self-
modification process into its components, self-observation
should be evaluated. In such research, students might be
assigned to a baseline only condition, self-evaluation only,
and self-reinforcement only, as well as to sensible combina-
tions of these. Results may permit discarding or deem-
phasizing one or more components, at least for certain
students.
A final type of comparison group is one reflecting an
alternative treatment, a self-change orientation other than
behavioral psychology. For example, the differences and
similarities between behavioral self-modification and Zen
have been discussed (but not empirically tested) by Shapiro
and Zifferblatt (1976). Murray (1976) found no difference
between a behavioral and a "determination raising" strategy
(for non-students) in weight reduction. A change strategy
based on principles of rational-emotive therapy has been
tested (but not against a behavioral strategy) by Keller,
Croake, and Brooking (1975). Also, a self-modification
program could be designed from a cognitively oriented base
such as Michenbaum's cognitive behavior modification
(Michenbaum, 1974; see also Mahoney, 1974a). Other
treatments might be developed from the work of McGaghie
and Menges (Note 5) who have factor analyzed semantic
differential ratings of four approaches to self-determination.
A behavioral self-management program for junior high
students was compared with peer-led discussion groups on
student-chosen topics. Volunteers were randomly assigned
and both groups were compared with matched no-treatment
controls. Both the self-management and the discussion
group strategy led to an increase in student grade po~nt
average while the no-treatment control group showed a
slight decline (Harris & Trujillo, 1975).
Another study is wclrth citing for its design, although it did
not employ a condition explicitly based on behavioral
psychology and was done with high school rather than
college students. Adler and Goleman (1975) studied the
effect on self-rated change of a change goal with and without
T-group experience. In two groups, members chose specific
change goals and wrote essays about them Students in one
of thesealso participated in a T-group. A third group had only
the T-group experience and a fourth was a no-treatment
control. Groups were intact classes without random assign-
ment, but all members were college-bound seniors. Sig-
nificant progress toward change goals (according to stu-
dents' self-ratings) occurred in both T-group conditions but
not in the goal alone condition orthe no-treatment condition.
T-groups as used in this study and in a series of studies at
MIT (described below) deserve systematic comparison with
behavioral conditions.
Vol. 4 No. 4 December 1977
Predictors of Success. What characteristics are as-
sociated with successful self-modification? What charac-
teristics might be used to select students most likely to
benefit from such courses? Can supplementary training be
devised to increase the probability of success?
Mencke (1973) applied a fourfold classification of stu-
dent orientation to students doing self-modification projects.
He found strongest preference for self--modification ac-
tivities among vocationally oriented students and lowest
acceptance by those of the nonconformist orientation. The
relationships between a variety of student variables and
success in projects as indicated by goal attainment scores
were studied by McGaghie, Menges, and Dobroski (1976).
These variables include sex, academic aptitude, dog-
matism, locus of control, need for achievement, and course
and teacher evaluations. Stepwise regression analysis re-
vealed only one significant but weak relationship: Success
was related to a linear combination of dogmatism, sex, and
mathematics aptitude. Study of a larger sample displaying
greater outcome variability might yield clearer results.
Analysis of extreme groups is another approach to this
question. Schallow (1975) compared the 14 most successful
changers with the 14 least successful on locus of control and
found the former to be more internal. In a laboratory study,
Bellack (1975) compared 24 internals with 24 externals on a
verbal recognition task which required self-evaluation and
self-reinforcement. Groups did not differ in taskaccuracy but
internal:; gave themselves higher self-evaluations and ad-
ministered more positive self-reinforcers and fewer negative
self-reinforcers. He concluded that externals may be less
able than internals to evaluate their own behavior
adequately.
A s ~ ~ n i l aquestion
r was asked of differently recruited
subjects In another laboratory study (Rozensky & Bellack,
1974). The investigators advertised for students who had
been ellher successful or unsuccessful in altering their
weight or their smoking during the previous year. Those who
had been successful gave more positive self-reinforcers
than did rhose who had failed. In addition, failures gave more
negative self-reinforcers than did successes. The relation-
ships arnong locus of control, success at self-modification,
and style of self-evaluation and self-reinforcement deserve
further study.
