EFFECT OF LNTERPERSSNAL ANXIETYREDUCTLON, . _ H SELF - EVALUATTON RELSFSRCELLLLM,AND ovsm j 5 J ' SELF - Simmacmgm ASALLABLLLW 0N COLLEGE ' swam? SUBSEQUENT SELF - ESALSATLOS AND , . SELF . RETNFORCEMENT RESPONSES ' Dissertatian for the Degree of Ph. D. MTCHEGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LYMAN THATR RATE 1973 A-‘A A“... _ m, (0" .‘4 P? Y a“ 'R/irk I "“ic. gan State University 6’ This is to oertify that the 7 . f " theiis entitled EFFECT OF INTERPERSONAL ANXIETY REDUCTION, SELF-EVALUATION REMORCEMENI‘, AND OVERI‘ SEF—REDIE‘OW AVAILABHJTY ON COLLEGE STUDENT SUBSEQUENT SELF-EVALUATION AND SEIF-REINFOKIEMEN'I‘ RESPONSES presented by Lyman ‘I'hair Rate has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph-D. degree in mm Personnel Services , and Educational Psychology /7 7 - . '7 V V '71}; ngz 4 3r "A /‘ flag/42w; a, A: Major professor ‘ Date October 19, 1973 0-7639 - .5 33 I 3 ABSTRACT EFT'EXII' OF IINI'ERPEIRSONAL ANXIETY REDUCI‘IGW, SELF-EVALUATION REINFORCEMENT, AND OVERI' SKIP-REINFORCEMENT AVAILABILITY ON COLLEGE STUDENT SUBSECXJE'NI‘ SELF-EVALUATION AND SELF-REDE‘ORCEMENI‘ RESPONSES BY Lyman Thair Rate The purpose of this study was to explore further self-evaluation and self-reinforcement response habits which have been identified as important aspects of self- control processes. More specifically, this study was designed to investigate the effect of (a) interpersonal anxiety reduction, (b) selective self-evaluation reinforcement, and (g) overt self-reinforcement avail- ability upon subsequent self—evaluation and self- reinforcement responses. The independent variable, interpersonal anxiety reduction, involved a procedure combining muscle relaxation and imagination of anxiety-provoking interpersonal situa- tions. The self-evaluation reinforcement treatment variable consisted of a "counselor's" verbal and nonverbal expression of approval contingent upon either the subject's positive or negative (above or below average) self- evaluation rating questionnaire review procedure. The Lyman Thair Rate treatment variable, overt self-reinforcement availability, involved the presence of "reward" and "no reward" poker chips to be self-administered at the discretion of the subject following each response evaluation emitted during a measurement task procedure. Dependent variables consisted of (a) frequency of positive self-evaluations, (b) self-evaluation independence (number of evaluation disagreements between g and confederate), and (9) self- reinforcers administered. Each dependent variable was recorded during the measurement procedure which involved an ambiguous word-association judgment task in which both the subject and a confederate overtly evaluated word- associations emitted by the subject. It was hypothesized that (a) increased interpersonal anxiety reduction would result in an increase in the frequency of positive self-evaluations in accordance with Aronfreed's (1964) hypothesized relationship between anxiety level and self-criticism, an increase in the number of confederate-subject disagreements (self- evaluation independence), and an increase in the number of self—reinforcers administered; (b) direct self- evaluation reinforcement would differentially effect the subsequent frequency of positive self-evaluations and self-reinforcers administered; and (E) the availability of overt self-reinforcers would result in more frequent positive self-evaluations emitted. Lyman Thair Rate Forty-eight Michigan State University male student volunteers served as subjects for this experiment. Sub- jects were assigned randomly to one of the 12 cells generated by a 2 X 2 X 3 factorial design. This design consisted of two levels of Interpersonal Anxiety Reduction (Relaxation, Control), two levels of Overt Self- Reinforcement (SR, No SR), and three levels of Self- Evaluation Reinforcement (Above Average, Control, Below Average). Each S received one level of each of the independent variables, and these treatments were individually and consecutively administered. Analysis of variance procedures were used to assess treatment effects. It was found that interpersonal anxiety reduction group differences were not significant with respect to (a) positive self-evaluations, and (b) evalua- tion disagreements. The relaxation group, however, administered significantly more frequent self-rewards than the control group. No significant differences were shown for the self-evaluation reinforcement groups with respect to either (a) positive self-evaluations, or (9) self- reinforcements. Overt self-reinforcement groups were found not to differ significantly with respect to positive self-evaluations. Aronfreed, J. The origin of self-criticism. Psychological EFFHHTOFIDHERMEBOMMLANXUflN’RHXETHJL SBILEWMIMEHXJ REDEORJTENL.NWMIEFTEELFflEENHXCEWflH?NWUIAEHJTY ON(IXIEGESEHEENTEREBEQHTHTSELPflEEEUHIKXJ ANDfflflfkREflflTmCHflfiflfRE§XXBES BY Lyman Thair Rate A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology 1973 Copyright by LYMAN THAI R RATE 1973 TO JANE AND ELIZABETH ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my thanks to all the persons (Table A) who contributed time and effort to this project. Their help was greatly appreciated and responsible in many ways for the success of the investigation. I am especially grateful to Dr. Richard Johnson whose creative thought, advice, and encouragement were invaluable. TABLE A.—-Individuals Who Contributed. Roles “ Participants Committee Chairman Committee Members Confederates Pilot Participants Scheduling Aid Data Analyst Richard G. Johnson William A. Mann Herbert M. Burks Samuel A. Plyler Louis C. Stamatakos George R. Myers Tom Hoffman David Fitch Geof Yager Pam Highlen Sherry Gallagher Jane Finks Christa Forrester Linda Glendening iii In addition, my wife, Jane, deserves a good deal of credit for the successful completion of this task, and I thank her for her many tangible and intangible contri- butions. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Chapter I 0 RATIONALE O O O O I O O O I O O O 1 Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Theory and Supportive Research . . . . 4 Hypotheses . . .y . . . . . . . . 15 II. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . 28 III. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Treatment Effects . . . . . . . . . 31 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 IV. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Implications . . . . . . . . . . 51 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 A. INTERPERSONAL ANXIETY REDUCTION TREATMENT AND CONTROL SCENES ., . . . . . . . . 57 B. SELF-EVALUATION REINFORCEMENT TREATMENT FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 C. PROCEDURE EVALUATION FORMS . . . . . . 63 D. WORD ASSOCIATION TASK RECORDING FORM . . . 67 LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . 7O 3.6. LIST OF TABLES Page Demographic Characteristics of the Sample . 20 Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . 29 Positive Evaluation Means for All Treatment Groups . . . . . . . . . 32 Interpersonal Anxiety Reduction Treatment Means for Total Evaluation Disagreements . 32 Self-Reinforcement Means for All Treatment Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Analysis of Variance Summary for Positive Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Analysis of Variance Summary for Total Evaluation Disagreements (Interper- sonal Anxiety Reduction) . . . . . . 35 Interpersonal Anxiety Reduction Treatment Means for "Yes-No" Evaluation Disagreements . . . . . . . . . . 36 Interpersonal Anxiety Reduction Treatment Means for "No-Yes" Evaluation Disagreements . . . . . . . . . . 