The Role of Behavioral Versus Cognitive Variables in ... - Science Direct

BEHAVIORTHERAPY20, 293-302, 1989

The Role of Behavioral Versus Cognitive Variables in Skill Acquisition RUSSELLT.

JONES

THOMAS H . OLLENDICK

FRANK. SmNSKE Vwgmm Polytechmc Institute and State Umverslty of Blacksburg, Vtrgmla Three training procedures (behavioral, elaborative-behavioral, elaborative) were assessed for relauve effectiveness in the acquisition of fire emergency skills, and attainment of knowledge. Each of the training groups was compared to attention and notreatment control groups. We hypothesized that the elaborative-behavioral condlt~on would produce the greatest level of skill and knowledge acquismon. Further, it was predicted that the elaboration alone condition would result in greater levels of knowledge than would the behavioral alone condition and that the behavioral alone condition would lead to greater behavioral performance than the elaborative alone condlnon. Sixty-four second- and third-grade children were randomly assigned to conditions. Their performance on dependent measures was assessed prior to and immediately following training. Results demonstrated a sigmficantly higher level of fire emergency skdl acquismon for the elaborat~ve-behavioral and behavioral alone groups relative to the elaboration alone, attention control, and no-training groups. A h~gher level of knowledge was evidenced by the elaborative-behavioral group and the elaboratwe alone groups, relative to the remaining groups. The value of elaborative-behavioral training in producing changes on behavioral and cognitive variables was demonstrated.

A variety of learning-based procedures have been developed over the past two decades. Token reinforcement (Kazdin, 1977), contingency management (Homme, 1965), self-reinforcement (Jones, Nelson, & KaTdin, 1977) and selfinstruction (Meichenbaum, 1977) are among the more effective procedures.

Special thanks are extended to the following people for their roles of trainer or assessor: Thadeus Arrington, Holton Austin, Elizabeth Bowdring, Michael Fiore, Kim Gardner, Robert Garner, Jennifer Gault, Sharon Grossman, Frank O. Hashlgushi, James Hay, Cynthia Homer, Rhonda Hunter, Sonnie Klm, Akemi Martin, Debbie McCarthy, Sandy McGuire, Pare Moore, Jean Morrissey, Pamela Neal, Jennifer Perkinson, Lori St. Clair, Jennifer Silsby, and Dell Whlsonant. Reprint requests should be addressed to Russell T. Jones, Psychology Department, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Umverslty, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0436. 293 0005-7894/89/0293-030251 00/0 Copyright 1989 by Association for Advancementof Behavior Therapy All rights of reproduction m any form reserved.

294

JONES, OLLENDICK AND SHINSKE

At the conceptual level, these procedures have fallen along a behavioral to cognitive-behavioral continuum, whereas at the applied level, they have targeted behavioral, cognitive or a combination of cognitive and behavioral variables. Although compelling arguments for each approach have been made, the most effective procedures appear to be those which incorporate both dimensions (Kendall & Hollon, 1979). One such procedure, found to be effective in enhancing behavioral, as well as cognitive skills, is elaborative rehearsal (Hillman, Jones, & Farmer, 1986; Jones, Hillman, & Farmer, 1984). Elaborative rehearsal in its most basic form is defined as rehearsal with reworking and elaboration (Craik & Watkins, 1973). It has been hypothesized that this type of rehearsal is necessary to fix items in long-term memory. ConceptuaUy, it is maintained that a greater level of learning and subsequent retention will be forthcoming because reworking of items (i.e., asking questions, making associations, and creating images) leads to greater levels of processing. Elaborative rehearsal, as applied to emergency responding in fire situations, consisted of: (1) questions about the skills to be acquired; (2) explanations as to "why" certain responses were correct; (3) summarization of how each correct response would assist in safe evacuation, and (4) additional opportunity for each child to ask questions concerning the information followed by the trainer elaborating on the correct answer if necessary. In our past work, this procedure has typically been used in combination with behavioral rehearsal whereby children have been taught behavioral responses and are then provided the rationale for each response. In a series of studies, the superiority of this procedure in the development and maintenance of emergency skills has been demonstrated (Hillman et al., 1986; Jones et al., 1984; Jones, Ollendick, McLaughlin, & Williams, in press). Notwithstanding the effectiveness of this procedure, we have yet to test out the effects of elaborative rehearsal alone. It is not clear to what extent elaborative rehearsal depends on behavioral rehearsal to affect behavioral change, or whether elaborative rehearsal alone, in the absence of behavioral rehearsal, is effective. An equally compelling question is whether elaborative rehearsal produces both behavioral and cognitive change. That is, we do not know whether its effects are limited to specific response modalities at this time. The present investigation was carried out to determine the relative contribution of the elaborative and behavioral components in this procedure. Separate, as well as additive effects, were examined.

