Journal o f Abnorrnal Child Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1976
Teaching Social Skills to Isolated Children John Gottman 1
University of Illinois Jonni Gonso and Philip Schuler Indiana University
The effects o f a social skill training program on socially isolated children are reported. The training program was derived from the results o f a previous study o f the specific social skills that discriminated popular from unpopular children. Training effects in the present investigation were assessed on sociometric position, and on the quality, frequency, and distribution o f social interaction to peers. Time-series analyses were performed on the frequency and distribution o f peer interaction. Two isolated children received social skill training with an adult coach, and two isolated children spent an equivalent amount o f time with an adult. Results indicated that socially isolated children in the treatment group changed sigmficantly in sociometric position on a follow-up assessment 9 weeks after the end o f the intervention, did not change in the total frequency o f peer social interaction, but did redistribute their interaction to peers. The two isolated children who did not receive the treatment program did not change significantly on the total frequency o f peer interaction, and tended to withdraw from peers rather than redistribute their interaction. The insensitivity o f total peer interaction frequency as a measure o f outcome was discussed.
There has been renewed interest in interventions for socially isolated children (Amidon & Hoffman, 1965; Chennault, 1967; Kranzler, Mayer, Dyer, & Munger, 1966) and in social skill training for both children (Evers & Schwarz, 1973; O'Connor, 1969, 1972) and adults (Goldsmith & McFall, 1975; McFall & Twentyman, 1973). Asher, Oden, and Gottman (in press) recently reviewed research designed to enhance the social status of isolated children. They concluded that interventions with social isolates have produced effects that return to baseline in those few studies that have included a follow-up assessment. For Manuscript received in final form February 6, 1976. 1Requests for reprints should be sent to John M. Gottman, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Children's Research Center, 51 East Gerty Drive, Champaign, Illinois 61820.
179 9 1976 Plenum Publishing Corporation, 2 2 7 West 17th Street, New Y o r k , N . Y . 10011. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any f o r m or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher.
180
Gottman, Gonso, and Schuler
example, Chennault (1967) found that isolated children who participated in a class skit were more accepted than a group of isolated children who had not participated. However, a follow-up study (Rucker & Vincenzo, 1970) found that increased participation produced immediate changes which unfortunately returned to baseline on a follow-up measure taken 1 month after the intervention. Sociometric measures are important as early predictors of later functioning. Unpopular children are more likely to be disproportionately represented later in life in a community-wide psychiatric register (Cowen, Pederson, Babigian, Izzo, & Trost, 1973); they are also more likely to receive bad conduct discharges from the armed forces (Roff, 1961). Roff, Sells, and Golden (1972), in a recent 4-year longitudinal study of 4,000 children, found that except for the lowest socioeconomic class, the relationship was highly positive between delinquency and low peer acceptance scores taken 4 years earlier. It would therefore seem important to be able to demonstrate lasting effects on peer acceptance for unaccepted children. Perhaps one reason for the failure of previous interventions is related to how the social skills taught to isolates are selected. Previous interventions have not selected social skills using an empirical assessment of which skills discriminate isolated from nonisolated children. Gottman, Gonso, and Rasmussen (1975) found that third and fourth grade children with low peer acceptance scores differed from popular children on a referential communication task, on their knowledge of how to make friends in a role-play assessment, and on the frequency with which they distributed and received positive interaction with peers. The present investigation was designed to assess whether training on these skills leads to lasting changes in peer acceptance. A methodological issue involves the use of observers. In previous intervention studies all the children were observed for identification of the isolates, but observers only observed the isolated children upon follow-up. A more stringent, though more expensive, control on experimenter-bias effects would be obtained by having the observers continue to observe all children throughout the study. That procedure was followed in the present investigation. Observers in the present investigation were also unaware that any intervention was planned, or that the study was concerned with social isolation. In previous research, observations have not been sampled over different classroom activities, and the total time that children were observed has been low; it was 8 minutes for the O'Connor (1969, 1972) studies. The present investigation obtained data daily (mornings and afternoons), sampling over three types of classroom situations. Previous research has also not specified the nature of the time sampling method used. Thomson, Holmberg, and Baer (1974) recently reported that a sequential time sampling procedure gave the most efficient observational estimates. The sequential method was used in the present study. Previous investigations have also not controlled for observer drift (O'Leary & Kent, 1973) or interobserver reliability decay (Reid, 1970). The present in-
Social Isolation
181
vestigafion attempted to control these factors by using an independent observer whose only task was to make random reliability checks once a week for each observer. This procedure is in line with current reviews of these methodological problems in naturalistic observation (Lipinski & Nelson, 1974). Another issue which needs to be addressed in intervention programs with the social isolate is the method by which results are analyzed. O'Connor (1969, 1972) and Evers and Schwarz (1973) used a between-subjects analysis of variance. It is, however, true that ephemeral effects averaged over an intervention period will have a mean value for that period which is higher than the baseline mean. Walker and Hops (1973) presented the only available within-subject data in a replication of O'Connor (1972). A return to baseline is precisely what one observes for one of their three subjects. What is needed is a within-subject, or N-of-one-at-a-time analysis (Glass, Willson, & Gottman, 1975; Gottman, 1973; Gottman, McFall, & Barnett, 1969) using an interrupted time-series analysis design. Finally, an ABAB design may not make much sense if the intervention is heavily instructional, for how can this learning be reversed?
