UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Social reinforcer preferences of elementary school and college students Ganshorn, Margaret Ruth 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A8 G36.pdf [ 3.09MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095660.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095660-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095660-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095660-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095660-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095660-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095660-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095660-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095660.ris

Full Text

SOCIAL REINFORCER P R E F E R E N C E S  OF ELEMENTARY  SCHOOL  AND C O L L E G E STUDENTS  By  MARGARET RUTH  GANSHORN  B.A., University of British Columbia, 1970  A THESIS S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in  T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E STUDIES  (Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education)  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A March 1983  (c) Margaret Ruth Ganshorn, 1983  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and study.  I further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by t h e head o f my department o r by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  It i s  understood t h a t copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n  permission.  Department o f  Educational  Psychology  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date  DE-6  (3/81)  A p r i l  21,  1983  and  Special  Education  ii ABSTRACT  In  order  to assess  the differences with  respect  to the social reinforcer  preferences of adults and children, and the consistency of the preferences of the two groups over time and across situations, the rank order of preference of eight social reinforcers was measured by administering a paired-comparisons questionnaire on two occasions, one week apart, and a behavioural task involving the same eight reinforcers in the third week.  The results indicated that expressed  preference was highly stable  over time, and consistent across assessment procedures (questionnaires and woolsorting  task), and that the two groups differed significantly in terms of order of  preference.  The findings of the present study are related to previous research; the  educational and therapeutic implications of the results are discussed, and suggestions regarding future research are made.  Supervisor  iii TABLE OF CONTENTS  CHAPTER  Page  I  INTRODUCTION  1  II  THE PROBLEM AND R E L A T E D RESEARCH  5  L I T E R A T U R E REVIEW  5  Selection of Reinforcers  5  Selection of Reinforcers for Adults  6  Selection of Reinforcers for Children  7  Social Reinforcement Definition of Social Reinforcement E f f i c a c y of Social Reinforcement  8 9 11  Comparative Effectiveness of Social and Nonsocial Reinforcers  12  A t y p i c a l Populations  15  Selection of Social Reinforcers  17  Stability of Choice  18  Summary and Conclusions  20  STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM  21  Purpose of the Study  21  Rationale  21  Objectives  22  iv  CHAPTER  III  Page  METHOD  24  Subjects  24  Materials  24  Procedure  25  Data Analysis Tests of Consistency  V  28 28  Consistency over Time  28  Consistency over Test Mode  28  Tests of Group Differences  IV  *  RESULTS  29  30  Description of the Experimental Groups  30  Tests of Consistency  30  Consistency over T i m e  30  Consistency over Test Mode  35  Tests of Group Differences  38  Summary  49  SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS A N D RECOMMENDATIONS FOR F U T U R E RESEARCH  52  Summary of Results  52  Conclusions  53  Implications for Education and Treatment  55  Limitations of the Study  56  Recommendations for Future Research  57  V  Page  REFERENCES  59  APPENDIX A.  Paired-Comparison  Questionnaire  B.  Social Reinforcers  C.  Occupational Categories used in the Classification of Parental Occupation  64 69  70  vi  LIST O F  TABLES Page  Table 1:  Biodemographic Characteristics of the  Two  Experimental Groups Table 2:  31  Kendall Rank Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t and Associated Probability for Each Subject  Table 3:  Median Taus for Males and Females  Table 4:  Median Taus for Subjects According to  32 36  Parental Occupation Table 5:  37  Frequency with which High, Medium, and Low  Ranked  Reinforcers were chosen at Non-Cued Times Table 6:  Distribution of College and Elementary  39  School  Students with respect to the Rank Assigned to Touch Table 7:  Distribution of College and Elementary  40 School  Students with Respect to the Rank Assigned to Use of Hand Gestures Table 8:  Distribution of College and Elementary  41 School  Students with respect to the Rank Assigned to Trunk Lean Table 9:  Distribution of College and Elementary  42 School  Students with respect to the Rank Assigned to Smile Table 10:  Distribution of College and Elementary  43 School  Students with respect to the Rank Assigned to General Verbal Praise  44  vii  Page  Table 11:  Distribution of College and Elementary School Students with respect to the Rank Assigned to Explanatory Verbal Praise  Table 12:  45  Distribution of College and Elementary School Students with respect to the Rank Assigned to Brief Verbal Praise  Table 13:  46  Distribution of College and Elementary School Students with respect to the Rank Assigned to Inclusive Verbal Praise  Table 14:  Rank Order of Preference for Social Reinforcers  Table 15:  Results of C h i Square Analyses of Distributions  47 48  of Males and Females with respect to the Rank Assigned to Social Reinforcers Table 16:  50  Results of C h i Square Analyses of Distributions of Students by Parental Occupation with respect to the Rank Assigned to Social Reinforcers  51  viii LIST O F F I G U R E S  FIGURE  Figure 1:  p  Procedural Flow Chart  a g  e  27  ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. B. Munro and Dr. S. Foster, whose scholary advice greatly helped  to improve the quality of this work.  My  special gratitude goes to Dr. Roy Travis whose counsel, wisdom, and continuing support sustained me throughout this project. I would also like to express my appreciation to my colleagues at Riverview Hospital, especially Dr. B. Ledwidge, for their encouragement, advice, and plentiful social reinforcement.  1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION  Educational  and  treatment  institutions  are  constantly looking for better  techniques and tools for modifying and changing behaviour. These methods and tools must be e f f e c t i v e (i.e., produce the desired behavioural change), useful in a wide variety of situations, easily portable, and relatively simple to learn and use. evidence has been provided to show that the procedures analysis (more commonly c r i t e r i a (Bandura,  1969,  known as behaviour  Ample  of applied behavioural  modification) satisfy a l l of these  Mahoney, Kazdin and Lesswing,  1974;  Sloane,  Buckholdt,  Jensen and Crandall, 1979). Since reinforcement, conceived of as a process which strengthens behaviour, is central to the intervention procedures of applied behavioural analysis or behaviour modification, the availability of reinforcers is crucial. Reinforcement, conceived of as a procedure in conditioning paradigms, has an operational, empirical meaning (Hilgard and Marquis, 1961). Thorndike (1911), in his description of the Law  of Effect, views reinforcement as being integral to the  definition of learning and proposes a theory as to how  reinforcement, as a process,  strengthens behaviour: Of several responses made to the same situation, those which are accomplished or closely followed by satisfaction to the animal will, other things being equal, be more firmly connected with the situation, so that, when it recurs, they will be more likely to recur; those which are accompanied or closely followed by discomfort to the animal will, other things being equal, have their connections with that situation weakened, so that, when i t recurs, they will be less likely to occur. The greater the discomfort, the greater the strengthening or weakening of the bond (p. 244). Reinforcement, as i t is viewed in current behaviour modification programs is defined empirically (Tarpy, 1975):  2 In more general terms a reinforcer may be defined as a stimulus that increases response probability. On the one hand, positive reinforcement occurs when the increase in response probability is achieved by the presentation of a positive stimulus ... On the other hand, negative reinforcement occurs when the response is strengthened by the termination of a negative or aversive stimulus (p. 44). In order to implement a behaviour modification program, i t is necessary to have available reinforcers (Bandura, 1969; Bellack and Hersen, 1977; Skinner, Tapp, 1969). Reinforcers are used to alter, maintain or direct behaviour. of reinforcers can be, and is, undertaken  Selection  in a variety of ways (Sloane, Buckholdt,  Jensen and Crandall, 1979; Mash and Terdal, 1976). observation of the individual.  1953;  One  of the methods is direct  Another is the interview situation, wherein  the  individual is questioned regarding preferred consequences. A third way of determining reinforcers is to interview others (e.g., teachers, parents, staff) regarding the person's preferences.  Also available are reinforcement surveys, which provide a  written list of possible reinforcers that the individual is to choose from.  And  finally, there is experimentation: that is, the person is exposed to a wide variety of potential reinforcers, and their relative potency is assessed by noting the characteristics of the plotted curve for the behaviours they follow (as consequences). The  most  common  reinforcers  are  often  classified  according  to  seven  categories: edible, material, activity, social, token, visual and auditory reinforcers (Sloane, Buckholdt, Jensen, and Crandall, 1979). Another important category is the combination  of two or more of these reinforcers, for as C a u t e l a and Kastenbaum  (1967) state, "While experimental procedures often focus upon a single reinforcing stimulus, i t is often the case in an individual's daily life that he is confronted with a combination of stimuli and responses from a variety of sources" (p. 1117). to music, for example, may auditory.  Dancing  entail reinforcement of three sorts: activity, social and  There has been some evidence to suggest that the use of a variety of  reinforcers, both within and between categories of reinforcers, increases the amount  3 of behavioural change produced  (Brown, 1971; 3ohnson, 1976;  Sloane, Buckholdt,  3ensen and Crandall, 1979). This study concerns the selection of a variety of reinforcers within a single category, that of social reinforcement.  Bandura (1969) states that " ... social  reinforcement processes assume a role of major importance in the modification and maintenance of personality patterns" (p.78).  Indeed, social reinforcement  is a  powerful resource in both classrooms and therapeutic situations, in that the social character of these situations provides, at least in principle, a large supply potential social reinforcers. way  of  As Sloane, et al. (1979) assert, "There is no practical  for a teacher to avoid all interaction and contact with students  .. by and large, the real decisions that must be made are about how  therefore, " to use praise and  attention, not whether to use them" (p.97). The advantages of using social reinforcement are numerous.  As compared to  tangible rewards, social reinforcement is more economical and readily available. It is available in natural settings (i.e., will be accessible away from  the  treatment  settings and personnel) and is completely portable. If done properly, it eliminates the apparent artificial, or contrived nature of some operant programs to which many critics object. For those who  c r i t i c i z e the use of mindless behaviourism  (Barzun,  1964; Koch, 1964), a heavier reliance on social reinforcement might make behaviour modification programs more acceptable. There are further advantages. danger  of tissue  situation.  There  damage. would  Social  probably  With the use of social contingencies, there is no rewards be  are  less public  transferable from outcry  and  situation  to  litigation against  behaviour modification programs prompted by concern for civil liberties.  