The Journal of Educational Research

ISSN: 0022-0671 (Print) 1940-0675 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

The Effect of Behavior Contracting on Grades

Robert L. Williams & Ramala Anandam

To cite this article: Robert L. Williams & Ramala Anandam (1973) The Effect of Behavior
Contracting on Grades, The Journal of Educational Research, 66:5, 230-236, DOI:
10.1080/00220671.1973.10884461

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1973.10884461

Published online: 07 Dec 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjer20

Download by: [University of Kentucky Libraries] Date: 16 June 2016, At: 20:23
 THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH / \
(Volume 66, Number 5, January 1973) / \
The Effect of Behavior Contracting on Grades
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of behavior contracting on grades attained by dis-
advantaged junior high school students. The contract included both academic and social behaviors for which the
students were awarded points. Students under contract received a grade each day on which their nine weeks'
grades were based. Grades of students under contract increased the semester the contract was applied, whereas
the grades of a simliar control group declined slightly.
RECENTLY, numerous attempts have been
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 20:23 16 June 2016
made to apply behavior modification principles
to the classroom (2, 3, 4). A central theme of
most behavior management systems is the utili-
zation of contingent reinforcement for appropri-
ate behavior. Reinforcement theorists contend
that reinforcing appropriate behavior is a better
way of increasing that behavior than is the pun-
ishing of inappropriate behavior.
Several types of stimuli such as praise, priv-
ileges, tangible items, and grades have been used
as reinforcers in classroom behavior management
studies. Two recent studies (1, 6) indicate that
on self-report measures good grades are the most
preferred reinforcers of elementary and junior
high school students. Since grades potentially
have high reinforcement value and are widely
employed as behavioral controls, it is particularly
important to identify educational approaches that
will legitimately improve grades.
One method that appears to hold considerable
promise for improving grades is behavior con-
tracting-agreement between a teacher and his
students as to what behaviors shall be considered
appropriate and inappropriate, and the conse-
quences of each. While tangibles and privileges
are sometimes used as back-up reinforcers in con-
tract systems, grades are generally the most read-
ily accessible back-up reinforcers.
Two previous studies (5, 7) of the effect of
contracting on grades have produced contradic-
tory results. In a study with eighth-grade math
students, Thompson and Davis (7) employed a
contract that identified the behaviors necessary
for a particular grade and several alternatives for
achieving that grade. The l'esults revealed that
students under the contract significantly bettered
their previous grades as well as the grades of
students in a control group. In a study with col-
lege sophomores. Poppen and Thompson (5) used
a contract that specified a broad set of behaviors
for each grade level. A student could agree to
meet the specified requirements for a particular
grade or negotiate substitute activities. Tabula-
tion of class grades at the end of the term pro-
ROBERT L. WILLIAMS and KAMALA ANANDAM
The University of Tennessee-
duced no significant difference between the group
under contract and a control group. The latter
study suggests that contr2.cting may be less effec-
tive as students get older or when behavior re-
quirements are loosely defined.
The present study compared grades attained
by students under contract with those attained
by similar students not under contl'act. In con-
trast to the previously cited studies, the contract
used in this study contained highly specific defi-
nitions of behaviors and imposed the same behav-
ior regulations on all students. In addition, the
behaviors included in the contract extended be-
yond academic performances to social behaviors
in the classroom.
Method
The Ss in this study were attending a junior
high school located in a disadvantaged metropoli-
tan area of east Tennessee. Behavior contracting-
was used by three different teachers (T1 , T2 , Ts)
with one class of seventh graders (E 1 ) and by
four teachers (Tl' T 2 , T s, and T 4 ) with another
class of seventh graders (E 2 ). Teachers T 1 , T2 ,
and Ta handled both classes El and E 2 • On the
basis of discussion held with teachers and stu-
dents, it was possible to draw up a list of desir-
able and undesirable stUdent behaviors and ap-
propriate consequences (in terms of points gained
or lost) for each behavior. Both academic and
social behaviors were included. Under the con-
tracting system, a student could earn 15 points
a day (Monday thru Thursday) for appropriate
academic behavior (daily quiz or home assign-
ment and learning activity in class) and 7 points
for desirable social be h a v i 0 r (attending class;·
being on time; bringing paper, pencil, and appro-
priate books). The absence of appropriate aca-
demic be h a v i 0 r did not entail los s of :points,.
whereas the absence of desirable social behaviors
did. In addition, several negative behaviors such
as throwing objects" loud talking, and hitting an-
other student were listed in the contract. A stu-
dent lost 2 points each time he exhibited a. nega-
tive behavior.
 WILLIAMS-ANANDAM 231