METHOD Subjects
A third grade classroom in a low-income school in Bloomington, Indiana, was selected for the study. There were 22 children in the class, 11 females and t 1 males. One female subject moved at the beginning of the experiment. Four females were selected as subjects in the present study using the sociometric criterion described below. Procedure Classroom Behavior Assessment. Observers began observing on February 5 and continued without interruptions (except for Easter break) until April 26. There were 9 baseline days, 5 intervention days, and 11 follow-up days. Each child was observed for as close to 10 minutes daffy (or 60 observations) as was possible. Long-term follow-up after intervention was thus included for the observational data as well as for the sociometric data. Follow-up observational data began 47 days after the end of the intervention. Follow-up sociometric data were taken 63 days after the end of the intervention. Two observers were assigned to the classroom -- one for the morning and one for the afternoon. They spent a few days learning the names of the children in the classroom and then began observing by finding a child, observing the child for 10 6-second intervals (using clipboards with a 6-second, light-emitting diode),
182
Gottman, Gonso, and Schuler
and then moving to the next child on the list. Observers also made note of with whom each child was interacting during each 6-second observation. Observation was sampled from three situations: (1) lecture or demonstration situations; (2) seat work; and (3) small group work, mixing, or classroom work which involved free access to other children. The coding system was the one used in Gottman et al. (1975). In this coding system the Hartup, Glazer, and Charlesworth (1967) behaviors were used for positive and negative peer interaction. 2 All observations for one day summed over all three situations were used to obtain the relative frequencies of positive, negative, and neutral peer interaction. Thus while another child was being observed, interactions with an experimental or control child were counted and the total divided by the number of observations obtained on all children that day for the computation of daily frequencies. The distribution of interaction by percentages to popular and unpopular males and females was computed for each day of nonzero interaction. A third observer was used to obtain weekly reliability checks. He would appear unannounced at one time during the week for each observer. Interobserver agreement was always maintained at a minimum of 85% for each observer and averaged 86.4% for the entire period over all categories. Observers continued to observe the entire class for the entire period of the experiment and remained blind to the fact that an intervention took place or that only the behavior of specific children was of interest. Sociometric measures. During the baseline period children were asked by the teacher (who followed a script) to list their best friends (any number). This item was used because of the results of a pilot study in which a sociometric was administered and a number of possible phrasings of the sociometric question were piloted (see Gottman et al., 1975). Using this sociometric measure, four children low on the best friends measure were selected (mean number friends = 2.50); two were randomly assigned to the treatment and two to the control group. The mean number of friends for children not selected was 5.44. All four subjects were females. An additional sociometric device was administered as a p r e - p o s t assessment of change. Each student rated all his peers on a 5-point scale twice, once for forming work groups and once for forming play groups. The teacher said he would be forming work groups and play groups and wanted to get an idea of "who you want to play with and who you want to work with most." Students were first taught to rate items from 1 to 5 by using a set of foods. The order in which students filled out the play-with and work-with sociometric forms was randomized both before and after the intervention. This second sociometric made it possible to do correlated F-tests on the sociometric ratings, which would not have been possible with the first sociometric device. A more sensitive measure of change is provided by the 1 to 5 2An observation and coding manual for the Hartup et al.' (1967) codes is available as Document No. 9617 from the ADI Auxiliary Publications Project, Photoduplication Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. 20540, for $3.60.
Social Isolation
183
scale. A pilot study in another classroom (N = 27) in this school in which both devices were administered showed that correlations between the first device and the ranking were 0.96 (dr = 25, p < .0005) for the play-with and 0.45 (dr = 25, p < .01) for the work-with rating scales. Follow-up sociometrics were taken 9 weeks after the end of the intervention. Intervention. The teacher remained naive to when the intervention took place, the nature of the intervention, which children were selected for intervention, and which children were in the treatment or control groups. Student volunteers sporadically took students out of the classroom for brief periods so that this procedure became commonplace. Treatment Group. Each day for 1 week two male coaches who were undergraduate psychology students worked individually with each of the two treatment condition children for approximately 30 minutes a day. One coach was assigned to each child. The coach followed a manual of instructions) The Gottman et al. (1975) study had demonstrated the importance of referential communication skills, knowledge of how to make friends, and distributing and receiving positive interaction with peers. To teach these skills each coach was trained, in one 3-hour session, on the use of a coaching manual and training videotapes and audiotapes. The treatment was divided into three conceptual stages. The first stage attempted to teach the child how to initiate interaction. In this stage the child saw a 10-minute videotape with vignettes of female children who thought over and then decided to go ahead and join some girls in an activity with ensuing positive consequences. This fdm was similar to one used by O'Connor (1969, 1972). The film contained four such scenes with the size of the group varying from one to four. The film was narrated by a female voice using a Meichenbaum and Goodman (1971) coping self-statement sequence. This sequence consists of a soliloquy of an inner debate in the following order: (1) wanting to initiate interaction; (2) worrying about negative consequences; ( 3 ) t h e self-debate; (4) the moment of decision to go ahead; (5) the approach; (6) the greeting; (7) asking permission to join in (or requesting help). During the second stage an attempt was made to teach the child how to make friends using a friend-making sequence described by Gottman et al. (1975), namely greeting, asking for information, giving information, extending an offer of inclusion, and effective leave taking. This was the sequence used by popular third and fourth grade children. In this stage the child role-played with the coach, who pretended to be a new child in the class that the child wanted to befriend. In this second stage the child also learned how to distribute positive interaction, which included: (1) being interested in what someone else is saying and showing the interest by summarizing in the subject's own words what was being said; the coach told the subject a Grimm brothers story and it was the 3A copy of the coaching manual provides details of the coaching procedure and is available from the first author on request.
184
Gottman, Gonso, and Schuler
subject's job to parapharase the story as it progressed; (2) the behaviors used in the classroom observation distributing-positive-interaction category, namely, giving something (a token or object); giving approval, complying with a request (e.g., agreeing to join in an activity when invited); or, giving affection. The third stage worked on referential communication skills using a word. pair game (Asher & Parke, 1975), an obstacle course in which the child had to give instructions to a blindfolded puppet (Gottman et al., 1975), and a set of math problems in which the child played the role of teacher. The skills in this stage involved being able to take the special perspective of a listener. In each of the three stages, the subject was asked to pick someone from the class to practice the behavior of that stage. Control Group. The two children of the control group were seen for the same amount of time by a female experimenter who talked and played various board games such as Concentration and War. Conversation was limited to school (favorite subjects or classroom activities) or home (brothers and sisters and what the subject did at home). The subject of "friends" was not discussed. Upon completion of each session both subjects asked if they would be able to come again and said that they had fun.
RESULTS
Follow-up sociometrics were taken 9 weeks after the end of the interven. tion. Data were analyzed in correlated F-tests. On the play-with sociometric variable both treatment children improved significantly. One child changed significantly, F(1,20) = 4.92, p < .04. The other treatment child also improved, F(1,20) = 2.98, p < .09. Neither control group child improved. There were no significant changes for control subject 3, F(1,20) = .10, p < .75, or for control subject 4, F(1,20) = .06, p > .79. Table I presents the mean pre- and postsociometric ratings. Table I. Pre and Post Mean Sociometric Ratings for Experimental and Control Subjects Mean sociometric ratings Pre
Post
Play-with measure Experimental subject 1 Experimental subject 2 Control subject 3 Control subject 4
1.25 2.29 1.49 3.48
1.95 2.95 1.57 3.38
Work-with measure Experimental subject 1 Experimental subject 2 Control subject 3 Control subject 4
1.29 2.52 1.24 3.67
2.14 3.05 1.49 3.67
Social Isolation
185
IO0 EXPERIMENTAL =SUBJECT I ~SUBJECT 2
90
CONTROL -" ~SUBJECT $ t~--aSUBJECT 4 CLASS AVERAGE
80
Z 0 F-
70
rY hi
_z 60 rr.' L~ b.; L,t. 0 >.-. (._) Z L~ C~
50
40
I.,L
I-.Dd
30
20
I0
O0 123456789 BASELINE
DAYS
I 254567891011 12545 DURING POST INTERVENTION INTERVENTION
Fig. 1. Daily frequency of peer interaction.
186
G o t t m a n , G o n s o , and Schuler
I00 EXPERIMENTAL = ;SUBJECT I o----oSUBJECT 2 CONTROL -" "-SUBJECT 3 a~,~SUBJECT"4 CLASS AVERAGE
90
8O
~o _z
~6o F-
~so ~,4o Z
~3o m
20
t0
O0
,,,
, i,,,
123456789 BASELINE
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
2345 I 254567891011 DURING POST INTERVENTION INTERVENTION
DAYS
Fig. 2. Daily frequency of positive peer interaction.
