Decreasing Interrupting Behavior in a Self-Case Study
Catherine A. McGrath
University of New Hampshire
Abstract
The presented self-case analyzes the excess negative behavior of interrupting. The behavior was monitored and interventions were enacted in a simple AB design. Interrupting others during conversation was the negative behavior in the presented case study. The subject was myself. I am a full time student enrolled at the University of New Hampshire, (UNH) and live in on campus housing. My life is school-centered and most of my verbal communications occur in the UNH community. The environment in which my interruptions manifest include my room, the dining halls, and classrooms. My interruptions are more numerous than I desire, and result in negative perceptions about me, and the people I interrupt. The people I frequently interrupt are my friends. In order to decrease my interruptions, and to improve how my friends and I are perceived, I enacted three interventions: self-monitoring, punishment in the form of a chore, and a constant reminder in the form of a non-removable wristband. These interventions have been successful at decreasing negative excess behavior, as seen in Polaha, Allen, and Studley (2004), Fischer and Nehs (1978), and Koritzky and Yechiam (2011).
Keywords: intervention, behavior, interrupting
Decreasing Interrupting Behavior in a Self-Case Study
Effective communication is a cornerstone of successful relationships and ventures. Taking turns in conversation is a cordial common sense practice. However, some, including myself, exhibit difficulties taking turns in conversation. The purpose of this study is to successfully attempt to change a self-proclaimed negative behavior. In my case, the negative behavior is an excess of interrupting others during conversation. In the long term I would like to decrease the amount of times I interrupt people by 75% by May 1, 2018. My short term goal was to decrease the amount of times I interrupt people by 50% by April 23, 2018.
It is important for me to successfully change my behavior. As a 20-year-old undergraduate student, now is the time to improve or amend unfavorable characteristics that I display. Interrupting others in conversation is a bad habit that results in unfavorable characteristics being appertained to myself and those I interrupt. I want to be seen as likeable, and I do not want those I interrupt to feel or be perceived as incompetent due to my negligence.
There are some innocent overlaps in conversation that I did not include as interruptions in this study. Schegloff (2000) indicated these unproblematic overlaps in conversation. Overlaps that occurred when one party thought the other was finished, occurred when a person was exhibiting verbal active listening such as uhuh or mhmm, occurred when one party requested to be interrupted such as inquiries about a word he or she could not recall, and occurred when the overlap was warranted, like laughter, were deemed exempt as negative interruptions (Schegloff 2000). Because the terms interrupting or interruptions are associated with negative connotations, the more neutral term overlap is widely used in academic literature (Weatherall & Edmonds 2018). In the presented case study, the term interruption is used as a negative term and behavior. Weatherall and Edmonds (2018) indicated that overlap in conversation is deemed as an interruption when it disrupts the harmony of said conversation. In this study I defined interrupting as the act of talking while another person is talking that negatively impacts the conversation. A negative impact could be a change in the subject, the interrupted party not being able to finish his or her narration, or the interrupted party exhibiting annoyance or anger as a result of the interruption. A realistic, but fabricated example would look like the following exchange between myself and my friend:
Friend: I need to go to the bookstore to buy a hat for my dad’s birthd-
Me: The bookstore? I need to go to the bookstore too! I need flashcards for my History midterm. Can you believe I have to know 200 terms? I think…
Schegloff (2000) indicated that interrupting behavior is problematic due to its disregard for the logistical organization of conversation and turn-taking, in addition to the negative characteristics attributed to the interrupter. The characteristics attributed to interrupters in conversation are numerous and noteworthy in academia.
