Journal of Behavioral Education, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1993, pp.

405-425

An Analysis of Self-Management

Carolyn Hughes, Ph.D., 1,3 and John W. Lloyd, Ph.D. 2

Accepted: April 30, 1993 Action Editor: Nirbhay N. Singh

We discuss topics related to a theoretical analysis of self-management, including
theories of self-management, self-reinforcement and self-management, antecedent
stimuli for self-management, teaching of self-management behaviors, and
applications of self-management. Our analysis indicates that self-management's
roots in behavioral explanations of phenomena are solid, but that there are
important issues yet to be examined in developing a thorough understanding
of self-management. We argue that self-management behaviors almost certainly
must be examined in relation to the contexts in which they occur and the
consequences that they produce.
KEY WORDS: self-management; self-control; self-regulation; reinforcement; problem-solving.

Human situations associated with self-control or self-management

typically involve behaving in a way that causes one or the other of two
competing consequences to occur (Catania, 1984; Rachlin, 1978; Skinner,
1953). Often, for simplicity, people say that an individual chooses between
two behaviors having different consequences. For example, spending one's
entire weekly paycheck may make inexpensive items such as magazines or
cassette tapes available immediately, but may prevent the later purchase
of a more expensive commodity such as a new car (Catania, 1984). Simi-
larly, the immediate effects of watching television rather than studying may
increase the future likelihood of television viewing, but the delayed effects
(e.g., poor grades) may be aversive.

1Assistant Professor, Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville,

Tennessee.
2professor, Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
3Correspondence should be directed to Carolyn Hughes, Department of Special Education,
Vanderbilt University, Box 328, Peabody College, Nashville, TN 37203.

405

1053-0819/93/1200-0405507.00/09 1993HumanSciencesPress, Inc.

406 Hughes and Lloyd

Such situations present challenging dilemmas to an individual because

the effects of the two alternative responses occur at different times (Rachlin,
1978). In contrast, if opportunities (e.g., a limitless supply of funds) to buy
a car or purchase a video player occurred at the same time, self-control
would not be an issue. One simply would choose a purchase based upon
personal preference (i.e., a high-probability behavior). The dilemma occurs
because a high-probability activity for an individual such as spending one's
money provides immediate reinforcement, whereas the effect of not saving
funds (e.g., not enough money is accumulated to buy a car) is experienced
only after a delay (Bandura, 1969). Good grades (and possible related
events such as honor roils, scholarships, or recognition) may not be an ef-
fective reinforcer for studying because, as an outcome, grade averages may
be "too delayed, too improbable, or too small, and of only cumulative sig-
nificance" (Malott, 1984, p. 200). We typically describe an individual's de-
cision to study (a low-probability behavior) rather than watch television (a
high-probability behavior) as an instance of self-control or self-management.
Studying may be immediately aversive; however, studying may provide ac-
cess to the long-term benefits of good grades and associated events. Kazdin
(1978) and Brigham (1978) contended that self-control occurs when an in-
dividual responds in a manner counter to obtaining an immediately rein-
forcing consequence. Self-control may be the performance of a response
that appears to act against the immediate contingencies.
In this paper we discuss theoretical issues related to the concept of
self-management. Topics discussed include: (a) theories of self-management,
including operant and cognitive explanations, (b) the role of self-reinforcement
in the self-management paradigm, (c) the discriminative stimulus for self-
management behavior, (d) teaching self-management, (e) contemporary ap-
plications of self-management, and (f) recommendations for future research.

WHAT IS SELF-MANAGEMENT?

Despite minor distinctions, responses typically classified under the

rubric of self-management include self-control (cf. Kazdin, 1978; Skinner,
1953), self-regulation (cf. Kanfer, 1971), and self-determination (cf. Skinner,
1953). Two theoretical explanations of self-management as a process domi-
nate the literature: (a) the operant explanation, including basic investiga-
tions of self-control and theories of problem solving (cf. Brigham, 1978;
Catania, 1984; Kazdin, 1978; Rachlin, 1978; Skinner, 1953) and the (b)
cognitive interpretation (cf. Bandura, 1969; Goldfried & Merbaum, 1973;
Kanfer, 1971; Mahoney & Thoresen, 1974). In this section we discuss the
literature related to these two major theories.
Self-Management 407

Operant View of Self-Management

Skinner (1953) may have been the first theorist to propose an operant
view of the self-management paradigm (Jones, Nelson, & Kazdin, 1977).
Skinner theorized that individuals control their behavior as they would con-
trol the behavior of anyone else: through manipulation of the variables of
which their own behavior is a function. For example, to avoid smoking, an
individual could make the response less probable by altering functionally-
related variables (e.g., by not buying cigarettes). Skinner continued that
any behavior that succeeds in decreasing the probability of the response
automatically would be negatively reinforced by decreasing aversive stimu-
lation associated with the response (e.g., shortness of breath or fear of heart
failure).
Skinner's paradigm involves two separate responses: the controlling
response, the behavior that affects variables (e.g., turning off the television)
in such a way as to change the probability of the controlled response, the
behavior to be increased or decreased (e.g., studying). An individual's be-
havior ultimately is accounted for by variables external to the individual,
but these external events typically are mediated by events accessible to the
individual alone (e.g., the "urge" to smoke). Kazdin (1978) suggested that
individuals are in the best position to observe their own behavior and that
in the case of private events (e.g., thoughts) are the only ones that can
detect their occurrence and administer consequences for their control.