I
Social Isolation
187
I00 EXPERIMENTAL ~-SUBJECT I o------oSUBJE CT 2
90
CONTROL -" --SUBJECT 3 z~SUBJECT 4 CLASS AVERAGE
8O Z 0 I-C_)
70 Z lad
N6o I---
~50 I.L 0
t.ul LJ-
_>30 __1 ~J
20
IO
O0
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
125456789 BASELINE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-I
I
I 2.345 123456 7891011 DURING POST INTERVENTION INTERVENTION
DAYS - - - "
Fig. 3. Daily frequency of negative peer interaction.
188
Gottman, G0nso, and Schuler
On the work-with sociometric variable the treatment group subjects also improved, F(1,20) = 4.88, p < .04, for the first subject and for the second subject, F(1,20) = 2.67, p < .12. Neither of the control group children showed any change on this sociometric variable, F(1,20) = 1.07, p > .31 for the first control subject, and F(1,20) = 0.00, p > .99 for the second control subject. The zero F-ratio occurred because pre and post means were identical for this subject. Each subject's daily frequency of total, positive, negative, and neutral interaction, and the daffy distribution of each subject's interaction to popular or unpopular males and females was analyzed. Figures 1 to 4 graph the relative frequencies of total, positive, nezative, and neutral peer interaction for experimental and control subjects and for the class average on these variables. Figures 5 to 8 graph the distribution of total peer interaction of experimental and control subjects to popular and unpopular males and females. Figures 5 to 8 graph only baseline and postintervention days. Since these graphs are percentages, days of no interaction are eliminated. Eyeballing autocorrelated data has been strongly criticized (Glass et al., 1975; Gottman, 1973) and the graphs are presented only for completeness. The analysis of these data was done using an interrupted time-series analysis (Gottman et al., 1969; Gottman, 1973; Glass et al., 1975) with an autoregressive integrated moving average model 4 (Box & Jenkins, 1970). In this analysis the data generated the best fitting model before the interrupted time-series analysis was performed. Table II summarizes these analyses. There was no significant change in total interactiori either for treatment or control subjects. Both control and experimental subjects increased their frequencies of neutral interaction and decreased their frequencies of positive and negative interaction. There were changes in the distribution of interaction. Data were categorized according to whether the interaction was with popular (chosen by peers more than five times) or unpopular peers (zero to five). The first treatment subject significantly increased her interaction with low-friends males while the other treatment subject significantly increased her interaction with high-friends females. The only significantly change in the distribution of interaction for the two control subjects was the decrease in subject 3's interaction with unpopular females. However, unlike the experimental subjects this decrease did not accompany a significant increase in interaction with other children.
4 Data were analyzed using an interrupted time-series developed by Gene V Glass, Cathy Bower, and Bill Padia. The program first identifies a model from the data and then uses the model for an interrupted time-series analysis. For a mathematical discussion of this program, see Glass et al. (1975). The program and a manual is available for $20.00 from the Laboratory of Educational Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80302.
Social Isolation
189
I00
-
EXPERIMENTAL = =SUBJECT I o---eSUBJECT 2
90
CONTROL -- --SUBJECT .5 ~-~SUBJECT 4 CLASS AVERAGE
8O Z 0m 0
~< 70 ILl F--
z
.~.50
20
I0
O0
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
25456789 BASELINE
"
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 234567891011 12545 POST INTERVENTION DURING INTERVENTION
DAYS Fig. 4. Daily frequency of neutral peer interaction.
190
Gottman, Gonso, and Schuler
I00 ,=,..--~WlTH POPULAR FEMALES 90
:
:WITH UNPOPULAR FEMALES
~---~WlTH POPULAR MALES "
80
~WITH UNPOPULAR MALES
70
60
_.1
~_ 50 Z
x~
4o
i,i
30
20
I0
O0 1234567 BASELINE DAYS
1234567891011 POST INTERVENTION
Fig. 5. Distribution of peer interaction among popular and unpopular males and females- experimental (Subject 1).
Social Isolation
191
I00
90
o----oWlTH POPULAR FEMALES = =WITH UNPOPULAR FEMALES
80
~--~WiTH POPULAR MALES A---~WlTH UNPOPULAR MALES 70 Oa
U i,I
60
r~ oO ...J
N 5O U.J
o_ 40 >C
30
20
10
O0 12345678 BASELINE
12345678910 POST INTERVENTION
DAYS Fig. 6. Distribution of peer interaction among popular and unpopular males and females-experimental (Subject 2).
192
Gottman, Gonso, and Schulet
I00
90
WITH POPULAR FEMALES -- =WITH UNPOPULAR FEMALES ,~---~WlTH POPULAR MALES
BO
~- ~-WITH UNPOPULAR MALES 70
60 I-"-I.tJ
50 _.J 0 I---
30
20
I0
O0 1254567 BASELINE
I 2545678910 POST INTERVENTION
DAYS Fig. 7, Distribution of peer interaction among popular and unpopular males and females -- control (Subject 3).
Social Isolation
193
IO0
9C
~176
POPULAR FEMALES
""-'WITH UNPOPULAR FEMALES '~-'-~WlTH POPULAR MALES 80
~:~WITH UNPOPULAR MALES
70
6O
on
50 0 F---
50
20
10
O0 I 254567 BASELINE DAYS
I 2345678910 POST INTERVENTION
Fig, 8. Distribution of peer interaction among popular and unpopular males and females -control (Subject 4).
194
Gottman, Gonso, and Schuler
Table II. Student's t-Ratios of Interrupted Time-Series Analyses of Peer Interaction from Baseline to Follow-Up Fit with Autoregressive and Moving Average Models
Variable Frequency of interaction Total Positive Negative Neutral
Student's t-ratio a for change in level of series Treatment Control Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 Subject 4 .56 -3.15 b -.37
-.20 -1.30
-1.52
-.87 -1.89 b -3.21 b
.58
1.8 7 b
1.76 b
1.63
.92
-.78 -.44
-1.04
-2.51 b
Distribution of interaction ~ With popular females -.32 With unpopular females -4.47 b With popular males - . 33 With unpopular males 1.97 b
1.88 b -2.60 b 1.08 .02
-2.17 b .17 1".39
-3.08 b
.19
-.55
aUnderlined t-ratios were fit with first-order autoregressive models, t-Ratios not underlined were fit with first-order moving average models. Model fits were deemed appropriate only when model parameters produced maximum likelihood functions within the parameter bpintervals (see Glass et al., 1975). < .05.
