ºÝºÝߣ

ºÝºÝߣShare a Scribd company logo

Self managment presentation

•Download as PPTX, PDF•
•
J
joshuapelton

The document describes an intervention to reduce eating meals out at restaurants to save money. It discusses competing contingencies like convenience of eating out. The self-management intervention involved losing $2 for each additional meal out after the first one per week. This was ineffective, so the contingency was increased to match the meal cost. While it helped reduce restaurant meals, the participant found it annoying and will not continue the intervention.

1 of 16
Download to read offline
EATING AT HOME TO SAVE MONEY Psychology 671 Courtney June Dr. Malott 8.11.11
Problem  I was eating food from restaurants several times a week and spending too much money.
Competing Contingencies  Will not have to cook  Will not have to clean dishes  Easier  More time to  study  socialize  sleep
Natural Competing Contingency BEFORE BEHAVIOR AFTER Have N Eat a meal Have N+1 hours to at a hours to study restaurant study
The SM Intervention  Target behavior: Eating at a Restaurant Intervention: Lose $2 for meals eaten out after already having eaten out that week  Contingencies: analog to a penalty contingency  Deadline (SD): n/a  PM manager: Lori June  Start Date: June 13, 2011  End Date: August 11, 2011
Ineffective Natural Contingency BEFORE BEHAVIOR AFTER Have given Eat one meal Have amount at a infinitesimally of money restaurant less money The outcome was too small to control my behavior, though eating out many times has a cumulative significance on a bank account
Performance-Management Contingency BEFORE BEHAVIOR AFTER Won’t lose Eat one meal Will lose $2 on at a $2 on Monday restaurant Monday
Direct Acting Contingency Does not Eat a meal Does fear fear losing at a Losing $2 restaurant $2
5 Weeks at a Glance Cum. Behavior: Meals I Baseline SM Recycle Eat from a Restaurant 4 3 2 Goal Line 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Starting Date: June 13, 2011 Weeks
Target Behavior Graph Cum. Behavior Meals I Eat Weeks at a Glance Baseline Goal line Recycle 14 SM 12 at Home 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Starting Date: June 13, 2011 Weeks
Benefit Measure Graph Baseline SM Meals from a Restaurant 4 Cum. Behavior of Eating 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Weeks
Problems During Intervention  Not always enough time to go grocery shopping  Ineffective contingency  $2 penalty was not large enough
Recycle  The $2 penalty contingency was ineffective  Increased penalty to match the cost of the meal  If meal was $6, penalty was to pay performance manager $6 (Including performance management)
My Results  I found the recycle phase to be more effective  Paying my performance manager the amount that matches the price of the meal was more aversive than the simple $2
My Comments  Between you and me, I will not continue this project any longer.  It was nice being able to save money by limiting myself to one restaurant-meal a week.  BUT, it was so annoying.  Especially when I would not finish homework until later in the evening and was too tired to cook.
THANK YOU!! Any Questions or Comments?

More Related Content

Self managment presentation

  • 1. EATING AT HOME TO SAVE MONEY Psychology 671 Courtney June Dr. Malott 8.11.11
  • 2. Problem  I was eating food from restaurants several times a week and spending too much money.
  • 3. Competing Contingencies  Will not have to cook  Will not have to clean dishes  Easier  More time to  study  socialize  sleep
  • 4. Natural Competing Contingency BEFORE BEHAVIOR AFTER Have N Eat a meal Have N+1 hours to at a hours to study restaurant study
  • 5. The SM Intervention  Target behavior: Eating at a Restaurant Intervention: Lose $2 for meals eaten out after already having eaten out that week  Contingencies: analog to a penalty contingency  Deadline (SD): n/a  PM manager: Lori June  Start Date: June 13, 2011  End Date: August 11, 2011
  • 6. Ineffective Natural Contingency BEFORE BEHAVIOR AFTER Have given Eat one meal Have amount at a infinitesimally of money restaurant less money The outcome was too small to control my behavior, though eating out many times has a cumulative significance on a bank account
  • 7. Performance-Management Contingency BEFORE BEHAVIOR AFTER Won’t lose Eat one meal Will lose $2 on at a $2 on Monday restaurant Monday
  • 8. Direct Acting Contingency Does not Eat a meal Does fear fear losing at a Losing $2 restaurant $2
  • 9. 5 Weeks at a Glance Cum. Behavior: Meals I Baseline SM Recycle Eat from a Restaurant 4 3 2 Goal Line 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Starting Date: June 13, 2011 Weeks
  • 10. Target Behavior Graph Cum. Behavior Meals I Eat Weeks at a Glance Baseline Goal line Recycle 14 SM 12 at Home 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Starting Date: June 13, 2011 Weeks
  • 11. Benefit Measure Graph Baseline SM Meals from a Restaurant 4 Cum. Behavior of Eating 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Weeks
  • 12. Problems During Intervention  Not always enough time to go grocery shopping  Ineffective contingency  $2 penalty was not large enough
  • 13. Recycle  The $2 penalty contingency was ineffective  Increased penalty to match the cost of the meal  If meal was $6, penalty was to pay performance manager $6 (Including performance management)
  • 14. My Results  I found the recycle phase to be more effective  Paying my performance manager the amount that matches the price of the meal was more aversive than the simple $2
  • 15. My Comments  Between you and me, I will not continue this project any longer.  It was nice being able to save money by limiting myself to one restaurant-meal a week.  BUT, it was so annoying.  Especially when I would not finish homework until later in the evening and was too tired to cook.
  • 16. THANK YOU!! Any Questions or Comments?