Basic Investigations of Self-Control

Basic studies with both animals and humans support Skinner's con-
ceptualization of self-control (Catania, 1984; Rachlin, 1978). Behavior iden-
tified as commitment responses have been observed both in pigeons (cf.
Fantino, 1966; Rachlin & Green, 1972) and humans (cf. Millar & Navarick,
1984; Ragotzy, Blakely, & Poling, 1988). Specifically, pigeon and human
subjects have been observed to make responses that increase the chances
of obtaining a large delayed reinforcer (e.g., edible) by making an imme-
diate, smaller reinforcer unavailable. (This commitment response parallels
Skinner's controlling response).
In contrast, responses that result in accessing the smaller, more im-
mediate reinforcer instead of the larger, delayed reinforcer are classified
as impulsive responses. Because pigeons typically behave more impulsively
than human subjects (Rachlin & Green, 1972; Ragotzy et al., 1988), Catania
(1984) and Mawhinney (1982) speculated that human instances of self-control
involve verbal behavior (cfi Bern, 1967). For example, Rachlin (1978) suggested
408 Hughes and Lloyd

that a student may sign (i.e., commit to) a written contract stating a re-
sponse cost (e.g., loss of privileges or money) for not studying. The contract
is signed (a form of verbal behavior) when the student's perceived value
of studying is high (e.g., when the possibility of obtaining a scholarship is
contingent on maintaining good grades). The verbal commitment (the con-
tract) decreases the student's choice due to the impending response cost
during those times when the value of studying may wane (e.g., when there
are competing reinforcers).

Theories of Problem Solving

The problem-solving process described by Skinner (1953) and Catania

(1984) exemplifies the operant view of self-management. Skinner suggested
that a problem situation is one in which "a response exists in strength which
cannot be emitted" (1953, p. 246). The strength of the response typically is
demonstrated when the response occurs as soon as the opportunity is avail-
able. For example, a locked door in a house is a problem if behavior re-
quiring the door to be open is strong and a key or other means of opening
the door is not available. The strength of the response is inferred from the
occurrence of behavior that previously opened the door (e.g., "jimmying"
the lock with a knife) or the behavior that occurs as soon as the door is
opened (e.g., dashing inside the house). The solution to the problem is
simply a response that alters the situation so that the strong response can
be emitted (e.g., finding the key or calling a locksmith). Similarly, Catania
(1984) suggested that the discriminative features of a situation define the
problem, and the solution to the problem serves as the reinforcer.
Skinner (1953) reminded us that:
"Simply emitting a solution, however, is not solving a problem . . . . Problem-solving
may be defined as any behavior which, through the manipulation of variables
(emphasis added), makes the appearance of a solution more probable . . . .
[However], the appearance of a solution does not guarantee that problem-solving
has taken place. An accidental change in the environment often brings about a
similar r e s u l t - [for example], the key may be found [by chance]" (p. 247-248).

The process by which an individual solves a problem is similar to the

e x p l a n a t i o n of how o n e m a n a g e s o n e ' s own b e h a v i o r : through the
manipulation of variables of which the response is a function.
In the case of self-management, one controls variables (i.e., an ex-
ample of Skinner's controlling response) to change the probability of a con-
trolled response. For example, people count to ten to prevent making
abusive comments or enter a library carrel to increase studying. When solv-
ing a problem, one manipulates stimuli (i.e., modifies the environment) to
Self-Management 409

make a solution more probable (e.g., by converting a verbal problem into

a mathematical equation or looking up a word in a dictionary) (Catania,
1984). Skinner (1953) argued that solving a problem does not mean emit-
ting a response that proves to be a solution, but, rather, manipulating stim-
uli that control the problem-solving response. For example,
"We increase the chances of a solution when we look a problem over carefully,
when we get all the facts, or when we point up relevant stimuli by stating a problem
in its clearest terms. A further step is to arrange or rearrange stimuli" (Skinner,
1953, p. 249).

To illustrate, if the problem is to isolate the cause of a airplane crash, one

may classify relevant variables according to common characteristics (e.g.,
weather conditions or physical state of the crew) to identify factors
functionally related to the crash. In an operant view, in both the
self-management and the problem-solving processes, one responds (i.e.,
manipulates variables) in ways that change the probability of a future
response (i.e., either a controlled response or a problem-solving response).

Cognitive View of Self-Management

Skinner, Rachlin, and others who base self-management on operant

principles typically focus their analyses on individuals' controlling and con-
comitant controlled responses. In contrast, the cognitive explanation of self-
management suggests the occurrence of two steps: (a) first, the assessment
of and decision to control one's behavior followed by (b) the actual self-
controlling response (Brigham, 1978). Emphasis is placed upon the first
step which is assumed to begin when individuals evaluate their own behav-
ior and subsequently decide to change that behavior (cf. Bandura, 1969;
Goldfried & Merbaum, 1973; Kanfer, 1971; Mahoney & Thoresen, 1974;
Premack, 1970). For example, Premack (1970) argued that individuals' ob-
servations of deficiencies in their own performance and their resulting de-
cision to address these deficiencies are the critical components of
self-management. Other writers (Bandura, 1971; Kanfer, 1971; Mahoney &
Thoresen, 1974) concurred that self-management is a process that begins
with monitoring and evaluating one's behavior followed by reinforcing im-
provements in one's performance. For example, a student may infer from
a survey of her recently deteriorating grades that her study behavior is in-
effective, prompting her to modify her performance which is reinforced ul-
timately by improved test scores. Similarly, Mahoney and Thoresen (1974)
claimed that self-awareness or sensitivity to one's actions is a requisite to
self-management.
410 Hughes and Lloyd

According to the cognitive view of self-management, discrimination

of one's behavior is followed by a decision to control or change one's per-
formance to achieve a self-determined outcome. Kanfer (1971) claimed that
this decision resulted from individuals' observation of a discrepancy be-
tween their behavior and their self-established standard of performance.
Similarly, Bandura (1969) argued that the:
" s e l e c t i o n o f w e l l - d e f i n e d o b j e c t i v e s . . . is an essential aspect of any self-directed
program of change. The goals that individuals choose for themselves must be
specified sufficiently . . . to provide adequate guidance for the actions that must
be taken daily to attain desired outcomes" (p. 255).