36 Analysis of Variance Summary for "Yes-No" Disagreements (Interpersonal Anxiety Reduction) . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Analysis of Variance Summary for "No-Yes" Disagreements (Interpersonal Anxiety Reduction) . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Analysis of Variance Summary for Reward Chips (SRs) Administered . . . . . . 38 Self-Report Anxiety Reduction Index Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 vi Table Page 3.12. Analysis of Variance Summary for Self- Reported Anxiety Reduction . . . . . . 40 3.13. Treatment Group Distribution of "Aware" SS . . . . . . . . . . . 41 vii CHAPTER I RATIONALE S229 Behavior change processes have received a great deal of attention, but what perhaps is the most important aspect, the generalization of behavior patterns to new situations and their persistence once the original control- ling conditions have been discontinued, has been neglected (Bandura, 1969). Several researchers (Bandura, 1969; Cautela, 1969; Kanfer, 1970; Kanfer & Karoly, 1972; Mahoney & Thoresen, 1972; Marston, 1965; Marston & Feldman, 1972) have focused attention on self-control or regulation and have identified self-evaluation (SE) and self-reinforcement (SR) as major variables or components involved in the behavior maintenance process. Self-evaluation and self- reinforcement patterns have been shown to be modifiable by a variety of experimental conditions, but such changes have not been demonstrated to persist when conditions are altered and little effort has been made to explore fac- tors related to their independence or resistance to external influence. Self-reinforcement administration is thought to be dependent upon specific self-evaluations; i.e., positive or favorable performance evaluation leads to a reward while negative or unfavorable evaluation leads to a punishment. Therefore, the maintenance of inde- pendent self—evaluations should virtually guarantee continued administration of appropriate self-reinforce- ments in the presence of conflicting or inapprOpriate external evaluative feedback and thus promote or maintain self-regulated behavior patterns. Hence, there is a need to identify experiences or factors which enhance apprOpriate self-evaluative response habits and render them more fully independent of external sources of influence. Purpose The primary purpose of this study was to investi- gate whether a person's self-evaluation habits can be influenced by: (a) interpersonal anxiety reduction; (2) prior selective self-evaluation reinforcement; and (g) availability and administration of overt self- reinforcers. An additional purpose was to assess the effects of interpersonal anxiety reduction and prior selective self-evaluation reinforcement on subsequent rates of self-reinforcement administration. The independent variable, interpersonal anxiety reduction, involved following the instructions of a tape recorded general muscle-relaxation procedure in order to achieve a relatively relaxed state, and then alternately imagining specific interpersonally anxious scenes and focusing attention on continued relaxation. The scenes imagined consisted of a variety of situations in which the person's self-evaluations were open to critical scrutiny or came into direct conflict with the evaluations of others. The second independent variable, self-evaluation reinforcement, involved an interview-like procedure designed for the selective administration of positive verbal and non—verbal reinforcement contingent upon either (a) positive self-evaluations (above average ratings), or (2) negative self-evaluations (below average ratings) within the context of a general self-evaluation rating questionnaire review. The third independent variable, availability and administration of overt self-reinforcers, consisted of "reward" and "no reward" poker chips, one of which was to be chosen on each trial of a word—association task dependent upon S's evaluation of his performance on that trial, i.e., whether or not he felt that his association was "deserving" of a reward. Dependent variables were the frequency of: (a) positive self-evaluations emitted; (b) disagreements between S evaluations and those of a participating "confederate"; and (g) self-reinforcements administered, during an ambiguous word—association judgment task. The present study was designed to provide addi- tional information regarding the establishment of self- evaluative response habits and their subsequent effect on the individual's overt self-evaluative responses and self—reinforcement frequencies in situations where task criteria are ambiguous and incongruous external evalu- ative influences are present. In addition, it was hoped that results of this study would reveal further informa- tion concerning the self—reinforcement and self—evaluation interrelationship which appears to be crucial to successful behavior self-control or regulation processes. Theory and Supportive Research Self-Control Theorists, researchers, and practitioners have long been concerned with self-control (regulation, management), but have focused primarily upon the identi- fication of intervening variables such as conscience, super-ego, will power, etc., as internal causation explanations. Recently, however, such concepts have been viewed by many as relatively useless, and as Mahoney and Thoresen (1972) stated, " . . . the volitional approach has seriously impaired the collection and interpretation of knowledge about self—management" (p. 5). Whereas strict behavioristic and humanistic approaches have in the past limited their focus exclu- sively to either Man's subjective experiences or objective overt behaviors, the present movement attempts a more adequate integration of both aspects which have long been recognized by many (May, 1967, for example) as being inextricable. The concept of self-control has been defined in a variety of ways (Cautela, 1969; Homme, 1965; Kanfer, 1967; London, 1969; Mahoney & Thoresen, 1972; Marston & Feldman, 1972; Skinner, 1953), but there is agreement that it basically refers to the process whereby the individual manipulates internal and/or external variables upon which the probability of a specific behavior depends in order to either increase or decrease the likelihood of his behaving in a certain way. The present conceptu- alization does not exclude internal or private events (experiences), and in fact " . . . the critical antece- dent conditions and even the behavioral components in a self-controlled sequence may lie entirely in the domain of private experience . . ." (Kanfer, 1970, p. 179). Current efforts, then, do not aim at non-recognition or denial of anything but objectively observable and pre- cisely measurable variables, but rather a more clear and research-amenable conceptualization of both the internal and external components involved. Mahoney and Thoresen (1972) view the self-control process as generally involving Q? Specification of a behavior, (2) identification of antecedent cues and environmental consequences, and Q? alteration of some of the antecedents and/or consequences. They have identified three major self—regulation approaches " . . . at least one of which has been present in every successful self- control attempt thus far reported" (p. 6). Each will be described briefly below. The first strategy is to increase awareness , through self-observation or monitoring. The individual attends to and records his behavior thereby checking himself and evaluating his progress. In this way he 1 receives both immediate and cumulative feedback about what he is or is not doing, and if the data indicate that the personjjschanging in the desired direction, he