Body-Behavior Problems: A Conceptualization.

Deviations in physical appearance, often a concomitant of exceptionality, can result in serious developmental consequences. A model linking body cues and behavioral consequences is presented. Three major intervention strategies are recommended for reducing existing or potential handicap resulting from atypical physique. A child's development is significantly inelicits negative reactions (Maddox, Back, fluenced by physical appearance (Lerner & Liederman, 1968; Richardson, Goodman, & Karabenick, 1974; Lerner, 1976; Dion, Hastorf, & Dornbusch, 1961; Lerner & 1972; Salvia & Algozzine, Note 9; Schneiria, Geliert, 1969). 1957; Bijou & Baer, 1961). Generally, it The presence of prosthetic devices appears that several features of physique (crutches, braces, wheelchairs, etc.), also serve as significant determinants of one's generates a negative social impact on others behavior as well as the behavior of others. (Richardson, Goodman, Hastorf, & Dorn Unattractive facial features are related to busch, 1961). Finally, skin color has been several problems, namely: devalued pershown to have great control over social sonality traits (Miller, 1970; Dion, Berscheid, interaction (Rubovits & Maehr, 1973; Banks, & Walster, 1972; Byrne, London & Reeves, 1976; Brigham, 1971; Adams & Huston, 1968; Cavior & Dokecki, 1973); high rates. Note 2). of disruptive behavior (Richardson & Royce, In summary, studies have documented a 1968; English 8c Palla, 1971; Berscheid & strong relationship between aspects of phy Walster, 1974; Dion, 1972; Kehle, Note 7; sique and a number of dimensions of Langlois & Downs, Note 8); low IQ (Landy developmental importance to children (Ler & Sigall, 1974; Salvia & Algozzine, Note 9; ner, 1969; Lerner & Geliert, 1969; Rosen Clifford & Walster, 1973); negative marhpT'8c Ross, 1968; Goffman, 1963; Adams, pupil interaction (Adams 8c LaVoie, 1974; Note 1). Adams 8c Cohen, 1976); poor teacher ex pectancy (Rist. 1970; Rosenthal & Jacobson, . „ , . , . , T^Shle, Note 7); fewer and less intense A BehaTMral Model friendships (Ross & Salvia, 1975; Salvia, Increasingly, much human activity is being STieare, & Algozzine, 1975; Dion, 1973; described and explained within a behavioral McCandless & Marshall, 1957) and fewer or operant framework, including problems dates (Curran. 1973; Huston, 1973). of exceptional children. Within this ap Additionally, deformity or absence of proach, the role of significant events both limbs influences social behavior (Janicki, before and after specific behaviors is 1970; Centers & Centers, 1963; Kurtzberg, emphasized. Safar & Cavior, 1968; Bull, Note 5). Body Circumstances that are frequently present build has also been shown to serve as a when reinforcement or punishment is en stimulus to which feelings of disapproval are countered become "discriminative stimuli" assigned (Walker, 1972; Lerner & Schroeder, or "cues" which begin to set the occasion for 1971). Obese or chubby body type especially behavior. Consequences after a behavior Body-Behavior Problems / 265 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.76 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:58:49 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms influence the future strength and direction controlling its subsequent social impact, of the behavior. Social behavior is certainly, Further, visibility is a function of both the if not particularly, sensitive to the impact of physical intensity of the cue (figure-ground discriminative and consequating events. contrast) and the discrimination "training" The term "somatopsychology" has been of the observer. For example, most Ameri employed in the literature (see Barker, cans readily discriminate an Asian from a Wright, Meyerson, & Gonick, 1953) to refer European but have trouble in distinguishing to the study of problems and variables a Japanese from a Chinese individual. Asians concerned with atypical physique as it relates certainly can discriminate among themselves, to psychological status. Depicting somatoTo them, their differences are highly visible, psychological problems as behavior rather whereas such differences are of low non than as psychological problems due to bodily cueing proportions to the American. It variation provides a substantial gain both in appears, then, that certain relatively gross terms of theory and intervention possibilities. physical differences may not constitute sig A body-behavior, or social learning connificant social cues, whereas relatively minor ceptualization makes it possible to build differences may act as potent signals for upon an established body of principles that social responsivity. may be used to describe and alter body behavior involvement. Differential Reinforcement and Its Effects Cueing Properties of Body Deviation Differential reinforcement is the process whereby only certain responses or events are One's physical appearance may be conreinforced and others are not. Assuming a sidered as a set of cues that set the occasion physical characteristic has social cue prop for certain behaviors of others. In turn, erties, it will produce differential reinforce these behaviors act to alter the behavior of ment. That is, persons with the characteristic the person presenting the cues. will be reacted to differently. Consequences It is clear that children who have physical of the visibility of a somatic cue may be disabilities and/or stigmata tend to have more described according to three major kinds of frequent and severe psychological problems impact on the behavior of the person bearing than do nonhandicapped children (Meyerthe cue. Consequences may be (a) neutral son, 1971). A factor which determines the (i.e. fail to reinforce behavior), (b) punishing, degree to which an individual is reacted to or (c) reinforcing. as deviant is the visibility of the presenting Neutral Consequences. Perhaps the most cues. Thus, the clarity or discriminability frequent type of consequence for looking of deviation in physique is a major factor in "different" is the nonconsequence. One may