Goldfried and Merbaum (1973) concurred that self-management "represents

a personal decision arrived at through conscious deliberation for the
purpose of integrating action which is designed to achieve certain desired
outcomes or goals as determined by the individual himself" (p. 12). These
authors acknowledged that their viewpoint as well as those of Bandura and
Kanfer stresses:
"the importance of mediating variables in dealing with the process of self-control.
All of these [cognitive] conceptions lean heavily on the importance of thought and
language in delaying impulsive action, and for introducing a competing cognitive
alternative into the self-regulatory sequence" (p. 12).

Differences and Similarities Between Operant and Cognitive

Perspectives on Self-Management

Rachlin (1978) and other operant researchers also referred to delay-

ing impulsive responses within the context of basic investigations of self-
control. These researchers, however, focused on the individual's con-
trolling or commitment response in which variables are manipulated to
make an impulsive response less probable. In contrast, the cognitive
viewpoint stressed the mediation of variables through thought processes
in order to delay impulsive action. To illustrate, Kanfer (1971) argued
that "at the psychological level, some verbal, perceptual or physiological
feedback for activation of the self-regulation sequence is needed as a
trigger" (p. 43).
Although there are differences between the operant and cognitive
perspectives on self-management, they share characteristics. Indeed, both
views arose from a behavioral perspective, not from a psychoanalytic or
other non-empirical tradition. Furthermore, according to both views, self-
management is not a trait. Whereas people on the street might refer to
concepts such as will power or other psychological qualities, neither the
cognitive nor the operant views of self-management require recourse to
personality attributes. Another similarity is that according to both views,
Self-Management 411

individuals can acquire greater facility in exercising self-management. In a

later section, we discuss some examples of applications of self-management
and how it can be taught. Before turning to that topic, however, we examine
the events that surround self-management of behavior, asking what causes
and supports self-management.

WHY DO PEOPLE MANAGE THEIR OWN BEHAVIOR?

Because both human and infrahuman subjects have been observed to

manage their own behavior (i.e., to avoid immediate consequences in favor
of delayed reinforcement), an analysis of the self-management paradigm
should consider environmental events that prompt and maintain that
behavior. The issue is particularly intriguing when we consider that the
individual has the opportunity to obtain reinforcement at any time, but
behaves in a manner that does not result in the immediately available
reinforcer (Kazdin, 1978; Skinner, 1953; Thoreson & Mahoney, 1974). To
describe why individuals manage their own behavior in this way, we discuss
perspectives on the antecedents and consequences of self-management,
respectively.

What Prompts Self-Management?

Because television watching or doodling at one's desk or remaining

quiet on a controversial topic at a meeting may provide more immediate
reinforcement for an individual than paying bills or solving algebraic equa-
tions or publicly presenting an opposing view, the question remains why
anyone would ever engage in a behavior that provides delayed rather than
immediate benefits. If we observed a young man who was guffawing loudly
while watching television suddenly get up, turn off the television, sit down
at his desk, and begin figuring his income tax in mid-January, we may be
curious to know what prompted his change in behavior. An interpretation
of the young man's actions is complex because of the influence of multiple
schedules of reinforcement. For example, the television show may provide
immediate positive reinforcement because of its relaxing and entertaining ef-
fects. At the same time, the young man may be nagged by the thought
that his income tax isn't finished and he knows that early filing typically
results in early refunds. He, therefore, may receive (a) immediate negative
reinforcement by avoiding nagging thoughts as he begins his income tax,
(b) delayed positive reinforcement for early filing when he receives an early
return, and (c) delayed negative reinforcement by preventing the aversive
412 Hughes and Lloyd

consequences of not filing (e.g., a fine). To be sure, the benefits of these

contingencies must be strong enough to overcome the aversive conse-
quences that are familiar to most people who complete tax forms.

Competing Contingencies

This scenario provides bases for speculation about why an individual

may act in a way that leads to access to immediate, prepotent consequences
(i.e., why he exerts self-control). According to our scenario, however, the
young man could reinforce himself at any time (i.e., he could turn the tele-
vision back on without finishing his income tax). The fact that he does not
requires an explanation.
One explanation concerns the relative strength of competing contin-
gencies. For example, Herrnstein (1970) suggested that at any given time
an individual may choose to behave in any of several ways, each associated
with a unique contingency. The proportion or strength of any one of the
several behaviors to the total behavior available to the individual matches
the ratio between the contingency for that behavior and the total behavior.
Therefore, if several contingencies are in effect at a given time (e.g., the
young man in our example could either watch television or do his taxes,
each of which has multiple consequences), the proportion of the individ-
ual's responses corresponds to the relative strength of the contingency.
The consequences associated with completing his income tax may have
been more powerful to the young man than those associated with televi-
sion viewing.
Further analysis would lead us to question what influences the relative
strength of competing contingencies. Several explanations appear plausible,
including (a) an individual's reinforcement history (Ferster & Skinner,
1957; Kanfer, 1971; Rachlin, 1978), (b) rule-governed behavior (Catania,
1984; Malott, 1984), (c) the perceived value or probability of occurrence
of a potential reinforcer (Brigham, 1978; Rotter, 1954), (d) discrimination
of one's own performance (Mahoney & Thoresen, 1974), (e) an individual's
motivation to obtain a particular reinforcer (Brigham, 1978), and (f) the
operating environmental context (Nelson & Hayes, 198I; Rachlin, 1978).