DISCUSSION
The sociometric data show that training on the specific set of social skills of the Gottman et al. (1975) study had a significant effect upon long-term follow-up for the subjects in the treatment group, whereas control subjects did not improve on their follow-up sociometric ratings. The effects were essentially of the same order of magnitude for the work-with ratings with the sociometric criterion. These results are clearly limited in generality because of the small N and because only females were used as subjects. However, these data do demonstrate that there is some usefulness to the covariation results of the Gottman, Gonso, and Rasmussen (1975) study. The social interaction results provide an interesting perspective on the sociometric data. The first treatment subject used her new skill to interact with an unpopular boy; the second child used her skill to interact with a popular girl. These results fit with the fact that in the preintervention period the first treatment subject spent 41.5% o f peer interaction time with low-friends males, and 65.0% o f her time with males. On the other hand, the second treatment group subject spent 91.5% of her preintervention time with females, but only 26.1% with high-friends females; after intervention this percentage with high-friends females increased to 57.0%. It seems therefore that an interaction exists between the intervention and the stylistic orientation of the child as indicated by the baseline distribution of social interaction. It is interesting that both experimental subjects decreased their interaction with some kinds o f peers and increased their
Social Isolation
195
interaction with other kinds of peers. One control subject did not change her interaction with peers while the other control subject decreased her interaction with unpopular females without increasing her interaction with other kinds of children. Her change in peer interaction was therefore in the direction of withdrawal rather than redistribution of interaction. It is interesting to note that increases in the sociometric criterion do not imply an increase in frequency of positive or total interaction. Training programs with social isolates and rejected or unaccepted children may reveal a "return to baseline" for some isolates in the frequency or rate of total interaction after intervention. These programs may nonetheless be successful programs. It may be that the distribution of the child's social interaction and the child's sociometric position may have been altered by the intervention. The total frequency of interaction may not be a sensitive criterion. It would also seem wise to include long-term sociometric follow-up measures in these intervention studies. The present investigation has substituted the expense of obtaining many observations over the long term with a few children for studying short-term intervention effects with many children. Given the strength of the effects presented here it is essential to replicate the present findings with a larger sample size with careful attention to follow-up and the problems of ephemeral effects discussed in this paper. However, despite the low N of the present investigation, it is important to have demonstrated that a coaching intervention on selected, empirically derived skills can have a nonephemeral effect on changing as important a criterion variable as sociometric position. The control group in the present investigation did not control for student expectancies of change. In future investigations a pseudotherapy control group should be added. This criticism is also a limitation of previous investigations on the effects of modeling on social withdrawal (Evers & Schwarz, 1973; Keller & Carlson, 1974; O'Connor, 1969, 1972). Although the effects on sociometric measures in the present study are maintained on the 9-week follow-up, these effects are nonetheless modest. Subsequent investigations should be designed to increase the strength of the obtained effect. A problem with the present investigation is the failure to monitor the extent to which experimental subjects mastered the social skills. Social skill training programs need to demonstrate two things: that they teach the target social skills, and that these skills make a difference on criterion variables such as sociometric position.
REFERENCES Amidon, E., & Hoffman, C. B. Can teachers help the socially rejected? The Elementary School Journal, 1965, 66,(3), 194-154. Asher, S. R., Oden, S. L., & Gottman, J. M. Children's friendships in school settings. In L. G. Katz (Ed.), Current topics in early childhood education (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum (in press).
196
Gottman, Gonso, and Sehuler
Asher, S. R., & Parke, R. D. Influence of sampling and comparison processes on the development of communication effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975, 67,(1), 64-75. Box, G. E. P., & Jenkins, G. M. Time-series analysis: Forecasting and control. San Francisco: Holden Day, 1970. Chennault, M. Improving the social acceptance of unpopular educable mentally retarded pupils in special classes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1967, 72, 455-458. Cowen, E. L., Pederson, A., Babigian, H., Izzo, L. D., & Trost, M. A. Long term foUow-up of early detected vulnerable children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 41,438-446. Evers, W. L., & Schwarz, J. C. Modifying social withdrawal in preschoolers: The effects of filmed modeling and teacher praise. Journal o f Abnormal Child Psychology, 1973, 1, 248-256. Glass, G. V, Willson, V. K., & Gottman, J. M. The design and analysis of time-series experiments. Boulder, Colorado: Colorado University Associated Press, 1975. Goldsmith, J. B., & McFall, R. M. Development and evaluation of an interpersonal skilltraining program for psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1975, 84, 51-58. Gottman, J. M. N-of-one and N-of-two research in psychotherapy. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 93-105. Gottman, J., Gonso, J., & Rasmussen, B. Social interaction, social competence and friendship in children. Child Development, 1975,46, 709-718. Gottman, J. M., McFall, R. M., & Barnett, J. T. Design and analysis of research using time-series. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72, 299-306. Hartup, W. W., Glazer, J. A., & Charlesworth, R. Peer reinforcement and sociometric status. Child Development, 1967,38, 1017-1024. Keller, M. F., & Carlson, P. M. The use of symbolic modeling to promote social skills in preschool children with low levels of social responsiveness. Child Development, 1974, 45, 912-919. Kranzler, G. D., Mayer, G. R., Dyer, C. O., & Munger, P. F. Counseling with elementary school children: An experimental study. The Personal and Guidance Journal, 1966, 44, 944-949. Lipinski, D., & Nelson, R. Problems in the use of naturalistic observation as a means of behavioral assessment. Behavior Therapy, 1974, 5, 341-351. McFall, R. M., & Twentyman, C. T. Four experiments on the relative contribution of rehersal, modeling, and coaching to assertion training. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 81, 199-218. Meichenbaum, D. H., & Goodman, J. Training impulsive children to talk to themselves: A means for developing self-control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 77, 115-126. O'Connor, R. D. Modification of social withdrawal through symbolic modeling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 15-22. O'Connor, R. D. The relative efficacy of modeling, shaping, and the combined procedures for the modification of social withdrawal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1972, 79, 327-334. O'Leary, K. D., & Kent, R. Behavior modification for social action: Research tactics and problems. In L. A. Hamerlynck, L. C. Handy, & E. J. Mash (Eds.), Behavior change:
Methodology, concepts and practice: The Fourth Banff International Conference on Behavior Modification. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press, 1973. Reid, J. B. Reliability assessment of observational data: A possible methodological problem. Child Development, 1970, 41, 1143-1150. Roff, M. Childhood social interactions and young adult bad conduct. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 333-337. Roff, M., Sells, B., & Golden, M. M. Social ad/ustment and personality development in children. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1972. Rucker, C. N., & Vincenzo, F. M. Maintaining social acceptance gains made by mentally retarded children. Exceptional Children, 1970, 36, 679-680.
Social Isolation
197
Thomson, C., Holmberg, M., & Baer, D. M. A brief report on a comparison of time-sampling procedures. Journal o f Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7, 623-626. Walker, H. M., & Hops, H. The use of group and individual reinforcement contingencies in the modification of social withdrawal. In L. A. Hamerlynck, L. C. Handy, & E. J. Mash (Eds.), Behavior change: Methodology, concepts and practice: The Fourth Banff International Conference on Behavior Modification. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press, 1973. pp. 269-307.