Wiley and Woolley (1988) indicated the negative traits and perceptions a person attributes to an interrupter in an employment setting. In the study, the researchers presented respondents with a formulated transcript of a conversation between two vice presidents in a company. The respondents were 107 undergraduate students in an intro to linguistics class. After reading the transcript the respondents filled out a questionnaire. The respondents rated either the interrupter or the interrupted on 25 traits. Those traits were grouped into four factors: driving, reliable, companionable, and unemotional. All groups indicated a significant difference in the rating of interrupter vs. interrupted except unemotional. Analyses did not demonstrate a significant difference in the unemotional category. In general, interrupters were rated higher on driving traits; interrupters were seen as more aggressive and competitive. Interrupters were rated lower on reliable and companionable traits; interrupters were perceived as less responsible, less trustworthy, less organized, less loyal, less capable, less friendly, less likeable, less warm, less honest, less open-minded, less cooperative, and less creative.
Robinson and Reis (1989) demonstrated how interrupters and people being interrupted are perceived by others. During the study the participants listened to recordings of conversations, then rated the conversations based on masculinity, femininity, competence, sociability, attractiveness, and traditionalism. The research indicated that people who interrupted were rated significantly more negatively. Interrupters were seen as less sociable. Interrupting also had a negative effect on the interrupted. Those being interrupted were seen as more submissive, more emotionally vulnerable, and less assertive. In addition to improving how I am perceived, I would like to improve how those I interrupt are perceived. I do not want others being perceived more negatively through my doing.
The study conducted by Farley (2008) demonstrated how interrupters are perceived. The findings were similar to the study conducted by Robinson and Reis (1989). Subjects listened to audiotaped conversations, and participated in conversation with a confederate, then rated the conversation. In the study the act of interrupting was defined as an act of dominance and power. The findings indicated that female interrupters were liked much less, and rated more harshly than male interrupters. Interrupters, in general, were seen as more disrespectful and liked less than those interrupted. Similarly to Robinson and Reis (1989), this research indicated that those being interrupted were also rated poorly. They were rated as being less dominant and less competent. Those being interrupted also rated themselves are less influential than their counterparts. The research indicated that interrupting others increased status, but decreased likability, as well as damages the perception of those they interrupt. This demonstrated that interrupting is not a desirable trait. While it increases power, it decreases more important traits, in my opinion, and reflects negatively on my friends who I am conversing with.
Polaha, Allen, and Studley (2004) illustrated the success of self-monitoring as a method of reducing a non-desirable action. In the study the target behavior was swimmer’s stroke count. The study consisted of an ABA design, one baseline period, one treatment period, and a return to baseline to examine if self-monitoring was responsible for change in behavior. The swimmers that participated in the study exhibited significant decrease in stroke count when self-monitoring was introduced as an intervention. Swimmers that had higher stroke counts during baseline exhibited greater decreases in behavior than those that already exhibited low stroke counts at baseline. In general self-monitoring is a constant reminder and motivator to change behavior. In order to change my behavior I monitored it during baseline and intervention in an Excel spreadsheet.
Koritzky and Yechiam (2011) exhibited a successful method to reduce nail biting by using a wristband that could be removed. During the study, some of the participants wore a non-removable wristband to remind them to not bite their nails. Some of the participants did not wear the wristband, but instead were instructed to apply a bitter substance to their nails twice a day. Both groups were told when they got the urge to bite their nails to stop, think about changing, feel the band or the substance on the nail, then not bite their nails. The results indicated that both methods were successful at reducing nail biting behavior significantly. However, the non-removable wristband method resulted in less dropouts. The wristband technique was designated as being more self-applicable, and less reliant on memory. When taking into account the amount of dropouts, the non-removable wristband technique was seen as more successful. To reduce my conversational interrupting behavior, I wore a wristband as a constant reminder and motivator.