Cues

We now have an explanation for the young man's behavior: He turns

off the television and works on his taxes because of the relative strength
of competing contingencies that influence his behavior. The probability of
an early refund of his taxes, the avoidance of penalties such as a fine, and
Self-Management 413

other consequences are more powerful influences than the enjoyment he

currently is experiencing watching television. We still do not know, how-
ever, what prompts him to turn off the television suddenly and begin work-
ing on the aversive tax forms.
Several theories have been proposed regarding the discriminative
stimulus for self-managing behavior. Although the ultimate incentive to
manage one's own behavior may be accounted for by referring to environ-
mental variables (Skinner, 1953), events that prompt self-management typi-
cally are presumed to be accessible to the individual alone. For example,
Rachlin (1978) and Catania (1984) described an individual's commitment
response. According to this perspective, during a period in which the value
of a particular response (e.g., exercising) is high, an individual makes a
commitment (typically considered a verbal response) to perform the desired
behavior with a particular frequency. The commitment decreases the indi-
vidual's choice and prompts the performance of the behavior when com-
peting contingencies are prepotent (e.g., when one would rather watch TV
than complete tax forms or rather stay in bed than get up early and run).
Nelson and Hayes (1981) extended this analysis, suggesting that the entire
controlling response (self-management behavior) may serve as a prompt
for delayed consequences.
Premack (1970), Kanfer (1971), Kanfer and Karoly (1972), and Brigham
(1983) referred to an individual's attending to his or her own behavior or
private events as the stimulus for self-management to occur. Kanfer suggested
that:
"this self-monitoring system may go into effect only under those conditions in which
the normal chains of behavior are not run off smoothly or when other external or
internal events provide cues for which no highly trained response is available"
(p. 41).

That is, the individual assesses his or her behavior and, in finding it
unsatisfactory, makes a decision to change that performance. Self-
monitoring, therefore, is viewed as the stimulus for self-management;
however, the process is influenced by feedback from environmental events.

What Reinforces Self-Management?

Let's return to observe the young man doing his income tax. The tele-
vision is still off and he sits working at his desk which is covered with forms,
receipts, legal tablets, writing utensils, and a calculator. We've speculated
on why he went to work on his taxes, but what keeps him working for
hours? Explanations related to the maintenance of self-management be-
havior typically involve either self-reinforcement or external reinforcement.
414 Hughes and Lloyd

Self-Reinforcement

Self-reinforcement often has been proposed as the consequence that

maintains self-management behavior (Bandura, 1974; Kazdin, 1978; Thoresen
& Mahoney, 1974). Bandura noted that self-management behavior may be
hard to maintain because it is supported by delayed reinforcement which
conflicts with immediate, competing contingencies. Individuals, therefore,
often are taught to provide their own reinforcement for self-managing until
natural consequences are operational. For example, the young man whom
we observed completing his income tax may reward himself by eating a
pizza after he has completed two hours of work. We assume that eating
the pizza reinforces completing the income tax return if time-spent-working
increases for the young man in the future (Bandura, 1969, 1974; Kanfer,
1971; Kazdin, 1978).
This explanation of the self-reinforcement of self-management behav-
ior appears both logical and parsimonious. However, its verity has been
questioned by several investigators. Skinner (1953) proposed that:
"The ultimate question is whether the consequence has any strengthening effect
upon the behavior which precedes it. Is the individual more likely to do a similar
piece of work in the future? It would not be surprising if he were not, although
we must agree that he has arranged a sequence of events in which.certain behavior
has been followed by a reinforcing event" (p. 238).

To return to the income tax scenario, does eating a pizza increase future
sessions working on his income tax for the young man? Conversely, would
future work sessions be maintained if income tax refunds were withdrawn
or if penalties were no longer levied for failure to file returns?
Rachlin (1978) and Catania (1984) argued that self-administered re-
inforcement is not what maintains self-management behavior. Instead, the
operant involved is a commitment response. In our example, Rachlin and
Catania would argue that the young man has made a commitment to eat
a pizza only if he has worked on his income tax for two hours because
completing his return has become important for other reasons (e.g., a po-
tential refund). Whatever originally brought the young man to make the
commitment to reinforce his own working in the first place probably by
itself would make completing the income tax in the future more likely
(Catania, 1984).
Perhaps self-reinforcement operates more as a mediator than a rein-
forcer of behavior. Eating the pizza might have increased working on the
income tax because of its stimulus properties rather than its reinforcing
properties (Rachlin, 1978). Rachlin argued that:
"This hypothesis could be tested by substituting neutral but strong stimuli for
self-reinforcers. For instance, a student who rewards himself by eating a peanut
Self-Management 415

after each 10 min of studying ought to study as well if, instead of eating it, he
simply transfers the peanut from one dish to another as a way of counting 10 rain
study periods" (p. 253).

Self-reinforcement may simply serve as feedback that says "I did it" to the
individual in the same way that a feedback click informs a pigeon that it
has just pecked a key. Similarly, Baer (1984) referred to marker stimuli
such as tokens in a container or numbers on a wrist counter whose
"Function is to serve as mediators of the long-term outcomes that cannot readily
be made direct and immediate outcomes of the behavior changes that are being
programmed . . . . They are direct and immediate consequences of a necessary
initial performance; they mark the correct completion of that initial performance
and set the occasion for a subsequent performance that now can lead to the
reinforcers or avoid the punishers in those rearranged contingencies that the
self-controlling person is attempting to use" (p. 212).

External Reinforcement

Is self-reinforcement sufficient to maintain a self-controlling response?

Bandura (1974), Kanfer (1971), Kanfer and Karoly (1972), and Thoresen
and Mahoney (1974) proposed that much of human behavior is maintained
in the absence of immediate environmental support or feedback. Jones et al.
(1977) argued that although theorists acknowledge the role of the environment
in the self-management paradigm, "self-reinforcement investigations strongly
imply that the self-delivery of consequences is responsible for behavior change
rather than specific external contingencies operating in the experiment"
(p. 151). Bandura conceded that self-reinforcing responses are partly sustained
by periodic external reinforcement, but he claimed that the process is relatively
independent of environmental influence.
Other investigators place more weight on the role of the environment
(Brigham, 1978; Kazdin, 1978; Skinner, 1953). Kazdin argued that research
suggests that self-management contingencies depend upon environmental
surroundings to maintain their support and "although theoretical concepts
of self-control vary in the role accorded external contingencies, it is
generally agreed that [the] environment is crucial in the execution of self-
control in therapeutic applications" (p. 335). Skinner contended that indi-
viduals control their own behavior by manipulating variables of which their
behavior is a function, but that ultimately control must be accounted for
with variables lying outside individuals themselves. Skinner concluded that:
"A mere survey of the techniques of self-control does not explain why the individual
puts them into effect. This shortcoming is all too apparent when we undertake to
engender self-control. . . . We make controlling behavior more probable by
arranging special contingencies of reinforcement. . . . Some of these additional
consequences are supplied by nature, but in general they are arranged by the
416 Hughes and Lloyd

community . . . . It appears, therefore, that society is responsible for the larger part
of the behavior of self-control" (p. 240).