Teaching Social Skills to Isolated Children John Gottman 1
University of Illinois Jonni Gonso and Philip Schuler Indiana University
The effects o f a social skill training program on socially isolated children are reported. The training program was derived from the results o f a previous study o f the specific social skills that discriminated popular from unpopular children. Training effects in the present investigation were assessed on sociometric position, and on the quality, frequency, and distribution o f social interaction to peers. Time-series analyses were performed on the frequency and distribution o f peer interaction. Two isolated children received social skill training with an adult coach, and two isolated children spent an equivalent amount o f time with an adult. Results indicated that socially isolated children in the treatment group changed sigmficantly in sociometric position on a follow-up assessment 9 weeks after the end o f the intervention, did not change in the total frequency o f peer social interaction, but did redistribute their interaction to peers. The two isolated children who did not receive the treatment program did not change significantly on the total frequency o f peer interaction, and tended to withdraw from peers rather than redistribute their interaction. The insensitivity o f total peer interaction frequency as a measure o f outcome was discussed.
There has been renewed interest in interventions for socially isolated children (Amidon & Hoffman, 1965; Chennault, 1967; Kranzler, Mayer, Dyer, & Munger, 1966) and in social skill training for both children (Evers & Schwarz, 1973; O'Connor, 1969, 1972) and adults (Goldsmith & McFall, 1975; McFall & Twentyman, 1973). Asher, Oden, and Gottman (in press) recently reviewed research designed to enhance the social status of isolated children. They concluded that interventions with social isolates have produced effects that return to baseline in those few studies that have included a follow-up assessment. For Manuscript received in final form February 6, 1976. 1Requests for reprints should be sent to John M. Gottman, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Children's Research Center, 51 East Gerty Drive, Champaign, Illinois 61820.
179 9 1976 Plenum Publishing Corporation, 2 2 7 West 17th Street, New Y o r k , N . Y . 10011. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any f o r m or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher.
180
Gottman, Gonso, and Schuler
example, Chennault (1967) found that isolated children who participated in a class skit were more accepted than a group of isolated children who had not participated. However, a follow-up study (Rucker & Vincenzo, 1970) found that increased participation produced immediate changes which unfortunately returned to baseline on a follow-up measure taken 1 month after the intervention. Sociometric measures are important as early predictors of later functioning. Unpopular children are more likely to be disproportionately represented later in life in a community-wide psychiatric register (Cowen, Pederson, Babigian, Izzo, & Trost, 1973); they are also more likely to receive bad conduct discharges from the armed forces (Roff, 1961). Roff, Sells, and Golden (1972), in a recent 4-year longitudinal study of 4,000 children, found that except for the lowest socioeconomic class, the relationship was highly positive between delinquency and low peer acceptance scores taken 4 years earlier. It would therefore seem important to be able to demonstrate lasting effects on peer acceptance for unaccepted children. Perhaps one reason for the failure of previous interventions is related to how the social skills taught to isolates are selected. Previous interventions have not selected social skills using an empirical assessment of which skills discriminate isolated from nonisolated children. Gottman, Gonso, and Rasmussen (1975) found that third and fourth grade children with low peer acceptance scores differed from popular children on a referential communication task, on their knowledge of how to make friends in a role-play assessment, and on the frequency with which they distributed and received positive interaction with peers. The present investigation was designed to assess whether training on these skills leads to lasting changes in peer acceptance. A methodological issue involves the use of observers. In previous intervention studies all the children were observed for identification of the isolates, but observers only observed the isolated children upon follow-up. A more stringent, though more expensive, control on experimenter-bias effects would be obtained by having the observers continue to observe all children throughout the study. That procedure was followed in the present investigation. Observers in the present investigation were also unaware that any intervention was planned, or that the study was concerned with social isolation. In previous research, observations have not been sampled over different classroom activities, and the total time that children were observed has been low; it was 8 minutes for the O'Connor (1969, 1972) studies. The present investigation obtained data daily (mornings and afternoons), sampling over three types of classroom situations. Previous research has also not specified the nature of the time sampling method used. Thomson, Holmberg, and Baer (1974) recently reported that a sequential time sampling procedure gave the most efficient observational estimates. The sequential method was used in the present study. Previous investigations have also not controlled for observer drift (O'Leary & Kent, 1973) or interobserver reliability decay (Reid, 1970). The present in-
Social Isolation
181
vestigafion attempted to control these factors by using an independent observer whose only task was to make random reliability checks once a week for each observer. This procedure is in line with current reviews of these methodological problems in naturalistic observation (Lipinski & Nelson, 1974). Another issue which needs to be addressed in intervention programs with the social isolate is the method by which results are analyzed. O'Connor (1969, 1972) and Evers and Schwarz (1973) used a between-subjects analysis of variance. It is, however, true that ephemeral effects averaged over an intervention period will have a mean value for that period which is higher than the baseline mean. Walker and Hops (1973) presented the only available within-subject data in a replication of O'Connor (1972). A return to baseline is precisely what one observes for one of their three subjects. What is needed is a within-subject, or N-of-one-at-a-time analysis (Glass, Willson, & Gottman, 1975; Gottman, 1973; Gottman, McFall, & Barnett, 1969) using an interrupted time-series analysis design. Finally, an ABAB design may not make much sense if the intervention is heavily instructional, for how can this learning be reversed?