Fischer and Nehs (1978) demonstrated a successful method to reduce an excess behavior in an 11-year-old boy. The boy, Mark, swore excessively at dinner time. The researchers exhibited that the punishment of a usually unassigned chore reduced Mark’s rate of swearing. Every time Mark swore at dinnertime, he had to wash the windows of his group home for 10 minutes. If Mark did not wash the windows, then he lost privileges. The punishment was implemented with a baseline period followed by an intervention period, then another baseline period followed by another intervention period. Mark’s swearing was tracked without intervention for 5 days, then followed by a 10 day period with the intervention of window washing as punishment. After 10 days, another 5 day period without intervention was recorded, the punishment was implemented again for 5 days. Before intervention Mark swore an average of 10 times during dinner. During the first intervention Mark swore an average of less than once per dinner period (0.76). During the second baseline Mark’s swearing rate increased to 4.5 times per day. Once the punishment was reintroduced, Mark’s swearing rate dropped to 0. In a check-up with the advisors of his group home the researchers were told that Mark swore little to none for the rest of the year after the study. In an attempt to decrease my interrupting behavior little to none, I implemented a chore as punishment after interrupting.
Method
Participant
In this case study, the participant is myself. I am a 20-year-old, female college student. I live on campus in residence housing. I have self-identified as a frequent interrupter during conversation.
Design
This single subject case study used a simple AB design. The baseline period lasted 27 days, and the intervention period lasted 32 days. This study tracked and intervened to decrease my target behavior, interrupting others during conversation. I defined interrupting as the act of talking while another person is talking that negatively impacts the conversation.
Most of my interruptions were situationally dependent. In 26 out of the 27 days of baseline I exhibited at least one instance of interruptive behavior in conversation. Dinner preceded my interruptions for 14 out of the 26 days of baseline. Dinner was the major antecedent, responsible for 54% of my interrupting. Dinner was the time of say I was conversing with the most people. The rest of my day was spent mostly in class, studying, or working out. These situations are more independent. Therefore, my interruptions were not present at those times. Because most of my interruptions happened at dinner, I focused my interventions at the time. During the intervention period, at dinner I made a mental note that I was self-monitoring and that I would be punished if I interrupted. I also felt the non-removable bracelet I wore when my friends were talking at dinner to resist any urge to interrupt. My interruptions were mostly followed by negative reactions from my peers. The main antecedents of my behavior included my friends, family, and classmates being annoyed, angry, or forgetting what they were going to say. In many cases, antecedents included feeling guilty about my own behavior, and the conversation becoming awkward afterwards.
Materials
To implement the appropriate interventions to reduce my interruptions, I used a handmade bracelet created with Alex Toys-Ultimate Friendship Bracelet Party Kit, cleaned using Lysol Dual Action Wipes and Windex Wipes, and used Microsoft Excel to monitor my behavior.
Procedure
I tracked the frequency of my interruptions on a daily basis. Each time I interrupted, I put the data in a spreadsheet to track. During baseline, I entered the number of daily interruptions and the antecedents and consequences in the spreadsheet. I tracked the baseline target behavior for 27 days. On the 28th day of the study, I implemented three interventions to attempt to decrease the frequency of my interruptions: self-monitoring, cleaning punishment, and a bracelet reminder. The intervention period lasted for 33 days.
I implemented the interventions based on the research of Polaha et al (2004) Koritzky and Yechiam (2011) and Fischer and Nehs (1978). Polaha et al. (2004) demonstrated that tracking a person’s behavior with the intention of reducing it is successful in reducing that behavior. My daily interrupting frequency was recorded each day during the baseline and intervention period. I also implemented the use of a non-assigned chore as punishment in my study, which was demonstrated as a success by Fischer and Nehs (1978). Each time I interrupted was equivalent to 2 minutes of cleaning the lounge on the floor of the residence hall where I live. I cleaned the windows and tables in the lounge. At the end of the week, the daily totals were counted and I cleaned for the appropriate amount of time the following Monday. Koritzky and Yechiam (2011) demonstrated the use of a non-removable wristband as a self-monitoring reminding technique that successfully reduced participants’ frequency of nail biting. I wore a handmade bracelet during the intervention period that I could not take off as a reminder. Similar to the research conducted by Koritzky and Yechiam (2011), each time I felt the urge to interrupt, I stopped, thought about my behavior, and felt the bracelet on my hand.