One way to conceptualize environmental influences on self-managed

behaviors is to consider the concept of trapping. According to the idea of
trapping (Baer & Wolf, 1970), it is possible that the levels of a given
behavior are not high (or low) enough to come into contact with reinforce-
ment contingencies. For example, children may not read at a fast enough
rate to meet a criterion. However, when an i n d i v i d u a l - perhaps because
she exercises a self-management t e c h n i q u e - begins to respond at higher
levels, she comes into contact with reinforcement contingencies; at the
same time, her behavior may be trapped at a higher level because it also
comes into contact with other naturally occurring contingencies such as
understanding what she read, keeping peers from chiding her for reading
without inflection, or other positive or negative reinforcers. Thus, the self-
management technique provides a means to gain access to naturally occur-
ring reinforcers.
Another way to conceptualize environmental influences on self-
management is to consider self-management as a behavior itself. That is,
if self-management or controlling responses are a functional response class,
then as a group they are likely to be influenced by consequences. Perhaps
the environment differentially provides more and stronger positive conse-
quences for behaviors that bring people in contact with longer-term con-
tingencies. In this way, we can reconsider self-management behaviors as
less discrete and more similar to an operant; as a group, self-management
behaviors operate on the environment to bring the behavior into contact
with more powerful reinforcers.
Both of the alternatives we discussed in the previous paragraphs
also correspond to an alternative conceptualization of the relationship
between self-managed behavior and the environment. According to this
view, people may exhibit self-control not just because such behavior re-
suits in greater reinforcement, but because it obtains reinforcement more
effectively. Furthermore, there may be some reinforcement value in how
one's behavior affects one's world; as Skinner noted, "The human organ-
ism is reinforced simply by being effective" (Evans, 1968, p. 62). Thus,
one potential reinforcer for self-management is that the controlling be-
haviors of an individual exercising self-control are reinforced not so much
by their specific effects on the environment, but that they have effects.
Given the idea of multiple schedules operating at essentially the same
time on behavior, perhaps self-managing behavior produces multiple
changes in the environment that are, in sum, reinforcing. For example,
perhaps exercising what we are calling self-management reduces the value
of certain, short-term negative consequences as well as making certain
Self-Management 417

longer-term consequences more accessible. We suggested this in the ex-

ample of the person preparing tax returns: As a consequence of turning
off the television and completing tax forms, he may have (a) reduced the
"nagging" associated with not having completed his taxes, (b) made his
return arrive earlier, (c) provided himself with a means for soliciting so-
cial reinforcement from his associates ("Wow! You've done it already?
I'm dreading it."), and (e) operated on his environment in other ways,
as well as simply causing effects or changes in his environment. Perhaps all
of these consequences may have been reinforcing, more reinforcing than
those associated with watching television. Perhaps the individual has
learned that his behavior has effects on the environment in these sorts
of ways, that self-management behavior has simply acquired the effects
that are characteristic of secondary reinforcers.
The view of the environment as the ultimate source of behavioral con-
trol may seem to limit one's personal responsibility with respect to behavior
management, a point consistent with radical behaviorism (Skinner, 1971).
A focus on the environmental influences on self-management processes,
however, has the benefit of making these processes more amenable to edu-
cational influences--we can manipulate environmental variables. In the
next section, we turn to discussing strategies for teaching self-management.

HOW TO TEACH SELF-MANAGEMENT

According to the paradigm we have advocated in this paper, self-

management refers to instances in which the individual forgoes immediate
reinforcement in favor of highly valued, tong-term benefits. The process
appears simple enough for anyone to follow, yet there is ample evidence
that many people may not practice efficient self-management skills. For
example, individuals engage in excessive consummatory behavior despite
harmful effects such as obesity, heart disease, alcoholism, listlessness, and
general ill health. Or they engage in inappropriate social interactions
regardless of loss of friends or business colleagues. Conversely, people fail
to speak up when it comes time for annual pay raises despite dissatisfaction
with their current salary, or they may fail to study torts well enough to
pass a bar exam for a law degree. Communities pollute streams and
drinking water despite threats to health and loss of wildlife and nations
engage in warfare and fail to negotiate settlements in the face of loss of
life and natural resources. Assuming that these cases represent examples
of long-term benefits that are sacrificed for short-term rewards, it would
appear that the need to learn self-management skills is pervasive.
418 Hughes and Lloyd