METHOD Subjects In a small university community in southwestern Virginia, 64 children (32 boys and 32 girls) from middle-class neighborhoods participated. All children were enrolled in second or third grade (ranging in age from 7 to 10) and were randomly assigned to the elaborative-behavioral (n = 12), elaborative (n = 12), behavioral (n = 14), attention control (n = 15), and no training (n = 11) conditions. Each group consisted of approximately equal numbers of second and third graders. While all subjects attended normal classrooms, informa-

SKIH ACQUISITION

295

tion on specific intellectual levels was unavailable. Parental permission was obtained.

Setting and Apparatus A simulated bedroom furnished with a cot, a throw rug, a chair, an article of clothing (shirt), an E-Z tilt window, a pictorial representation of fire, an alarm, and a blow dryer was set up in the school. Social Validation and Task Analysis Three situations were chosen from the nine original fire escape situations described in Jones, Kazdin, & Haney (1981). They were: "nothing blocking the path," "fire blocking the path," and "hot air rushing through the crack in the door" (see Figure 1). Each situation was socially validated by expert judges and trained firefighters (see Jones et al., 1981). Procedure Four undergraduate psychology majors were systematically taught to administer the fire safety skills training procedure. After learning target responses and how to assess them accurately, they practiced in simulated sessions over a three-week period. During this time, each individual role-played the appropriate behaviors to be carried out by both the trainer and the children. After several practice sessions, one undergraduate would role-play a child who intentionally made various mistakes, while another undergraduate individually assessed the role-played child's behavioral responding. Mastery of the training procedure was obtained when individuals carried out the procedure with no errors during three consecutive sessions. The trainers conducted training sessions which took place in small groups of two to four children, over three consecutive days. Each session lasted approximately one hour. Each trainer was randomly assigned to two of the four experimental conditions. Within each of the four experimental conditions, subjects were divided into five smaller groups. Subjects were subsequently trained in these smaller groups. Common Elements of Behavioral and Elaborative-Behavioral Training. Common elements of the behavioral and elaborative-behavioral training procedures will be described first, followed by a description of dements which differed among the four experimental conditions. During the first day of training, children in both the behavioral condition and the elaborative-behavior condition were informed of the target situation for that day (i.e., Day 1: "nothing blocking your path"). Second, the trainer modeled skills, and children were encouraged and praised for attending. While modeling behaviors, the trainer briefly described each response and its topography. Each child performed each step, following the trainer's modeling. Specific feedback about performance was provided. More specifically, if an error was committed during the sequence of responses, the child was immediately stopped and instructed to observe the trainer who role-played the correct response once again. The response was then performed a second time. If an error occurred, it was again modeled by the trainer and the child was requested to perform it one additional time. If

296


Cue

Slide co gdBe of Bed. Roll

Out. Assume

Crawl

Position W

Crawl to Door ~eel Door qF Yes

JJ

Open Window, Wave Shirt,

/

Call for Help W

No

Brace Door Open 2" qY

@/,o

Yes

Check Air

~

W

-

~ Hot Air

/ Yes

j~

\

Close Door, Cover Crack, Crawl to Window, Open Window, Call for Relp

V

No

Open Door Wider

BeginCrawling to Outside Door

[ Yes

~

to

dron.N

Close Door, \ Cover Crack,

crawl to Window, Open Window, 1 Wave S h i r t , ~Call for Help

/

V gn Crawl to Outside Door Open Door

Exit

Wait in

Yard

FIt~. 1. A flow chart analysis of emergency escape skills in the home and at night. Diamonds represent the decision points; rectangles represent the responses, and ovals represent the termination points. an error was committed during this trial, the child was simply corrected verbally and instructed to move on to the following step in the sequence. Correct responses resulted in verbal praise.