Grades and free time privileges were based
on the number of points earned by students each
day. On Monday through Thursday 17 points or
better was equivalent to an A. On Friday a 30-
point unit exam was given, for which a score of
25 or better was considered an A. The points ob-
tained on the unit exam and the daily work were
used to compute the weekly grades which, in turn,
were used to compute the grades for each 9-week
grading period. Point requirements for each grade
level were specified in the contract. Free time
activities, e.g., reading comic books, looking at
magazines, working with puzzles, drawing, were
offered as added incentives for high quality work.
A student could earn approximately 10 minutes
of free time at the end of the class period by
having made an A on the previous day's work
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 20:23 16 June 2016
The contracting system also required certain
desirable teacher behaviors for its effective func-
tioning. Daily, the teachers were required to pro-
vide academic tasks worth 15 points, maintain
records on the students' academic and social be-
haviors, post the points gained and lost on the
wall charts, and provide free time and activities
for free time. With the ass i s tan c e of student
aides, it was feasible for three of the four teach-
ers to implement the contracting system relatively
well.
Behavior contracting was used for the two
grading periods of the second semester. At the,
end of the first grading period, students evalu-
ated their teachers for their (teachers') efficiency
in carrying out the contract. A summary of points
accorded to each teacher by each class is given in

and having completed the work for the current Table 1. Most efficiently carried out teacher activ-
day. ities were giving daily checkups. correcting daily-
Table t.-Evaluation of Teacher Efficiency by Students in &. and E,'

Total Points Total Points .Total Points Total Points

Assigned by E1 for All Assigned by E2 for All
Item in the Contract Class to Teacher Teachers Class to Teacher Teachers
-'-:1 T2 T2 .---=1 T2
~-
1 • Taking the roll 73 92 108 274 79 105 117 101 402
2. Checking for
books, paper,
and pencil 76 83 110 269 84 105 119 107 415
3. Giving d.aily
checkups 95 107 106 308 109 105 118 118 450
4. Correcting daily
checkups 96 101 107 304 99 111 120 115 445
5. Giving daily
assignment 101 101 104- 306 98 103 115 106 422
6. Correcting daily
assign.ment 88 82 104 274 103 103 120 113 439
7. Posting points
on the chart
every day 76 99 109 284· 81 107 110 97 396
8 . Giving free time 54 52 73 179 74 102 102 103 381
9. Making available
free time activi-
tie s 68 7.7 107 252 61 92 114 1.1 2 379
10. Giving unit exam 103 110 110 323 107 114 116 11 6 453
11 • Correcting unit
exam 100 100 107 307 104 11 2 111 116 443
12. Penalizing 78 76 92 247 86 94 104 104 388
Total 1008 1081 1237 1085 1253 1366 1308
-------- - - -
• Each student rated each teacher on each item on a 1-5 scale. Since E. had twenty-two students, the maximum num~
ber of points which each teacher could receive for each item was 110. E. had twenty-four students, thus. the maximum
number of points which each teacher could receive for each item was t20.
 232 THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

checkups, giving unit exams" and correcting unit
,exams. Least efficiently executed teacher activi-
ties were giving free time, making available free
time activities, and penalizing. Further discussion
with students revealed that on some days numer-
·ous penalties were imposed on some students with-
out producing the desired change in behavior. The
behavior contract was therefore modified to allow
.a student to be penalized only three times during
.a class period. If a student misbehaved more than
three times, the contract required that he be sent
to the principal's office. The evaluation by stu-
·dents helped the teachers to see their own areas
of strength and weakness in functioning under a
contracting system.
Results
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 20:23 16 June 2016
counted in terms of points-1 point for each step
difference. That is, moving from B to B + was
counted as +1 and moving from B to B- was
counted as -1. Table 2 shows the summary of the
points gained or lost by E I , ~, and C groups in
the first grading period under contracting over
the pre-contracting grading period. Table 3 shows
similar data for the second grading :period over
the first grading period under contracting. It is
quite evident from Tables 2 and 3 that the stu-
dents in El and E2 registered substantial gains
in their grades while students in group C showed
appreciable decline in their grades except in the
case of T2 and Til for the first grading period
under contracting and Ts for the second grading
period under contracting.
Among the several teachers handling the three

groups, T2 and Ts were common to all the groups.