Social  reinforcement can be used in virtually any educational or behavioural intervention situation. Social reinforcement is particularly useful in those circumstances when i t  4 is preferred that the client not be aware of the treatment process. Another value of social reinforcement is the e f f e c t i v e contrast that it provides for nonreinforcement techniques, such as time-out and extinction. Social  reinforcers are preferable  to other categories of reinforcement in  several aspects. Social rewards vary greatly, both between and within individuals, giving the behaviour modifier more ways to intervene, and thereby increasing the efficacy of treatment. Many clients feel less manipulated by a smile or a kind word than by a token and consequently experience less resentment and manifest fewer objections.  An  important  advantage  of  social  reinforcement  over  material  reinforcement is that i t is less disruptive to the behaviour being reinforced.  There  is, furthermore, another  asset:  learns  appropriate social skills.  If the client and his peers in the learning situation then  adopt these skills, they may  modeling.  The  client  witnesses  and  learn to reinforce each other, leading to a very potent  reward source. Evidence suggests that social consequences can effectively alter behaviour (Bandura,  1969).  In an extensive review of the social reinforcement literature,  Raben, Wood, Klimoski, and  Hakel  (1974) conclude  that  there is a variety of  behaviours amenable to change with the use of social reinforcement, such as various forms of verbal behaviour, clinical  phobias, group participation, and  leadership  behaviours. In conclusion they state: Future research should systematically investigate determinants of the value of social incentives and the processes through which they can be applied to changing human behaviour in social and learning settings (p.41).  5 C H A P T E R II THE  PROBLEM AND R E L A T E D RESEARCH  In Chapter I, the concepts of reinforcement as process and procedure are introduced, and some of the advantages of social reinforcement, particularly for the modification  of behaviour in educational and therapeutic  settings  are outlined.  Chapter II consists of a discussion of the relevant research on social reinforcement, reinforcer selection and stability.  The purpose, rationale, and objectives  of the  study are provided.  L I T E R A T U R E REVIEW  SELECTION OF REINFORCERS Mash and Terdal (1976) believe that there is a need f o r awareness of the potentiality  of reinforcers prior to any contingent application.  Assessment of  potential reinforcers, they maintained, should focus not only on the reinforcers that are currently available, but also on the various possible reinforcers not immediately accessible.  As direct exposure and observation of these possible reinforcers is not  always feasible, some form of self-report could be used. Most behaviourists of the 1960's relied on motoric c r i t e r i a for their measurement indices, and attributed the poor correlation between motor and verbal measurements to the inadequacy and inaccuracy of self-reports (Hersen, 1978). this  verbal-motor  discrepancy  may  However, there is some indication that  be due, at least  in part,  to insufficient  descriptive detail (Lick, Sushinsky, and Malow 1977). Furthermore, although there is no guarantee that how a person feels is the major determinant of his report of how he  feels, to ignore the verbal  measures  is tantamount to denying that the  patient's self-report as to how he feels is of any value" (Hersen, 1978, p.333).  6 Selection of Reinforcers for Adults Cautela and Kastenbaum (1967) advocate the use of a reinforcement survey for the determination of reinforcer potential.  The Reinforcement Survey  Schedule  which they developed attempts to identify possible reinforcers and their relative reinforcing values.  The Survey is divided into four sections.  Section I contains  items that can easily be made available within a therapeutic setting (e.g. cookies). Section II contains items that are used primarily through imagination or facsimile within the therapy session, but are available in the ordinary social environment (e.g. watching  baseball).  Section III contains descriptions of situations, rather  than  discrete objects or activities. These situations comprise combinations of stimuli and responses. For these first three sections, the subject is asked to evaluate preferences for various reinforcers by rating each item on a five-point scale, ranging from "not at a l l " to "very much".  The final section is included to facilitate the use of Premack's  Principle (1959), which states that a more frequently engaged-in behaviour may be used  to reinforce a lower  frequency behaviour.  Thus, Section IV instructs the  subjects to list activities or thoughts which they engage in more than 5, 10, 15 and 20 times a day. Keehn, Bloomfield, and Hug (1970) measured the internal consistency of the Reinforcement  Survey  Schedule  and found  i t to be highly  consistent,  yielding  coefficients of .96 for their data collected from a group of alcoholics, and .89 for the original C a u t e l a and Kastenbaum data. Another instrument for assessing reinforcer potential is that of Bersoff and Moyer (1976) who developed an instrument to assess positively reinforcing behaviour for both adults and children.  The Positive Reinforcement  Observation Schedule  assumes that "... reinforcement is relational rather than an absolute property of any  7 a c t i v i t y " (p.241). Ten categories are included, which consist of possible reinforcing behaviours that the social mediator (i.e. teachers, psychologists) may  emit.  The  Positive Reinforcement Observation Schedule can be used a) to guide observations for assessment purposes, and b) as a target preference schedule.  Selection of Reinforcers for Children Willner, Braukmann, Kirigin, Fixsen, Phillips and  Wolf (1977) propose  that  youth satisfaction and willingness to participate in treatment can be increased when the youths are allowed to select the social behaviours which the childcare personnel will  provide.  Their study  investigated  youths' preferences for various social  interaction behaviours, and then had the youths evaluate personnel trained in the use of  these preferred behaviours.  The data indicated a positive correlation between  amount of training and youth ratings of social interaction. This result is of interest, conclude Willner et al. (1977), given that "... a number of preferred  interaction  behaviours considered in the present study have also been demonstrated  to be  e f f e c t i v e in modifying (delinquent) youth behaviour" (p.229). Clement and Richard (1976) developed the Children's Reinforcement Survey in 1968 - 1970. for  They wished to provide a means for assessing motivational incentives  children, such as Cautela and Kastenbaum (1967) had provided for adults.  The  Children's Reinforcement Survey can be completed by either the target child, or by an informant (e.g. a parent). The Survey asks the person to identify and list people, places, things and activities which the child prefers. When the Survey is completed by the child, an interview with the parents and some direct behavioural observations are included in the assessment process. The use of a "Reinforcement Menu" is favored by Daley (1976). frequency behaviours is determined through natural observations.  A list of high  These activities  8 are drawn and placed in a "Reinforcement Menu" book. Then, applying the Premack (1959) principle, the children are permitted to choose an activity from the book upon completion of a specified work unit. Ferster and  DeMyer (1962) were interested in assessing potential reinforcers  for autistic children.  Each child was  placed in a room which contained a group of  possible rewarding consequences which could be obtained by pressing a key. procedure they used was The  most frequently  entirely automatic and  selected  the child was  alone in the  reinforcers were subsequently integrated  The room.  into  an  operant program to sustain and widen the children's behavioural repertoire.  SOCIAL R E I N F O R C E M E N T Patterson's statement to the e f f e c t that "the most powerful reinforcers for a child or an adult are found in the behaviours of another person" (Patterson, p. 17)  may  require  attention and  qualification, but  such  as  smiles,  touch,  praise are believed to be very important and e f f e c t i v e consequences  (Harris, Wolf and Baer, 1967; who  social reinforcers  1971,  factor-analyzed  Patterson. 1971). Baron, DeWaard, and Galizio (1981),  the 162 items of an expanded Reinforcement Survey Schedule,  found the responses to the survey can meaningful factors.  be  described  in terms of 38  distinct and  Among the adults sampled by Baron et al., members of the  two  sexes were in good agreement about the superior reinforcing properties of positive social interactions (the factor which accounted for more variance than any of the other  38  factors) and  praise  (the  fourth  ranking  factor  in terms  of  variance  accounted for). Sloane, et al. (1979) offered a list of social reinforcers which included hugging, congragulating,  shaking  hands,  touching  or  patting,  praising,  paying  special  attention, peer approval, smiling, applause, recognition, nodding, winking, tickling  9 and kissing. They contended that a teacher can tentatively assume that these listed consequences will serve to reinforce appropriate behaviour. is important to assess whether this assumption given  situation  by  monitoring  Naturally, however, i t  is valid for any particular child in a  the child's behaviour  which is followed with  the  particular consequence of interest. An important benefit of social reinforcement is its reciprocal nature. mother  praises the child, the child  may  individuals are encouraged to continue.  smile at the  mother, and  thus  both  Furthermore, in order to ensure adequate  transfer effects, natural, social incentives must supplement training contrived, a r t i f i c i a l  As the  situation  (Bandura,  1969).  which  Forness  has  occurred  in a  (1973)  suggested  that social reinforcers are useful in the prevention of "reinforcement  overkill", i.e., the use of contrived contingencies where they are not necessary. believed that material reinforcers (such as food or tokens), which are lower  He than  social reinforcers on Forness' hierarchy, are too often used in cases where praise and other  social  development  reinforcers of  a  might  be  just  "reinforcement  as  effective.  continuum",  with  Forness emphasis  advocated placed  the  upon  a  movement towards higher-order (social) reinforcers.  Definition of Social  Reinforcement  There are two reinforcer nothing.  general ways of defining reinforcers.  as that which reinforces, a  The  first defines a  tautology which explains and  The other escapes circularity by employing  describes  the Premack principle:  any  behaviour that occurs at a higher frequency than another serves as a reinforcer for the lower frequency behaviour. a  reinforcer.  As  There are problems with a tautological definition of  Bolles (1972) and  Estes (1972) contend,  the  existence of  a  reinforcement procedure does not necessarily prove that a change in behaviour is  10 the result of an underlying reinforcement process or mechanism. given event  strengthens an  operant  To assert that a  because it is reinforcing would be  circular  (Skinner, 1953). Thus, the development of a response, or the failure to develop a response, learning  may  be  may  be  sophisticated  unrelated to the specified "reinforcer". the  development  of  expectancies,  organisms (Estes, 1972), or  Rather,  especially  the key  for  for highly species-specific  the  to  more  behaviour  patterns (Bolles, 1972). Descriptions of social reinforcers tend to be of the tautological type. Bellack and  Hersen  behaviours  (1977) consider social explicitly  emitted  reinforcers  in an  to be  "conceptualized as  interpersonal interaction  to  convey  those the  expression of approval, pleasure or esteem, and which increase the occurence of the targeted behaviour" (p.311). al. (1979), who  A more parsimonious viewpoint is taken by Sloane, et  state that, "... if the behaviour of one individual will reinforce the  behaviour of a second individual, i t is called a social reinforcer" (p.64).  Raben, et  al. (1974) "... consider a reinforcing stimulus to be social if its reward value is related to another individual or group interacting with the reinforced subject" (p.39). There are some difficulties inherent in an attempt reinforcement.  