then has good reason to feel positive about himself, a i.e., he receives immediate reinforcement. Research ,) evidence to date indicates that self-monitoring is reactive and can have a significant and at times dramatic effect on either increasing or decreasing a variety of target behaviors. Such behaviors include smoking (McFall, 1970; McFall & Hammen, 1971), obsessive nega- tive self—thoughts (Mahoney, 1971), hallucinations (Rutner & Bugle, 1969), dating (Johnson & White, 1971), trichotillomania (Bayer, 1971), parental attending to hyperactive children's apprOpriate behaviors (Bolstad & Johnson, 1972), and study behavior (Broden, Hall, & Mitts, 1971). Altering the environment or environmental planning is the second strategy identified by Mahoney and Thoresen. Here the cues which precede the target behavior are altered by some environmental manipulation. Slowing the pace of eating, making snacks less accessible, eating only at specified places, avoiding cigarette machines, and restricting smoking to locations removed from familiar cues are examples of environmental manipulations designed to disrupt old conditioned response chains and reduce the frequency of eating and smoking. Stuart (1967) is one investigator who has heavily emphasized the environmental planning approach to self-control. The final strategy, altering behavioral conse- quences or behavior programming, relates more specifically to the present study, i.e., self-reinforcement. In this case the individual actively manipulates certain results of the behaviors he is attempting to control. The manipu- lation may involve external (overt) consequences such as rewarding certain behaviors by allowing oneself to buy a new article of clothing or eat out at a favorite restau- rant, or internal (covert) consequences such as praising or criticizing oneself or thinking pleasant or unpleasant thoughts. Internal or covert reinforcement, for example, has received recent attention and there is evidence which lends support to the ideas that positive and negative covert thoughts or images can significantly affect self-concept (Krop, Calhoon, & Verrier, 1971); alter attitudes toward the retarded (Cautela, Walsh, & Wish, 1970) and the elderly (Cautela & Wiscocki, 1969); reduce phobic behaviors (Flannery, 1970; Lazarus & Abramovitz, 1962), alcoholic intake (Ashem & Donner, 1968) and smoking (Mullen, 1968); eliminate compulsions (Cautela, 1966)anuistuttering (Cautela, 1971); and alter delinquent behaviors (Cautela, 1971). Kanfer and Karoly (1972) have presented a self- control model which they refer to as Beta-regulation. It is a "closed-loop" model which they explain as follows: When conditions are such that behavior chains are not run off smoothly, (for example, when a choice point is reached or an external event interrupts and refocuses attention, or if the activation level suddenly changes) self-monitoring is hypothe- sized to go into Operation. Utilizing the input from the external environment as well as response- produced cues (verbal-symbolic, prOprioceptive, or autonomic), the person is in a position to self- evaluate, i.e., to make a discrimination or judgment about the adequacy of his performance relative to a subjectively held standard or compari- son criterion. Within the limits of an individual's social learning history and current sfituational factors, the judgment serves as an S either for positive self-reinforcement (SR+), if the outcome of the comparison was favorable, or for self— presented aversive stimulation (SR-), if the comparison was unfavorable. Thus, behavior is main- tained or altered by self-reinforcements, relatively independent of current alpha [external] variables (p. 406). While Kanfer and Karoly appear to be in basic agreement with Mahoney and Thoresen, they seem to place their emphasis on the role of supplementary self-reinforcement contingencies in the alteration of the ongoing behavioral chain. The above authors and others (Marston & Feldman, 1972; Bandura, 1969; Cautela, 1969) have attempted to conceptualize self-control processes in increasingly coherent and meaningful ways, and their efforts have served to organize existing relevant experimental data and provide impetus as well as direction for future research. While the emphasis of theoretical analysis tends to vary among authors, there would seem to be una- nimity concerning the present and future importance and potential of self—regulatory processes both in terms of everyday living and clinical application. Kanfer and Karoly, for example, believe that increasingly rapid changes in life settings, increased availability and exposure to varieties of models and life-styles, and decreasing behavioral consistency of socializing agents, make it imperative that attention be given to identifying conditions which will foster the individual's development of self-generated motivations and standards in order that he might continue to maintain some semblance of behavioral consistency in the future. On the clinical side, the development of more effective self-management skills in the individual should decrease the counselor's need to rely on external controls (Yates, 1970), facilitate behavior maintenance in lO situations where there is weak environmental support or counteracting punishments for the alternative behaviors (Bandura, 1969), and diminish the number of passive, "you help me" clients as well as, ultimately, the need for professional helpers (Mahoney & Thoresen, 1972). Elson (1972) stated in his thorough review of the self-control literature that basic research has lagged far behind the practical application of self-control procedures. Thus, with few exceptions, concrete empirical data are somewhat lacking in terms of both the identi- fication of specific relevant variables involved and their interrelationships and influences. Self-Reinforcement Self—reinforcement is one of the self-control variables which has received a good deal of research attention. It has been variously defined by several authors (Bandura, 1969, p. 32; Kanfer, 1970, p. 190; Marston, 1964, p. 879) and basically involves the self- generated administration of a reinforcing stimulus which is contingent upon a self-defined criterion of performance. Self-reinforcement is central to self-control because self-reinforcers are assumed to be nearly always available and can be administered independent of external sources of control. As noted above, self-reinforcers can be either internal or external. While there is an array of external ll reinforcing stimuli usually available, there are also internal or covert cognitive thoughts and images related to pleasant and unpleasant experiences upon which indi- viduals can draw. These thoughts and images include self-referents or self-evaluative (approving or critical) contents which appear to have significant intrinsic reinforcing potential. It is generally felt that internal self- reinforcement responses develop initially in a social learning context. The child is rewarded or punished by the socializing agents (parents, teachers, policemen, etc.) for exceeding or falling below particular standards, and verbal responses such as "I did well" or "I did poorly" come to be associated with these external pun- ishing and rewarding experiences. Such verbal responses eventually serve as discriminative stimuli in whose presence external reinforcement has had a high probability of occurrence, and thus acquire secondary or conditioned reinforcing properties (Kanfer, 1970). In this way people likely develop, to a greater or lesser extent, large internal repertoires of equivalent self-reinforcing responses (Kanfer & Marston, 1963b) which allow them to learn as well as maintain behaviors in the absence of immediate external reinforcement (Marston, 1967; Kanfer & Duerfeldt, 1967; Marston & Kanfer, 1963). 