ABSTRACT
This article discusses and questions a study by Rekers and Lovaas (1974), which sought to "normalize" a young boy's sex-role behavior. The reasons given for treatment and the treatment itself are questioned. The ethical implications of the treatment and its outcome are then discussed, and alternative treatment procedures are suggested. Finally, the experimenters' description of the feminine sex-role is criticized.
Subject(s)
Behavior Therapy , Child Behavior , Gender Identity , Identification, Psychological , Behavior Therapy/methods , Child, Preschool , Humans , Male , Play and Playthings , Reinforcement, Psychology , Research Design , Social ConformityABSTRACT
Color cues were used to train four severely retarded children and two learning disabled children to move in a left foot-right foot alteration pattern when using stairs. The occurrence of left-right alterations and marking time behavior was recorded throughout baseline and training conditions. The color-cue procedure effectively produced a consistent pattern of alteration of four of the children and eliminated marking time in three of the children. Physical prompts were used to train alteration in two children for whom color-cue training was not sufficient. At the termination of training, observations of the children's performances in new settings and to new adults were conducted. Results indicated that the children continued to alternate correctly. In addition, follow-up investigations conducted between two weeks to 16 months after training indicated that the children were maintaining the stair alteration pattern. Future research should determine whether a visual-cue procedure could be used in training other forms of locomotion or motor behavior.