to operationalize social  Firstly, social reinforcers, unlike tokens, are difficult to dispense in  measured amounts; and, secondly, i t is often very difficult to determine exactly which particular aspect of the social situation is reinforcing. For the purposes of this study, the reinforcement value of an interpersonal behaviour is estimated by the extent to which a subject indicates a preference for that behaviour.  11 E f f i c a c y of Social Reinforcement A number of studies have investigated the effectiveness of social reinforcers in the production and maintenance of behavioural change. tested  male and  female  undergraduate  Unikel and Strain (1971)  students under three conditions:  approval, concrete reinforcement, and no reinforcement.  The  social  subjects chose  statement to read out from each of a series of paired statements.  one  The word "good"  after a statement was assumed to indicate social approval; the word "correct" after a statement  was  assumed to indicate concrete reinforcement.  The results showed  both social approval and concreteness to be effective, and both were significantly more e f f e c t i v e than no reinforcement. In an investigation into the effects of verbal reinforcement and tape recorded modeled behaviour, Bourdon (1968) found performance of the desired behaviour.  The  direct verbal reinforcement increased 16 subjects were exposed to tapes in  which the experimenter positively reinforced a "stooge" upon the emission of selfreference statements. whom the experimenter  In the treatment phase that followed, only those individual verbally reinforced showed gains in response  rate;  the  others did not. Buys (1970) wished to investigate the effects of verbal social reinforcement from the teacher on student attitudes. Eighteen children were assigned to either a control or an experimental group.  Attitudes toward the teacher and the class and  measures of student disruption were collected during the experiment.  The findings  indicated that: attitudes were more favorable during the reinforcement phases; and there was  a decrease in the amount of disruptive behaviours when reinforcement  was being provided for appropriate classroom behaviour. Buzas and Ay lion (1981) compared the effectiveness of social reinforcers for motor  behaviours  (tennis skills) with  negative feedback  regarding errors.  The  12 operant  procedure,  praising  correct  performance  and  ignoring  incorrect  performance, improved the correct execution of three tennis skills compared to the baseline performance when only negative feedback was given.  Comparative Effectiveness of Social and Nonsocial Reinforcers Most of the experiments which analyze the e f f i c a c y of social reinforcement compare the effectiveness of social to nonsocial reinforcers.  Tosi, Upshaw, Lande,  and Waldron (1971) were interested in increasing verbalization among elementary students.  In the first treatment group, verbalizations were praised.  In the second  group the Premack principle was employed, and time for play was the reinforcer. The third treatment group viewed a film, and in the ensuing discussion the teacher's expectations were made clear. The control group saw the film and had a discussion about it.  Although the group that received praise for verbalization did not differ  from the group that was reinforced with contingent play, the social reinforcement did  produce  significantly  higher response rates  than  did nonreinforcement or  knowledge of teacher expectations, whereas the reinforcement procedure based on the Premack principle was superior to neither the control group nor the "teacher expectation" group. Finch (1971) compared adults.  the effects of social and monetary  reinforcers for  Males and females were reinforced with either money or social rewards,  under either direct or vicarious delivery systems. Results confirmed the hypothesis that direct reinforcement would produce significantly more imitative responses than would vicarious reinforcement for both types of reward.  Similarly confirmed was  the hypothesis that performance would be higher for social reinforcers than for monetary reinforcers in the vicarious delivery group.  13 A further study using adults as subjects was Three hundred  and  persistence at task.  undertaken by Williams (1971).  forty-three college undergraduate students were measured on Female students were more persistent than males;  reinforcement led to a greater  and  social  increase in persistence than monetary reward for  both sexes. Swingle  and  Coady  (1969)  compared  effectiveness on a leverpressing task. groups (6, 10, and  monetary  and  verbal  incentive  Middle and lower class children of three  age  15 years) were tested using four different consequences: money,  verbal praise, a combination of money and  praise, and  nothing.  The  youngest  children exhibited equal response rates for the social and the nonsocial reinforcers. However the older children produced markedly different results, with the class children performing best  under the  monetary incentive condition  lower  and  the  middle class children performing best for verbal incentives. A  number  of  studies  have  attempted  to  measure  social  reinforcement  effectiveness during test situations. Bergan, McManis and Melchert (1971) wished to determine whether reinforcement (in the form of tokens or words) could a f f e c t performance (accuracy and speed) on the WISC B L O C K DESIGN.  Testing was  done  on 48 fourth graders and the results suggested major sex differences. The boys were more accurate under the token reinforcement condition; their test faster with social reinforcement.  The  however they completed  girls were equally fast when  reinforced with tokens or social reinforcers but were more accurate under the social reinforcement condition. Silverman and  Waite (1969) considered  relation to test anxiety.  social and  nonsocial  reinforcers in  A f t e r being divided into high and low test anxious groups,  the children completed a probability learning task.  Although the authors predicted  that the child's level of anxiety would interact differently with the two  types of  14 reinforcement, this was not the case. However, in terms of the response measure on the learning task social reinforcement was more e f f e c t i v e than nonsocial reinforcement in both the high and low test anxious groups. A combination of reinforcers was deemed to be the most e f f e c t i v e method for increasing performance on a task, by Brown (1971). Bar press rates in children were compared under three reinforcement conditions: tangible, social, and alternating tangible and social reinforcement.  The rate of the group which had received only  tangible reinforcers dropped below the other two groups during periods of nonreinforcement. was  When reinforcement was being provided, the highest performance level  achieved  by  the  group  which  received  alternating  tangible and  social  reinforcement. Equivalent e f f i c a c y of tangible and social rewards was found by Biron, Ramos and Higa (1977). sufficient  for  Verbal explanations and rewards had previously been found to be development  of  cooperation  among  college  students;  the  experimenters wanted to know if the same would hold true for children. In the first part of the experiment, material reward (a colored star) was tested against a control condition. As expected, the control group showed no change while the experimental group showed a significant improvement.  In the second part of the research there  were three conditions: a tangible (colored star) reinforcer, social reinforcement and social reinforcement combined with an explanation.  A l l three groups showed a  significant increase, with no measurable difference between the three conditions. Mixed results were obtained by Schumaker, Hovell and Sherman (1977). were  two  experimental  conditions, using parent-controlled reinforcers  management of adolescents' classroom behaviour.  There  for the  When parents used a combination  of praise and permission for privileges, there were significant increase in grades, teachers' expressions of approval, rules followed and amount of work done.  Under  15 the praise-alone condition there was initial improvement, with deterioration over time.  The conditions differed in one important respect, however; as is usually the  case in experiments of this type, the privileges were varied and were scheduled in a hierarchy; the social reinforcement was not. In a recent study, Sewell and Walker (1981) found monetary and social rewards equally e f f e c t i v e in facilitating the performance of low SES black children on the Raven Colored Progressive Matrices and a paired-associate task. In discussing their results, the authors note: Finally, i t is a reasonable assumption that material rewards would effectively enhance the school-related performance of economically disadvantaged children. However, the present experimental evidence does not lend support to any generalization based on the assumption that monetary rewards would be more highly valued as a reinforcer than symbolic rewards (p.98).  A t y p i c a l Populations Social reinforcement is frequently considered to be most useful with clinically normal  populations (Patterson, 1971), and to have  limited  effectiveness - with  atypical cases (Sloane, Buckholdt, Jensen, and Crandall, 1979).  However, many  researchers and theorists conclude that social reinforcement can produce significant effects for clinically deviant populations (Bandura,  1969; Forness, 1973; Raben,  Wood, Klimoski, and Haken, 1974). Furthermore, it has been suggested and  (Berkowitz  Zigler, 1965) that atypical populations such as retardates may be even more  responsive than  normals to social approval, due to a high occurence  of social  deprivation in their environments. There is some evidence that social reinforcement, used for atypical cases, will be most beneficial when either varied within itself or combined with other rewards. Johnson's (1976) results underlined the effectiveness of a combination reinforcers.  While testing the comparative  of social  responsiveness to social reinforcement  of delinquents, she also measured improvements attributable to money versus social  16 rewards.  In five out of her six experiments, delinquents were found to be equally  responsive to money, but not as responsive to social contingencies, in comparison with the non-delinquents.  This remained the same whether the reinforcement  delivered by an adult or by a peer.  was  Delinquents were also poorer at discriminating  between approval and disapproval. However, in the one experiment which varied the social reinforcement, delinquents and non-delinquents responded identically, showing significant gains. Milan and  M c K e e (1976) found social rewards to be no more e f f e c t i v e than  coersion on inmates of a maximum security institution, but when a combination of praise and improve.  a token economy was  introduced, the behaviour of the prisoners did  Unfortunately, neither praise alone nor the token condition alone were  separately evaluated. (In the praise-coersion comparison, praise was combined with noncontingent tokens). In atypical as well as normal populations, social reinforcement can effectively supplement other reinforcers. nonsocial rewards.  There  are three reasons  for pairing  social  and  First, in situations in which social reinforcers are an e f f e c t i v e  form of reinforcement, pairing will add to the value of the reinforcement "package". Second, in situations in which social reinforcers are ineffective, pairing may  in time,  (i.e. eventually), increase the value of the social consequences. Third, social reward is so common in the "real world" (it is the most common form of reinforcement in schools, according to Sloane, Buckholdt, Jensen and Crandall, 1979) that i t should, in the interests of generalization, be included as part of the reward in any  behaviour  modification program. When  considering a l l of  the  reinforcers, i t becomes apparent  research on  the  relative e f f i c a c y  that often i t is the  efficacy  of a  of  social  particular  procedure, rather than the usefulness of social reinforcement as a whole which has  17 been evaluated.  