For purposes of comparison, the productivity
of a third group of seventh graders (C-control
.group) who did not participate in the contract-
ing system was contrasted with that of the ex-
perimental groups. The effectiveness of the con-
tracting system in motivating students to improve
their grades is quantitively represented in Tables
2 and 3. The difference in grades from one grad-
ing period to another for each student was
Table 2.-Quantitative Representation of Changes in Grades from the Pre-Contracting Period to the First Grading
Period Under Contracting
Hence, the grade performance in the three groups
(E I , E 2, and C) for these two teachers was sta-
tistically treated. For purposes of analysis, letter
grades were converted to a 0-12 scale, with F = 0
and A+ = 12. A three-factor design with re-
peated measures on two factors (8) was used in
the analysis of variance, a summary of which is
presented in Table 4. Any student for whom grade
records were not available for both teachers (T2

E1 Points E2 Points C Points

Teacher Gained Lo s t Gained Lost Gained Lost

70 11 70 0
18 16 24 26 22 20
51 63 10 15 41
47 8
31 24
6 41
------- --
Table 3.-Quantitative Representation of Changes in Grades Between the First and Second Grading Periods Under
Contracting

E1 Points E2 Points C Points

Teacher Gained Lost Gained Lost Ga:Lned Lost

T1 13 6 15 6
T2 51 3 38 13 6 19
T3 11 6 17 16 36 11
T4 14 6
T5 6 52
T6 15 22
---
 WILLIAMS-AN ANDAM
and Ta) was excluded from the analysis. After
such deletions there were twenty-two Ss in each
group. According to the F ratios shown in Table
4, the main effects for factors A (treatment), B
(teachers), and C (time) were found to be sig-
nificant. Among treatments, behavior contracting
for group El obtained highest grade performance
as revealed by total points of 1,094 for the two
teachers over the three grading periods. Similar
totals for group E2 and group C were 908 and
702 respectively. The two teachers used in the
analysis differed significantly from each other.
Teacher T a elicited greater grade performance
from the students (total ~ 1,450) than teacher
T2 (total = 1,254). Consecutive grading periods
registered significantly increasing grade perform-
ances. The totals for the three grading periods
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 20:23 16 June 2016
were 819, 906, and 979 respectively.
Significant in t era c t ion effects were also ob-
tained in the analysis of variance for treatments
by teachers, treatments by time, and teachers by
time. The profiles of means corresponding to the
cell totals in the AB, AC, and BC summary tables
are plotted in Figure 1. The graph for AB inter-
action shows that teacher differences were ob-
tained only for E 2. In AC interaction, El regis-
tered increments in mean grade scores over
successive grading periods; E2 registered an in-
crement parallel to El from the first grading
period to the second but the increment from the
second to the third grading period was not as
large as for E 1 ; group C declined in mean grade
score from the first to the second grading period
and although it showed improvement in the third
grading period, the mean grade score was not as
high as that of the first grading period. Exami-
Table 4.-Summary of Analysis of Variance for Grade Improvement
Source SS
Between Ss 18091 66
A(E , E , and C) 582.57
1 2
Subject within groupS
(error (a)) 1227.09
Within Ss 1426.6.1
B (teachers ) 97.01
AB 110.62
B X subject within groups
(error (b) 272.70
C (time) 97.22
AC 94~17
C X subject within groupS
(error (c)) 396.28
BC 26 .40
ABC 65.06
BC X subject within groups
(error(bc)) 267.21
• .01 level of significance.
233
nation of the BC interaction indicates that teacher
T 2 obtained a larger increment in mean grade
score in the second to third grading period while
teacher T a obtained a larger increment in the first
to second grading period.
It is seen in Table 4 that the three-factor inter-
action was also significant, which meant that the
two-factor interactions were not the same for the
different levels of the third factor. To determine
the nature of the three-factor interaction, the
Es employed a Newman-Keuls analysis of dif-
ferences between treatment groups for each
teacher at each grading period (see Table 5). For
T 2, the grade performance of El was superior
to that of E2 and C for all three grading periods.
Although E2 and C did not differ significantly,
Figure 2 demonstrates that the performance of
E2 was considerably above that of C for the third
grading period. For T a, the three treatment
groups were initially equivalent, but El and E2
were significantly superior to C in the second
and third grading periods. In contrast to the find-
ings for T 2, the performance of El and E2 did not
differ significantly under Ta for any of the grad-
ing periods. Examination of Figure 2 reveals an-
other difference between the performance of stu-
dents under T2 and T a, i.e., the two experimental
groups remained the same from the first to the
second grading period but improved from the sec-
ond to the third grading period under T 2, whereas
they improved substantially from the first to the
second grading period but remained essentially
the same from the second to the third under T3.
Only the control group exhibited similar perform-
ance under the two teachers.
df MS F
.22.
2 291. 28 14.96*
63 19.47
22Q
1 97.01 22 .45*
2 55.31 12.80*
63 .,4.32
2 48.61 15.48*
4 23 .54 7.49*
126 3·.14
2 13. 20 6.22*
4 16. 26 7.66*
126 2.1 2
 234 THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Figure I.-Two-Factor Interaction

