Behavior Modification, Case Study Example

Tom is eight years old and is in the third grade.  Getting him to do his household chores had been a constant battle for his parents.  Last month, Tom’s parents conducted an experiment to see if a behavior modification technique would help to resolve the problem.  Their goal was for Tom to perform all of his daily chores without being reminded to do so.  The experiment was four weeks in length and precipitated positive results.

The experiment began by collecting baseline data to chart Tom’s performance before the intervention was employed.  The experiment began with a conversation outlining specific expectations.  Tom was to do two chores every morning and three chores in the evening without being reminded.  A list of those chores was posted on the refrigerator.  (See Appendix 1)  There was no discussion regarding consequences.  Tom’s parents observed his performance during the first week and secretly recorded the results on a chart by assigning a point value to each task.  (See Appendix 2)

At the end of the first week, Tom’s parents had another conversation with him.  They showed him a blank “chore chart” which would again, be posted on the refrigerator.  For every chore that Tom did without being reminded, he would receive three points.  He would also receive one free point.  If he completed all of his chores as instructed, he could earn 100 points per week.  Each point was worth ten cents, thus Tom could potentially earn $10 per week.  Furthermore, Tom had to receive at least 70 points or he would get nothing.  If however, he received the full 100 points, he would not only get $10, but would also be rewarded by receiving the title “Chore Champion” and getting to select a family activity for Sunday evening.

This approach was the result of Tom’s mother having read several articles relating to behavior modification.  Based on the works of B.F. Skinner, operant conditioning shapes behavior through positive or negative reinforcement.  In their article Harris & Harris (2010) emphasize that positive reinforcement produces a higher level of “willing cooperation” than negative reinforcement or punishment.  They state that the use of punishment tends “to create bare-minimum, compliance type behavior.”

By giving Tom no reward (or punishment) for achieving a score of less than 70, Tom’s parents were leveraging a type of negative reinforcement known as extinction.  They found this idea in a website article.  The article suggested that by withholding positive reinforcement and ignoring negative behavior, the behavior will begin to weaken (National Youth, 2010).  By withholding positive rewards for gross non-compliance, Tom’s parents helped him understand that if he did nothing, he would get nothing.

Until this experiment began, Tom had not been receiving an allowance of any kind.  The use of money as a reward is considered by many behaviorists as less effective than cognitive recognition or emotional rewards.  Tom’s patents felt however, that since the child had been asking for an allowance, the use of monetary rewards would be appropriate in this case.  They added the “Chore Champion” component to augment the reward system with something that would have an emotional impact.

In another article, Tom’s parents read that they should make sure the parameters of their expectations were both clear and written.  In that article, Keith (2010) suggested the use of a chart system for recording completion of household chore responsibilities.  The family regularly used the refrigerator as a “posting” place for awards, certificates, good report cards, and other important items demonstrating achievement.  Posting the chores chart on that location elevated its implied importance in accordance with family tradition.

The results of the experiment were promising.  During the baseline period where a list of chores was posted but no consequences discussed, Tom did not do very well.  He received 28 out of a possible 100 points and the chart shows deteriorating compliance as the week progressed.  (Appendix 2)  The intervention was introduced in the second week and Tom did better.  His score of 55 was an improvement over the previous week, but was not enough to receive a reward.  His parents discussed this with him.  They validated his improvement and encouraged him to do better the next week.

The third week produced even getter results.  (Appendix 4)  Tom’s performance in completing his chores without being reminded had become more consistent throughout the week.  His score of 91 not only earned him $9.10 but brought him ever-so-close to achieving a perfect score.  A discussion with mom and dad was hardly necessary at the end of the week.  Tom clearly saw his improvement and was determined to get 100% the following week.

In the last week of the experiment, Tom achieved a perfect score on his chore chart.  (Appendix 5)  Tom’s parents showered him with praise and awarded him the title of Chore Champion.  As per their agreement, Tom chose the Sunday evening family activity – a trip to Cold Stone Creamery.

While the initial experiment was successful in modifying Tom’s behavior, his parents recognized that this system would not continue forever.  In one of the articles they read, Pawel (2008) suggested gradually phasing out the chart “as children learn new skills and reform habits.”  Tom’s parents plan to continue using the chart until the boy demonstrates a consistent pattern of positive performance.  At that time, they will validate his long-term success and decide with the child, that the chart is no longer necessary since he has so thoroughly changed his behavior.  At that time, his allowance will be $10 per week and his parents will articulate their trust that he will continue the good behavior in the future.  His parents will continue to monitor Tom’s ongoing performance in the absence of the intervention and will continue to praise him for his continued success.  If the child begins to “slip” his parents will remind him of his commitment to doing his chores and encourage him to remain the Chore Champion even though no formal system remains.

This experiment in behavior modification validated the principles of operant conditioning espoused by Skinner.  Baseline data was gathered to ascertain a “starting point.”  The facilitators of the experiment (Tom’s parents) researched the modality through reading articles written about behavior modification, and applied the principles they learned to the experiment.

The precise nature of the expected behavioral changes were clearly defined and understood by the subject.  Ongoing results were formatted in a format that was clear and easy to understand.  Both physical and emotional rewards were applied or withheld in accordance with the subject’s behavior.  A long-term strategy for behavioral maintenance was developed.  In that this experiment fell within the parameters of normal parenting, informed consent was not required.

References

(Harris G Harris S 2010 Behavior modification techniques – Insights and suggestions for their use in parenting)Harris, G., & Harris, S. (2010). Behavior modification techniques – Insights and suggestions for their use in parenting. Retrieved from http://EzineArticles.com?expert=Guy_Harris

(Keith K 2010 Charts & chips – Using a behavior modification system with your child)Keith, K. (2010). Charts & chips – Using a behavior modification system with your child. Retrieved from http://childparenting.about.com/cs/behaviorproblems/a/behaviormod.htm

(National Youth 2010 Behavior modification – child behavior problems – out of control teens – behavior modification schools)National Youth. (2010). Behavior modification – child behavior problems – out of control teens – behavior modification schools. Retrieved from http://www.nationalyouth.com/behaviormodification.html

(Pawel J 20081130 Using behavior modification techniques)Pawel, J. (2008, November 30). Using behavior modification techniques. Retrieved from http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Using_Behavior_Modification_Techniques.html