It is not suprising that the social reinforcers used become less  e f f e c t i v e over time, as they are seldom varied. of reinforcers is more e f f e c t i v e than any would  appear  to  be  important, at  one  If it can be assumed that a variety  reinforcer in modifying behaviour, i t  this point,  to  develop a  "menu" of social  reinforcers for use in behaviour modification programs.  S E L E C T I O N OF  SOCIAL REINFORCERS  Potential social reinforcers can be identified using the same methods as used  to  identify  reinforcers  in  general,  viz., observation,  are  experimentation,  interviews and surveys. However, in the case of social reinforcement the problems of definition and  description are especially complicated.  As Sloane, et al. (1979)  state, "all reinforcers are observable, objective events, even though it may  be very  difficult to discover exactly what they are or to specify them" (p.60). In addition, even the less subtle types of social reinforcers may occasions (Mash and  Terdal,  1976).  not be identical on  successive  Furthermore, the experimental literature has  produced discrepant views regarding what constitutes social reinforcement.  Cernius  (1968), for example, considered correctness ("right") to be a social reinforcer, while Unlikel and  Strain (1971) believed correctness to be concrete reinforcement which  can be contrasted with social approval. Social  reinforcers  often  comprise  one  class  or  Reinforcement Survey (Cautela and Kastenbaum, 1967; One  a group of  classes  on  Bersoff and  Moyer, 1978).  of the rare attempts to evaluated a variety of potential social reinforcers  performed by Willner, Braukman, Kirigin, Fixsen, Phillips and videotaped  interactions, they had  Wolf (1977).  their clients select liked and  behaviours and rate these behaviours on a five-point scale.  a  was  Using  disliked social  Haase and Tepper (1972)  18 similarly  used  videotaped  interactions but  in their  investigation  the  mediators  (counsellors) themselves were the evaluators. A f t e r viewing the tapes the subjects rated the effectiveness of the various nonverbal components of the behavioural segment. This study may  be limited, as Haase and Tepper (1972) suggest, by the use  of trained observers for the subject sample. In an effort to determine potential reinforcers for slow learners and regular students, Serralde de Scholz and McDougall (1978) classified social reinforcement as one part of a seven-level reinforcement continuum. Using a revised survey based on the Reinforcement  Survey Schedule of Cautela and Kastenbaum (1967), they tested  297 grade seven children.  This survey technique, suggest Serralde de Scholz and  McDougall (1978), could help the teacher identify the learners' valued reinforcers and thereby aid in the design of an intervention program. Witryol, Lowden, Fag en and Bergen (1968) had children choose between verbal and  material  rewards  in an  investigation  of  reinforcement  and  task-relevant  motivation. With only one exception, the subjects chose equal levels of verbal and material incentives, or chose a higher level of verbal rewards.  STABILITY OF  CHOICE  There is very little information regarding the stability of choice for preferred reinforcers.  In a study by Turner, Foa, and Foa (1971) six classes of interpersonal  reinforcers (e.g., love, status) were investigated to determine  their  perceived  similarity, their exchange value, and their "structural invariance" (i.e. proximity of preference rating).  Subjects were asked to perform three tasks.  First, they were  asked to rate the similarity of a series of messages representing the six "resource" (interpersonal reinforcer) classes.  Next, they were to imagine trading resources  with another person, and to choose from a list of paired comparisons which of the  19 two  items they would prefer from the exchange. For the third study, subjects were  to rate statements pertaining  to a particular class of reinforcer on a five-point  scale, from highly desirable to not  at a l l desirable.  The  results suggested  that  reinforcers that were proximal in terms of order of preference were more often substituted  for one  another across exchange situations;  reinforcer class that the subject was  furthermore, for each  to imagine surrendering, there was one class of  reinforcer most frequently chosen for exchange. In an attempt to find an economical method of ordering reinforcers, Witryol and Fischer (1960) used paired-comparisons to scale incentive values. Twenty-seven preschool children were instructed to choose one item from a pair. There were ten such pairs involving  five incentive  perfectly consistent  choices for the  ordering  of the  Ferster and  objects. ten  Eighteen of the  possible  pairings.  27  children  made  However, the  rank-  five items showed only moderate correlation among individuals.  DeMeyer (1962) suggested that these findings imply: first, that it  may  be possible to scale incentive classes into "standard reinforcement values";  and  second, that  the  the  procedure enables the  experimenter to quickly  determine  individuals' preferred incentives (within a given set) prior to experimentation. Only one  study investigated the stability of reinforcer preferences over time.  Kleinknecht, McCormick, and Thorndike (1973) measured test-retest reliability over three time intervals of one, students.  Median correlations for the  Schedule were .734 .709  three and  five weeks for undergraduate psychology 140  items of the  Reinforcement  Survey  for the one week interval, .665 for the three week interval, and  for the five week interval.  Median correlations for the subjects across items  for the one, three and five week intervals were .829, .775, and .801,  respectively.  20 SUMMARY AND Reinforcement operant tradition.  CONCLUSIONS  occupies a central position within learning theories in the The effectiveness of social reinforcement for adults, children,  and special populations has been amply documented (Bandura,  1969; Harris, Wolf  and Baer, 1967; Raben, Wood, Klimoski and Hakel, 1974) and there is some evidence to suggest that a combination of reinforcers will lead to the most efficacious results (Raben, Wood, Klimoski and Hakel, 1974), but there is a notable lack of procedures for determining individual preferences with respect to social reinforcers.  A failure  to define, describe and vary social reinforcers in published studies has led to some conflicting findings; the majority of the studies use "some form of verbal praise" (Raben, Wood, Klimoski and Hakel,  1974).  Although  the reinforcement  surveys  contain more operationalized descriptions of a variety of social reinforcers, more detailed and specific research on social reinforcers is necessary because we have no knowledge of the relative  potency  of different  social  reinforcers  for various  populations. It is the view of Witryol and Fischer (1960) that the method of pairedcomparisons offers an economical and reliable way of determining incentive values for children.  Although child and adult populations are generally investigated with  divergent methods (Mash and Terdal, 1976), the position is taken in this study that scaling through paired-comparisons is a technique that can be used for adults as well as children.  Further, the position is taken  that an actual behavioural choice  measure be included for comparison and contrast with the results derived from the paired-comparisons  questionnaire in order  to assess relative  potency  of social  reinforcers as indicated by expressed preferences in choice tasks and the stability of these preferences within and across individuals.  There is a paucity of information  regarding the stability of choice for preferred reinforcers but what there is suggests  21 that the preferences of individuals will be stable over time and across test modes but that individuals and groups of populations will differ systematically with respect to social reinforcer preference. In the present study preferences of adults and children with respect to social reinforcers are compared.  The stability of those preferences over time and across  test modes for individuals and for groups is also analyzed.  STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM  PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The present study investigates social reinforcer preferences among adults and children. Consistency of choice is assessed by comparing the rank orders assigned a set of social reinforcers on a paired-comparisons questionnaire, administered twice, a  week  apart, and these  were compared  with  indicated  preferences during a  behavioural task, administered a week after the second questionnaire.  The study  addresses three questions: 1)  What is the extent of the consistency of choice of preferred social reinforcers for each subject?  2)  Do the two groups differ with respect to the consistency of choice?  3)  A r e there  significant  differences with  respect  to preferred social  reinforcers between the groups of subjects?  RATIONALE The rationale for an examination of the selection of social reinforcers arises from two main considerations. published  experiments involving  First, the narrow range of reinforcers utilized in social  reinforcement  indicates the need  for a  22 procedure rotated  for establishing a "menu" of reinforcers that can be  to  prevent  satiation  (Forness,  1973;  Sloane,  interchanged  Buckholdt,  Jensen,  and and  Crandall, 1979). The second consideration is that there is a practical need for an e f f e c t i v e method of determining  potential social reinforcers which is faster  and  simpler than observation or experimentation. An  established order of preference can  be  a useful tool in the design of  behavioural management programs in applied settings.  Some studies have found a  relatively stable preference of choice for reinforcers (Turner, Foa and Foa,  1971;  Witryol and Fischer, 1960). If this be the case, then i t should be possible to develop an individualized and flexible reinforcement hierarchy for each person. A r m e d with such a hierarchy and given the nature of the task (which may  preclude the use of  some social reinforcers) the behaviour modifier can select from the hierarchy those reinforcers that rank highest in the individual's hierarchy. A t present, there seem to be two  major deficits in the research literature  concerning selection of reinforcers. The first is that there is no selection procedure designed  specifically for social reinforcement.  The  second need is for a simple  selection method which can be used with a variety of populations.  OBJECTIVES Consistent  with  the  rationale, articulated  above, and  the  review  of  the  literature, the three main objectives of the present study are: 1)  to explore the extent to which subjects are consistent in their choice of social reinforcers;  2)  to explore the extent to which adults and children differ with respect to their consistency of choice; and  3)  to explore the extent to which adults and children differ significantly with respect to choice of social reinforcer.  23 To address these objectives, the social reinforcer preferences of a group of adults are compared to the preferences of a group of children. measured  by  questionnaire and  by  Preference were  securing indications of preference  during  a  behavioural test.  Chapter  II has discussed the background to the problem in terms of concept-  ualization, definition  and  measurement  of social  reinforcement.  rationale and objectives of the study have been provided. detailed description of the procedures employed in the study.  Chapter  The  purpose,  III presents a  2k  C H A P T E R III METHOD  Chapter III describes the populations sampled, and discusses the  experimental  procedures used, including the construction of a paired-comparison questionnaire to rate  social  reinforcer preference,  and  a  procedure  to assess  social reinforcer  preference during a behavioural task. The final section of this chapter discusses the data analyses used in this study. SUBJECTS  Two  groups of  30  volunteer  subjects were tested.  Thirty undergraduate  students, male and female, from the Education Faculty at the University of British Columbia constituted Group I.  Group II was  composed of 30  children from  a  suburban elementary schoool, male and female, from Grades 6 and/or 7.  The  group membership, sex, and  parental occupation  recorded  (reported in Table  The  1, P. 31).  of each  subject was  total time required per subject was  age,  60 minutes  spread over three sessions.  