Experimental Conditions Behavioral Condition. During the first half o f each session, the children practiced the behavioral steps outlined above. Then, they were provided addi-

SKill ACQUISITION

297

tional fire safety facts from a commercially produced booklet for the remainder of the session. All children were provided an opportunity to respond to a number of relevant questions (i.e., "What is the best way to get out of your bedroom in case of fire?"). If they were unable to respond correctly, the correct answer was provided. However, specific explanations as to why certain behaviors should be practiced were not provided. Additionally, they were not asked to repeat correct answers. Elaborative-Behavioral Condition. Children in this condition practiced the behavioral steps (described above) during the first half of training and performed the elaborative practice for the remaining half of training (see below). Elaborative Condition. Elaborative rehearsal consisted of four steps: (1) questions pertaining to each step in the sequence of responses were asked to each child; (2) explanations for correct responses were provided; (3) the children were asked to repeat the correct responses, and (4) each child was given the opportunity to ask questions concerning the above-cited information. More specifically, all steps in each sequence were practiced. For example, on day one of training, the 11 steps in the "nothing blocking your path" sequence were practiced. The following steps were carried out: (1) In a group situation the trainer would ask "Why should you roll out of bed and get into a crawl position?" (2) All subjects were given an opportunity to respond. (3) The correct answer was provided by the trainer, and a pictorial representation of the correct response was presented (i.e., "Firemen tell us that you should: roll out of bed and get into a crawl position because it helps you to see better and breathe better."). (4) All subjects were asked to repeat the correct answer. (5) Subjects were then asked why the correct behavior assisted in safe evacuation (i.e., Why does rolling out of bed and getting into a crawl position help you to see and breathe better?). (6) Subjects were given an opportunity to respond. (7) The answer was then verbally provided by the trainer (i.e., "Because smoke rises to the ceiling, and makes it hard to breath, and see when you stand up."). (8) All subjects were then requested to repeat the correct answer. (9) Subjects were given the opportunity to ask any questions concerning the above information. Children practiced responding to these questions for the first 30 minutes of the session and then engaged in discussion of general fire safety facts for the remaining 30 minutes. Attention Control. Children in this group spent the entire training period discussing general fire safety facts. Relevant questions were asked of the children, and the opportunity to answer was provided. Correct answers were provided for incorrect or unanswered questions, but reasons as to why certain behaviors should be performed were not discussed. The length of training was the same as for the other training groups. No-Treatment Control These children received the behavioral and knowledge assessments at pre-and post-test periods. No training was provided.

298


ASSESSMENT

Pre-training All children were assessed individually on their behavioral responding. More specifically each child was escorted by a designated "runner" to one of three simulated bedrooms. After introducing him/herself to the child, the assessor gave the child a tour of his/her simulated bedroom/house. Each child was shown each piece of furniture in the room (i.e., "This is your bed"; "This is your window.") by the assessor and then asked to follow h i m / h e r out of the r o o m where the "hallway," "stairs," and "front door" were pointed out. At this point, the child's overt behavior was objectively assessed. Initially, the child was told to "lie down on the cot," after which the assessor left the room for approximately one minute to place the appropriate cue in the hallway. For example, while in the hallway, a picture of fire was placed approximately three feet from the bedroom door when assessing Situation 1 (fire in your path). For each of the three situations, different cues (e.g., actual warm air, picture of a fire) became evident as children reached certain points in the burning house. Once the assessor returned to the room, the child was read the following instructions: "You're lying in bed and you smell smoke. Your eyes are not burning, and you are not coughing. You hear the sound of a fire a l a r m bzzz. Show me everything you would do." The child was then given the opportunity to show the assessor what he/she would do in this situation (e.g., roll out of bed, crawl to door and feel it). During this time, the assessor objectively assessed the child's behavioral performance. More specifically, only those responses which were performed properly and which occurred in the correct sequence were scored as correct. For example, in order to get the response of "feeling the top of the door" correct, the child had to first roll out of bed, crawl to the door, and feel the bottom of the door with the back of his hand. To determine individual scores, one point was given for each correct response in sequence; the three situation totals were summed for an overall score, and the percentage of correct responses was calculated. No feedback or praise was provided during assessment. Once the child indicated that he/she was finished, the assessor told the child to lie down on the cot so that the second and third situations could be similarly assessed. Further, each child was individually administered a knowledge test which consisted of four factual knowledge questions (i.e., "What would you do if you smelled smoke in your b e d r o o m and your bedroom door was hot?"), with each followed by a question about the rationale for their answer (i.e., "Why?"). The children's responses were tape-recorded, as well as written by the experimenter. The children were permitted 60 seconds for each knowledge question and 30 seconds for each rationale. I f there was no response to questions within five seconds, a prompt was provided (i.e., "Do you know why?"). Total scores for the knowledge test could range from 0 to 16.

