PSYC 320 Week 4 Behavior Modification Project: Baseline Phase Report Example

Behavior Modification Project Baseline Phase Report: Fourteen Days of Study-Time Data, With Graph, Description and Narrative

Target Behavior and Recording

As defined in Part 1, the behavior I am changing is daily focused study, counted in minutes; a study bout lasts while I am at the desk working on course material without my phone, and it ends the moment I leave the desk, reach for the phone or drift to something unrelated. I recorded duration with a kitchen timer, starting it when I sat down and stopping it when a bout ended, and logged the total each night for fourteen consecutive days. My roommate independently timed my study on four evenings; our totals agreed within five minutes each time. No treatment was in place during this phase. I did not set goals, reward myself or change where I kept my phone, so that the data would show my usual pattern.

Baseline Data

In the submitted Word document, these data appear as a line graph with days 1 to 14 on the horizontal axis, minutes from 0 to 120 on the vertical axis, both axes labeled, the fourteen points connected and the label "Baseline" above the phase, following the conventions Miltenberger (2015) describes for graphing behavior.

Description of the Data

Across the fourteen days, I studied a mean of 26.1 minutes and a median of 27.5 minutes per day, with a range from 0 to 60. Weekday and weekend means were similar, 25.0 and 28.8 minutes. The second week's mean, 28.6 minutes, was slightly higher than the first week's 23.6, but the difference is small relative to the day-to-day swings, so I would describe the trend as roughly flat. The most striking feature is variability: the line jumps up and down nearly every day, and no day reached even half of my 90-minute goal. Miltenberger (2015) notes that a stable baseline makes treatment effects easier to see, and while my data are variable, their consistently low level should make a real increase obvious. If the treatment works, the treatment phase should show a higher level, ideally with less variability, appearing soon after treatment begins rather than drifting up slowly.

Narrative of Observations

Recording revealed patterns I had not noticed. The two zero days were a Friday, when I went out with friends after work, and a Saturday, when I worked a double shift; both suggest that long workdays and social plans crowd out study entirely. My best days, 45 to 60 minutes, came on weekends before an exam, which fits the account in Steel (2007), where delay shrinks as a deadline approaches. Most study bouts ended within twenty minutes when I reached for my phone, even though it was in another room; I would walk to the kitchen "just to check," and the bout would end. The immediate reinforcement of messages and video clearly competed with studying, which is the pattern of competing reinforcers the textbook describes. Studying also seemed easier to start when I had a specific assignment due the next day and much harder when the task was vague, such as reviewing for an exam two weeks away. This week's reading on stimulus control helped me see that my desk had become a cue for many activities besides studying, including eating and gaming.

I also noticed signs of reactivity. Knowing I would write a number down each night made me sit down a few times when I otherwise would not have. Harkin et al. (2016) found that monitoring progress tends to improve goal pursuit, so some improvement during baseline is expected, and the slight rise in week two may reflect it.

Implications for the Treatment Phase

The baseline suggests three adjustments to the plan in my research paper. First, the contract will set a weekday goal of 60 minutes at first, rising to 90, since jumping from 26 to 90 may be too steep. Second, the implementation intentions will include a plan for Friday and double-shift days, such as 20 minutes on my lunch break. Third, the phone will stay in my car during study time, adding effort to the competing behavior. The treatment phase will begin on day 15 and will run for at least fourteen days, so that the two phases can be compared on the same graph.

References

Harkin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P. I., Prestwich, A., Conner, M., Kellar, I., Benn, Y., & Sheeran, P. (2016). Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 198-229. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000025

Miltenberger, R. G. (2015). Behavior modification: Principles and procedures (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65-94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65