in State College, Pennsylvania and at Bellefonte and Marion-Walker El- ementary Schools in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania for their participation in and support of ...
Copyright 1987 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022.006X/87/$00.75
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1987, Vol. 55, No. 2,194-200
Improving the Social Behavior and Peer Acceptance of Rejected Boys: Effects of Social Skill Training With Instructions and Prohibitions Karen Linn Bierman, Cindy L. Miller, and Sally D. Stabb Pennsylvania State University Thirty-two boys who were rejected by their peers in Grades 1-3 were identified on the basis of negative sociometric nominations and negative social behavior. They were randomly assigned to one of four treatment conditions: (a) instructions to promote positive social behavior, (b) prohibitions to reduce negative social behavior, (c) a combination of instructions and prohibitions, or (d) no treatment. Interventions were applied during 10 half-hour school play sessions. Behavioral observations and peer and teacher ratings were collected prior to treatment, immediately after treatment, and at a follow-up assessment 6 weeks after treatment. Additional peer and teacher ratings were collected at a I-year follow-up. Prohibitions combined with a response cost for negative behaviors resulted in immediate and stable declines in negative behavior and led to temporary increases in positive responses received from peers. Instructions and the reinforcement of specific social skills promoted sustained positive peer interactions 6 weeks after treatment. Only the combination of instructions and prohibitions led to improved sociometric ratings from nontarget treatment partners.
Peer-rejected grade school children are often disruptive and
teaching them to use nonaversive behavioral strategies to solve
aggressive socially (Coie & Dodge, 1983). Relative to their peeraccepted or peer-neglected classmates, rejected children are more likely to experience continued social problems, poor
conflicts and to acquire interpersonal attention and influence (Combs & Slaby, 1977). However, when Coie and Krehbiel (1984) used skill training with socially rejected children, they
school adjustment, loneliness, and poor adult mental health (Ladd & Asher, 1985). Although social skill training may im-
observed no changes in classroom behavior and only partial improvements in sociometric ratings. Perhaps skill training pro-
prove the social adjustment of some unaccepted children, the effectiveness of such training for rejected children who show high rates of inappropriate and aversive social behaviors has not yet been established. In social skill training programs, instructions, modeling, and
grams would be more effective with rejected children if the negative behaviors of these children were targeted directly. In skill training programs, children may be asked to consider negative as well as positive examples of skill performance, and negative behaviors may be identified for modification during
discussions are used to teach children prosocial skill concepts such as participation, cooperation, and communication. Super-
specific consequences for negative behaviors are often not in-
vised peer interactions and supportive feedback then provide
cluded (Coie & Krehbiel, 1984; Ladd, 1981). Although gradual
opportunities to rehearse target skills (Ladd & Mize, 1983). When used with children who show low pretreatment rates of target skills, skill training often leads to increased skill performance and, consequently, to more positive peer responses and
skill acquisition may lead to gradual decreases in negative behavior, direct procedures such as time-out or response cost con-
feedback sessions. However, direct behavioral prohibitions or
tingent on the performance of specific negative behaviors should produce immediate
increased peer acceptance (Bierman, 1986; Bierman & Furman, 1984; Ladd, 1981).
reductions in these behaviors
(Brown & Elliott, 1965). Reduced rates of negative behaviors alone will not necessarily lead to increased prosocial interac-
Investigators have suggested that skill training may also bene-
tion or to improved peer acceptance (Drabman & Lahey, 1974;
fit children who exhibit high rates of negative social behavior by
Drabman, Spitalnik, & Spitalnik, 1974) but might facilitate further skill training. Indeed, instructions combined with prohibitions may produce different and complementary effects, with instructions and reinforcement increasing prosocial be-
This research was supported by a Scholars in Mental Health of Children grant awarded by the W. T. Grant Foundation to the first author. Appreciation is expressed to Robin Blair, Debbie Kycko, Nancy Micci, Annette Miller, Penny Pearson, and Kathy Aumiller for their assistance in data collection. We are also extremely grateful to the students and faculty at Ferguson, Park Forest, and Radio Park Elementary Schools in State College, Pennsylvania and at Bellefonte and Marion-Walker Elementary Schools in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania for their participation in and support of this project. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Karen Linn Bierman, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, 417 Moore Building, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802.