Results
I conducted an analysis of the data from this behavior change project using statistical process control (SPC) procedures by Hart and Hart (2002, as cited in Morgan, 2009). The horizontal lines running through both the baseline and intervention phases of the graph (see Figure 1) depict the mean totals interruptions in conversation each day (M = 2.30) during baseline (solid line) and a 2 SD (SD = 1.27) band or confidence interval about this mean (i.e., control limits). Control limits serve as criteria for interpreting behavior change. Data that fall outside the control limits indicate rare data. Deviations from baseline are interpreted as evidence of a treatment effect. Based on this analysis, I can conclude that the intervention was effective.
Figure 1
Discussion
The results depicted in Figure 1 indicate that during baseline I interrupted others during conversation on average 2.3 times daily, much less than I had expected. Most of interruptions took place during dinner where I interrupted my friends. There were some outliers which can be explained by the excess or absence of conversational interaction with others that particular day. During baseline my interruptions dropped to mostly 0 or 2 times a day. If I continued with my intervention, then the trend would continue and I would exhibit little to no interruptive behavior. I would attribute most of this potential decrease to self-monitoring.
The data support the conclusion that the interventions I implemented were effective. However, there are some confounding variables and problems that could have altered or inflated the results. Becoming aware of the negative perceptions of interrupters was a key factor behind the apparent success of my interventions, and the reasons for which I was motivated to change in the first place. The non-removable bracelet acted as a reminder of why I wanted to change, how I was going to do so, and the negative consequences that would take place if I interrupted. The negative consequences were a combination of the perceptions that would be placed on me, and the cleaning punishment I would enact. During the intervention period I did interrupt a total of 9 times. This infers that I cleaned the lounge on my floor in the residence where I lived for 18 total minutes. I did not have the time to do so, however the fear of the punishment and the guilt of not completing the punishment acted as a deterrent in order to decrease my behavior.
The most recurrent challenge I face upon attempting to change my behavior was remembering that I was trying to do so. Often, I would forget to monitor or track my behavior. I would have to try to remember how many times I interrupted for day, which could have resulted in an under or overrepresentation of interruptions in a given day. During the intervention period I became busy as the second semester of my sophomore year of college was coming to a close. Because of this, I was not focused on changing my behavior and forgot to monitor my interruptions. As previously stated, to make up for these missed days I would make an educated guess causing some of my data to be inaccurate. In addition to memory challenges, the busy time in the semester could have been a confounding variable that decreased my interruptions. I did not have the time to eat dinner with my friends or have many social conversations resulting in less possible interruptions. I also was not able to interrupt during conversations because I was not listening well. Instead I was focused on things such as planning which assignment I would do next or taking mental notes of due dates. I tried to report and intervene as accurately as possible, however it is possible that researcher bias and a type II error are present.
In this single-subject self-case study I implemented the principles of applied behavior analysis in a simple AB design. Case studies are vulnerable to externally validity, therefore operational definitions are essential. The results in case studies are individualized, therefore a well-defined operational definition ensures the study can be replicated and that converging operations are possible. The reliance on memory and the presence of researcher biases are other challenges case studies present. Case studies can be useful because they provide in depth analyses and do not require as much money and resources as other multi-subject studies. The AB design in this study consists of one baseline and one intervention phase. This design is simple and time sensitive. However, in this design it is hard to say if the intervention is the cause of decrease in interruptions, or if there are confounding variables. Overall, the presented case study can provide detailed information, and a foundation for future research, but comes at a potential cost of threatened validity, memory problems, bias, and confounds.
Maintenance, Generalization, and Reflection
The interventions I enacted were seemingly effective, although it was in a specific environment with a chance of potential confounds. If I were to do redo this experiment I would change the design to ABA lasting one year. There would be one baseline period, one intervention, an another baseline period each lasting 4 months. In this new design, I could be more confident that the interventions were responsible for the decrease in my interruptions. This design would monitor my behavior among multiple environments including work, school, and home. I would be more accurate in my monitoring, and enact a more realistic punishment.