METHOD Subjects
A third grade classroom in a low-income school in Bloomington, Indiana, was selected for the study. There were 22 children in the class, 11 females and t 1 males. One female subject moved at the beginning of the experiment. Four females were selected as subjects in the present study using the sociometric criterion described below. Procedure Classroom Behavior Assessment. Observers began observing on February 5 and continued without interruptions (except for Easter break) until April 26. There were 9 baseline days, 5 intervention days, and 11 follow-up days. Each child was observed for as close to 10 minutes daffy (or 60 observations) as was possible. Long-term follow-up after intervention was thus included for the observational data as well as for the sociometric data. Follow-up observational data began 47 days after the end of the intervention. Follow-up sociometric data were taken 63 days after the end of the intervention. Two observers were assigned to the classroom -- one for the morning and one for the afternoon. They spent a few days learning the names of the children in the classroom and then began observing by finding a child, observing the child for 10 6-second intervals (using clipboards with a 6-second, light-emitting diode),
182
Gottman, Gonso, and Schuler
and then moving to the next child on the list. Observers also made note of with whom each child was interacting during each 6-second observation. Observation was sampled from three situations: (1) lecture or demonstration situations; (2) seat work; and (3) small group work, mixing, or classroom work which involved free access to other children. The coding system was the one used in Gottman et al. (1975). In this coding system the Hartup, Glazer, and Charlesworth (1967) behaviors were used for positive and negative peer interaction. 2 All observations for one day summed over all three situations were used to obtain the relative frequencies of positive, negative, and neutral peer interaction. Thus while another child was being observed, interactions with an experimental or control child were counted and the total divided by the number of observations obtained on all children that day for the computation of daily frequencies. The distribution of interaction by percentages to popular and unpopular males and females was computed for each day of nonzero interaction. A third observer was used to obtain weekly reliability checks. He would appear unannounced at one time during the week for each observer. Interobserver agreement was always maintained at a minimum of 85% for each observer and averaged 86.4% for the entire period over all categories. Observers continued to observe the entire class for the entire period of the experiment and remained blind to the fact that an intervention took place or that only the behavior of specific children was of interest. Sociometric measures. During the baseline period children were asked by the teacher (who followed a script) to list their best friends (any number). This item was used because of the results of a pilot study in which a sociometric was administered and a number of possible phrasings of the sociometric question were piloted (see Gottman et al., 1975). Using this sociometric measure, four children low on the best friends measure were selected (mean number friends = 2.50); two were randomly assigned to the treatment and two to the control group. The mean number of friends for children not selected was 5.44. All four subjects were females. An additional sociometric device was administered as a p r e - p o s t assessment of change. Each student rated all his peers on a 5-point scale twice, once for forming work groups and once for forming play groups. The teacher said he would be forming work groups and play groups and wanted to get an idea of "who you want to play with and who you want to work with most." Students were first taught to rate items from 1 to 5 by using a set of foods. The order in which students filled out the play-with and work-with sociometric forms was randomized both before and after the intervention. This second sociometric made it possible to do correlated F-tests on the sociometric ratings, which would not have been possible with the first sociometric device. A more sensitive measure of change is provided by the 1 to 5 2An observation and coding manual for the Hartup et al.' (1967) codes is available as Document No. 9617 from the ADI Auxiliary Publications Project, Photoduplication Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. 20540, for $3.60.
Social Isolation
183
scale. A pilot study in another classroom (N = 27) in this school in which both devices were administered showed that correlations between the first device and the ranking were 0.96 (dr = 25, p < .0005) for the play-with and 0.45 (dr = 25, p < .01) for the work-with rating scales. Follow-up sociometrics were taken 9 weeks after the end of the intervention. Intervention. The teacher remained naive to when the intervention took place, the nature of the intervention, which children were selected for intervention, and which children were in the treatment or control groups. Student volunteers sporadically took students out of the classroom for brief periods so that this procedure became commonplace. Treatment Group. Each day for 1 week two male coaches who were undergraduate psychology students worked individually with each of the two treatment condition children for approximately 30 minutes a day. One coach was assigned to each child. The coach followed a manual of instructions) The Gottman et al. (1975) study had demonstrated the importance of referential communication skills, knowledge of how to make friends, and distributing and receiving positive interaction with peers. To teach these skills each coach was trained, in one 3-hour session, on the use of a coaching manual and training videotapes and audiotapes. The treatment was divided into three conceptual stages. The first stage attempted to teach the child how to initiate interaction. In this stage the child saw a 10-minute videotape with vignettes of female children who thought over and then decided to go ahead and join some girls in an activity with ensuing positive consequences. This fdm was similar to one used by O'Connor (1969, 1972). The film contained four such scenes with the size of the group varying from one to four. The film was narrated by a female voice using a Meichenbaum and Goodman (1971) coping self-statement sequence. This sequence consists of a soliloquy of an inner debate in the following order: (1) wanting to initiate interaction; (2) worrying about negative consequences; ( 3 ) t h e self-debate; (4) the moment of decision to go ahead; (5) the approach; (6) the greeting; (7) asking permission to join in (or requesting help). During the second stage an attempt was made to teach the child how to make friends using a friend-making sequence described by Gottman et al. (1975), namely greeting, asking for information, giving information, extending an offer of inclusion, and effective leave taking. This was the sequence used by popular third and fourth grade children. In this stage the child role-played with the coach, who pretended to be a new child in the class that the child wanted to befriend. In this second stage the child also learned how to distribute positive interaction, which included: (1) being interested in what someone else is saying and showing the interest by summarizing in the subject's own words what was being said; the coach told the subject a Grimm brothers story and it was the 3A copy of the coaching manual provides details of the coaching procedure and is available from the first author on request.
184
Gottman, Gonso, and Schuler
subject's job to parapharase the story as it progressed; (2) the behaviors used in the classroom observation distributing-positive-interaction category, namely, giving something (a token or object); giving approval, complying with a request (e.g., agreeing to join in an activity when invited); or, giving affection. The third stage worked on referential communication skills using a word. pair game (Asher & Parke, 1975), an obstacle course in which the child had to give instructions to a blindfolded puppet (Gottman et al., 1975), and a set of math problems in which the child played the role of teacher. The skills in this stage involved being able to take the special perspective of a listener. In each of the three stages, the subject was asked to pick someone from the class to practice the behavior of that stage. Control Group. The two children of the control group were seen for the same amount of time by a female experimenter who talked and played various board games such as Concentration and War. Conversation was limited to school (favorite subjects or classroom activities) or home (brothers and sisters and what the subject did at home). The subject of "friends" was not discussed. Upon completion of each session both subjects asked if they would be able to come again and said that they had fun.
RESULTS
Follow-up sociometrics were taken 9 weeks after the end of the interven. tion. Data were analyzed in correlated F-tests. On the play-with sociometric variable both treatment children improved significantly. One child changed significantly, F(1,20) = 4.92, p < .04. The other treatment child also improved, F(1,20) = 2.98, p < .09. Neither control group child improved. There were no significant changes for control subject 3, F(1,20) = .10, p < .75, or for control subject 4, F(1,20) = .06, p > .79. Table I presents the mean pre- and postsociometric ratings. Table I. Pre and Post Mean Sociometric Ratings for Experimental and Control Subjects Mean sociometric ratings Pre
Post
Play-with measure Experimental subject 1 Experimental subject 2 Control subject 3 Control subject 4
1.25 2.29 1.49 3.48
1.95 2.95 1.57 3.38
Work-with measure Experimental subject 1 Experimental subject 2 Control subject 3 Control subject 4
1.29 2.52 1.24 3.67
2.14 3.05 1.49 3.67
Social Isolation
185
IO0 EXPERIMENTAL =SUBJECT I ~SUBJECT 2
90
CONTROL -" ~SUBJECT $ t~--aSUBJECT 4 CLASS AVERAGE
80
Z 0 F-
70
rY hi
_z 60 rr.' L~ b.; L,t. 0 >.-. (._) Z L~ C~
50
40
I.,L
I-.Dd
30
20
I0
O0 123456789 BASELINE
DAYS
I 254567891011 12545 DURING POST INTERVENTION INTERVENTION
Fig. 1. Daily frequency of peer interaction.
186
G o t t m a n , G o n s o , and Schuler
I00 EXPERIMENTAL = ;SUBJECT I o----oSUBJECT 2 CONTROL -" "-SUBJECT 3 a~,~SUBJECT"4 CLASS AVERAGE
90
8O
~o _z
~6o F-
~so ~,4o Z
~3o m
20
t0
O0
,,,
, i,,,
123456789 BASELINE
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
2345 I 254567891011 DURING POST INTERVENTION INTERVENTION
DAYS
Fig. 2. Daily frequency of positive peer interaction.
