Psychologicd Reports, 1979,45,975-984. @ Psychological Reports 1979
ANXIETY AS A POSSIBLE MEDIATOR OF SELF-MONITORING EFFECTS CARLOS GOLDBERG' Indiana University-Prrrdue University at lndianafiolis Summary.-It was predicted that frequency of undesirable behavior would be correlated with anxiety. A distinction was made between individuals who punish themselves for engaging in undesirable behavior (Reactors) and those who do not (Nonreactors), and the former were expected to benefit the most from self-monitoring. 50 undergraduates were asked to monitor their behavior and anxiety for 14 days. The correlation between behavior and anxiety was small but significant. Furthermore, subjects whose behavior decreased showed the greatest decrement in anxiety. The anxiety level from before to the period of self-monitoring decreased for Reactors but not for Nonreactors. However, during self-monitoring there was no difference in both behavior and anxiety between the two groups. It is possible that a longer self-monitoring period is required for the relationship between anxiety and behavior or additional behavioral interventions are necessary.
Several studies indicated that self-monitoring of mdesirable behavior leads to a decrease of behavior frequency (Axelrod, Hall, Weis, & Rohrer, 1974; Broden, Hall & Mitts, 1971; Lipinski & Nelson, ,1974; McFall & Hammen, 1971; McNamara, 1972; Stuart, 1971; Zimmerman & Levitt, 1975). However, other studies yielded no behavioral change (Axelrod, Hall, Weis, & Rohrer, 1974; Berecz, 1972; Mahoney, Moura, & Wade, 1973; Stollack, 1967; Zimmerman & Levitt, 1975) and some studies suggested that self-monitoring may even lead to an increase of behavior (McFall, 1970; Hall, 1972). It cannot be said that the positive effects of self-monitoring are restricted to certain types of behavior since one finds both positive and negative results with respect to the same behaviors, such as smoking and overeating. Kanfer ( 1970), and Kanfer and Phillips (1970) provide a possible explanation for the positive effects of self-monitoring. Specifically, self-monitoring serves as feedback for the individual which is then used for the purpose of self-regulation. That is, self-monitoring gives the individual objective information as to how dose he is to some assumed standard. The degree of discrepancy between actual behavior and the standard determines the nature of self-reinforcement, which in the final analysis is responsible for behavioral change. Thus, if the behavior being monitored is undesirable, that behavior should decrease in the direction of the standard but if the behavior is desirable, its frequency should increase (cf. Kazdin, 1974). 'I would like to thank Sue Hiland who served as a research-assistant for this study. This research was supported by a Grant-in-Aid from Indiana University, and computer service was provided by the IUPUI Computing Facilities. Requests for reprints should be sent to C. Goldberg. Department of Psychology, Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, 1201 East 38th Street, Indianapolis, I N 46205.
ANXIETY AND SELF-MONITORlNG
977
uals who typically punish themselves for having symptoms (Reactors) are more likely to benefit from self-monitoring than individuals who do not punish themselves (Nonreactors). However, in the case of desirable behavior, there should not be any differences between these two types of individuals, i.e., no one punishes himself for engaging in desirable behavior, and self-monitoring would not be removing this source of anxiety. The purpose of the present study was to assess the proposed extension of Kanfer's model when behavior is undesirable. Specifically, it was expected that a decrease in frequency of behavior will be accompanied by a corresponding decrease in anxiety during self-monitoring; an increase of behavior will be accompanied by an increase in anxiety; and if behavior remains the same so will the anxiety level. Furthermore, the incidence of improvement will be greater for Reactors than Nonreactors.
