No description available.

No description available.

Longitudinal research on externalizing disorders has demonstrated that the signs of this form of psychopathology emerge early in life. For example, physically aggressive behaviours can be first observed as early as 18 months of age. Most preschool-aged children develop the self-regulatory abilities to inhibit these problem behaviours and express their aggressive and competitive impulses in alternative, constructive ways. Some children do not develop these abilities and chronic psychosocial difficulties typically result. / Several researchers have raised the possibility that Parent-child rough-and-tumble play (RTP) interactions give parents and children an opportunity to develop the child's self-regulatory abilities. Defined here as aggressive behaviours in a play context, RTP often challenges children to modulate their behaviour to ensure their play partner continues to enjoy the activity. In the work that follows, the hypothesis that parent-child RTP can influence the development of behaviour self-regulation is tested. / The first study reported here shows that the frequency of mother-child RTP in the preschool is negatively associated with physical aggression later in development, though this effect depends on the presence of a father figure in the home. The second study validates the Rough-and-Tumble Play Scales (RTPS), designed to facilitate the study of RTP and the development of self-regulation. The third study uses observational techniques to highlight the importance of a dominant father in play interactions. RTP frequency was negatively associated levels of physical aggression in dyads in which the father was relatively more dominant. The reverse was true for dyads in which the father was relatively less dominant. Finally, the fourth study showed that this interaction between father-child RTP frequency and father dominance also predict several other aspects of self-regulatory functioning 5 years later. / RTP is a highly common, natural, and enjoyable activity for many parents and their children. Collectively, these studies also suggest that under the right conditions, parent-child RTP can influence the development of a child's self-regulatory abilities. While further research is needed, these results hold promise for the development of new interventions for children at risk for externalizing problems and their parents.

Numerous human behavior' problems are characterized by a choice between small-immediate and large-delayed reinforcement. Individuals often choose the poorer or smaller of two alternative rewards, even when they seem to be entirely familiar' with both alternatives. In a typical situation choice behavior appears to have a short-term advantage which is later followed by an obvious disadvantage. Selection of the delayed-large reward has been termed self-control.Recent work in the animal laboratory has lead to a model off serf-control that may be partially understood in terms of gradients of delayed reinforcement. This model, developed by George Ainslie and Howard Rachlin, suggest that the self-control situation can be conceptualized as a choice between a small-immediate and a larger-delayed reinforcer whose effective control over behavior is positively accelerated as its availability approaches.Aislie and Rachlin’s model makes two predictions: the first predicts a reversal in preference between two reward options as a function of passing time. The second conceptualizes self-control as a process which involves forestalling the temporary effectiveness that some small rewards acquire as a result of their temporal position. Thus, the model predicts that, given an appropriate opportunity, an organism will commit itself to receiving only the delayed-larger reward. The present research attempted to determine if these two predictions can be confirmed with children, using points on a counter, later exchanged for money as the reinforcer.Children were exposed to a choice between a small-immediate reward and a large-delayed reward in which the time elapsing before making a choice was lengthened systematically. An opportunity to commit themselves to receiving only the large-delayed reward was also provided.Results were congruent with the predictions of the model, although support was not robust and open to alternative explanations. Areas needing refinement include the nature of reinforcer used and the relationship between the amount and length of time delays.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1981. / Typescript. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 42-51).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1985. / Typescript. Vita. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 222-249).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1981. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 91-97).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 2010. / Printout. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 119-131). Also available on the World Wide Web.

Thesis (M.S.)--Oregon State University, 2011. / Printout. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 40-45). Also available on the World Wide Web.

The most common paradigm for investigating self-control is the choice paradigm . The choice paradigm, also known as delay of gratification, involves having an organism choose between a smaller immediate reinforcer (impulsive choice) or a larger delayed reinforcer (self-controlled choice) (Logue, 1988). The value of the work to improve self-control by increasing the organism's ability to wait for the larger reward has been questioned because of its lack of similarity to real life situations (Cole, Coll & Schoenfeld, 1982) . An alternative self-control paradigm which is based on the organism's refrainment from consumption during the presentation of a reinforcer has been used with rats and pigeons (Cole, et al. 1982; Coll, 1983; Stern, 1986). Lack of refrainment results in no reward instead of a smaller one. The present study used this refrainment procedure with preschool children to teach them to wait for 300 s using a changing criterion design. All Eight participants were able to reach criterion using this procedure. Scores on a generalization task show that this procedure helps to remediate the lowest scores on a measure of impulsivity. It was also demonstrated that the contingencies were responsible for the waiting behavior. Suggestions are made for the way this paradigm can be used to train children in real life situations.