Other predictors are suggested by a series of studies
done a few years ago at MIT which used the T-group as a
vehicle for self-directed change. Members set change goals
for them.selves, goals involving behaviors displayed in
group settings. Kolb, Winter, and Berlew (1968) found that
self-rated commitment to the change goal predicted success
and that commitment could be increased by an experimental
manipulation. The amount of feedback given by other
members of the group was also a significant predictor of
self-rated and leader-rated change.
Subsequently, essays written by 13 high and 13 low
changers were analyzed. High changers were more able to
think conditionally about themselves, i.e., to be aware of
available alternatives. Low changers were more tentative
and uncertain regarding feelings about themselves (Winter,
Griffith, & Kolb, 1968).
From another sample in similarT-groups, high versus low
changers were contrasted (criterion groups of about 30).
Compared with low changers, highs were found to be more
aware of forces related to their change goal, to hold a higher
expectation of success, higher psychological safety, greater
concern for measuring progress and greater emphasis on
self-controlled evaluation (Kolb & Boyatzis, 1970). The
apparent facilitative effect of conscious goal setting in this
study should be pursued in light of Adler and Goleman's
(1975) findings, described above, that goal setting without
group experience was not facilitative.
Whether these findings from T-group research apply to
behaviorally-based self-change needs further study, as
does the relative effectiveness of those two change strate-
g ies.
Demand Characteristics. The effects of situational de-
mands, i.e. "being in treatment," or more accurately in this
case, "being under instruction," are as important in self-
modification research as in other fields. We have spoken of
self-modification as if studying and completing projects
were entirely initiated and maintained by the students. Of
course, that is not true. Fellow students, the instructor, and
the grading system all add significant constraints as Worth-
ington's findings discussed above empirically demonstrate.
What is the extent to which peer and professor expectations
influence the nature and outcomes of projects?
Project success was not related to individual students'
ratings of the course and instructor in the McGaghie,
Menges, and Dobroski (1976) study. Comparison of data
from groups operating under different expectations, different
grading schemes, and so on, permit conclusions about
effects on the groups as a whole.
Studying demand characteristics presents very difficult
problems for the researcher. If self-control is to retain its
essential character, the presence of a researcher is intrusive
and must be by invitation only. But a research sample thus
obtained cannot be related to any large or particularly
meaningful population. Thus the problem of demand charac-
teristics may never be settled by systematic investigation.
Summary and Conclusions
The studies described above provide some evidence
that the subject matter of behavioral psychology can be
taught at a level which facilitates successful self-
modification projects. But it is not always clear from these
studies what specific instructional circumstances obtain,
how cognitive learning is measured, and what level of
mastery is attained by students. Nor is the student-instructor
relationship always clearly described.
Immediate outcomes of self-modification projects,
whether judged by students, by the instructor, or by inde-
pendent judges, appear to be highly positive. But little
information is available on the extent towhich these changes
persist orto what extent self-modification skills generalize to
new behaviors in other settings.
Early work in applied fields tends to be described in
informal reports rather than in systematic studies, and that
seems true of this literature in behavioral self-modification.
Few of the studies could be replicated from the information
given in the reports. Seldom is there random assignment of
the self-selected participants to control or to alternative
treatment groups. Consequently, little can be said about the
relative importance of various components of instruction and
the relative importance of various components of the self-
modification process. Also little is known about correlates of
students' success with projects.
Predictor variables holding promise for future research
include locus of control, use of positive self-reinforcers,
commitment to the change goal, clarity of the change goal,
and the effects of self-observation. It may be fruitful to identify
those who are successful and those who are unsuccessful in
their change projects and to study these groups intensively
using both clinical and experimental methods (cf. Perri &
Richards, 1977). The effects of the instructional and of the
project setting on outcomes should be investigated using
designs that include followup.