12 Most of the self-reinforcement research has been generated by Kanfer, Marston, and their associates utilizing a "directed learning" paradigm involving a two— stage procedure. During the first phase the subject is exposed to a learning or pseudo-learning task and is administered either contingent or noncontingent reinforce- ment or punishment. During phase two (self-reinforcement condition) S is instructed to take over the experimenter's function and continue to administer the reinforcing stimulus (frequently having no apparent intrinsic reward value, e.g., light flash, button press, etc., other than that which is derived from its association with S's former evaluations) whenever he thinks he has responded cor- rectly. In this way variables controlling the incidence of SRs, the motivational properties of SR, and the rela- tionship between SR behavior and other dependent variables can be investigated (Kanfer, 1970). Among the relevant variables which have been ten- tatively identified with this research paradigm are prior reinforcement experience (Kanfer & Marston, 1963a), type of reinforcement (Marston, 1964), incentive levels (Mar- ston & Kanfer, 1963), and task competence (Kanfer, Bradley, & Marston, 1962). In addition, SR rates have been shown to be amenable to modification in the laboratory by direct external reinforcement for their emission (Kanfer & Marston, 1963a), altering the stringency or leniency of l3 specified criteria (Marston & Kanfer, 1963), and exposure to differing model behaviors and traits (Bandura & Kupers, 1964). Self-Evaluation Evidence indicates that people differ signifi- cantly in their tendency to administer self-rewards on a strict or more lenient schedule (Bartol & Duerfeldt, 1970; Kanfer, Duerfeldt, & LaPage, 1969), and efforts have been made to associate SR habits with certain personality traits (Bartol & Duerfeldt, 1970; Bellack, 1972; Haynes & Kanfer, 1971; Marston & Cohen, 1966; Poultney, 1970; Reschly, 1971; Uhnes & David, 1971). No meaningful pic- ture, however, has yet emerged. Nor is it clear that such SR rate differences are a direct function of cor- responding variations in self-evaluation habits. While self-evaluation has been recognized by Bandura and Whalen (1966), Marston (1965), and others as providing a mediating link between previously socially regulated experiences and a person's tendency to admin- ister self-reinforcements, surprisingly little effort has been made to explore thoroughly this relationship. Cautela (1965) and Aiken, Dicken, and Grossberg (cited by Kanfer, 1970) have provided some evidence that changes in a persons's self-evaluations do not necessarily result in modification of other behaviors, i.e., rewarding and punishing habits. Kanfer and Duerfeldt (1967) reported 14 results which indicated that the rate of self-punishment was more a function of prior experience (S's administra- tion of punishment) than self-evaluations. The data concerning the relationship between self-evaluation and self-reinforcement are obviously meager, and further research is necessary. The self-evaluation and self-reinforcement rela- tionship is of particular interest to the counselor or psychotherapist because, as Kanfer and Duerfeldt (1967) pointed out: The demonstration of intrinsic relationships between a person's self-perception and his sub- sequent self-reinforcing behaviors would bolster the hypothesis that therapeutic interventions aimed at changing the self-concept can be expec- ted to bring about changed criteria for self- rewards and self-punishment, thereby influencing directly the consequent behaviors (p. 164). It has also been suggested (Kanfer, 1970) that certain more general behavior disorders might well be related to habitual self-evaluation and consequent self-reinforcement patterns. Depressions, for example, might result from retarded behavioral output due to insufficient self- initiated feedback, while neurotic disorders could stem from indiscriminate self-criticism and the grandiose personality from indiscriminate self-rewarding behaviors. Assuming that self-reinforcement is a function of self-appraisal or evaluation, then self-regulation should be more effective when the individual is suffi- ciently familiar with the task to provide himself with 15 accurate objective feedback about the adequacy of his behavior. The problem of self-control, of course, appears to be more critical in situations where success criteria are ambiguous, and it would seem reasonable that under these circumstances any SR administration would be entirely dependent upon habitual self-evaluation standards. Self-evaluative and self-reinforcing responses also have important implications for the maintenance of behaviors in the face of conflicting environmental feedback, i.e., externally supplied evaluations which are contrary to one's own evaluations based on immediate standards, experiences, or expectations. One of the most important research goals, according to Bandura (1969), is to develop strategies for enhancing self- regulatory mechanisms which " . . . render behavior par- tially independent of specific situational contengencies and outcomes" (p. 617). Hypotheses Anxiety reduction has been postulated by Aronfreed (1964) as a major cause of predominantly nega- tive self-evaluation habits. That is, he believes that one important function of self-criticism is to inhibit anxiety associated with anticipated punishment stemming from social disapproval. If self—critical evaluations do reduce anxiety when a person anticipates punishment from another person, i.e, derogatory comments, rejection, etc.: 16 then the frequency of such self-critical responses should decrease as the level of anxiety decreases. Conversely, the frequency of self-approving responses or behaviors should increase as the level of anxiety decreases. To investigate the relationship between interpersonal anxiety and self-evaluation the following hypotheses were formulated: I. Subjects who receive the interpersonal anxiety reduction treatment will emit more frequent positive self-evaluations in the presence of a confederate's predominantly critical evaluations during an ambiguous word association judgment task procedure than those Ss who receive the control experience (nonrelaxation). II. Subjects who receive the interpersonal anxiety reduction treatment will emit more evaluations which disagree with those of a confederate during an ambiguous word asso- ciation judgment task procedure than those Ss who receive the control experience (nonrelaxation). Investigations have indicated that self-evaluations can be significantly influenced by the experimenter's favorable and unfavorable evaluations of S's performance during an experimental "training" phase (Kanfer & Duerfeldt, 1967; Kanfer & Duerfeldt, 1968), and that self-reinforcement rate can be altered by direct external reinforcement (Kanfer & Marston, 1963). Self-approving and self-critical responses have not been found to be reciprocal, however, and there is some evidence that changes in self-reinforcement frequency maykmaindependent of self-evaluations. Kanfer (1970) concluded, 17 research findings suggest that separate modifica- tion of each of these behaviors may be necessary in therapy, and corresponding changes in a person's self-evaluations, self-reinforcing behaviors and instrumental behaviors cannot always be taken for granted (p. 203). The following hypotheses were formulated to investigate the effectiveness of a specific self-evaluation reinforce- ment