I
Social Isolation
187
I00 EXPERIMENTAL ~-SUBJECT I o------oSUBJE CT 2
90
CONTROL -" --SUBJECT 3 z~SUBJECT 4 CLASS AVERAGE
8O Z 0 I-C_)
70 Z lad
N6o I---
~50 I.L 0
t.ul LJ-
_>30 __1 ~J
20
IO
O0
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
125456789 BASELINE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-I
I
I 2.345 123456 7891011 DURING POST INTERVENTION INTERVENTION
DAYS - - - "
Fig. 3. Daily frequency of negative peer interaction.
188
Gottman, G0nso, and Schuler
On the work-with sociometric variable the treatment group subjects also improved, F(1,20) = 4.88, p < .04, for the first subject and for the second subject, F(1,20) = 2.67, p < .12. Neither of the control group children showed any change on this sociometric variable, F(1,20) = 1.07, p > .31 for the first control subject, and F(1,20) = 0.00, p > .99 for the second control subject. The zero F-ratio occurred because pre and post means were identical for this subject. Each subject's daily frequency of total, positive, negative, and neutral interaction, and the daffy distribution of each subject's interaction to popular or unpopular males and females was analyzed. Figures 1 to 4 graph the relative frequencies of total, positive, nezative, and neutral peer interaction for experimental and control subjects and for the class average on these variables. Figures 5 to 8 graph the distribution of total peer interaction of experimental and control subjects to popular and unpopular males and females. Figures 5 to 8 graph only baseline and postintervention days. Since these graphs are percentages, days of no interaction are eliminated. Eyeballing autocorrelated data has been strongly criticized (Glass et al., 1975; Gottman, 1973) and the graphs are presented only for completeness. The analysis of these data was done using an interrupted time-series analysis (Gottman et al., 1969; Gottman, 1973; Glass et al., 1975) with an autoregressive integrated moving average model 4 (Box & Jenkins, 1970). In this analysis the data generated the best fitting model before the interrupted time-series analysis was performed. Table II summarizes these analyses. There was no significant change in total interactiori either for treatment or control subjects. Both control and experimental subjects increased their frequencies of neutral interaction and decreased their frequencies of positive and negative interaction. There were changes in the distribution of interaction. Data were categorized according to whether the interaction was with popular (chosen by peers more than five times) or unpopular peers (zero to five). The first treatment subject significantly increased her interaction with low-friends males while the other treatment subject significantly increased her interaction with high-friends females. The only significantly change in the distribution of interaction for the two control subjects was the decrease in subject 3's interaction with unpopular females. However, unlike the experimental subjects this decrease did not accompany a significant increase in interaction with other children.
4 Data were analyzed using an interrupted time-series developed by Gene V Glass, Cathy Bower, and Bill Padia. The program first identifies a model from the data and then uses the model for an interrupted time-series analysis. For a mathematical discussion of this program, see Glass et al. (1975). The program and a manual is available for $20.00 from the Laboratory of Educational Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80302.
Social Isolation
189
I00
-
EXPERIMENTAL = =SUBJECT I o---eSUBJECT 2
90
CONTROL -- --SUBJECT .5 ~-~SUBJECT 4 CLASS AVERAGE
8O Z 0m 0
~< 70 ILl F--
z
.~.50
20
I0
O0
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
25456789 BASELINE
"
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 234567891011 12545 POST INTERVENTION DURING INTERVENTION
DAYS Fig. 4. Daily frequency of neutral peer interaction.
190
Gottman, Gonso, and Schuler
I00 ,=,..--~WlTH POPULAR FEMALES 90
:
:WITH UNPOPULAR FEMALES
~---~WlTH POPULAR MALES "
80
~WITH UNPOPULAR MALES
70
60
_.1
~_ 50 Z
x~
4o
i,i
30
20
I0
O0 1234567 BASELINE DAYS
1234567891011 POST INTERVENTION
Fig. 5. Distribution of peer interaction among popular and unpopular males and females- experimental (Subject 1).
Social Isolation
191
I00
90
o----oWlTH POPULAR FEMALES = =WITH UNPOPULAR FEMALES
80
~--~WiTH POPULAR MALES A---~WlTH UNPOPULAR MALES 70 Oa
U i,I
60
r~ oO ...J
N 5O U.J
o_ 40 >C
30
20
10
O0 12345678 BASELINE
12345678910 POST INTERVENTION
DAYS Fig. 6. Distribution of peer interaction among popular and unpopular males and females-experimental (Subject 2).
192
Gottman, Gonso, and Schulet
I00
90
WITH POPULAR FEMALES -- =WITH UNPOPULAR FEMALES ,~---~WlTH POPULAR MALES
BO
~- ~-WITH UNPOPULAR MALES 70
60 I-"-I.tJ
50 _.J 0 I---
30
20
I0
O0 1254567 BASELINE
I 2545678910 POST INTERVENTION
DAYS Fig. 7, Distribution of peer interaction among popular and unpopular males and females -- control (Subject 3).
Social Isolation
193
IO0
9C
~176
POPULAR FEMALES
""-'WITH UNPOPULAR FEMALES '~-'-~WlTH POPULAR MALES 80
~:~WITH UNPOPULAR MALES
70
6O
on
50 0 F---
50
20
10
O0 I 254567 BASELINE DAYS
I 2345678910 POST INTERVENTION
Fig, 8. Distribution of peer interaction among popular and unpopular males and females -control (Subject 4).
194
Gottman, Gonso, and Schuler
Table II. Student's t-Ratios of Interrupted Time-Series Analyses of Peer Interaction from Baseline to Follow-Up Fit with Autoregressive and Moving Average Models
Variable Frequency of interaction Total Positive Negative Neutral
Student's t-ratio a for change in level of series Treatment Control Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 Subject 4 .56 -3.15 b -.37
-.20 -1.30
-1.52
-.87 -1.89 b -3.21 b
.58
1.8 7 b
1.76 b
1.63
.92
-.78 -.44
-1.04
-2.51 b
Distribution of interaction ~ With popular females -.32 With unpopular females -4.47 b With popular males - . 33 With unpopular males 1.97 b
1.88 b -2.60 b 1.08 .02
-2.17 b .17 1".39
-3.08 b
.19
-.55
aUnderlined t-ratios were fit with first-order autoregressive models, t-Ratios not underlined were fit with first-order moving average models. Model fits were deemed appropriate only when model parameters produced maximum likelihood functions within the parameter bpintervals (see Glass et al., 1975). < .05.