Post-training Immediately following the last training session on day three, post-training assessments on the behavioral and knowledge measures were obtained.

s K t t J ACQUISITION

299

Reliability. Fifteen undergraduate psychology majors served as observers. Observers were trained in small groups over a two-week period. Reliability data on correct responding in the simulated fire situations were obtained during 20°70 of the pre- and post-test assessment sessions. Inter-rater reliability was 86070 (range 71070 to 100070) across the three situations, while inter-rater reliability for scoring of the self-report knowledge test was 97% for one-third of the responses. All reliabilities were calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the sum total of agreements and disagreements and multiplying by 100 to form a percentage. Adherence to Training Procedures. One independent rater observed onethird of the training sessions to evaluate trainers' adherence to the prescribed procedures. More specifically, an undergraduate psychology major was trained to identify the major elements of the training procedure in each of the four experimental conditions. During unannounced visits to two training sessions in each of the four experimental conditions, objective assessment was carried out. For example, in the elaborative-behavioral rehearsal condition, a checklist containing the following components was used: introduction, modeling, behavioral rehearsal, corrective feedback, rationale provided, rationale reported, and questions asked. A dichotomous scoring system was used, whereby the rater indicated whether each of the training components was engaged, determined by the number of components observed by the rater during her observation of the training session. All elements of training were observed during each of the eight observations carried out. Therefore, the quality of adherence to each of the training procedures was 100070.

RESULTS Behavioral Responses First, the effects of type of rehearsal on the acquisition of fire emergency skills were examined. A 5 (Groups- Elaborative-Behavioral, Elaborative, Behavioral, Attention Control, No Training) × 2 (Time-Pre, Post) ANOVA disclosed a significant main effect for time which was qualified by a significant Group x Time interaction (F(4,59) = 107.03, p < .0001). A student's NewmanKeuls post-hoe test at pre-training indicated no group differences; however, at post-training the same test showed that the elaborative-behavioral group and the behavioral alone group surpassed the elaborative alone, attention control, and no training groups, which did not differ from one another. In addition, the elaborative-behavioral group was superior to the behavioral alone group (see Table 1).

Self-Report Responses A similar analysis was then conducted for the knowledge questionnaire. A main effect for time was qualified by a Group x Time interaction effect (F(4,59) = 5.03, p < .0015). Newman-Kuels analyses at pre-training indicated no differences, whereas at post-training, they revealed that the elaborative-behavioral

300

JONES, OLLENDICK AND SHINSKE TABLE 1 MEAN PERCENT CORRECT AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE BEHAVIORALAND KNOWLEDGE MEASURES Elab/Beh

Measure Behav. Know.

Pre

Post

Beh only Pre

Post

Elab only Pre

Post

Att Con Pre

Post

Con Pre

Post

04 (08) 91 (18) 04 (07) 66 (24) 08 (08) 12 (09) 05 (07) 03 (03) 03 (06) 06 (04) 12 (12) 61 (4) 7(10) 27 (20) 13 (12) 48 (34) 5 (9) 14 (12) 6(9) 17 (25)

and the elaborative alone groups were superior to the behavioral alone, attention control, and no training groups, which did not differ from one another.

DISCUSSION The relative impact of the elaborative and behavioral components of the elaborative rehearsal procedure was examined: Our major finding demonstrates the additive effects of elaborative-behavioral rehearsal in the acquisition of emergency skills. Children in the elaborative-behavioral condition performed significantly better on the emergency skill test than children in the other conditions. Hence, both the behavioral and cognitive components seem to be important in producing maximal behavior change, consistent with our earlier findings (Hillman et al., 1986; Jones et al., 1984; Williams & Jones, 1989). It was also demonstrated that the acquisition of knowledge about performance requirements was enhanced through information alone. That is, only those subjects in the elaborative alone and elaborative-behavioral conditions, who were specifically provided a rationale for specific behavioral steps, mastered the knowledge test. Moreover, children in the elaborative alone condition were as effective in acquiring knowledge as those in the elaborative-behavioral condition. Yet, the attainment of knowledge alone was not sufficient to ensure behavioral performance of the designated steps. Thus, the most effective procedure for acquiring knowledge about the steps and their actual performance was the elaborative-behavioral condition. Given the demonstrated effectiveness of the elaborative condition and its potential for producing desired change, Jones and his colleagues have integrated this cognitively based procedure with more behaviorally based techniques. This integrative procedure developed by Jones (Jones & Randall, 1987) draws heavily from both behavioral and cognitive conceptualiTations. This procedure, coined "rehearsal-plus," consists of: (1) a behavioral component where behavioral techniques are used to foster desired skills which are subsequently rehearsed, and (2) a cognitive component, namely elaborative rehearsal, where specific cognitive processes (i.e., appraisal, attributions, expectations, beliefs) are modified through reworking of information, which subsequently enhances learning, retention, and appreciation of such skills. While a variety of behavior-change procedures have used cognitive aids in introducing new information, they often