10 AC Be
9

8
rl
(1)
~
H
(1) 7
(1)
rd
Qj
6
F-l
Os - - - - - _ 0- __ - - - - - oC

4
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 20:23 16 June 2016

3 •
I II III I II III
Grading Period Grading Period

AB
10

8 o~______----------------~E1
EZ
rl
~ 7
(1)
t--l
Il) 6
rd
Qj
F-l ~ ___________________ ~C

.~ 5

3
T2
Teachers

Table 5.-Newman Keuls Analysis of Simple Effects

:""'"---.- - - - - - - - -----' -==============--_._-===========

Teachers
- - - - -...- .

Grading Difference s Between Means

Period T2 T:2
------_.-
E1-E 2 E1-C E2-C E1-E2 E1-C E2-C
I 1.96** 2.09* .13 .46 .96 .50
II 2.18** 2.00** .1 8 .09 4.32** 4.23**
III 3.45** 4.82** 1.37 .32 3.63** 3.31 **
-,..-~--

··Significant at .01 level.

*Significant at .05 level.
 WILLIAMS-ANANDAM
Figure 2.-Three-Factor Interaction
12
11
10
M 7
QJ
::-QJ
....:I
QJ
6
'0
<1l
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 20:23 16 June 2016
1-1
~ 5 '0 C
I II III
Grading Period
Discussion
The findings of the current study demonstrate
that behavior contracting is one effective way of
legitimately improving grades of students in a
disadvantaged setting. However, the findings also
suggest that some teachers are much more suc-
cessful than others in using a contract system.
Efficiency is defined in terms of the teacher's con-
sistency and fairness, as perceived by the stu-
dents, in :providing the activities and the conse-
quences of behavior which the contract specifies.
Tables 1 and 2 reveal that T2 was judged by the
students to be considerably less efficient than Ta
in implementing the terms of the contract. For
example, T2 was less efficient than Ta in taking
the roll; checking for books, paper, and pencil;
correcting daily assignments; posting points on
the chart every day; making available free time
activities; and penalizing. Obviously, if the stu-
dents learn that they cannot count on the teacher
to record accurately their behaviors and provide
appropriate consequences for these behaviors,
they will be less inclined to behave appropriately.
The deficiency of T2 in abiding by the terms of
the contract may account for the lack of improve-
ment exhibited by the experimental groups under
her during the second grading period.
235
I II III
Gr a din g Pe riod
The most difficult finding to explain is the dif-
ference in performance of El and E2 under T 2.
From the outset of the study, T2 verbalized affin-
ity for E 1 • She frequently stated that El was the
best class she had ever had but that E2 upset her.
She even went to the point of verbalizing her dis-
like of several specific students in E 2. Her pref-
erence for El could certainly help to account for
the initial differences in grades between El and
E 2. It does not explain" however, why E 2 did not
fare better than C. Figure 2 does indicate some
divergence between E2 and C in the third grad-
ing period, though not to a significant degree.
Behavior contracting depends on a high level of
teacher consistency for its effectiveness. Through-
out the study, T2 had considerable difficulty in
being consistent. It appeared that the way she