procedure with respect to altering subsequent self- evaluation and self-reinforcement behaviors. III. Subjects who receive positive reinforcement for "above average" self-evaluations emitted during a general personal trait and interest assessment interview will give more frequent positive self-evaluations during an ambiguous word association judgment task than those subjects who either receive no reinforcement for their self-evaluations or receive positive reinforcement for "below average" self- evaluations. Those subjects who receive no reinforcement will in turn give more frequent positive self-evaluations than those who receive positive reinforcement for "below average" self-evaluations. IV. Subjects who receive positive reinforcement for "above average" self-evaluations emitted during a general personal trait and interest assessment interview will administer more frequent self-rewards during an ambiguous word association judgment task than those subjects who either receive no reinforcement for their self-evaluations or receive posi- tive reinforcement for "below average" self- evaluations. Those subjects who receive no reinforcement will in turn administer more frequent self-rewards than those who receive reinforcement for "below average" self- evaluations. The following additional hypothesis was formulated to further investigate the relationship between self- evaluation and self-reinforcement: 18 V. During an ambiguous word association judgment task subjects who are allowed to administer overt self-reinforcers following self- evaluations will give more frequent positive self-evaluations than subjects who are not allowed to administer overt self-reinforcers. The following final hypothesis was formulated to investigate the effect of interpersonal anxiety reduction on the frequency of a person's administering self- reinforcers in the presence of another person who tends to be predominantly critical or disapproving. VI. Subjects who receive the interpersonal anxiety reduction treatment will more frequently administer self-rewards than those subjects who receive the nonanxiety reduction treat- ment. CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY Subjects Forty-eight Michigan State University male student volunteers served as Ss for this experiment. Approxi- mately one—half were solicited from two undergraduate social science sections, one—fourth from one graduate education class, and one—fourth from a student newspaper advertisement. Subjects volunteered on the basis of their willingness to participate in "several short tasks." The sample consisted predominantly of unmarried, Caucasian undergraduates as can be seen by the available demographic data summarized in Table 2.1. Females were excluded from the sample because of the potential inter- action between sex and both the Self-Evaluation Reinforcement treatment and the male confederate influence aspect of the measurement context. Procedure Treatments were individually administered and each S received one level of each of the treatment vari- ables: Interpersonal Anxiety Reduction (Relaxation, Control), Self—Evaluation Reinforcement (Above, Control, Below), and Overt Self-Reinforcement (SR, No SR). The 19 20 TABLE 2.1.--Demographic Characteristics of the Sample. Charac- Breakdown (Total N=48) teristic A 17-18 l9-20 21-22 23 & Above 99 6 24 2 16 Class Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate standing 26 6 2 0 14 Marital Married Unmarried status 9 39 Ethnic Caucasion Negroid Spanish American group 42 5 l Interpersonal Anxiety Reduction procedure was administered first, followed by the Self-Evaluation Reinforcement pro- cedure, and finally the Overt Self—Reinforcement variable was manipulated for a short word association task in which the S participated along with a partner (confederate). Following each treatment procedure each S was provided with a short form on which he was requested to evaluate his experience. Interpersonal Anxiety Reduction Each S was taken to a small room where the first two procedures were to be administered, and was asked to have a seat in the large easy-chair. The following gen- eral instructions were then read: I'm investigating new counseling procedures and must find out if they can be easily administered in a reasonable length of time. I'm also interested 21 in detecting any difficulties which were not antici- pated during their design. In addition, word association habits are being investigated as a pos- sible method of assessment. The Relaxation group Ss were then given the following additional instructions: This first procedure involves the use of relaxation and imagination in dealing with a con- cern frequently presented by persons seeking a counselor's assistance. Here is a stack of cards (hand S cards) each describing briefly a situation frequently found to be rather unpleasant. Please go through the stack and select the five situations which you can imagine most vividly and which when imagined make you feel somewhat anxious. Separate the five you choose and set the remaining cards aside (wait for S to select cards). Keep these five cards in order and refer to them as the tape instructs. Do you have any questions? Now just sit back comfortably in your chair and follow the taped instructions. The card "deck" (3 x 5 typed note cards) from which relaxation Ss chose consisted of short descriptions of interpersonal situations which often create a degree of anxiety (Appendix A). The rationale for constructing these "scenes" was based upon Wolpe's use of written and verbal descriptions as facsimiles of actual anxiety- arousing situations or experiences. The recorded instruc- tions (presented on memorex tape via Sony recorder) included relaxation practice of the 19 muscle groups fol- lowed by alternating relaxing and focusing imagination on each scene of the five cards chosen (three times per card). The taped voice encouraged S to imagine each scene as vividly as possible as well as relax as deeply as possible. When the procedure, which was approximately 22 30 minutes in length, was completed, S was instructed to complete the evaluation form on the adjacent table. This form (Appendix C) provided scales on which to record an assessment of the procedure as well as to self-report S's perceived anxiety level prior to, during, and follow- ing the relaxation experience. After the initial general instructions the control group (nonrelaxation) Ss were given the following instruc- tions: This first procedure involves the use of imag- ination. Here is a stack of cards (hand S cards) each describing briefly an experience. Please go through the stack and select the five situations which you can imagine most vividly. Separate the five you choose and set the remaining cards aside (wait for S to select cards). Keep these five cards in order and refer to them as the tape instructs. Do you have any questions? Now just sit back comfortably in your chair and follow the taped instructions. The card "deck" from which control Ss chose con- sisted of short neutral scenes designed to elicit a very weak emotional response and little or no anxiety (Appen- dix A). The control tape recording instructed S to imagine each scene as vividly as possible and then terminate the image. Each scene was imagined three times, and the entire procedure was approximately 20 minutes in length. Upon completion of the control pro- cedure S was also instructed to fill out the evaluation form. 23 Self-Evaluation Reinforcement This second treatment procedure was administered in the same room as, and upon the conclusion of, the first. Each S was given the following instructions: This next procedure involves the use of