Stott

ACQUISITION

301

are not accompanied by any governing conceptual scheme (Rosenthal & Downs, 1985). The rehearsal-plus procedure is clearly derived from behavioral and cognitive conceptualizations. While initial empirical evidence exists demonstrating the effectiveness of the rehearsal-plus procedure (Jones & Randall, 1987; Jones, McDonald, Fiore, Arrington, & Randall, 1988), further investigation is warranted to determine its conceptual contribution to the development and maintenance of a variety of skills and procedures. In summary, this study demonstrates the importance of both behavioral and cognitive modalities in acquiring skills needed to function properly in an emergency situation. Research examining the impact of these components on the maintenance of these skills is presently underway. Future research should examine additional applications. We suggest that procedures engaging both behavioral and cognitive components can be applied to a wide range of psychological problems. For example, while rehearsal-plus has been shown to be successful in enhancing evacuation skills (Jones & Randall, 1987), drug refusal behavior (Jones et al., 1988), and fear reduction (Jones & Randall, 1987), it is by no means limited to these areas. It may be applied to any danger or stressful situation where reasoned action is needed. Given that fear and anxiety often contribute to fatalities in disasters (Jones, 1986; Jones & McDonald, 1986), this procedure may be instrumental in helping victims "keep their cool." Additionally, children under stress, at risk, or vulnerable to various environmental hazards may benefit from its application.

REFERENCES Cralk, F. I. M., & Watkins, M. J. (1973). The role of rehearsal in short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 599-607. Hillman, H. S., Jones, R. T., & Farmer, L. (1986). The acquismon and maintenance of fire emergency skills: Effects of rationale and behavioral practice. Journal o f Pedtatrtc Psychology, //, 247-258. Homme, L. E. (1965). Perspectives in psychology: XXIV. Control of coverants, the operants of the mind. Psychological Record, 15, 501-511. Jones, R. T. (1986). Disaster research: In quest of a research paradigm. Symposium chaired at the American Psychological Association Convention, Washington, DC. Jones, R. T., Hdlman, H., & Farmer, L. (1984). Memory processing and overlearning in the acquismon and maintenance of fire safety skills. Presented at the 18th Annual Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy Convention, Philadelphia. Jones, R. T., Kazdin, A. E., & Haney, J. T. (1981). Social validation and training of emergency fire safety skills for potential injury prevention and life saving. Journal ofApphed Behavlor Analysis, 14, 249-260. Jones, R. T., & McDonald, D. W. (1986). Childhood injury: A prevention model for intervention. Education and Treatment o f Children, 9, 307-319. Jones, R. T., McDonald, D. W., Fiore, M. F., Arrington, T., & Randall, J. (in press). A primary preventive approach to children's drug refusal behavior: The impact of rehearsal-plus. Journal

o f Pediatrtc Psychology. Jones, R. T., Nelson, R. E., & Kazdm, A. E. (1977). The role of external variables in selfreinforcement: A review. Behavior Modification, 1, 147-178. Jones, R. T., OUendick, T. H., McLaughlin, K. J., & Wilhams, C. E. (in press). Elaboration and

302


behavioral rehearsal in the acquisition of fire emergency skills and the reduction of fear of fire. Behavior Therapy. Jones, R. T., & Randall, J. 0987). Role of rehearsal-plus on children's coping with stressful events. Unpublished manuscript, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Kazdin, A. E. (1977). The token economy: A revtew and evaluation. New York: Plenum. Kendall, P. C., & HoUon, S. D. (1979). Cognitive-behavioral interventions: Overview and current status. In P. C. Kendall & S. D. Hollon (Eds.), Cogmtive-behavioral interventions: Theory, research, and procedures. New York: Academic Press. Meichenbaum, D. H. (1977). Cognitive behavior modification. New York: Plenum. Rosenthal, T. L., & Downs, A. (1985). Cognitive aids in teaching and treating. Advances in Behaviour Reseamh and Therapy, 7, 1-53. Williams, C. E., & Jones, R. T. (1989). Impact of self-instructions on response maintenance and children's fear of fire. Journal o f Chnical Chdd Psychology, 18, 84-89. RECEIVED: September 20, 1988 FINAL ACCEPTANCE: November 7, 1988