haviors and prohibitions and response cost procedures decreasing negative behaviors. The present study compared the effects of positive instructions and negative prohibitions in a social skill training program for socially negative, peer-rejected boys. Disliked first-, second-, and third-grade boys who showed high levels of negative social behavior during pretreatment observations were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (a) instructions and coaching in positive behaviors, (b) prohibitions and response cost for negative behaviors, (c) a combination of instructions
194
IMPROVING SOCIAL BEHAVIOR and prohibitions, or (d) no treatment. Interventions were implemented during 10 half-hour, supervised, small group play sessions, and treatment effects were assessed using behavioral observations and peer and teacher ratings. On the basis of previous research, it was postulated that instructions and coaching would increase children's positive behavior and perhaps, over time, lead to decreased negative behavior. In contrast, prohibitions and response cost procedures were expected to produce immediate decreases in negative behavior. The combination of instructions and prohibitions was expected to be the most effective treatment for this target population, producing both increases in socially skillful behavior and decreases in negative social behavior. Improved peer acceptance was expected only for boys who received this combined treatment.
Method Subjects Subjects were 32 boys in Grades 1-3 (mean age = 7 years, 7 months; range = 6 years, 1 month-10 years, 1 month). They were selected from a sample of 198 boys from four schools serving a rural, predominantly white, middle- to working-class population who received parental permission to participate in the study (out of a total sample of 260 boys invited to participate in the study). Subjects were selected in a twostep process. First, the 2-3 boys who received the most negative peer nominations in each of the 21 classrooms were observed in a playgroup setting (described in the following section). Of these 50 rejected boys, the 32 boys who displayed the highest levels of negative peer interaction were retained as target subjects. Additionally, 72 boys who scored below the median of their class in negative nominations were randomly selected to serve as treatment partners.
Measures Behavioral observations. Each target boy was observed for 8 min during each of two IS-min small group play sessions, providing a total of 16 min of observational data for each subject during each assessment period. The play groups included male classmates who had received parental permission to participate; each group included 5-12 boys (M = 9). In one session the boys constructed a group poster using felt pens and in the other they played with army men. Two observers were present at each session and watched each target boy for 1 min at a time, alternating between 6 s of observing and 6 s of recording behaviors. Additionally, 2-3 randomly selected nontarget classmates were observed for 1 min each during each play group. These observations were combined to provide 16 min of normative observational data for each group. Coding categories for play included (a) a positive designation, which comprised helping, sharing, and cooperative play and questions, praise, and the offering of suggestions, guidance or invitations; (b) a negative designation, which comprised verbal or physical aggression, disapproval of others, disagreement, threats, quarrels, noncompliance, and whining; (c) a neutral designation, which comprised all other talking and play behavior such as neutral statements, directives, and jokes; and (d) a nointeraction designation, which was coded if no peer interaction occurred during the 6-s interval. An interaction category was coded as initiated when the target child directed the behavior toward a peer and as received when a peer directed the behavior toward the target child. Two undergraduate assistants, naive to the purpose of the study and to the status of the boys, were trained as observers. The first author served as trainer and established estimates of interrater reliability. Ob-
195
servers coded videotapes of children's play groups until they reached a reliability criterion of .80, then coded recess interactions for practice prior to data collection. Throughout data collection, periodic checks on interrater reliability were made, and when necessary, booster training sessions were conducted. Interrater reliability was collected for 28% of all observations. Kappa coefficients were computed separately for each behavioral category on an interval by interval basis and ranged from .92 to .80, with a mean of .86. Aggression ratings. Peer ratings of aggression were made with an abridged version of the Pupil Evaluation Inventory (PEI; Pekarik, Prinz, Liebert, Weintraub, & Neale, 1976) that included 24 behavioral descriptors, including 10 descriptors for aggressive behavior. Boys were given each descriptor and were asked to nominate corresponding classmate names.' The total number of aggressive nominations received