No abstract

Within the framework of therapy-outcome research, behavior-modification approaches to the treatment of smoking are reviewed and evaluated. Case reports, studies without control groups, and the few controlled comparisons of 2 or more treatment methods are considered separately; the behavioristic techniques are then compared against the more traditional smoking treatments (withdrawal clinics, drug treatments, group therapy). Though the lack of standardized methodology and the wide variation in subject-selection procedures make strict comparison difficult, it is clear that behavior-modification techniques have not been demonstrably superior either to other treatment methods or to placebo-attention procedures. A number of methodological factors and conceptual issues are discussed in relation to the as yet limited success of behavior therapies with the smoking habit.

1974) in Ecstasy, A Way of Knowing, describes a national survey he conducted with 1467 adults. One question he posed was, &dquo;With what frequency have you felt as though you were very close to a powerful, spiritual force that seemed to lift you out of yourself?&dquo; Of those who answered &dquo;once or twice,&dquo; &dquo;several times,&dquo; or &dquo;often,&dquo; he inquired further about these experiences. One question he asked had to do with the &dquo;triggers&dquo; or specific events that set off such experiences. I was curious to see how college students would answer questions, so I compared the answers of 146 upper-division college students enrolled in psychology classes with the responses from Greeley's national sample.There was a significant difference (x2 = 73.85, p < .00001, df = 8) between the two samples in response to the item about feeling very close to a powerful, spiritual force that seemed to lift you out of yourself. Table 1 presents the differences in percentages for each of the possible responses to this question. Table 2 presents the directions for the question and the differences in percentages of persons responding affirmatively to an event being a &dquo;trigger&dquo; to such an experience. TABLE 1. Comparison of Percentages between the National Sample and the Student Sample

No abstract

Subjects recalled cmly an average of 42.5% of the nonreferent words compared tn 56.D1% of the self-referent terms. A 2 X 2 (Sex X Type of Adjective [self-referent vs. nonreferent]) mixed analysis of variance yielded only a main effect for type of adjective. F ( I , 56) = 13.82. p < .DOI. DiscussionThe procedures used in this demonstration, although rudimentary, me sufficiently sensitive to document the selfreference effect: Subjects' memory for self-referent items was superit~r to their memory for items that were ntit selfreferent. T h e procedure is also a practical one. Recause it does not require individual testing sessions or reaction time assessment, it can he used during class with a large proup of students.The demonstration also 6aciilitates the analysis of several methodological and theoretical issues concerning schematic processing of infnrmation. Initially, students maintained that their incidental recall scores were shaped primarily hy the vividness of the trnir terms. Atrenti<~n-gettina trait terms, they contended, were hetrer reniemhered than Inore pallid terms. The exercise, however, convincingly demonstrated to them the impact of their self-schemas hecause more memorable words were als~l morc self-descriptive words. The discussion also proved usefill in illusrratina remarch design and data analysis. Some students, for example, failed to correct fbr initial frequencies of self-descriptive terms when they first explored the effect. Students uften recalled more self-referent words than nonreferent words, hut rhis difference cannot he interpreted until scores are adjusted to reflect the numher of items initially selected as self-referent.The demonstration also facilitated the analysis ofdepth-(rf-processing and schema-hased memory models of social cognition (Klein. Loftus, & Burton, 1989). First, depth-ofprocessing theory maintains that self-referent ininrmation is processed at a deeper level than nonreferenr infcirmation. If, fnr example, the students were asked "Ihes the word have more than two syllahles?." they could respond without processing the word very deeply. Such shallow processing would not lead to particularly durahle memories. In contmst, selfreferent encoding requires much deeper processing (Klein & Kihlstrom, 1986). Second, schema theories suggest that the more elahorate the schema that will hold the inconling infimnation, the hetter our ability to recall that inh~rmntion. Self-schemas may he the most complex and intricate associative networks in our memory system, so selferefrrent information is particularly rnemorahle. k r t h of these theories could hedemonstrated in theclassroom by varying the initial question posed to si~hjects. Although some students could answer the question "Does the word descrihe yc~u?," orhers could he asked "Does the wordhave more than twosyllahles" or "Lhes the word descrihe your psychology reacher?" (Rellezra, 1984).Depending on interest, the exercise could also he used to exnlore rhe coenitive cnnseauences of eender identirv. Re-