Rachlin (1978) suggested that environmental events that can generate

self-management by shifting the locus of behavioral control from short- to
long-term events have not been examined systematically. Since investigators
have analyzed the variables of which behavior is a function, however, it
should be possible to teach individuals to manipulate variables that influence
their own behavior (cf. Skinner, 1953). Rachlin (1978) and Baer (1984) sug-
gested that it is possible to make people more aware of the contingencies
that are in effect in their lives by increasing the saliency of the antecedents
and consequences of environmental events. Through the use of direct in-
structional principles such as prompting, modeling, practice, and corrective
feedback, people have been taught to observe instances of their undesired
behavior and the environmental events affecting their behavior. The use of
recording devices may help to make these events and their consequences
more salient to the individual. Additionally, an individual's behavior initially
may be brought into conformity with long-term consequences by employing
techniques such as (a) commitment strategies (e.g., arranging to have a
wake-up call in order to arrive at an appointment on time) (Rachlin, 1978),
(b) rules and verbal behavior (e.g., raising one's hand before speaking in
class to avoid loss of privileges) (Catania, 1984; Malott, 1984), or (c) stimulus
control (e.g., eating only when sitting at a table to avoid snacking between
meals) (Kazdin, 1978; Skinner, 1953).
Goldiamond (1965), Mahoney and Thoresen (1974), and Brigham
(1978) proposed that through direct instruction individuals can be taught
to analyze their environments to identify functional variables that influence
their behavior. The next step, therefore, is to teach people to modify the
variables that control the behavior they wish to charge. Skinner (1953) and
Brigham (1978) suggested that because any of the variables of which the
target behavior is a function may be manipulated, many self-management
procedures are available and one may be chosen that is appropriate for a
particular environmental context. The next section discusses effective ap-
plications of self-management strategies.

CONTEMPORARY APPLICATIONS OF
SELF-MANAGEMENT

As we developed in an earlier section, self-management establishes a

relationship between controlling and controlled responses (Skinner, 1953).
This contrast aligns with a distinction between techniques (or self-management
behaviors) and the problem behaviors that those techniques have been used
to change. In this section, we examine that distinction with reference to
interventions.
Self-Management 419

Controlling Responses

People may manage their own behavior in myriad ways. For example,
when one is writing while sitting next to an open window on a pleasant
afternoon, she may manage her behavior of looking out the window rather
than looking at what she is writing by altering her environment (e.g., closing
curtains or turning her back to the window). Similarly, a person may act
in a way that is incompatible with acting in another way, as exemplified in
the song, "Whistle a Happy Tune."
Skinner discussed techniques of self-management. He catalogued and
gave examples including (a) physical restraint and physical aid, (b) changing
the stimulus, (c) depriving and satiating, (d) manipulating emotional condi-
tions, (e) using aversive stimulation, (f) drugs, (g) operant conditioning, (h)
punishment, and (i) "doing something else" (see Skinner, 1953, pp. 231-240).
Kazdin (1984) provided a slightly different catalog. He included (a) stimulus
control, (b) self-monitoring, (c) self-reinforcement and self-punishment, and
(d) alternate response training. Models proposed by others (e.g., Bandura &
Perloff, 1967: Glynn, Thomas, & Shee, 1973; Kanfer, 1970) included (a) self-
assessment, (b) self-evaluation, (c) self-recording, and (d) self-reinforcement.
The last examples have a more substantial theoretical basis: the behaviors
described by Kazdin (1978) and Skinner (1953) comprise more of an un-
structured collection. But these lists are not exhaustive; other techniques
that have been tested under the general rubric of self-management include
goal-setting and self-instruction.
As is apparent, there are many different ways to classify self-management
techniques. A thorough examination of these taxonomies would reveal both
similarities and differences among categories of techniques. But, at present,
we do not think that there is a comprehensive, unifying means of classifying
these techniques.

Controlled Responses

An exhaustive list of the different behaviors that have been changed

using any of these various techniques would be tedious, in part because
self-management procedures have been used to address many responses
generally outside of the realm of education. These response range from
ceasing smoking (Abueg, Colletti, & Kopel, 1985; McConnell, Biglan, &
Severson, 1984; Singh & Leung, 1988) to losing weight (e.g., Horton, 1981;
Israel, Silverman, & Solotar, 1987), and from reducing depression (e.g.,
Singer, Irvin, & Hawkins, 1988; Stark, Reynolds, & Kaslow, 1987) to man-
aging diabetes (Wing, Epstein, Nowalk, & Scott, 1988).
420 Hughes and Lloyd

Examples of controlled responses within education are abundant,

also. Some studies have examined the effects of controlling responses on
social behavior in schools; for example, Martella, Leonard, Marchand-
Martella, and Agran (1993) used self-monitoring to reduce a student's
negative statements. Other controlled responses have been academic; for
example, Laird and Winton (1993) examined the effects of different self-
evaluation procedures on students' mistakes on mathematics problems. Still
other studies have examined effects on combinations of controlled responses;
for example, Maag, Reid, and DiGangi (1993) used self-recording to ad-
dress these controlled responses: (a) attending to math work sheets, (b)
answering math problems, and (c) answering those problems correctly.
Controlled responses may vary in complexity, too; whereas attending is a
relatively simple response, answering questions correctly is more complex
(i.e., it requires multiple separate responses).
The controlled educational responses do not have to be limited to
school settings, however. Rusch, McKee, Chadsey-Rusch, and Renzaglia
(1988) used self-instruction to address a conceptually simple response, seek-
ing assistance, in a job setting. Similarly, Lagomarcino and Rusch (1989)
used self-instruction techniques to increase the relatively complex work
responses performed by a person with profound retardation in a community
work setting.
This brief set of examples illustrates that diverse self-management
techniques have been applied in diverse settings with diverse responses
by members of diverse groups. Apparently, techniques, settings, responses,
and group membership do not impose obvious limitations on the useful-
ness of self-management. Rather, they primarily test the capability of the
people w,ho are teaching self-management: Can we determine how to
teach pretty much anyone how to manage her own behavior under given
circumstances?
Because of the extent of the literature on self-control, readers who
are new to it and are interested in examining studies of self-management
should read research reviews as a first step. Both earlier reviews (e.g.,
Kazdin, 1984; McLaughlin, 1976) and more recent works addressing par-
ticular topics in self-management (e.g., Hughes, 1991; Mace & Kratochwill,
1988) provide informative introductions.