MATERIALS The  materials  used  in  the  experimental  procedures  include  a  paired-  comparison questionnaire, pieces of wool, a tape recorder, and cards specifying the possible reinforcer choices. The paired-comparison instructs the subject to express a preference for one of a pair of reinforcers. of  the  eight  social  The questionnaire contains 28 such paired-comparisons (each reinforcers is paired  questionnaire is appended (Appendix A).  with  every  other).  A  copy  of  the  25 A bag of three inch strips of wool in ten different colors was supplied to the subject for the behavioural task in Session III. A tape recorder was used in Session III, to present buzzer tones.  These tones  were distributed (recorded) randomly on the tape. Each subject listened to the same recorded set of tones. The social reinforcers specified on the three cards that the subject pointed to during the behavioural task were derived from the subject's responses on the pairedcomparison questionnaires, and represented little preferred, moderately preferred, and highly-preferred choices.  PROCEDURE Intially, each group of volunteer  subjects met with the experimenter as a  group, with Group I (adults) and Group II (children) meeting at different times.  The  procedure was identical for both groups. A t the first meeting, subjects were asked to f i l l out a pen and paper questionnaire (Appendix A).  The experimenter read the  instructions, which also appeared on the questionnaire in written form. The subjects had 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire. One week following this, each group of subjects was given the same questionnaire with the same instructions and the same choices, but with the order of items randomly varied. Prior to the third and final experimental  session, each subject's two paired-  comparison questionnaires were combined to produce a preference hierarchy for each subject.  The three choices of behavioural actions used for the task were  derived from this hierarchy, with one item chosen from each of high, medium, and low preferences items.  26 The  final  session  occurred  the following week, when  each  individually with the experimenter for the behavioural choice task.  subject  met  A t the start of  this final session, the following written instructions were read to the subject and she/he was given a copy of the instructions: This bag contains small pieces of wool in different colors. I would like you to sort this wool into separate piles, putting all of one color into each pile. Use one hand only. As you are sorting the wool, you may want me to break the monotony by reacting to your work. Although I will react in only three ways, you can choose which reaction you get. In front of you there are three signs, with different actions written on each sign. When you want some encouragement, point to the sign with the action that you would prefer, and I will perform that action. Each action will be brief and you should then continue the wool sorting. Now remember I will react every time you point to a sign. You may select any one of the three signs; choose the one which you would most prefer. There can be as many occasions as you wish. However, during the session, there will be a buzzer sounding periodically. When the buzzer sounds, you must point to the action that you would prefer at that time. I will inform you when the session is completed. A r e there any questions? The subject was given a box containing pieces of yarn, and asked to sort these pieces according to color.  Three signs were placed in front of the subject, with  different actions written on each sign. The subject was instructed to point to the sign with the preferred action whenever she/he desired some encouragement (noncued reinforcement).  The experimenter then performed that action.  was of brief duration, and the subject immediately returned  Each action  to the wool sorting.  The experimenter reacted every time a sign was pointed to, indicating the character of the subject's wishes. During the session, a buzzer sounded periodically. buzzer was heard, the subject pointed to a sign (cued reinforcement).  When the  This task had  a duration of 20 minutes. The buzzer was activated 15 times. The language and the procedures used in this research were developed to be as simple  as possible, in order  that  the same set of instructions and the same  procedures could be used for both children and adults.  The eight possible social  reinforcers that comprise the initial list (see Appendix B) were selected according to three  criteria.  First,  these items were frequently  referred to as useful and  27 appropriate  varieties of social reinforcement  in the current  literature  (Sloane,  Buckholdt, Jensen and Crandall, 1979; Haase and Tepper, 1972; Willner, Braukman, Kirigin, Fixsen, Phillips, and Wolf, 1977).  Second, the author had observed  these  items being commonly used for social reinforcers on an operant program. Third, any item which created ambuiguity was eliminated. the  (For example, "verbal praise using  subjects' name" was eliminated, because its inclusion would necessitate a l l  verbal praise items being listed with the name and also listed without  the name.  Similarly, "eye contact" was eliminated, because a lack of eye contact may detract from the reinforcing value of the tested social reinforcer).  During  the task, eye  contact was used with every choice.  The research procedure is illustrated below.  Group I (Adults)  Ol  °3  °5  /\  Group II (Children)  ( l) T  1  A  °2  0^  °6  l\  n  A.  start Day 1  Day 8  ( 2) T  1  Day 15-17 finish  Ol, 02 - Administration of first pen and paper paired-comparison choice list. 03, 05  - Admimistration of second pen and paper paired-comparison choice list. (Tl),  ( T 2 ) _ Behavioural  task  situation  using  individual  reinforcement hierarchies derived from ^1 <5c ^3, or ^2 & 0^.  Figure 1: Procedural Flow Chart  social  28  D A T A ANALYSIS  Tests of Consistency Consistency of preference of social reinforcers was measured in two ways. 1)  Consistency  over  coefficient, tau (Siegel,  time.  For  1956), was  each subject a Kendall rank correlation  calculated between the ranks (i.e. order of  preference) assigned each of the social reinforcers by that subject at the time of the initial administration of the questionnaire (Appendix A) and one week later, at the time of the second administration of the questionnaire.  (Siegel, 1956,  recommends  the Kendall rank correlation coefficient as the nonparametric measure of choice for estimating the correlation between variables with ordinal levels of measurement). The taus for the college students were compared with the taus for the elementary school students using the Mann-Whitney U 1956).  Test for independent samples (Siegel,  The taus for females were compared with the taus for males, and the taus  for mature college students were compared to the taus of college students under 30 years of age using the Mann-Whitney U Test. Students were classified according to the occupation of the supporting parent (using the occupational classification system from  the Dictionary of Occupational  Titles - Appendix C) and  the taus of each  group of students so classified were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance (Siegel, 1956). 2)  Consistency over test mode.  For each subject, the ranking of the  low,  medium and high reinforcers derived from the questionnaire was compared with the ranking  of the same three reinforcers derived from the behavioural test.  probability of the observed proportion of students who in exactly the same order on both  tests was  The  ranked the three reinforcers  calculated using the normal curve  29 approximation  to the binomial  distribution  (Runyon  and  Haber,  1971).  The  proportion of college students who ranked the three reinforcers in the same order in both test modes was compared with the proportion of elementary school  students  who were consistent in their order of preference across modes using a chi square test for two independent samples (Siegal, 1956). with  In a similar manner, differences  respect to consistency across test mode were calculated for sex, age, and  parental occupation.  Tests of Group Differences For subjects  each with  reinforcer, the distributions respect  to the rank  of college and elementary  (the mean  rank  computed  from  school  the two  questionnaires) assigned that reinforcer were compared using a chi square analysis for two independent samples. Similarly, groups of subjects defined in terms of sex, and parental occupation were compared.  30 C H A P T E R IV RESULTS  Chapter IV presents a description of the two experimental groups of subjects and  the results of analyses for the rank-ordering of social reinforcer preference.  The results have been organized into two major sections: tests of consistency, and tests of group differences. Description of the Experimental Groups There were 30 subjects in each of the two experimental groups (see Table 1, p.31, for biodemographic characteristics).  One group consisted of 18 male and 12  female children, ranging in age from 11.0 to 12.3 years (X = 11.7 years). The second group consisted of 21 male and nine female college students, ranging in age from 20.5 t o 53.6 years  = 31.9 years).  The parental occupations of both groups of  subjects was biased toward professional-managerial occupations, with 13 of the 30 subjects in each of the two groups reporting a parent who is a professional or a manager. The groups did not differ significantly with respect to gender distribution (%  2  = 0.66, df = 2), or parental occupation OL  2  = 8.23, df = 6).  Tests of Consistency 1)  Consistency over time.  The Kendall rank correlation between the ranks  assigned each of the social reinforcers by a subject at the time  of the initial  administration of the questionnaire and one week later are listed in Table 2 below, along with the associated probability of the tau.  The associated probability-values  for the taus were obtained from a table of such probabilities in Siegel (1956). For 52 of the 60 subjects the Kendall rank significant  at the .05 level  correlation coefficients were  or better; 34 of the 60 subjects had correlation  Table 1  Biodemographic Characteristics of the Two Experimental Groups  Age Group  Mean  Gender  Range  SD  M  Occupational Groupings  F  1  2  3  4  3  5  6  7  College  31.91 yrs.  53.58-20.50 yrs.  7.89 yrs  21  9  13  6  0  1  4  2  4  Elementary  11.70 yrs  12.33-11.00 yrs.  0.34 yrs.  18  12  13  5  5  0  4  0  3  a.  Occupational Groupings 1. Professional Managerial 2. C l e r i c a l and Sales 3. Service Occupations 4. Agricultural 5. Skilled Occupations 6. Semi-Skilled Occupations 7. Unskilled Occupations  32 Table 2  Kendall Rank Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t (tau) and Associated Probability (p) for Each subject  Subject  Group  tau  P  1  College  0.66  .016  2  College  0.93  .003  3  College  0.84  .002  4  College  0.78  .003  5  College  0.21  .360  6  College  0.28  .274  7  College  0.96  .000  8  College  0.60  .031  9  College  0.17  .360  10  College  0.94  .000  11  College  0.74  .007  12  College  0.86  .001  13  College  0.74  .007  14  College  0.92  .003  15  College  0.74  .007  16  College  0.64  .016  17  College  0.71  .007  18  College  0.24  .274  19  College  0.74  .007  20  College  0.44  .089  Table 2 (Con't)  Kendall Rank Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t (tau) and Associated Probability (p) for Each subject  Subject  Group  tau  p  21  College  0.65  .031  22  College  0.92  .000  23  College  0.92  .000  24  College  0.94  .001  25  College  0.94  .001  26  College  0.44  .138  27  College  0.88  .001  28  College  0.83  .003  29  College  0.64  .016  30  College  0.71  .016  31  Elementary  0.75  .016  32  Elementary  0.64  .016  33  Elementary  0.95  .001  34  Elementary  0.76  .016  35  Elementary  0.37  .138  36  Elementary  0.83  .003  37  Elementary  0.93  .000  38  Elementary  0.87  .003  39  Elementary  0.74  .007  40  Elementary  0.67  .031  0  34 Table 2 (Con't)  Kendall Rank Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t (tau) and Associated Probability (p) for Each subject  Subject  Group  tau  P  41  Elementary  0.84  .003  42  Elementary  0.63  .031  43  Elementary  0.60  .031  44  Elementary  0.79  .007  45  Elementary  0.71  .007  46  Elementary  0.86  .001  47  Elementary  0.74  .007  48  Elementary  0.86  .001  49  Elementary  0.79  .003  50  Elementary  0.85  .003  51  Elementary  0.79  .007  52  Elementary  0.54  .054  53  Elementary  0.60  .054  54  Elementary  1.00  .000  55  Elementary  0.98  .003  56  Elementary  0.72  .016  57  Elementary  0.67  .031  58  Elementary  0.59  .031  59  Elementary  0.64  .016  60  Elementary  0.62  .031  35 coefficients of .01 or better. The median value of tau for the 60 subjects was  0.74,  which has an associated probability of .007 (Siegel, 1956, p.221). The college students and elementary school students were equally consistent in their rank-ordering of preference of social reinforcers over time. The median tau of the college students (0.740, p = .007) did not differ from  the median tau of the  elementary school students (0.745, p = .007) when compared using the Mann-Whitney U Test for two independent samples (U = 448; n i = 30, n2 = 30; p = .976). Consistency of reinforcer preference over time was not a function of sex, or age of college students, but was related to parental occupation. were equally consistent in rank-ordering of social reinforcers.  