responded to students depended to a great extent
on how she felt at the moment. It so happened
that El was her first class of the day and E2 and
C the last two classes. Typically, she seemed irri-
tated near the end of the day. The Es feel that
T2'S emotional and physical state had a more
adverse effect on the contracting system for E 2
than E 1 • A close examination of Table 1 reveals
that T 2, as judged by the students, did a better
job in El in giving daily checkups and assign-
ments than in E 2. Since these activities are vital
 -236
to the students' academic progress, inefficiency .
giving them may have impeded the perfo ce
of E 2 •
REFERENCES
1. Atkins, J.; Williams, R. L., "A Forced Choice Tech-
nique for Determining Reinforcement Priorities of
Primary School ChiJdren," The Journal of Educational
ReseQ/1'ch, 65: (no. 7) 324-328, March 1972.
2. Madsen, C. H., Jr.; Madsen, C. K., Teaching/Disci-
pline: Behavioral Principles TOWQ/1'd a Positive Ap-
proach, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, 1970.
-3. Meacham, M. L.; Wiesen, A. E., Changing Classroom
Behavior: A Manual for Precision Teaching, Interna-
tional Texbook Company, Scranton, P A, 1970.
NEW BOOKS from the Publishers
Downloaded by [University of Kentucky Libraries] at 20:23 16 June 2016
Children
ISAACS, SUSAN. Social Development in Young Children,
(NY: Schocken Books), xii + 479 pp. Paper. $4.50.
KARRBY, GUNNI. Child Rea1-ing and the Development
of Moral Structure, (Sweden: Almquist and Wiksell Pub-
lishers 1971), 207 pp. Paper.
LUNZER, E. A. On Children's Thinking, (NY: Fernhill
House 1970), 23 pp. Paper. $1.25.
PEAKER, G. F. The Plowden Children Four YeQ/1's Later,
(NY: Fernhill House 1971), 50 pp. Pa'p er. $3.25.
TAYLOR, CALVIN W. (ed.). Climate fCYT' Creativity,
(NY: Pergamon Press 1972), ix +304 pp. Hardcover.
$14.50.
Colleges
CROSSLAND, FRED E. Minority Access to College,
(NY: Schocken Books 1971), xvii + 139 pp. Paper. $1.95.
Hardcover. $4.95.
EASON, T. W. and CROLL, E. J. Staff and Student
Attitudes in Colleges of Edtucation, (NY: F ernhill House
1971), 92 pp. Paper. $3.00.
Current
AVERCH, HARVEY A. ; STEPHEN J. CARROLL;
THEODORE S. DONALDSON; HERBERT J. KIES-
LING; and JOHN PINCUS. How Effective is Schooling,
(Santa Monica, CA: Rank Corporation 1972), Paper.
xviii + 222 pp. $5.00.
CRELLIN, EILEEN; M. L. KELLMER PRINGLE; and
PATRICK WEST. Born Illegitimate: Social and Educa-
tional Implications, (NY: Fernhill House 1971), 173 pp.
Paper. $6.50.
HURST, CHARLES G. Jr. Passport to Freedom, (CT:
Linnet Books 1972), 242 pp. Hardcover. $7.95.
PICK, ANNE D. (ed.). Minnesota Symposia on Child
Psychology, (MN: University of Minnesota Press 1972),
vii + 170 pp. Hardcover. $7.50.
RICHTER, MELISSA LEWIS and JANE BANKS
WHIPPLE. A Revolution in the Education of Women,
(NY: Sarah Lawrence College 1972), 77 pp. Papercover.
$2.00.
TAYLOR, JOY. Organizing the Open Clas8room, (NY:
Schocken Books 1972), 126 pp. Hardcover. $4.95.
YANKELOVICH, DANIEL, INC. The Changing Values
on Campus, (NY: Pocket Books 1972), viii + 246 pp.
Paper. $2.95.
Education
BLAUG, MARK. An Introduction to the Economics of