a short list of general personal traits and interests designed to help the counselor become familiar with the client more quickly than conventional methods. Please read the instructions (hand rating form and wait). Do not spend a lot of time trying to decide on any one evaluation, but rely on your first impressions where possible. Any questions? (Wait for S to complete form.) Now, I'd like you to go through the form and tell me your rating for each item. As you are doing that I will try to form as clear a picture of you as I can from that information. The rating form (Appendix B) consisted of a list of 50 personal characteristics and interests divided into the categories of physical, cognitive, interests, personal and social. Ten items made up every category and S was to divide each 10 into those five on which he evaluated him- self as being above average and those five on which he evaluated himself as being below average based on the college student population. In the cases where evaluations did not conform cleanly with the instructions, i.e., S evaluated himself either above or below on more than the five allotted, S was instructed to "force" his evaluations to conform with the task criteria. The differential treatment was administered during the relating of S's evaluations to the experimenter (S). For those Ss assigned to the "Above" evaluation group S 24 would attend to, verbally reinforce ("Good," "Fine," "Yes," "Okay," "Uhuh"), ask additional questions about, and reinforce with non-verbal behaviors (sit forward in chair, nod head affirmatively, smile) each personal trait or interest item rated by S as being above average while ignoring those items rated as being below average. For those Ss assigned to the "Below" evaluation group S would attend to, verbally reinforce ("Good," "Fine," "yes," "Okay," "Uhuh"), ask additional questions about, and reinforce with non—verbal behaviors (sit forward in chair, nod head affirmatively, smile) each personal trait or interest item rated by S as being below average while ignoring those items rated as being above average. For those Ss assigned to the control evaluation group, S would attempt to remain silent and non-reactive (maintain prior posture and facial expression, show no special interest, and withhold verbal comment) as each S read through his ratings. Following the self-evaluation reinforcement treat- ment procedure each S was given evaluation form B (Appendix C) and was requested to "Use form B to evaluate the use of a list such as the one you just used to convey information about yourself to another person such as a counselor for the purpose of his getting to know you better in a short period of time." 25 Overt Self-Reinforcement After the evaluation reinforcement procedure had been completed S was told, "The final word association task is somewhat different from the first two procedures and requires that two of you work together in the next room." The next room was similar in size to the first, and here S was invited to sit in either of two chairs at a small table and was informed that the other person would shortly be finished and ready to go. Upon seeing through the two—way mirror that the subject and experimenter had arrived at the word associ- ation room, the confederate (S), a 20-year—old male college student who had been given prior instructions, made his entrance. The subject and confederate were introduced by S, who "conveniently" forgot S's name, and S_was invited to take the other chair across the table from S. Before the instructions were read to the partici- pants, S pretended to decide arbitrarily which person would serve as "recorder" and which would serve as ”associ- ator" by merely suggesting somewhat haltingly, "Why don't, ahh, you (pointing to S) be the recorder and, ahh, you (pointing to S) be the associator." This procedure was shown by preliminary information to be both expedient and believable. The following instructions were then given: This is a test of the similarity of word associ- ations. A series of words will be presented on tape. After each word the associator--that would be, ah, let's see, you (name of S)--is to respond immediately 26 with the most imaginative one-word association that comes to mind. Students at different col— leges and universities have previously undergone this procedure and a list of the most frequent associations given by college students has been compiled. After each association given, the recorder—— that would be you (name of C)--is to decide whether or not he thinks the associator's response is among the five most frequently given associ- ations by other students. If you think it is among the tOp five say 'Yes' and if you think it is not say 'No.' Following that the associator is also to decide whether he thinks his own response is one of the five most frequently given associ- ations by other students. Here again, if you think it is say 'Yes' and if you think it is not say 'No.' I want you to use this form (hand form to C) to write down all the responses that each of ySu makes. Just put each response down under the corresponding column. For those Ss assigned to the self-reinforcement condition, the following additional instructions were given: The final thing that you, the associator, are to do is decide whether or not each of your respon- ses is deserving of a reward. (Center reward apparatus in front of associator.) If you decide that it is take a red chip from the box labeled 'reward' and place it in the slot marked 'chips.‘ If, on the other hand, you do not believe your response is deserving of a reward take a white chip from the box labeled 'no reward' and place it in the slot before you. Take one chip for each response or association. After the instructions were read and questions answered the tape was started and S left the room. Fifty words were then presented at 25 second intervals, and the entire tape ran for approximately 24 minutes. While the confederate was presented to each S as an "equal" going through a similar experience, he was in fact working for E and his evaluation responses were 27 predetermined. Prior to the experiment "Yes" evaluations were assigned randomly among the 50 association words and the remaining 30 were assigned "No" evaluations. The recording forms (Appendix D) were then surreptitiously marked accordingly. Each form had a random assignment of "recorder" responses or evaluations, and the confederate merely responded for each of S's associations depending on how the given form was marked for that trial. In other words, the confederate made no independent evalu- ations of the subject's associations, but merely responded according to a predetermined random pattern of "Yes" and "No" responses, and thus each S_was exposed to the same percentage of positive and negative confederate evaluations. The confederate did record all of the various responses made by the subject. The positive self- evaluations emitted, evaluation disagreements with S, and self-rewards administered constituted the data to be analyzed. Immediately following the word association task each S was requested to complete a final procedure assess- ment form and was then debriefed regarding his experience and the nature of the experiment. The confederate decep- tion was also revealed and it was requested that S not discuss his experience with anyone who would be partici- pating in the future. 