Males and  females  Table 3 lists the  median taus for males and females for the college students, the elementary school students, and  the total group.  Consistency over time as a function of age  examined for college students only.  The  was  median tau of mature college students  (0.685) did not differ from the median tau of college students under age 30 (0.785), using the Mann-Whitney U Test for two independent samples (U = 84; n_ = 14, n 16; ns).  2  =  A one-way analysis of variance, calculated to compare consistency over  time of subjects grouped according to parental occupation listed in Appendix  C,  revealed significant differences among the students grouped by parental occupation, with the children of professional, managerial  and  service occupations  exhibiting  higher levels of consistency over time (H = 10.72; df = 4; p < .05). The median taus are listed in Table 4. excluded from  Two  occupational categories involving three students were  the analysis because the number of subjects with parents in those  occupational categories was too small. 2) medium  Consistency over test mode. and  low  rated reinforcers  The  order of preference for the  (derived from  the  questionnaire data)  high, was  identical to the order of preference derived from the behavioural test data for 43 of  Table 3  Median Taus for Males and Females  Median Taus for Males  Median Taus for Females  U  "1  n  Elementary School Students  0.75  0.77  102  12  18  ns  College Students  0.71  0.86  55  9  21  ns  Total Sample  0.74  0.83  309  21  39  ns  Group  2  P  Table 4  Median Taus for Subjects According to Parental Occupation  Parental Occupation  n  Median tau  Professional and Managerial  26  0.84  C l e r i c a l and Sales  11  0.67  Service Occupations  5  0.79  Skilled  8  0.69  7  0.64  Occupations  Unskilled  Occupations  H = 10.72; df = 4; p<.05  38 the 60 subject (z=11.25, p<.0001).  The proportion of college students who ranked  the three reinforcers in the same order in both test modes did not differ from the proportion of elementary  school students who were consistent in their order of  preference across modes (3^2=0.048, df=1).  Similarly, no significant differences  between males and females with respect to consistency across test mode were found for  the college  students  ( ^ 2 = 2 . 3 0 ,  df=l), for the elementary  school students  (!L2=2.30, df=l), or for the group as a whole (9c2=o.41, df=l); nor was consistency across test mode a function of parental occupation (0c2=7.Z&,  df=4).  Only nine of the 60 subjects pointed to a reinforcer (indicating that she/he desired some encouragement, as per instructions from cued times.  the experimenter) at non-  Seven of the nine subjects selected the high-ranked  reinforcer most  frequently; the other two subjects selected the high-ranked reinforcer and mediumranked reinforcer equally often, and selected both more frequently than the lowranked reinforcer (Table 5). Tests of Group Differences The distributions of college and elementary school students with respect to the rank assigned touch as a reinforcer did not differ from each other using chi square for two independent  samples (Table 6).  Similarly, the two groups did not differ  from each other with respect to the rank assigned use of hand gestures, trunk lean, smile, general verbal praise (1-2 sentences), or explanatory reinforcers (Tables 7-11).  verbal praise, as  The distributions of the two groups with respect to the  rank assigned brief verbal praise (1-2) words) and inclusive verbal praise (includes at least one other person) did differ, with the elementary  school students assigning  higher ranks to those two reinforcers than did the college students (Tables 12-13). The order of preference for social reinforcers is listed in Table 14 for the two groups of students separately and for the combined group.  Table 5  Frequency with which High, Medium and Low Ranked Reinforcers were chosen at Non-Cued Times  Medium  Low  Group  High  15  College  3  0  0  18  College  9  8  1  20  College  2  1  0  25  College  2  2  1  30  College  6  0  0  35  Elementary  7  2  1  41  Elementary  3  2  2  50  Elementary  1  1  0  55  Elementary  5  0  4  38  16  9  Subject's ,D. Numbers  Total  Table 6  Distribution of College and Elementary School Students with respect to the Rank Assigned to Touch  Rank  Group  1  2  3  4  5  6  6  8  Total  College Students  0  1.5  1.5  1.0  1.5  3.0  7.0  14.5  30.0  Elementary School Students  0  0  0  2.0  0  3.5  11.0  13.5  30.0  Total Group  0  1.5  1.5  3.0  1.5  6.5  18.0  28.0  60.0  a  %2  =  2.90,  df = 7, ns  Non-integer frequencies result from assigning half of any student with tied ranks to each of the cells of the tie.  Table 7  Distribution of College and Elementary School Students with respect to the Rank Assigned to Use of Hand Gestures  Rank  Group  1  College Students  1.0  Elementary School Students  Total Group  2  3  4  5  2.0  3.5  3.5  4.0  11.0  0  1.0  0  1.5  9.5  1.0  3.0  3.5  5.0  13.5  Ck2  =  6.81,  df = 7, ns  6  6  8  Total  4.0  1.0  30.0  11.5  4.5  2.0  30.0  22.5  8.5  3.0  60.0  42  Table 8  Distrubtion of College and Elementary School Students with respect to the Rank Assigned to Trunk Lean  Rank  Group  1  2  3  4  5  6  6  8  Total  College Students  0  0  1.0  1.5  3.5  7.0  9.5  7.5  30.0  Elementary School Students  0  0  0  0  2.0  5.5  9.0  13.5  30.0  Total Group  0  0  1.0  1.5  5.5  12.5  18.5  21.0  60.0  Oct =  4.84,  df = 7, ns  Table 9  Distribution of College and Elementary School Students with respect to the Rank Assigned to Smile  Rank  Group  1  2  3  4  5  6  6  8  Total  College Students  9.5  3.5  2.0  7.5  5.0  1.5  1.0  0  30.0  Elementary School Students  1.5  5.0  4.5  5.5  8.5  4.0  1.0  0  30.0  Total Group  11.5  8.5  6.5  13.0  13.5  5.5  2.0  0  60.0  0^2  =  9.00, df = 7, ns  Table 10  Distribution of College and Elementary School Students with respect to the Rank Assigned to General Verbal Praise  Rank  Group  1  2  3  4  5  6  6  8  Total  College Students  4.0  9.0  5.0  5.0  3.5  2.5  1.0  0  30.0  Elementary School Students  0.5  2.0  7.0  10.5  5.0  3.0  2.0  0  30.0  Total Group  4.5  11.0  12.0  15.5  8.5  5.5  3.0  0  60.0  ^  2  = 10.12, df = 7, ns  Table 11  Distribution of College and Elementary School Students with respect to the Rank Assigned to Explanatory Verbal Praise  Rank  Group  1  2  3  4  5  6  6  8  Total  College Students  11.0  4.0  5.0  2.5  3.0  1.5  3.0  0  30.0  Elementary School Students  2.5  9.0  9.5  5.0  2.0  0.5  1.5  0  30.0  T o t a l Group  13.5  13.0  14.5  7.5  5.0  2.0  4.5  0  60.0  ^  2  = 12.56,  Df = 7, ns  Table 12  Distribution of College and Elementary School Students with respect to the Rank Assigned to Brief Verbal Praise  Rank  Group  1  2  3  4  5  College Students  1.5  5.0  12.0  7.5  3.0  Elementary School Students  16.5  5.5  3.5  3.5  Total Group  18.0  10.5  15.5  11.0  ^2  _ 22.20,  6  8  Total  0  1.0  0  30.0  1.0  0  0  0  30.0  4.0  0  1.0  0  60.0  df = 7,  6  p = .01  Table 13  Distribution of College and Elementary School Students with respect to the Rank Assigned to Inclusive Verbal Praise  Rank  Group  1  2  3.0  2.0  Elementary School Students  7.0  T o t a l Group  10.0  College  3  4  5  6  6  8  Total  4.0  2.5  2.5  6.5  3.5  6.0  30.0  11.5  2.5  4.0  1.0  2.0  1.0  1.0  30.0  13.5  6.5  6.5  3.5  8.5  4.5  7.0  60.0  Students  Oc  2  = 16.66, df = 7, p = .02  48  Table 14 Rank Order of Preference for Social Reinforcers  College Students  T o t a l Sample  a  Elementary School Students  brief praise  explanatory praise  brief praise-*  explanatory praise  smile  inclusive p r a i s e  smile  general praise  explanatory praise  general praise  brief praise  smile  inclusive praise  inclusive praise  general praise  hand gestures  hand gestures  hand gestures  lean  lean  lean  touch  touch  touch  Elementary  school students ranked  D  this reinforcer significantly higher than did  college students (p=.01). b  Elementary  school students ranked  college students (p=.02).  this reinforcer significantly higher than did  49 The  distributions of male and  female  students  with  respect to the  rank  assigned to each social reinforcer did not differ from each other for any of the eight social reinforcers (Table 15).  Similarly, the distributions of students by parental  occupation with respect to social reinforcer preference did not differ from each other for any of the eight social reinforcers (Table 16). Summary The  rank-ordering of social reinforcer preference on the  paired-comparison  questionnaire was highly consistent across the two administrations of the test. This consistency over  time  was  not a function of age  parental occupation of the subjects.  There was  or sex, but was  a function of  also high consistency across test  modes, with no differences attributable to age, sex, or parental occupation. college and elementary  The  school students did differ significantly with respect to the  rank order assigned to two of the social reinforcers, but sex or parental occupation did not discriminate the rank order assigned any of the social reinforcers.  Table 15  Results of C h i Square Analysis of Distributions of Males and Females with respect to Rank Assigned to Social Reinforcers  Reinforcer  %2  df  P  touch  4.36  7  ns  hand gestures  3.69  7  ns  trunk lean  5.09  7  ns  smile  3.53  7  ns  brief praise  3.65  7  ns  general praise  3.24  7  ns  explanatory praise  5.36  7  ns  inclusive praise  2.59  7  ns  Table 16  Results of C h i Square Analysis of Distributions of Students by Parental Occupation with respect to to the Rank Assigned to Social Reinforcers  Reinforcer  %2  df  P  touch  18.30  28  ns  hand gestures  21.14  28  ns  trunk lean  14.20  28  ns  smile  25.46  28  ns  brief praise  12.33  28  ns  general praise  16.09  28  ns  explanatory praise  26.60  28  ns  inclusive praise  29.29  28  ns  N = 57, number of occupational categories = 5  52 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS A N D RECOMMENDATIONS FOR F U T U R E RESEARCH  Summary of Results The objectives of this study (as described on page 22) were: 1) to explore the extent to which subjects are consistent in their choice of social reinforcers; 2) to explore the extent to which adults and children differ with respect to their consistency of choice; and 3) to explore the extent to which adults and children differ significantly with respect to choice of social reinforcer.  Accordingly, the study was designed to obtain evidence which would address or answer the following specific questions (as described on page 21): 1) What  is the extent  of the consistency  of choice  of preferred social  reinforcers for each subject? 2)  Do the two groups differ with respect to the consistency of choice?  3)  A r e there  significant  differences  with  respect  to preferred  social  reinforcers between the groups of subjects?  The  results  fulfill  these  objectives since  the data  answer the foregoing  questions. In summary, it was found: 1) that children and adults are consistent in their choice of social reinforcers across time (two weeks) and across test mode (questionnaire and indicated choice during a behavioural task).  53 2) that children and adults as groups do not differ significantly with respect to consistency of choice. 3) that children and adults as groups differ significantly from each other with respect to their preference for two of the eight social reinforcers. k)  furthermore,  preferences  that  social  reinforcer  preferences  and  consistency  of  are not significantly related to gender, but are related to parental  occupation.  