DISCUSSION
The sociometric data show that training on the specific set of social skills of the Gottman et al. (1975) study had a significant effect upon long-term follow-up for the subjects in the treatment group, whereas control subjects did not improve on their follow-up sociometric ratings. The effects were essentially of the same order of magnitude for the work-with ratings with the sociometric criterion. These results are clearly limited in generality because of the small N and because only females were used as subjects. However, these data do demonstrate that there is some usefulness to the covariation results of the Gottman, Gonso, and Rasmussen (1975) study. The social interaction results provide an interesting perspective on the sociometric data. The first treatment subject used her new skill to interact with an unpopular boy; the second child used her skill to interact with a popular girl. These results fit with the fact that in the preintervention period the first treatment subject spent 41.5% o f peer interaction time with low-friends males, and 65.0% o f her time with males. On the other hand, the second treatment group subject spent 91.5% of her preintervention time with females, but only 26.1% with high-friends females; after intervention this percentage with high-friends females increased to 57.0%. It seems therefore that an interaction exists between the intervention and the stylistic orientation of the child as indicated by the baseline distribution of social interaction. It is interesting that both experimental subjects decreased their interaction with some kinds o f peers and increased their
Social Isolation
195
interaction with other kinds of peers. One control subject did not change her interaction with peers while the other control subject decreased her interaction with unpopular females without increasing her interaction with other kinds of children. Her change in peer interaction was therefore in the direction of withdrawal rather than redistribution of interaction. It is interesting to note that increases in the sociometric criterion do not imply an increase in frequency of positive or total interaction. Training programs with social isolates and rejected or unaccepted children may reveal a "return to baseline" for some isolates in the frequency or rate of total interaction after intervention. These programs may nonetheless be successful programs. It may be that the distribution of the child's social interaction and the child's sociometric position may have been altered by the intervention. The total frequency of interaction may not be a sensitive criterion. It would also seem wise to include long-term sociometric follow-up measures in these intervention studies. The present investigation has substituted the expense of obtaining many observations over the long term with a few children for studying short-term intervention effects with many children. Given the strength of the effects presented here it is essential to replicate the present findings with a larger sample size with careful attention to follow-up and the problems of ephemeral effects discussed in this paper. However, despite the low N of the present investigation, it is important to have demonstrated that a coaching intervention on selected, empirically derived skills can have a nonephemeral effect on changing as important a criterion variable as sociometric position. The control group in the present investigation did not control for student expectancies of change. In future investigations a pseudotherapy control group should be added. This criticism is also a limitation of previous investigations on the effects of modeling on social withdrawal (Evers & Schwarz, 1973; Keller & Carlson, 1974; O'Connor, 1969, 1972). Although the effects on sociometric measures in the present study are maintained on the 9-week follow-up, these effects are nonetheless modest. Subsequent investigations should be designed to increase the strength of the obtained effect. A problem with the present investigation is the failure to monitor the extent to which experimental subjects mastered the social skills. Social skill training programs need to demonstrate two things: that they teach the target social skills, and that these skills make a difference on criterion variables such as sociometric position.
REFERENCES Amidon, E., & Hoffman, C. B. Can teachers help the socially rejected? The Elementary School Journal, 1965, 66,(3), 194-154. Asher, S. R., Oden, S. L., & Gottman, J. M. Children's friendships in school settings. In L. G. Katz (Ed.), Current topics in early childhood education (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum (in press).
196
Gottman, Gonso, and Sehuler
Asher, S. R., & Parke, R. D. Influence of sampling and comparison processes on the development of communication effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975, 67,(1), 64-75. Box, G. E. P., & Jenkins, G. M. Time-series analysis: Forecasting and control. San Francisco: Holden Day, 1970. Chennault, M. Improving the social acceptance of unpopular educable mentally retarded pupils in special classes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1967, 72, 455-458. Cowen, E. L., Pederson, A., Babigian, H., Izzo, L. D., & Trost, M. A. Long term foUow-up of early detected vulnerable children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 41,438-446. Evers, W. L., & Schwarz, J. C. Modifying social withdrawal in preschoolers: The effects of filmed modeling and teacher praise. Journal o f Abnormal Child Psychology, 1973, 1, 248-256. Glass, G. V, Willson, V. K., & Gottman, J. M. The design and analysis of time-series experiments. Boulder, Colorado: Colorado University Associated Press, 1975. Goldsmith, J. B., & McFall, R. M. Development and evaluation of an interpersonal skilltraining program for psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1975, 84, 51-58. Gottman, J. M. N-of-one and N-of-two research in psychotherapy. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 93-105. Gottman, J., Gonso, J., & Rasmussen, B. Social interaction, social competence and friendship in children. Child Development, 1975,46, 709-718. Gottman, J. M., McFall, R. M., & Barnett, J. T. Design and analysis of research using time-series. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72, 299-306. Hartup, W. W., Glazer, J. A., & Charlesworth, R. Peer reinforcement and sociometric status. Child Development, 1967,38, 1017-1024. Keller, M. F., & Carlson, P. M. The use of symbolic modeling to promote social skills in preschool children with low levels of social responsiveness. Child Development, 1974, 45, 912-919. Kranzler, G. D., Mayer, G. R., Dyer, C. O., & Munger, P. F. Counseling with elementary school children: An experimental study. The Personal and Guidance Journal, 1966, 44, 944-949. Lipinski, D., & Nelson, R. Problems in the use of naturalistic observation as a means of behavioral assessment. Behavior Therapy, 1974, 5, 341-351. McFall, R. M., & Twentyman, C. T. Four experiments on the relative contribution of rehersal, modeling, and coaching to assertion training. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 81, 199-218. Meichenbaum, D. H., & Goodman, J. Training impulsive children to talk to themselves: A means for developing self-control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 77, 115-126. O'Connor, R. D. Modification of social withdrawal through symbolic modeling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 15-22. O'Connor, R. D. The relative efficacy of modeling, shaping, and the combined procedures for the modification of social withdrawal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1972, 79, 327-334. O'Leary, K. D., & Kent, R. Behavior modification for social action: Research tactics and problems. In L. A. Hamerlynck, L. C. Handy, & E. J. Mash (Eds.), Behavior change:
Methodology, concepts and practice: The Fourth Banff International Conference on Behavior Modification. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press, 1973. Reid, J. B. Reliability assessment of observational data: A possible methodological problem. Child Development, 1970, 41, 1143-1150. Roff, M. Childhood social interactions and young adult bad conduct. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 333-337. Roff, M., Sells, B., & Golden, M. M. Social ad/ustment and personality development in children. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1972. Rucker, C. N., & Vincenzo, F. M. Maintaining social acceptance gains made by mentally retarded children. Exceptional Children, 1970, 36, 679-680.
Social Isolation
197
Thomson, C., Holmberg, M., & Baer, D. M. A brief report on a comparison of time-sampling procedures. Journal o f Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7, 623-626. Walker, H. M., & Hops, H. The use of group and individual reinforcement contingencies in the modification of social withdrawal. In L. A. Hamerlynck, L. C. Handy, & E. J. Mash (Eds.), Behavior change: Methodology, concepts and practice: The Fourth Banff International Conference on Behavior Modification. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press, 1973. pp. 269-307.
