The subject was asked to self-monitor, or simply observe and record her own study behavior daily. The subject was given an Excel file in which to record the time spent studying daily, with each block representing a 15-minute increment of time. The subject was required to study at least 2 hours per day, Sunday thru Friday, and was then allowed to self-administer a positive reinforcement on Saturday. The positive reinforcement was a “free day”, during which the subject could engage in any activities of her choosing. If the subject did not complete the required 2 hours of studying per day, she was not allowed to administer the reinforcement, and instead was required to make-up the missed study time on Saturday. A baseline period of 1 week preceded the intervention phase which lasted 2 weeks.

The results of the study indicate that the subject made clinically significant increases in study behavior. The present investigation does appear to have shown a reinforcement effect which might be attributed to self-reinforcement, although this reinforcement effect could have resulted from some interaction of self-reinforcement with self-monitoring. A future investigation could focus on strengthening the unique contributions of each of these conditions and removing as much of the overlap as possible. Or, we might simply have increased the subject’s awareness of her study patterns, causing a reactive effect. Johnson and White (1970) showed that students increased their academic output simply as a result of monitoring their study activities, and McFall (1970) reported a decrement in cigarette smoking among subjects who witnessed and recorded their smoking behaviors (Jackson & Van Zoost, 1972). The results do seem to agree with previous research findings that at least in short-term programs self-reinforcement procedures can improve academic behavior (Jackson & Van Zoost, 1972; Tichenor, 1977; Greiner & Karoly, 1976; Hayes, Munt, Korn, Wulfert, Rosenfarb & Zettle, 1986). It is not clear, however, that the self-reinforcement procedure used would have long-term benefits. A future study might also include a follow-up procedure to determine whether the effects were stable over time. A methodological concern of the present study was that there was no measurement of the reliability of self-report. There is no assurance that the subject actually spent the reported time studying. In addition, having only one subject might raise questions regarding the reliability of the results. A future study could employ a larger number of subjects, or the design of this study could be replicated across a number of subjects to improve the external validity of the results. Future research could also be done to examine the effectiveness of self-reinforcement procedures versus external reinforcement procedu

Some topics in this essay:
Rosenfarb Zettle, METHOD Procedure, Jarrett McKnight, Ziesat Rosenthal, Greiner Karoly, Van Zoost, INTRODUCTION Self-control, Hefferman Richards, Johnson White, JANE DOE, response frequency, intervention phase, study conducted, van zoost 1972, greiner karoly 1976, hayes spong, van zoost, jarrett mcknight, spong jarrett, jackson van zoost, mcknight 1983, wulfert rosenfarb zettle, karoly 1976, rosenfarb zettle 1986, tichenor 1977,