The subjects were 50 undergraduate students, 10 males and 40 females, attending courses in psychology who volunteered for the study. The subjects were not paid nor did they receive extra credit. The subject was asked to specify a habit or behavior he would like to decrease and to describe every thought he had while engaging in that behavior in the last three times. The subject was told that his answers would remain anonymous and that the last five digits of his telephone number would serve as the identification number. . Next the subject was told that some people react strongly to their undesirable habits, and the thoughts of a client with a driving phobia were described, viz., "Why do I have this fear," "I shouldn't have this problem," "I hate myself for having this phobia," "I must be a real weakling to be afraid of driving," "1 really should try harder to get rid of this fear once-and-for-all." The subject was asked to indicate the extent to which he has similar thoughts by checking one of four response categories: ( 1 ) Strongly applies to me, ( 2 ) Applies to me, ( 3 ) Applies to me to some extent, ( 4 ) Does not apply to me. A subject was classified as a Reactor if he checked categories ( 1 ) or ( 2 ) , and a Nomeactor if he checked ( 3 ) or (4). Then the subject was asked to indicate on a 7-point scale the extent to which the behavior interferes with his life; how long he has had the behavior; and he was asked to indicate on an 11-point scale the extent to which he suffers from general anxiety. Finally, the subject was given a wrist counter, a data sheet, and a diary, and he was asked to count the behavior for the next 14 days and to describe
9 78
C. GOLDBERG
his thoughts related to the behavior in the diary. In addition he was told to use an 11-point scale to rate his anxiety level on each of the 14 days.
RESULTS There were 17 different behaviors specified by one or more subjects. The most common behaviors or habits were overeating, worries, nail-biting, and nervous habits, which were indicated by 10, 8, 7, and 5 subjeccs, respectively. The mean behavior frequency for the first seven days and for the last seven days was computed, and a mean-difference between these nvo values was calculated for each subject. In addition, the grand mean based on all 14 observations was computed. If the absolute value of the mean-difference was equal to or greater than 2 0 s 2 of the grand mean the behavior was classified as having decreased or increased, depending on the sign of the mean-difference; if the mean-difference was less than 20% of the grand mean, the behavior was considered as being unchanged. On the basis of this criterion, the behavior frequency decreased from the first half to the second half of self-monitoring for 30 subjects, remained unchanged for 11 subjects, and increased for 9 subjects. Using similar procedures for the anxiety ratings, there was a decrease in anxiety for 23 subjects, no change for 21 subjects, and an increase for 6 subjects. Behavior altd Anxiety Each of the 50 subjects yielded 14 pairs of observations on behavior frequency and anxiety rating, giving a total of 700 observations. The correlation between behavior and anxiety although significant was small ( r = .25, p < .Ol). As mentioned earlier the mean-difference between the first and second halves of self-monitoring was calculated for behavior and anxiety; the correlation between these two mean-differences was also significant and small ( r = .28,
p
ANXIETY AS A POSSIBLE MEDIATOR OF SELF-MONITORING EFFECTS CARLOS GOLDBERG' Indiana University-Prrrdue University at lndianafiolis Summary.-It was predicted that frequency of undesirable behavior would be correlated with anxiety. A distinction was made between individuals who punish themselves for engaging in undesirable behavior (Reactors) and those who do not (Nonreactors), and the former were expected to benefit the most from self-monitoring. 50 undergraduates were asked to monitor their behavior and anxiety for 14 days. The correlation between behavior and anxiety was small but significant. Furthermore, subjects whose behavior decreased showed the greatest decrement in anxiety. The anxiety level from before to the period of self-monitoring decreased for Reactors but not for Nonreactors. However, during self-monitoring there was no difference in both behavior and anxiety between the two groups. It is possible that a longer self-monitoring period is required for the relationship between anxiety and behavior or additional behavioral interventions are necessary.
Several studies indicated that self-monitoring of mdesirable behavior leads to a decrease of behavior frequency (Axelrod, Hall, Weis, & Rohrer, 1974; Broden, Hall & Mitts, 1971; Lipinski & Nelson, ,1974; McFall & Hammen, 1971; McNamara, 1972; Stuart, 1971; Zimmerman & Levitt, 1975). However, other studies yielded no behavioral change (Axelrod, Hall, Weis, & Rohrer, 1974; Berecz, 1972; Mahoney, Moura, & Wade, 1973; Stollack, 1967; Zimmerman & Levitt, 1975) and some studies suggested that self-monitoring may even lead to an increase of behavior (McFall, 1970; Hall, 1972). It cannot be said that the positive effects of self-monitoring are restricted to certain types of behavior since one finds both positive and negative results with respect to the same behaviors, such as smoking and overeating. Kanfer ( 1970), and Kanfer and Phillips (1970) provide a possible explanation for the positive effects of self-monitoring. Specifically, self-monitoring serves as feedback for the individual which is then used for the purpose of self-regulation. That is, self-monitoring gives the individual objective information as to how dose he is to some assumed standard. The degree of discrepancy between actual behavior and the standard determines the nature of self-reinforcement, which in the final analysis is responsible for behavioral change. Thus, if the behavior being monitored is undesirable, that behavior should decrease in the direction of the standard but if the behavior is desirable, its frequency should increase (cf. Kazdin, 1974). 'I would like to thank Sue Hiland who served as a research-assistant for this study. This research was supported by a Grant-in-Aid from Indiana University, and computer service was provided by the IUPUI Computing Facilities. Requests for reprints should be sent to C. Goldberg. Department of Psychology, Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, 1201 East 38th Street, Indianapolis, I N 46205.