CONCLUSION

Despite the extensive literature on self-management, including both

theoretical and applied papers, there is much about self-management that
is unknown. Our discussion has hinted at some areas of potentially fruitful
Self-Management 421

research. In this section, we suggest a few areas as illustrations of the range

of topics that may be studied. Although we have an abiding interest in the
study of procedures for teaching self-management behaviors, in these com-
ments we focus on issues relevant to understanding the phenomenon self-
management.

9 We think it would be particularly valuable to examine the

consequences of self-management. For example, we wonder whether
the idea of trapping (Baer & Wolf, 1970) is operating in self-
management. Does managing one's own behavior permit access to
other environmental reinforcers?
9 We wonder about whether various self-management behaviors or
techniques might form a response class. Does exercising various
self-management behaviors produce a higher probability of using
those behaviors in other settings?
9 We think that the question of why self-management techniques
work remains unanswered. Although there are substantial data that
bear on the question, we would like to know what are the key
ingredients in self-management and how do they interact with
other variables to enhance or inhibit effects.
9 Similarly, we wonder how successful educators may be in teaching
the use of self-management techniques to change an individual's
behavior when the individual herself does not want to change it.
For example, teachers may want students to work harder to improve
their grades, employers may desire employees to decrease absences,
or parents may wish that their children more consistently completed
their household chores. Self-management techniques may be
appropriate in each case; however, if an individual does not want
to change a targeted behavior, will self-management be effective
in promoting behavior change? We believe that in such a case,
individuals need to learn what contingencies are operating in their
environments. This learning is facilitated by making the consequences
of one's actions more salient. For example, students could be
instructed that the results of continued poor grades will be academic
probation and eventual dismissal from school. Smokers could be
shown x-rays of lungs that have been damaged by the effects of
long-term smoke inhalation. It may be that reluctance to change
a behavior that is potentially damaging to an individual is due in
part to a failure of the individual to associate delayed aversive
consequences with an immediate response. A prerequisite for
teaching self-management may be to cause the individual to attend
422 ltughes and Lloyd

to potential consequences by making these consequences more

salient. Empirical testing of this hypothesis in addition to
investigation of the most effective methods for increasing the
saliency of delayed consequences under various conditions should
be conducted.
9 We think that the wealth of techniques considered under the rubric
of self-management is both a benefit and a liability. Although it
indicates that there are many different possible techniques
(controlling behaviors) that we can teach, we fear this wealth also
indicates a lack of conceptual clarity. How are self-monitoring and
self-recording the same and different? To what extent is goal-setting
implicit in self-evaluation? We need a rigorous examination and
classification of these procedures. Such an examination should also
propel us toward a more complete understanding of the phenomenon
we call self-management.
9 We also expect that there is much to be gained by studying self-
management behaviors in a broader context. Self-management
behavior occurs within a context in which some antecedent and
consequent events influence it. We have too little understanding
of how the various factors in the environment promote or inhibit
self-management and how self-management, itself, affects those
environmental variables. To gain greater understanding of the
interactions between self-management and the environments
within which it occurs, we probably must adopt an ecobehavioral
approach to studying these phenomena (e.g., Greenwood, Carta,
Arreaga-Mayer, & Rager, 1991).
9 We think that some of the problems and issues we have identified
are the result of having no fully specified and extensively tested
theory of self-management. Although cognitive views of self-
management have offered working models of self-control (e.g.,
Kanfer & Karoly, 1972), there are difficulties with them. Likewise,
it is not clear that more operant models are sufficient (Nelson &
Hayes, 1981). But, we doubt that we shall be able to resolve many
of the more difficult issues in self-management (e.g., what's needed
to make it work?) until we have a well-developed model to critique,
test, and revise.

Despite these questions about self-management, we think that the

area has much to offer education. Self-management techniques appear to
appeal to teachers and other educators; to be applicable in diverse settings,
with diverse populations, and to diverse controlled responses; and to be
Self-Management 423

robust. Likewise, they have advantages for individuals because they offer
a potential means of changing behaviors important (and therefore socially
valid) to individuals themselves.

REFERENCES

Abueg, F. R., Colletti, G., & Kopel, S. A. (1985). A study of reactivity: The effects of increased
relevance and saliency of self-monitored smoking through enhanced carbon monoxide
feedback. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 321-333.
Baer, D. M. (1984). Does research on self-control need more control? Analysis and Intervention
in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 211-218.
Baer, D. M., & Wolf, M. M. (1970). The entry into natural communities of reinforcement.
In R. Ulrich, T. Stachnik, & J. Mabry (Eds.), Control of human behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 319-
324). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Bandura, A. (1971). Vicarious and self-reinforcement processes. In R. Glaser (Ed.), The nature
of reinforcement (pp. 228-278). New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1974). Self-reinforcement processes. In M. J. Mahoney & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.),
Self-control: Power to the person (pp. 86-I10). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Bandura, A., & Perloff, B. (1967). Relative efficacy of self-monitored and externally imposed
reinforcement systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 111-116.
Bern, S. L. (1967). Verbal self-control: The establishment of effective self-instruction. Journal
of Exceptional Psychology, 74, 485-491.
Brigham, T. (1983). Self-management: A radical behavioral perspective. In P. Karoly & F. H.
Kanfer (Eds.), Self-management and behavior change: From theory to practice (pp. 32-59).
New York: Pergamon Press.
Brigham, T. A. (1978). Self-control: Part II. In A. C. Catania & T. A. Brigham (Eds.),
Handbook of applied behavior analysis: Social and instructional processes (pp. 259-274).
New York: Irvington Publishers.
Catania, A. C. (1984). Learning (2rid ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Evans, R. I. (1968). B. F. Skinner: The man and his ideas. New York: Dutton.
Fantino, E. (1966). Immediate reward followed by extinction versus later reward without
extinction. Psychonomic Science, 6, 233-234.
Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedule of rehlforcement. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, Inc.
Glynn, E. L., Thomas, J. D., & Shee, S. M. (1973). Behavioral self-control of on-task behavior
in an elementary classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 105-113.
Goldfried, M. R., & Merbaum, M. (1973). A perspective on self-control. In M. R. Goldfried
& M. Merbaum (Eds.), Behavior change through self-control (pp. 3-34). New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Goldiamond, I. (1965). Self-control procedures in personal behavior problems. Psychological
Reports, 17, 851-868.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Arreaga-Mayer, C., & Rager, A. (1991). The behavior analyst
consulting model: Identifying and validating naturally effective instructional models.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 165-191.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,
13, 243-266.
Horton, A. M. (1981). Self-recording in the treatment of obesity: A six-year follow-up. Journal
of Obesity and Weight Regulation, 1(2), 93-95.
424 Hughes and Lloyd