Behavioral self-modification in instructional settings is a
phenomenon of considerable evaluative complexity. As in
psychotherapy research, a host of variables await investiga-
tion (cf. Fiske, Luborsky, Parloff, Hunt, Orne, Reiser, &Tuma,
1970; Kiesler, 1971) before clear suggestions for effective
instruction can be given. The following question summarizes
the challenge: Which components of which treatments
(behavioral and otherwise) are useful for which students
planning to modify which target behaviors? Hypotheses
regarding each of these variables and their interreiation-
ships may be formulated and investigated from the reports
reviewed in this paper.
References
Adler, N. E., & Goleman, D. Goal setting, T-group participation, and
self-rated change: An experimental study. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 1975, 11, 197-208.
Barrera, M., Jr., & Glasgow, R. E. Design and evaluat~onof a
personalized instruction course in behavioral self-control.
Teaching of Psychology, 1976, 3.81-84.
Bellack, A. S. Self-evaluation, Self-reinforcement, and locus of
control. Journal of Research i n Personality, 1975, 9, 158-167
Beneke, W.M., & Harris, M.B. Teaching self-control of study be-
havior. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1972, 10, 35-41
Brown, J. H., & Brown, C. Intervention packages: An approach to
self-management. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1971-72,
50, 809-815.
Champlin, S. M.,& Karoly, P. Role of contract negotiation in
self-management of study time: A preliminary investigation.
Psychological Reports, 1975, 37, 724-726.
Fiske, D. W., Luborsky, L., Parloff, M. B., Hunt, H. F., Orne, M. T.,
Reiser, M. F., & Tuma, A. H. Planning of research on effective-
ness of psychotherapy. Amencan Psychologist, 1970, 2 5 , 727-
737.
Foster, C. Developing self-control Kalarnazoo. MI: Behaviordelia,
1974.
Goldfried, M. R., & Merbaum, M., (Eds.).Behavior change through
self-control. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.
Goodwin, D. L., & Coates, T. J. Helping students help themselves.
How you can put behavior analysis into action in your classroom.
Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1976.
Harris, M. B., & Trujillo, A. E. Improving study habits of jun~orhigh
students through self-management versus group discussion.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1975, 22, 513-517.
Jackson, B., & Van Zoost, B. L. Changing study behaviors through
reinforcement contingencies. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 1972, 79, 192-195.
Jeffrey, D. B Self-control: Methodological Issues and research
trends. In M. J. Mahoney & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.). Self-control:
Power to the person. Monterey, CA. Brooksicole, 1974.
Johnson, S. M , & White G. Self-observation as an agent of
behavioral change Behavior Therapy, 1971, 2 , 488-497.
Teaching of Psychology
Johnson, W. G., & Croft. R. G. F. Locus of control and participation
in a personalized system of instruction course. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 1975, 67, 416-421.
Kazdin, A. E. Self-monitoring and behavior change. In M. J.
Mahoney & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.).Self-control: Power to the per-
son. Monterey, CA.: BrooksICole, 1974.
Keller, J. F., Croake, J. W., & Brooking, J. Y. Effects of a program in
rational thinking on anxieties in older persons. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 1975, 22, 54-57.
Kiesler, D. J. Experimental designs in psychotherapy research. In
A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.). Handbook of psychotherapy
and behavior change: An empirical analysis. New York: Wiley,
1971.
Kolb, D. A,, & Boyatzis, R.E Goal setting and self-directed behavior
change. Human Relations, 1970,23, 439-457.
Kolb, D. A,, Winter, S. C;., & Berlew, D. E. Self-directed change: Two
studies Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1968, 4. 453-
471.
Lopatto, D., & Williams, J. L. Self-control: A critical review and an
alternative interpretation.Psychological Record, 1976,26,3-12.