In order to maintain my results I plan to continue to implement the principles of my interventions. I will not track my behavior, but I will be hyper aware of my interruptions as a result of this study. Therefore, I will be monitoring my behavior in that way. I will not wear a non-removable wristband at all times, but because I know my interruptions take place mostly at dinner, the environment will act as a reminder. I will not include a punishment, but I will frequently remind myself of the consequences of interrupting. The negative perceptions placed upon me as an interrupters are a form of punishment itself. Instead of using a spreadsheet, bracelet, and a punishment to intervene I will mentally take note of my behavior and remind myself why I should change. The response to the interventions will be generalized environmentally and situationally when I am in a group setting, such as dinner.
Decreasing my interruptions through interventions in this experiment has demonstrated the strengths and weaknesses of different design methods. It is one thing to imagine the disadvantages and advantages of certain designs, but experiencing those disadvantages and advantages fosters a new level of understanding. Designing a research study of my own has aided in my understanding of other research studies I have read. I more clearly understand the general framework of studies and the significance of the individual components. It was beneficial to conduct my own applied research in order to greater appreciate applied research in general.
While attempting to try decrease my interrupting behavior, I realized that changing a behavior is possible. I have tried to change other behaviors I exhibit before, but never successfully. Therefore, I was skeptical that I could achieve self-improvement. Throughout monitoring and intervening, I became less skeptical and more hopeful. Motivation played an important role in this shift in my perception. Actively trying and committing to become a better person was satisfying and motivated me to enact applied behavior analysis principles in other aspects of my life.
Interrupting is one of many potential problematic behaviors I exhibit. Some of my problematic behaviors are more serious than interrupting, such as stress, anxiety, and self-criticism. Tracking and intervening to change a behavior that is slightly more low stakes has set a precedent to reduce other the other problematic excess behaviors I exhibit. Reminders and motivators seemed to elicit the most beneficial response in my behavior. I will motivate and remind myself in order to become less stressed, anxious, and self-critical. Behavior change is not easy. In my previous experience, it has led to failure to do lack of planning, motivation, and interest. In the presented case study behavior change was a success. Decreasing my interruptions will lead to a decrease in others’ negative perceptions of me. I feel confident that my decrease in interruptions will lead to better relationships in my life academically, socially, and professionally.
References
Farley, S. D. (2008). Attaining status at the expense of likeability: Pilfering power through conversational interruption. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 32(4), 241-260. doi:10.1007/s10919-008-0054-x
Fischer, J., & Nehs, R. (1978). Use of a commonly available chore to reduce a boy's rate of swearing. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 9(1), 81-83. doi:10.1016/0005-7916(78)90096-4
Koritzky, G., & Yechiam, E. (2011). On the value of nonremovable reminders for behavior modification: An application to nail-biting (onychophagia). Behavior Modification, 35(6), 511-530. doi:10.1177/0145445511414869
Morgan, D. L. (2009). Using single-case design and personalized behavior change projects to teach research methods. Teaching of Psychology, 36(4), 267-269
Polaha, J., Allen, K., & Studley, B. (2004). Self-monitoring as an intervention to decrease
swimmers' stroke counts. Behavior Modification, 28(2), 261-275.
Rim, Y. (1977). Personality variables and interruptions in small discussions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 7(2), 247-251. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420070210
Robinson, L. F., & Reis, H. T. (198×9). The effects of interruption, gender, and status on interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13(3), 141-153. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy.unh.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cax&AN=CAX0130040000861&site=ehost-live
Schegloff, E. (2000). Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language in Society, 29(1), 1-63. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4168983
Weatherall, A., & Edmonds, D. M. (2018). Speakers formulating their talk as interruptive. Journal Of Pragmatics, 123, 11-23.
Wiley, M., & Woolley, D. (1988). Interruptions among Equals: Power Plays That Fail. Gender and Society, 2(1), 90-102. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/190471