Education, (MD: Penguin Books 1972), xx +
363 pp.
Paper. $3.95.
ONAL RESEARCH
4. N •sworth. J. T. ; Deno, S. L.; Jenkins, J. R., Student
Mo 'vation and Classroom Management: A Behavior-
istic Approach, Behavior Technics, Inc., Newark, DE,
1969.
5. Poppen, W. A.; Thompson, C. L., "The ·Effect of Grade
Contracts on Student Performance," The J(1Urnal of
Educaticnal ReseQ/1'ch, 64: (no. 9)420-424, May-June
1971.
6. Runyon, H.; Williams, R. L., "A Paired Comparison
Technique for Determining Reinforcement Priorities
of Junior High School Students," unpublished manu-
script, The University of Tennessee, 1969.
7. Thompson, C. L.; Davis, M., "Grade Contracts: A
Method of Redirecting Motivation," Focus on Guidance,
3 :7-10, 1970.
8. Winer, B. J., Statistical Principles in Experimental
Design, McGraw Hill, New York, 1962.
CLEGG, A. B. (ed.). The Excitement of Writing, (NY:
Schocken Books 1972), xxi + 138 pp. Hardcover. $4.96.
COHN, ELCHANAN. The Economics of Education, (Lex-
ington, MA: Lexington Books 1972), 320 pp. Hardcover.
$12.50.
Compensatory Early Childhood Education: A Selective
Working Bibliography, (The Hague: Bernard Van Leer
Foundation 1971), 355 pp. Paperbound.
DOLL, RUSSELL and MAXINE HAWEKINS. Educat-
ing the Disadvantaged, (NY: AMS Press 1972), 604 pp.
Paperback. Cloth $14.95. Paper 8.95.
F AIRFAX, JOHN W. Oral Drills for StandMd English,
(NY: Exposition Press 1972),79 pp. Hardcover. $4.00.
FARNHAM-DIGGORY, SYLVIA. Cognitive Processes in
Education: A Psychological Prepa.ration for Teaching and
Curriculum Development, (NY: Harper and Row 1972),
xxxiv + 630 pp. Hardcover. $11.95.
FARNHAM-DIG GORY, SYLVIA. Study Guide for Cog-
nitive Processes in Education: A Psychological PrepQ/1'a-
tion for Teaching and Curriculum Development, (NY:
Har·p er and Row 1972), v + 121 pp. Paper. $1.95.
HALL, G. F.; P. CARPENTER; S. A. HAGGART;
M. L. RAPP; and G. C. SUMNER. A Guide to Educa-
tional Perfo.r mance Contracting (Santa Monica, CA:
Rand Corporation 1972), 87 pp. Paperback. $3.00.
HASSETT, JOSEPH D. and ARLINE WEISBERG.
Open Education: Alternatives Within our Tradition, (NJ:
Prentice-Hall 1972), xv + 141 pp. Hardcover.
KIRST, MICHAEL W. (ed.). State, School, and Politics,
(Lexington, MA: Lexington Books 1972), 256 pp. Hard-
cover. $10.00.
LYTTON, HUGH. Creativity and Education, (NY:
Schocken Books 1972), viii + 133 pp. Hardcover. $5.60.
Research
CASS, JAMES and MAX B I R N B A U M. CompOl1'ative
Guide to Programs in Earth Sciences, Physics, and Astron-
omy (NY: Harper and Row, 1972), xvii + 245 pp. Paper,
$4.95.
GAGE, N. L. Teacher Effectiveness and Teacher Educa-
tion: The SeQ/1'ch for a Specific Basis (Palo Alto, CA:
Pacific Books, Publishers, 1972), 226 Pp. Hardcover, $7.95.
MILLER, ARTHUR G. (ed.). The Social Psychology of
Psychological ReseQ/1'ch (NY: The Free Press, 1972),
ix + 454 pp. Hardcover, $9.95.
ROTHKOPF, ERNEST Z. and PAUL E. JOHNSON
(eds.), Verbal LeMning ReseQ/1'ch and the Technology of
Written Instruction (NY: Teachers College Press, 1971),
xi + 367 pp. Hardcover, $12.50.
SNADOWSKY, ALVIN M. Social P81/chology Research
(NY: The Free Press, 1972), x + 338 pp. Paper, $10.95.