by each boy was divided by the number of raters and standardized within each class. Teacher ratings of aggression were made on the PEI and on the Abbreviated Teacher Rating Scale (ATRS; Conners, 1969), which consists of 10 items that describe disruptive classroom behaviors. On both of these scales, teachers gave each boy in their class a 0-3-point rating for each behavioral description (0 = not at all characteristic to 3 = very characteristic}. Total teacher PEI and ATRS scores were standardized within each class. Sociometric status. Boys rated each classmate on a 5-point scale according to how much they liked to play with that classmate (1 = not at all, never to 5 = very much, all the time). Boys also nominated up to 3 classmates they especially liked and up to 3 classmates they did not like. Play ratings and positive and negative nominations were totalled, divided by the number of raters, and standardized within each class. Additionally, partner sociometric ratings were computed separately to represent the play ratings and positive and negative nominations given to each target boy by the 3 peers who served as his treatment partners.
Procedure Assessment. Each boy participating in the study was interviewed individually by an undergraduate student who was naive to the status of the boy and to the purpose of the study. The boy was shown a roster of participating classmates and was asked to name each one. The interviewer then read aloud each PEI item, asking the boy to name any classmates on the roster who fit the description. The interviewer then requested up to three (but at least one) positive and negative nominations from the roster and also acquired play ratings for each boy on the roster. Teacher rating measures were distributed at the time of these child interviews and were collected 2 weeks later. Identical procedures were followed prior to treatment, immediately after treatment, and at a followup period 6 weeks after treatment. Additionally, at 1 year after treatment peer and teacher ratings were again collected to measure the social adjustment of target boys after they had made transitions to new classrooms. On the basis of the initial sociometric interviews, the 2-3 boys who received the most negative nominations in each class were observed for 16 min each during two play group sessions with male classmates. The 32 boys who had the highest negative behavioral scores (for both initiated and received interactions) were selected as target subjects. Posttreatment and follow-up play group sessions were identical to the pretreatment sessions.
' Nine items were deleted from the original PEI on the basis of lower factor loadings in the Pekarik, Prinz, Liebert, Weintraub, and Neale (197 6) study and to enable repeated assessments with young elementary children. Pilot testing suggested little difference between aggression ratings based on this abridged version of the PEI and ratings based on the original 35-item version.
196
K. BIERMAN, C. MILLER, AND S. STABB
Treatment. Within each school, boys were randomly assigned to one of four treatment conditions: (a) instructions, (b) prohibitions, (c) instructions and prohibitions, or (d) no treatment. Each of the treatment conditions consisted of 10 half-hour sessions during which a target child engaged in a series of cooperative tasks with nontarget classmates. Three nontarget classmates rotated as peer partners during treatment: one for the first 5 sessions, two for the next 4 sessions, and all three for the last session. The procedure of rotating partners and gradually increasing the size of the treatment group was designed to enhance the generalization of treatment effects to the naturalistic peer group. An adult coach was present at all treatment sessions to facilitate skill acquisition according to treatment condition. In the instructions condition, the adult began each session with a brief discussion, describing a target skill and eliciting behavioral examples from the group. The target skills were (a) questioning others (for information, clarification, and invitation), (b) helping (by giving support and suggestions) and cooperating in play, and (c) sharing (by sharing materials and taking turns). These skills were selected on the basis of developmental research linking them to social acceptance during the early grade school years (cf. Hartup. 