ANXIETY AND SELF-MONITORlNG
977
uals who typically punish themselves for having symptoms (Reactors) are more likely to benefit from self-monitoring than individuals who do not punish themselves (Nonreactors). However, in the case of desirable behavior, there should not be any differences between these two types of individuals, i.e., no one punishes himself for engaging in desirable behavior, and self-monitoring would not be removing this source of anxiety. The purpose of the present study was to assess the proposed extension of Kanfer's model when behavior is undesirable. Specifically, it was expected that a decrease in frequency of behavior will be accompanied by a corresponding decrease in anxiety during self-monitoring; an increase of behavior will be accompanied by an increase in anxiety; and if behavior remains the same so will the anxiety level. Furthermore, the incidence of improvement will be greater for Reactors than Nonreactors.
The subjects were 50 undergraduate students, 10 males and 40 females, attending courses in psychology who volunteered for the study. The subjects were not paid nor did they receive extra credit. The subject was asked to specify a habit or behavior he would like to decrease and to describe every thought he had while engaging in that behavior in the last three times. The subject was told that his answers would remain anonymous and that the last five digits of his telephone number would serve as the identification number. . Next the subject was told that some people react strongly to their undesirable habits, and the thoughts of a client with a driving phobia were described, viz., "Why do I have this fear," "I shouldn't have this problem," "I hate myself for having this phobia," "I must be a real weakling to be afraid of driving," "1 really should try harder to get rid of this fear once-and-for-all." The subject was asked to indicate the extent to which he has similar thoughts by checking one of four response categories: ( 1 ) Strongly applies to me, ( 2 ) Applies to me, ( 3 ) Applies to me to some extent, ( 4 ) Does not apply to me. A subject was classified as a Reactor if he checked categories ( 1 ) or ( 2 ) , and a Nomeactor if he checked ( 3 ) or (4). Then the subject was asked to indicate on a 7-point scale the extent to which the behavior interferes with his life; how long he has had the behavior; and he was asked to indicate on an 11-point scale the extent to which he suffers from general anxiety. Finally, the subject was given a wrist counter, a data sheet, and a diary, and he was asked to count the behavior for the next 14 days and to describe
9 78
C. GOLDBERG
his thoughts related to the behavior in the diary. In addition he was told to use an 11-point scale to rate his anxiety level on each of the 14 days.
RESULTS There were 17 different behaviors specified by one or more subjects. The most common behaviors or habits were overeating, worries, nail-biting, and nervous habits, which were indicated by 10, 8, 7, and 5 subjeccs, respectively. The mean behavior frequency for the first seven days and for the last seven days was computed, and a mean-difference between these nvo values was calculated for each subject. In addition, the grand mean based on all 14 observations was computed. If the absolute value of the mean-difference was equal to or greater than 2 0 s 2 of the grand mean the behavior was classified as having decreased or increased, depending on the sign of the mean-difference; if the mean-difference was less than 20% of the grand mean, the behavior was considered as being unchanged. On the basis of this criterion, the behavior frequency decreased from the first half to the second half of self-monitoring for 30 subjects, remained unchanged for 11 subjects, and increased for 9 subjects. Using similar procedures for the anxiety ratings, there was a decrease in anxiety for 23 subjects, no change for 21 subjects, and an increase for 6 subjects. Behavior altd Anxiety Each of the 50 subjects yielded 14 pairs of observations on behavior frequency and anxiety rating, giving a total of 700 observations. The correlation between behavior and anxiety although significant was small ( r = .25, p < .Ol). As mentioned earlier the mean-difference between the first and second halves of self-monitoring was calculated for behavior and anxiety; the correlation between these two mean-differences was also significant and small ( r = .28,
p