28 Design A 2x2x3 factorial design consisting of two levels of Interpersonal Anxiety Reduction, two levels of Overt Self-Reinforcement, and three levels of Self-Evaluation Reinforcement was used in this study. Each of the 48 subjects was assigned randomly to one of the 12 cells, thus providing four replications per cell. Control groups were provided for within each treatment variable, and an overall control group was included which received none of the three treatment experiences. The resulting design was both crossed and balanced, and allowed for a three-way analysis of variance. A graphic representation is shown in Table 2.2. Hypotheses The following testable hypotheses were formulated in order to test the different treatment effects and interactions: Hol: Those Ss who receive the interpersonal anxiety reduction treatment will give no more positive self-evaluations during the word association judgment task than those Ss who do not receive the anxiety reduc— Eion treatment. Ho - Those 53 who receive the interpersonal anxiety reduction treatment will disagree with the confederate's evaluations during the word association judgment task no more frequently than those Ss who do not receive the anxiety reduction treatment. Ho3a: Those 55 who receive positive reinforcement for their above average general self- evaluations will give no more positive TABLE 2.2.--Experimental Design. (N = 48) Interpersonal Anxiety Reduction Self-Evaluation Reinforcement Overt Self- Reinforcement Evaluations Disagreements Self-Rewards Relaxation Above average Self- reinforcement 4 subjects per cell No self- reinforcement Control Self- reinforcement No self- reinforcement Below average Self- reinforcement No self- reinforcement Control Above average Self- reinforcement No self- reinforcement Control Self- reinforcement No self- reinforcement Below average Self- reinforcement No self- reinforcement HO HO HO Ho HO HO 3b: 6a 6b: 30 self-evaluations during the word associ- ation judgment task than those 83 who either receive no reinforcement—for any of their general self-evaluations or receive positive reinforcement for their below average general self-evaluations. Those Ss who receive no reinforcement for any of their general self-evaluations will give no more positive self-evaluations during the word association judgment task than those Ss who receive positive rein- forcement for their below average general self-evaluations. Those Ss who are allowed to administer overt self-reinforcers following their self- evaluations during the word association judgment task will give no more positive self-evaluations than those who are not provided with the overt source of self- reinforcers. Those Ss who receive the interpersonal anxiety reduction treatment will administer no more self-rewards during the word asso- ciation judgment task than those 88 who do not receive the anxiety reduction treat- ment. Those Ss who receive positive reinforcement for their above average general self- evaluations will administer no more self- rewards during the word association judgment task than those Ss who either receive no reinforcement for any of their general self-evaluations or receive posi- tive reinforcement for their below average general self-evaluations. Those Ss who receive no reinforcement for any of_their general self—evaluations will administer no more self-rewards during the word association judgment task than those 85 who receive positive reinforcement for {heir below average general self-evalu- ations. There will be no interaction effects among the different treatment group combinations in terms of their positive self-evaluations, evaluation disagreements with the confeder- ate, or self-rewards administered. CHAPTER III RESULTS During each word association judgment task pro- cedure, the confederate recorded all participant responses including subject word associations, self-evaluations, and mode ("reward" or "no reward" chip) of self-reinforcement when applicable, as well as confederate evaluation judg— ments. The data to be analyzed were then compiled from the recording forms and consisted of (S) frequency of positive subject self-evaluations (Table 3.1), (S) fre- quency of evaluation disagreements between subject and confederate (Table 3.2), and (3) frequency of self- administered "reward" chips (SRs) (Table 3.3). The measurement procedure involved 50 trials and thus each S had the opportunity to make as many as 50 positive self-evaluations, disagreements with confederate evalu- ations, and "reward" self-reinforcements, or as few as zero . Treatment Effects A three-way analysis of variance procedure was used to assess treatment influences on the dependent vari- able, positive self-evaluations. The main effects and interactions are presented in Table 3.4. 31 32 TABLE 3.l.--Positive Evaluation Means for All Treatment Groups. Above Control Below SR NSR SR NSR SR NSR Relaxation 28.50 31.75 28.00 24.00 29.00 28.50 Control 25.50 32.00 25.50 30.00 29.25 29.50 TABLE 3.2.--Interpersonal Anxiety Reduction Treatment Means for Total Evaluation Disagreements. Treatment Group E Relaxation 18.08 Control 18.28 TABLE 3.3.--Self-Reinforcement Means for All Treatment Groups. .4. Above Control Below Anxiety Reduction 29.50 34.75 28.25 Control 24.50 21.75 29.00 33 TABLE 3.4.--Analysis of Variance Summary for Positive Evaluations. F Source of Variation df MS Statistic P < A (Anxiety Reduction) 1 1.33 '.03 .86 B (Reinforcement) 2 30.65 .69 .51 C (Self-reinforcement) l 33.33 .75 .39 AB 2 10.02 .22 .80 AC 1 52.08 1.17 .29 BC 2 31.02 .70 .51 ABC 2 15.65 .35 .71 Error 36 It can be seen from these results that no group differences reached a significant level, and thus the three independent treatment variables, interpersonal anxiety reduction, self-evaluation reinforcement, and overt self-reinforcement availability, were not shown to affect significantly the frequency of positive self- evaluations. The following research hypotheses, then, could not be rejected: Hol: Those Ss who receive the interpersonal anxiety reduction treatment will give no more positive self-evaluations during the word association judgment task than those Ss who do not receive the anxiety reduc- tion treatment. 34 H03 : Those 85 who receive positive reinforcement a for thEir above avera e en ral self- 9 g e evaluations will give no more positive self- evaluations during the word association judgment task than those 83 who either receive no reinforcement fer any of their general self-evaluations or receive positive reinforcement for their below average gen- eral self-evaluations. Ho3b: Those Ss who receive no reinforcement for any of their general self-evaluations will give no more positive self-evaluations dur- ing the word association judgment task than those 85 who receive positive reinforcement for thEir below average general self- evaluations. Ho - Those Ss who are allowed to administer overt self-reinforcers following their self- evaluations during the word association judgment task will give no more positive self-evaluations than those who are not provided with the overt source of self- reinforcers. Although there were no statistical self-evaluation reinforcement treatment differences, the data did show a tendency for both the "above average" and "below average" reinforcement groups to give more positive self-evaluations than the controls as well as a slight tendency for the "above average" group to give positive self-evaluations more frequently than the "below average" group (Table 3.1). A one-way analysis of variance procedure was used to evaluate the effect of the interpersonal anxiety reduc- tion treatment upon the frequency of the subject's disagreeing with confederate evaluations. Analysis of the total subject-confederate disagreements (Table 3.5) indicated that the relaxation treatment procedure did not produce differences which achieved significance. 35 TABLE 3.5.