1983) and on the basis of their inclusion in previous successful coaching programs (Ladd, 1981; Oden & Asher, 1977). Two activities designed to promote practice of specific target skills were then conducted, with brief pre- and postactivity skill reviews led by the adult coach. Activities included cooperative art projects, guessing games, constructive activities with blocks and clay, audiotaped interviews, playing with army men, and hide-and-seek. As the children played, the coach praised skill performance and rewarded each skillful behavior by labeling the behavior and placing a token in a cup marked with the child's name. (Although token reinforcement in not usually a part of skill training, it was included here to balance the use of tokens in the prohibition condition.) In the prohibition condition, the coach presented a set of rules to control the children's negative behavior during the sessions: no fighting or arguing, no yelling, no being mean, no whining or bad temper. Each session included the same cooperative activities used in the instruction condition. However, no instructions in specific skills were provided and no specific skills were rewarded. Instead, the coach provided nonspecific praise and delivered tokens on a random schedule as long as the children engaged in cooperative activities without violating any of the rules (e.g., "Good work, you're not breaking any rules"). Whenever a child violated one of the rules, the coach removed their cup for one min, temporarily removing the ability to earn tokens. Using this modification of the Foxx and Shapiro (1978) "time-out ribbon" technique, it was possible to levy a response cost for negative behaviors without reducing the amount of peer interaction. In the combined condition, the coach both instructed the children in the target skills and discussed the prohibitive rules. As in the instruction condition, pre- and postactivity reviews were used to provide children with feedback about their target skill performance, and the coach delivered praise and tokens whenever children demonstrated target skills. As in the prohibition condition, the coach also stressed the rules and removed a child's cup and ability to earn tokens for one min contingent on negative behavior. In all conditions, tokens were exchanged for a small snack at the end of each session.2
Results
ratings (M = .87), and on teacher ATRS scores (M = .64). Additionally, the target children revealed low standard scores on positive nominations (M = -.91) and play ratings (M = -.79). Generally, this sample fell in the upper 25% on aggression and peer rejection measures and in the lower 25% on peer acceptance measures. When compared with their nontarget peers, target boys initiated and received 3.5 times as many negative behaviors during pretreatment observations. Because target children were randomly assigned to treatment groups, no significant pretreatment differences were expected. However, a series of 2 (Instructions) X 2 (Prohibitions) analyses of variance (ANOVAS) conducted on the pretreatment dependent variables revealed two significant differences. Prior to treatment, boys in the prohibition condition received fewer negative behaviors from peers during play group observation sessions than boys in the other treatment conditions, F(l, 28) = 4.92, p < .05, M = 6.67 versus M = 10.38, and boys in the instruction condition received higher negative nomination scores than boys in the no treatment condition, F( 1,28) = 7.89, / > < . 0 1 , M = 1.33 versus M = . 77. To control for these group differences, pretreatment variables were used as covariates in the analyses of posttreatment and follow-up scores.3 The main effects of each treatment strategy (instructions and prohibitions) were of major interest in this study; therefore, a 2 X 2 (Instructions X Prohibitions) analytic design was used. It was assumed that effects attributable to the combination of these treatment strategies (beyond the main effects of each strategy) would be reflected in significant interaction effects. Initially, multivariate analyses of variance (MANCOVAS) were conducted on measures representing positive interactions, negative interactions, aggression ratings, and sociomctric measures. Effects that were significant at a p < .10 level were explored further with ANCOVAS.
Behavioral Observations Posttreatment assessment. A 2 x 2 (Instruction X Prohibitions) MANCOVA was conducted on posttreatment observations of initiated and received positive behavior, with pretreatment values serving as covariates. This analysis resulted in an effect for prohibitions that approached significance (p < .07). Univariate ANCOVAS revealed that boys in the prohibition condition received more positive responses from peers than did boys in the instruction only or the no treatment condition (see Table 1). A MANCOVA on posttreatment observations of negative initiated and received behaviors (in which pretreatment values served as covariates) revealed a main effect for prohibitions, f\2,25) = 3.85,p < .05. Subsequent ANCOVAS showed that boys who received prohibitions initiated fewer negative behaviors after treatment than boys who did not receive prohibitions (see
Presentment Scores The mean pretreatment standard scores of the target children were examined on each dependent measure to determine the level of pretreatment deviance. As a group, the target children revealed high standard scores on peer aggression ratings (M = .87), on negative nominations (M = 1.11), on teacher aggression
2 Copies of the coding manual and the intervention manual may be obtained from the first author. 3 In only a chance number of cases (I out of 20 variables) was a test of the null hypothesis concerning the homogeneity of regression coefficients significant, indicating that, in general, this basic condition necessary for the analysis of covariance was met.