Lynch, M. L., Ogg, W. D., & Christensen, M. G , Impact of a life
planning workshop on perceived iocus of control. Psychological
Reports, 1975, 37, 1219-1222
Mahoney, M. J. Cognition and behavior modification. Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger, 1974. (a)
Mahoney, M. J. Research issues in self-management. In M. J
Mahoney & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.). Self-control: Power to the
person. Monterey, CA: BrookslCole, 1974. (b)
Mahoney, M. J., & Thoresen, C. E. (Eds.). Self-control: Power to the
person. Monterey, CA: BrooksiCole, 1974.
McGaghie. W. C., & Menges, R. J. Assessing self-directed learning.
Teaching of Psychology. 1975, 2 , 56-59.
McGaghie, W. C., Menges, R. J., & Dobroski, B. J. Self-mod~fication
in a college course: Outcomes and correlates. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 1976,23, 178-182.
Mencke, R. A. Teaching self-modification in an adjustment course.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1973, 52, 97-101
Menges, R. J. The intenrional teacher: Controller, manager, helper.
Monterey, CA: BrooltsiCole, 1977.
Michenbaum, D. Cognitive behavior modification. Morr~stown,NJ:
General Learning Press, 1974.
Murray, D. C. Preferred versus nonpreferred treatment, and self-
control training versus determination raising as treatments of
obesity: A pilot study PsychologicalReports, 1976,38,191-198.
Parks, C., Becker, W. LA., Chamberlain, J. M., & Crandell, J. M.
Eliminating self-defeating behaviors and change in locus of
control Journal of Psychology, 1975, 91, 115-120
Perri, M G., & Richards, C. S. An irlvestigation of naturally occurring
episodes of self-controlled behaviors. Journal of Counseling
P ~ y ~ h ~ l1977,
~ g y2,4 178-183.
Vol. 4 No. 4 December 1977
Richards, C. S. Behavior modification of studying through study
skills advice and self-control procedures. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1975,22, 431-436.
Rozensky, R. H., & Bellack, A. S. Behavior change and individual
differences in self-control. Behavior Research and Therapy,
1974, 12, 267-268.
Shapiro D. H. Jr., &Zifferblatt, S. M. Zen meditation and behavioral
self-control Similarities, differences, and clinical applications.
American Psychologist, 1976, 31, 519-532.
Schallow, J. R. Locus of control and success at self-modification.
Behavior Therapy, 1975, 6, 667-671.
Smith, C). Goal Attainment scaling as an adjunct to counseling.
Jourt~alof Counseling Psychology, 1976, 23, 22-27.
Tharp, R. G., Watson, D.,& Kaya, J. Self-modification of depression.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1974, 42, 624.
Thoresen, C E., & Mahoney, M. J. Behavioralself-control. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974.
Watson, D. L . . & Tharp, R. G. Self-directed behavior: Self-
modification for personal adjustment. Monterey, CA: Brooks1
Cole, 1972.
Williams, R. L., & Long, J. D. Toward a self-managed life-style.
Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1975.
Winter, S. K., Griffith, J. C., & Kolb, D. A. Capacity for self-direction.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968,32, 35-41
Worthington, E. L., Jr. Honesty and success in self-modification
projects for a college class. Teaching of Psychology, 1977, 4,
78-82.
Notes
1. Spinelli, P. R., & Packard, T. Behavioral self-control delivery
systems. Paper presented at the National Conference on Be-
havioral Self-Control, Salt Lake City, February 1975.
2. Kempel. L. T., & Collins, G. Applications of learning theory: A
course In self control Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, Sep-
tember 1976.
3. Dobroski, B. J., Bellis, D.,& Menges, R. J. Innovative instructional
treatments for teaching behavioral psychology. Unpublished
manuscript, Northwestern University, 1976.
4. Sprinkle, R. L. Anxiety management training through self-
hypnosis. Paper presented at the American Personnel and
Guidarice Association, Chicago, March 1972.
5. McGaghie, W C., & Menges, R. J. Self-determination: An empiri-
cal analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1976.
6. This paper is based on a presentation at the American Educa-
tional Research Association, San Francisco, April 1976.
7. Reprint requests should be sent to Robert J. Menaes. Center for
the Teaching Professions, Northwestern university,' Evanston,
Illinois 60201.