-+Ana1ysis of Variance Summary for Total Evalu- ation Disagreements (Interpersonal Anxiety Reduction). Source of F Variation SS df MS Statistic P < Between .52 l .52 .03 .87 Within 864.79 46 18.80 Total 865.31 47 Subject-confederate disagreements were further ana- lyzed in terms of "Yes—No" disagreements (frequency of S disagreements with confederate's positive or favorable subject evaluations) and "No-Yes" disagreements (frequency of S disagreements with confederate's negative or unfavor- able subject evaluations). These means are presented in Tables 3.6 and 3.7, respectively. Since the confederate gave 30 unfavorable and 20 favorable association evalu- ations during the measurement procedure, each subject had more frequent opportunities to disagree with confederate judgments of themselves which were negative; i.e., there were more potential "No-Yes" disagreements. Results of the "Yes-No" and "No-Yes" disagreement analyses (Tables 3.8 and 3.9) similarly revealed no sig- nificant treatment group differences, and thus the relevant research hypothesis was not rejected. TABLE 3.6.--Interpersonal Anxiety Reduction Treatment Means for "Yes-No" Evaluation Disagreements. ~J—- Treatment Group Y Relaxation 4.67 Control 4.75 TABLE 3.7.--Interpersonal Anxiety Reduction Treatment Means for "No-Yes" Evaluation Disagreements. Treatment Group E Relaxation 13.42 Control 13.54 TABLE 3.8.-—Analysis of Variance Summary for "Yes-No" Disagreements (Interpersonal Anxiety Reduc— tion). Source of F Variation SS df MS Statistic P < Between .08 l .08 .01 .91 Within 317.83 46 6.91 Total 317.92 47 37 TABLE 3.9.--Ana1ysis of Variance Summary for "No-Yes" Disagreements (Interpersonal Anxiety Reduc- tion). Source of F Variation SS df MS Statistic P < Between .19 1 .19 .01 .93 Within 1131.79 46 24.60 Total 1131.98 47 H02: Those 85 who receive the interpersonal anxiety reduction treatment will disagree with the confederate's evaluations during the word association judgment task no more frequently than those Ss who do not receive the anxiety reduction treatment. Following each word assocation evaluation, one-half the subjects were given an overt self-reinforcement (SR) Option in the form of "reward" or "no reward" poker chips. The effect of the interpersonal anxiety reduction and self-evaluation reinforcement treatments on these SR response rates was of interest and was assessed via two-way analysis of variance (Table 3.10). Results of this procedure indicated that the self- evaluation reinforcement treatment group differences did not reach a significant level and the corresponding hypotheses, then, could not be rejected. Those Ss who receive positive reinforcement for their above average general self- evaluations will administer no more self- rewards during the word association judgment Ho6a: 38 TABLE 3.10.——Analysis of Variance Summary for Reward Chips (SRs) Administered. . . F Source of Variation SS df MS Statistic A (Anxiety Reduction) 181.50 1 181.50 5.49* B (Reinforcement) 16.33 2 8.17 0.25 AB 211.00 2 105.50 3.19 Error 595.00 18 33.06 *P < .05. task than those 85 who either receive no reinforcement f0? any of their general self— evaluations or receive positive reinforcement for their below average general self- evaluations. Those Ss who receive no reinforcement for any of-their general self-evaluations will administer no more self-rewards during the word association judgment task than those Ss who receive positive reinforcement for Eheir below average general self-evaluations. Ho6b: The interpersonal anxiety reduction treatment group differences, however, did reach significance, indicating that the relaxation treatment group members administered more reward chips (SRs) than the control group members. The following research hypothesis was consequently rejected: Hos: Those Ss who receive the interpersonal anxiety reduction treatment will administer no more self-rewards during the word asso- ciation judgment task than those 83 who do not receive the anxiety reduction treat- ment. 39 No treatment variable interaction effects reached significance, and thus the interaction hypothesis could not be rejected. H07: There will be no interaction effects between the different treatment group combinations in terms of their positive self-evaluations, evaluation disagreements with the confederate, or self-rewards administered. In order to provide some measure of the interper- sonal anxiety reduction treatment effectiveness, subjects were instructed to assess their level of perceived anxiety on a continuum scale ranging from severe anxiety to no anxiety prior to and following the treatment procedure. Group means resulting from this procedure are reported in Table 3.11. Analysis of these self-report data (millimeter change toward increased relaxation) indicated (Table 3.12) that the anxiety reduction or relaxation group reported significantly greater relaxation following the treatment procedure than did the control group. TABLE 3.11.--Self—Report Anxiety Reduction Index* Means. _“ ~-<. -m- Anxiety Reduction 9.25 Control 4.54 *Millimeters change toward increased relaxation. 40 TABLE 3.12.-—Analysis of Variance Summary for Self- Reported Anxiety Reduction. v.— a Source of F Variation SS df MS Statistic P < Between 462.52 1 462.52 4.82 .03 Within 4413.29 46 95.94 Total 4875.81 47 Procedure evaluation was ostensibly an integral part of the subject's "job" as explained in the instruc- tions, and thus evaluation forms were necessary to maintain the credibility or believability of the project rationale. These forms also provided the self-report anxiety measure and were employed to monitor each subject's continued c00perative or conscientious attitude or orientation. A final post-experimental form was used to determine to some degree the subject's insight or level of understanding of covert procedural goals, i.e., "experiment wiseness," as well as the confederate deception. Eleven subjects stated that they were aware of the potential confederate influence on their evaluation responses during the word association judgment task proce- dure. These Ss, however, were relatively evenly distributed among all treatment groups (Table 3.13). Two subjects expressed suspicion of the ostensibly peer status of the confederate prior to or during the word 41 TABLE 3.13.--Treatment Group Distribution of "Aware" Ss. Treatment Variable Group Aware Ss Relaxation 7 AnXiety reduction Control 4 Above 3 Self-evaluation reinforcement Control 4 Below 4 SR 6 Self-reinforcement NSR 5 association judgment task. These Ss had both been assigned to the interpersonal anxiety reduction control group and the self—evaluation reinforcement below average group. One was in the SR and one in the NSR self- reinforcement group. Summary The formulated research hypotheses were tested via analysis of variance procedures with the following results. It was found that interpersonal anxiety reduction group (relaxation-control) differences were not significant with respect to (3) positive self-evaluations, and (S) evaluation disagreements. The relaxation group, however, administered significantly more frequent self-rewards than the control group, and also reported a greater degree 42 of relaxation following the anxiety reduction treatment procedure. No significant differences were shown for self- evaluation reinforcement groups (above—control-below) with respect to either (3) positive self-evaluations, or (S) self-reinforcements. Overt self-reinforcement groups (SR-NSR) were found not to differ significantly with respect to positive self-evaluations. No independent variable interactions reached a significant level. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION Conclusions Results of this study relate to two