IMPROVING SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
197
Table 1 Means ami Standard Deviations of Behavioral Effects
of Prohibitions Across Time
Pretreatment Behavior
P
Posttreatment NP
Follow-up
NP
P
P
NP
f(l,27)
8.80 3.36
6.13 2.50
6.38 4.82
4.25 3.72
6.25 4.01
4.25 2.75
2.13 1.20
2.63 2.47
3.38* 2.47
1.63* 1.31
1.87 2.06
1.75 1.65
6.46*
10.56 4.75
11.75 5.01
5.81* 4.51
13.06" 9.74
4.31* 4.01
8.56* b 6.22
6.09* 5.92*
6.69 4.42
10.38 4.89
3.94 2.79
3.56 3.25
5.84 5.31
Positive initiated
M SD Positive received
M SD Negative initiated
M SD
Negative received M SD
7.69 6.89
Note. P = prohibitions; NP = no prohibitions. * This test of difference between posttreatment means corresponds to an F value of 6.09. " This test of difference between follow-up means corresponds to an P value of 5.92.
Table 1). No significant treatment effects emerged for negative
than boys who received no treatment (Ms = 5.26, 4.64, and
received behavior.
3.63 vs. M = 12.23, respectively). Additionally, instructed boys
Follow-up assessment. Follow-up observations of positive initiated and received behavior were then subjected to a MAN-
received fewer negative behaviors than noninstructed boys (see Table 2).
COVA that revealed an effect for instructions that approached significance, (p < .08). Six weeks after treatment, instructed
Pattern of change. Next, changes over time within each condition were examined. Standardized scores were computed to
boys received more positive peer responses than noninstructed
represent children's total positive interactions (initiated plus re-
boys and tended to initiate more positive behaviors (see Table 2). The MANCOVA on negative initiated and received behavior at follow-up revealed a significant interaction effect for instruc-
ceived) and total negative interactions (initiated plus received). Then, paired t tests were computed to examine change in posilive and negative interactions from pretreatment to follow-up within each treatment condition. As shown in Table 3, boys
tions and prohibitions, F(2, 25) = 2.77, p < .05. Subsequent
in the three treatment conditions maintained the same level of
ANCOVAS and Duncan post hoc comparisons revealed that boys
positive interactions at the follow-up assessment that they had
who received instructions, prohibitions, or the combination of instructions and prohibitions initated fewer negative behaviors
shown prior to treatment within .5 of a standard deviation of the normative mean. In contrast, boys in the no treatment con-
Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Behavioral Effects
of Instructions Across Time
Pretreatment Behavior
_
Posttreatment
I
Nl
I
NI
5.94 3.19
6.06 2.72
5.31 4.84
2.19 1.76
2.56 2.13
12.25 5.71
Follcw-up I
NI
5.31 3.80
6.31* 4.11
4.19* 2.54
3.14*
2.31 2.24
2.69 2.09
2.50** 2.00
1.12** 1.41
4.66**
10.06 3.64
8.88 7.06
10.00 9.63
5.19* 4.65
7.69* 6.28
3.63*
7.56 4.76
7.19 5.13
4.44 5.69
3.31** 3.03
6.19" 5.31
4.05**
Positive initiated
M SD Positive received
M SD Negative initiated
M SD Negative received
M SD
9.50 5.11
Note. 1 = instructions; NI = no instructions. *p