Hughes, C. (1991). Independent performance among individuals with mental retardation:

Promoting generalization through self-instruction. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P. M.
Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 27, pp. 7-35). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Israel, A. C., Silverman, W. K., & Solotar, L. C. (1987). Baseline adherence as a predictor
of dropout in a children's weight-reduction program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 55, 791-793.
Jones, R. T., Nelson, R. E., & Kazdin, A. E. (1977). The role of external variables in self-
reinforcement. Behavior Modification, 2, 147-203.
Kanfer, F. H. (1971). The maintenance of behavior by self-generated stimuli and
reinforcement. In A. Jacobs & L. B. Sachs (Eds.), The psychology of private events:
Perspectives on covert response systems (pp. 39-59). New York: Academic Press.
Kanfer, F. H., & Karoly, P. (1972). Self-control: A behavioristic excursion into the lion's den.
Behavior therapy, 3, 398-416.
Kanfer, F. F. (1970). Self-monitoring: Methodological issues and clinical applications. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35, 143-152.
Kazdin, A. E. (1978). History of behavior modification: Experimental foundations of
contemporary research. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Kazdin, A. E. (1984). Behavior modification in applied settings (3rd ed.). Homewood, IL:
Dorsey.
Lagomarcino, T. R., & Rusch, F. R. (1989). Utilizing self-management procedures to teach
independent performance. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 297-305.
Laird, J., & Winton, A. S. (1993). A comparison of self-instructional checking procedures for
remediating mathematical deficits. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 143-164.
Maag, J. W., Reid, R., & DiGangi, S. A. (1993). Differential effects of attention, accuracy,
and productivity self-monitoring. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 329-344.
Mace, F. C., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1988). Self-monitoring. In J. C. Witt, S. N. Eliott, & F.
M. Gresham (Eds.), Handbook of behavior therapy in education (pp. 489-522). New York:
Plenum.
Mahoney, M. J., & Thoresen, C. E. (1974). Behavioral self-control. In M. J. Mahoney & C.
E. Thoresen (Eds.), Self-control: Power to the person (pp. 20-26). Monterey, CA: Brooks/
Cole Publishing.
Malott, R. W. (1984). Rule-governed behavior, self-management, and the developmentally
disabled: A theoretical analysis. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4,
199-209.
Martella, R. C., Leonard, I. J., Marchand-Martella, N. E., & Agran, M. (1993). Self-monitoring
negative statements. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 77-86.
Mawhinney, T. C. (1983). Maximizing versus matching in people versus pigeons. Psychological
Reports, 50, 267-281.
McConnell, S., Biglan, A., & Severson, H. H. (1984). Adolescents' compliance with self-
monitoring and physiological assessment of smoking in natural environments. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 7, 115-122.
McLaughlin, T. F. (1976). Self-control in the classroom. Review of Educational Research, 46,
631-663.
Millar, A., & Navarick, D. J. (1984). Self-control and choice in humans: Effects of video game
playing as a positive reinforcer. Learning and Motivation, 15, 203-218.
Nelson, R. O., & Hayes, S. C. (1981). Theoretical explanations for reactivity in self-monitoring.
Behavior Modification, 5, 3-14.
Premack, D. (1970). Mechanisms of self-control. In W. Hunt (Ed.), Learning and mechanisms
of control in smoking (pp. 107-123). Chicago: Aldin.
Rachlin, H. (1974). Self-control. Behaviorism, 2, 94-107.
Rachlin, H. (1978). Self-control: Part I. In A. C. Catania & T. A. Brigham (Eds.), Handbook
of applied behavior analysis: Social and instructional processes (pp. 246-258). New York:
Irvington Publishers.
Rachlin, H., & Green, L. (1972). Commitment, choice, and self-control. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 17, 15-22.
Self-Management 425

Ragotzy, S. P., Blakely, E., & Poling, A. (1988). Self-control in mentally retarded adolescents:
Choice as a function of amount and delay of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 49, 191-199.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, Inc.
Rusch, F. R., McKee, M., Chadsey-Rusch, J., & Renzaglia, A. (1988). Teaching a student
with severe handicaps to self-instruct: A brief report. Education and Training in Mental
Retardation, 23, 51-58.
Singer, G. H., Irvin, L. K., & Hawkins, N. (1988). Stress management training for parents of
children with severe handicaps. Mental Retardation, 26, 269-277.
Singh, N. N., & Leung, J. (1988). Smoking cessation through cigarette-fading, self-recording,
and contracting: Treatment, maintenance and long-term follow up. Addictive Behaviors,
13, 101-105.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: The Free Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignify. New York: Knopf.
Stark, K. D., Reynolds, W. M., & Kaslow, N. J. (1987). A comparison of the relative efficacy
of self-control therapy and a behavioral problem-solving therapy for depression in
children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 91-113.
Thoresen, C. E., & Mahoney, M. J. (1974). Behavioral self-control. New York: Holt, Reinhart
and Winston, Inc.
Wing, R. R., Epstein, L. H., Nowalk, M. P., & Scott, N. (1988). Self-regulation in the treatment
of Type II diabetes. Behavior Therapy, 19, 11-23.