Conclusions In the Introduction to this thesis, the essential characteristics of e f f e c t i v e behaviour modification techniques were described: ..."these methods and tools must be effective,...useful in a wide variety of situations, easily portable, and relatively simple  to learn and use" (p.l).  Data from the behaviour modification literature  indicate that social reinforcement can satisfy all of these criteria.  Given the wide  variety of potential social reinforcers, however, i t is desirable that an instrument for measuring subject preference  be available.  The questionnaire used in the  present study, although sampling only a narrow spectrum of social behaviour, has several distinct advantages.  The administration of the questionnaire requires no  prior training on the part of the subject or the tester, and i t can be administered in virtually any setting. In the Introduction, five  methods of reinforcer selection were  described:  direct observation, experimentation, interview of the subject, interview of others, and a reinforcement survey.  In most applied settings, operational demands preclude  the use of direct observation, experimentation, or interview of others, as a means of selecting social reinforcers.  Therapists and teachers must often rely on self-report  5k  of reinforcer preference, and a survey facilitates this process (older subjects could complete the survey without assistance, and for very young subjects, the survey could serve to structure the interview). In the Introduction, i t was pointed out that there is no practical way for a teacher to avoid a l l interaction with students, and that therefore the issue is not whether to use social reinforcement, but instead is how best to use it. constraint, i t is essential  that teachers  and therapists have  Given this  a procedure for  estimating, however crudely, preference for social reinforcers, especially during the initial stage of contact, or when the duration of contact is very brief.  A social  reinforcement survey serves this purpose. It is difficult to relate the findings of the present study to previous research, since  there  preferences  are few references in the literature with  respect  to different  types  to studies which  of social  reinforcement;  examined and the  categories of social reinforcers used, and the populations sampled, do not correspond to the categories and/or subjects in this study. determined  Willner, et al. (1977), for example,  preferences of the subjects for social reinforcers, but the reinforcers  were not selected from a survey, the categories of social reinforcers (33 categories) corresponded  poorly with those used in this study, and the population sampled was  composed of 12-16 year old youths.  Similarly, Baron, et a l . (1981) examined the  preferences of adults with respect to all types of reinforcers, but only 18 of the 162 items were social reinforcers, and the social reinforcement items did not correspond well with the items described in this study.  Baron and his colleagues found that  positive social interactions and praise represented reinforcer clusters that were much preferred to most nonsocial reinforcers, but because the study relied heavily on  data  obtained  from  college students  the researchers concluded  "... further  55  research  with  other  populations  is needed  to determine whether  the observed  structure of reinforcer preferences is independent of such characteristics as age, education, or socioeconomic  status" (p.217).  Previous researchers have examined  the consistency over time with respect to reinforcer preference; Kleinknecht et a l . (1973) calculated test-retest reliability of the Reinforcement Survey Schedule over three time intervals of one, three, and five weeks, respectively.  They found a high  degree of consistency for subjects, across items, over a one week interval (r=.829, N=313, z=20.92), as did the present research 0=.721, N=60, z=2A9).  Willner, et a l .  (1977), as an incidental finding, discovered consistency over time with respect to classification and rating of various categories of social behaviours.  Implications for Education and Treatment As Stevenson (1972) has observed, "... social reinforcement, to some degree, enters into practically every psychological study of children's learning" (p.398). Not only is social reinforcement ubiquitous, i t also has many important advantages which have  been  previously  mentioned,  including economy, availability,  portability,  innocuousness, non-intrusiveness, inobtrusiveness and, finally, i t represents the modeling of appropriate social behaviours.  The recent literature (Kazdin, 1982;  Anderson, et al., 1976) stresses yet another advantage: the learned behaviour economy,  Kazdin  over time and across contexts.  (1982) identifies  a number  increased generalization of In an update on the token  of strategies that  increase the  likelihood that behaviours are maintained and extend to new settings, including "... substituting naturally occurring reinforcers such as praise and activities in place of tokens" (p.437).  Anderson, et al. (1976) found that positive verbal reinforcement  increased subsequent unreinforced drawing in pre-school children, whereas money  56 and  awards decreased  subsequent unreinforced drawing.  Finally, there is some  evidence to suggest that social reinforcers are less subject to satiation, especially with very young subjects. Gewirtz (1969) found that, for boys 73 to 90 months old, the potency  of the word "good", as measured by performance on a discrimination  test, was not affected by frequent use of the word prior to the test (prior to the discrimination test the word "good" was dispensed noncontingently up to 32 times in a space of 10 minutes, 45 seconds). Given  the prevalence of the use of social reinforcement, and its numerous  advantages, there is an obvious need for the development of an instrument for facilitating the identification of social reinforcer preference.  Such an instrument  would be particularly valuable to teachers and therapists who cannot usually afford the luxury of using direct observation to assess the meaningfulness  of various social  rewards to their students and patients.  Limitations of the Study One must be cautious in generalizing from the present findings, given that the value of a social reinforcer depends to a great extent on who is dispensing it.  A  "Smartie" is a "Smartie" no matter if it is dispensed by a favourite teacher or a machine; a touch from a mother and a touch from an experimenter have only a passing acquaintance  are two very different things.  with whom you  Would the social  reinforcement preferences be different if the reinforcing agent were a close friend or a member of the subject's immediate family? It should be borne in mind that the present study examined social reinforcer preference and not social reinforcer effectiveness. The adults and children who were subjects in the present study indicated (using paper and pencil and later, during  57 a behavioural  task, by pointing to an  action which was  then carried out by  experimenter) which social reinforcers they preferred, but no attempt was measure the effectiveness (i.e., increase social  reinforcers.  Although  made to  of reinforced behaviour) of the  it is reasonable  to  assume  that  the  the  various  preferred  reinforcers would also be the most e f f e c t i v e (especially in view of the fact that, during the behavioural  task, the reinforcer indicated was  then delivered), there are  factors that could influence preference but not effectiveness (social desirability of some choices, perceived demand that the subject be consistent over time and  across  testing situations). It is not at all clear why and  the children had a stronger preference for brief praise  inclusive verbal praise than did the adults.  One  can  speculate  that children  preferred brief praise because they do not value elaborate rationales; rather they appreciate unambiguous, concise approval.  With respect to the inclusive praise, one  could speculate that the result reflects a desire in young children to have as many others as possible, especially peers, know of their accomplishments.  While  the  complexity of such post hoc speculations reflect the ingenuity of the interpreter, they are probably not warranted by the data.  Recommendations for Future Research In light of the limitations listed in the previous section: preference and reinforcer effectiveness may like to assume; (b)  (a)  that indicated  not be as closely related as one might  that preference for, and  effectiveness of, social reinforcers  might be expected to vary widely within subjects depending on the person dispensing the social reinforcer; and, (c) unclear;  that the meaning of the group differences remains  future researchers might focus on these three issues.  58 1)  Future  preferences  research  (as measured  might  examine  in the present  the relationship  between  study) and reinforcer  indicated  effectiveness  (measured by change in performance following reinforcement). Cautela and Wisocki (1969) investigated the question whether items marked as highly reinforcing on the Reinforcement unfortunately  Survey Schedule could  actually serve as reinforcing stimuli, but  the reinforcers were administered vicariously only, and the response  measured was an attitude. 2)  Future studies might consider the relationship between preferences and  effectiveness, on the one hand, and characteristics of the reinforcing agent (age, sex, kinship, etc.) on the other. 3)  Subsequent investigations  based on theoretical considerations.  might address the prediction of preference Investigators  might factor-analyze  a wider  range of social reinforcers and make predictions about the expected loadings of the factors derived (the narrow range examined in the present study was dictated by a review  of the literature, present  practice  in applied  settings, and  constraints  imposed by the experimental design). To quote Stevenson (1972), "There is no dearth of positive findings in studies of social reinforcement; (p.398).  the challenge is to bring them into some type of order"  59 REFERENCES  Anderson, R., Manoogian, S.T. and Reznick, J.S. The undermining and enhancing of intrinsic motivation in preschool children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 3_ 5, 915-922. Bandura, A. Principles of Behavior Modification. Winston, Inc., 1969.  New  York:  Holt, Rinehart and  Baron, A., DeWaard, R.J. and Galizio, M., Factor-analytically derived subscales for the Reinforcement Survey Schedule. Behavior Modification. 1981, 5, 2, 203220. Barzun, J. 1964.  Science:  The Glorious Entertainment., New  Bellack, A.S. and Hersen, M. Wilkins, 1977.  York:  Harper and  Behavior Modification., Baltimore, Md.:  Row,  Williams and  Bergan, A., McManis, D.L. and Melchert, P.A. Effects of social and token reinforcement on WISC Block Design performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1971, 32 (3), 871-880. Berkowitz, H. and Zigler, E. E f f e c t s of preliminary positive and negative interactions and delay conditions on children's responsiveness to social reinforcement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 4, 500505. Bersoff, D.N. and Moyer, D. Positive Reinforcement Observation Schedule (Pros): development and use. In E.J. Mash, and L.G. Terdal, (Eds.) Behavior Therapy Assessment. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1976. Biron, A., Ramos, F. and Higa, W. Cooperation in children: rewards. Psychological Reports, 1977, 4, 427-430.  Social and material  Bolles, R.C. Reinforcement, expectancy, and learning. Psychological Review, 1972, 79, 5, 394-409. Bourdon, R.D. E f f e c t s on reinforcement versus nonreinforcement on the acquisition of a modeled verbal operant. Dissertation Abstracts, 1968, 29 (5-A), 1418. Brown, R.A. Interaction effects of social and tangible reinforcement. Experimental Child Psychology, 1971, _12 (3), 289-303.  Journal of  Buys, C.J. E f f e c t s of teacher reinforcement on classroom behaviours and attitudes. Dissertation Abstracts, 1971, 31 (9-A), 4884-4885. Buzas, H.P. and Ayllon, T. Differential reinforcement in coaching tennis skills. Behaviour Modification, 1981, 5, 3, 372-385.  60 Cautela, 3. and Kastenbaum, R.A. Reinforcement Survey Schedule for use in therapy, training, and research. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 1115-1130. Cautela, 3.R. and Wisocki, P.A. The use of imagery in the modification of attitudes toward the elderly: A preliminary report. The Journal of Psychology, 1969, 73, 193-199. Cernius, V. E f f e c t s of two different types of reinforcers on conceptual thinking among lower class boys: A developmental study. Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. 1968, 3, 17-18. Clement, P.W. and Richard, R.C. Identifying reinforcers for children: A children's reinforcement survey. In E.3. Mash, and L G . Terdal, (Eds.) Behavior Therapy Assessment. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1976. Daley, M.F. The "reinforcement menu": Finding e f f e c t i v e reinforcers. In Mash, E.3. and Terdal, L.G. (Eds.) Behaviour Therapy Assessment. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1976. Estes, W.K. Reinforcement in Human Behaviour. Nov.-Dec, 723-729.  American  Federal Security Agency. Dictionary of Occupational Titles. U.S. Government Printing O f f i c e , 1977.  Scientist, 1972, 60_  Washington,  Ferguson, G.A. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. 2nd edition. York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.  D.C.:  New  Ferster, C.B. and DeMyer, M.K. A method for the expermental analysis of the behaviour of austistic children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1962, 32, 89-98. Finch, A.3. D i r e c t and vicarious delivery of social and Dissertation Abstracts, 1971, 31 (19 - B), 6254. Forness, S.R. The reinforcement hierarchy. 168-177.  monetary  reinforcers.  Psychology In the Schools, 1973, 10,  Gewirtz, 3.L. Potency of a social reinforcer as a function of satiation and recovery. Developmental Psychology, 1969, j_, 1, 2-13. Haase, R.F. and Tepper, D.T. Nonverbal components of emphathetic communication. 3ournal of Counselling Psychology, 1972, 19_ 5, 417-424. Harris, F.R., Wolf, M.M. and Baer, D.M. E f f e c t s of adult social reinforcement on child behaviour. In S.M. Bijou, and D. Baer, (Eds.) Child Development: Readings in Experimental Analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. Hersen, M. Do behaviour therapists use self-reports as major criteria? Analysis Modification, 1978, 2 (4), 328-334.  Behavior  61 Johnson, M. Responsiveness of delinquents and nondelinquents to social reinforcement. British Journal of Social and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1976, L5, 41-49. Kazdin, A.E. The token economy: Analysis, 1982, L5, 431-445.  A decade later.  Journal of Applied Behavior  Keehn, J.D., Bloomfield, F.F., and Hug, M.A. Uses of the Reinforcement Survey Schedule with alcoholics. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 1970, 31, 4, 407-413. Kimble, G.A., Hilgard and Marquis' Conditioning and Learning. 2nd edition. York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1961. Kleinknecht, R.A., McCormick, C.E. and Thorndike, R.M. reinforcers as measured by the Reinforcement Survey Therapy, 1973, 4, 407-413.  New  Stability of stated Schedule. Behavior  Koch, S. Psychology and emerging conceptions of knowledge as unitary. In T.W. Wann (Ed.) Behaviorism and Phenomenology: Contrasting Bases for Modern Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Lick, J.R., Sunshinsky, L.W. and Malow, R. Specificity of fear survey schedule items and the prediction of avoidance behaviour. Behavior Modification, 1977, j_, 195-203. Mahoney, M.J., Kazdin, A.E., and Lesswing, N.J. Behavior modification: Delusion or deliverance? In C M . Franks and G.T. Witson (Eds.) Annual Review of Behavior Therapy, Theory and Practice. (Vol. 2), New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1974. Mash, E.J. and Terdal, L.G. Behavior Therapy Assessment. Publishing Company, 1976.  New York:  Springer  Milan, M.A. and McKee, J.M. The cellblock token economy: token reinforcement procedures in a maximum security correctional institution for adult male felons. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9, 3, 253-275. Patterson, G.R. Families: Application of Social Champaign, 111.: Research Press Company, 1971.  Learning  Phillips, J.P.N. A simple method of obtaining a ratio Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1977, 15, 285-295. Premack, D. Toward empirical behaviour laws: Psychological Review, 1959, 66, 219-233.  to Family  scaling  I. Positive  Life.  of hierarchy.  reinforcement.  Raben, C.S., Wood, M.T., Klimoski, R.J. and Hakel, M.D. Social Reinforcement: A Review of the Literature. A i r Force Human Resources Laboratory Interim Report, 1974, 74-9 (1), 1-61.  62 Runyon, R.P., and Haber, A. Fundamentals of Behavioral Statistics, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1971. Schumaker, 3.B., Hovell, M.F. and Sherman, 3.A. An analysis of daily report cards and parent-managed privledges in the improvement of adolescents' classroom performance. 3ournal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, 10, 3, 449-464. Serralde de Scholz, H.C. and McDougall, D. Comparison of potential reinforcer ratings between slow learners and regular students. Behavior Therapy, 1978, 9, 60-64. Sewell, T.E. and Walker, R.H. The effects of material and symbolic incentives on the learning ability of low SES black children. The 3ournal of General Psychology. 1982, j _ _ 93-99. Siegel, S. Nonparametric Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Silverman, I.W. and Waite, S.U. Test anxiety and the effectiveness of social and nonsocial reinforcement in children. Child Development, 1969, 40 (1), 307314. Skinner, B.F. Science and Human Behavior. Company, 1953.  New  York:  Macmillan Publishing  Sloane, H.N., Buckholdt, D.R., 3ensen, W.R. and Crandall, 3.A. Teaching: A design for classroom management and instruction. 111.: Research Press Company, 1979. Stevenson, H.W. Influences on reinforcer effectiveness. In H.W. Children's Learning. Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972.  Structured Champaign,  Stevenson, (Ed.)  Swingle, P.G. and Coady, H.V. Social class, age and nature of the incentive in children"s leverpressing performance. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1969, 23, (1), 41-48. Tapp, 3.T. Reinforcement and Behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1969. Tarpy, R.M. 1975.  Basic Principles of Learning. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman, and Co.  Thorndike, E.L.  Animal Intelligence. New York: Macmillan Company, 1911.  Tosi, D.3., Upshaw, K., Lande, A. and Waldron, M.A. Group counselling with nonverbalizing elementary students: Differential effects of Premack and social reinforcement techniques. 3ournal of Counselling Psychology, 1971, 1_8 (5), 437-440. Turner, 3.L., Foa, E.B. and Foa, V.G. Interpersonal reinforcers: classification, interrelationships and some differential properties. 3ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 19, 168-180.  63 Unikel, LP. and Strain, G.S. Type of reinforcement and generality in verbal operant conditioning. Psychological Reports, 1971, 28 (2), 495-500. Williams, M.W. Problem solving persistence as a function of type of reinforcement and need for approval among college students. Dissertation Abstracts, 1971, 31 (8-A), 3892. Willner, A.G., Braukmann, C.J., Kirigin, K.A., Foxsen, D.L., Phillips, E.L. and Wolf, M.M. The training and validation of youth-preferred social behaviour of childcare personnel. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, 10, 219-230. Witryol, S.L. and Fischer, W.F. Scaling children's incentives by the method of paired comparisons. Psychological Reports. 1960, 7,471-474. Witryol, S.L., Lowden, L.M., Fagan, J.F. and Bergen, T.C. Verbal versus material rewards as a function of schedule and set in children's discrimination preference choice behavior. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1968, 113, 325.  64 APPENDIX A  Paired-Comparison  I.D.:  #  Sex:  M F (circle one)  Age:  years  Questionnaire  months  Parental occupation:  When a person is praising or encouraging you for doing a good job, she/he can do so in a number of different ways. Imagine that you are doing some work.  From  the following pairs of items choose the form of praise or encouragement that you would most like to receive. For each pair, place an "X" beside the preferred item, e.g. I want the person to: give me an apple. give me We  an orange.  want to know what you like most. You are the only person who  knows the  right answer for you. Be sure to choose the one out of each pair which you want the most.  There will be 20 minutes in which to complete the questionnaire. While you  answer these questions, remember that you are imagining that a person is praising or encouraging you for doing a good job.  A P P E N D I X A (con't)  I want the person to: lightly touch me. say "good" or "well done". I want the person to: lean toward  me.  tell someone how well I've done. I want the person to: praise me using a few sentences of general approval. use hand gestures. I want the person to: praise me and explain why I deserve it. smile at me. I want the person to: say "good" or "well done". praise me using a few sentences of general approval. I want the person to: tell someone how well I've done. lightly touch me. I want the person to: smile at me. lean toward  me.  I want the person to: use hand gestures. praise me and explain why I deserve it.  A P P E N D I X A (cont'd)  I want the person to: tell someone how well I've done. smile at me. I want the person to: praise me using a few sentences of general approval. lightly touch me. I want the person to: lean toward me. use hand gestures. I want the person to: praise me and explain why I deserve it. say "good" or "well done". I want the person to: use hand gestures. tell someone how well I've done. I want the person to: lightly touch me. lean toward me. I want the person to: smile at me. say "good" or "well done". I want the person to: praise me using a few sentences of general approval. praise me and explain why I deserve it.  A P P E N D I X A (cont'd)  I want the person to: say "good" or "well done". use hand gestures. I want the person to: praise me and explain why I deserve it. lean toward me. I want the person to: tell someone how well I've done. praise me using a few sentences of general approval. I want the person to: lightly touch me. smile at me. I want the person to: say "good" or "well done". lean toward me. I want the person to: use hand gestures. lightly touch me. I want the person to: tell someone how well I've done. praise me and explain why I deserve it. I want the person to: smile at me. praise me using a few sentences of general approval.  A P P E N D I X A (cont'd)  I want the person to: say "good" or "well done". tell someone how well I've done. I want the person to: praise me and explain why I deserve it. lightly touch me. I want the person to: smile at me. use hand gestures. I want the person to: lean toward me. praise me using a few sentences of general approval.  69  APPENDIX B  Social Reinforcers  1. )  touch  2. )  use of hand gestures  3. )  trunk lean  4. )  smile  5. )  brief verbal praise ( 1 - 2 words)  6. )  general verbal praise of 1 - 2 sentences  7. )  explanatory verbal praise  8. )  inlcusive verbal praise (includes at least one other person)  70 APPENDIX C  Occupational Categories used in the Classification of Parental Occupation  Taken from "Dictionary of Occupational U.S.  Government Printing O f f i c e .  1.  Professional and  Titles" published by the Federal Agency  Managerial  Professional  Occupations:  Accountants and auditors Actors and actresses Architects Artists, sculptors, teachers of art Chemists Clergymen College president, professors and instructors Dentists Engineers,  metallurgical, metallurgists, (chemical,  industrial, mechancial, mining) Lawyers and judges Librarians Musicians - teachers of music Nurses - registered Pharmacists Physicians and surgeons School principals  civil,  electrical,  A P P E N D I X C (cont'd)  Professional and Managerial (cont'd) Professional Occupations; School teachers (kindergarten, primary, secondary) Scientists - natural, social Social and welfare workers Teachers and instructors Veterinarians  Semi-Professional Occupations: Athletes, sports - instructors and sports officials Aviators Chiropractors C o m m e r c i a l artists Dancers and chorus girls Decorators and window dressers Designers Draftsmen Embalmers and undertakers Optometrists Photographers Radio operators Showmen Surveyors Technicians - laboratory, x-ray, radio, T.V., others  A P P E N D I X C (cont'd)  Professional and Managerial (cont'd) Managerial & O f f i c e Occupations: Advertising agents Buyers and department heads, stores Conductors - railroad C r e d i t men Floormen, floor managers, stores Hotel and restaurant managers Inspectors - managerial and o f f i c i a l Inspectors - public service Managers and superintendents of buildings O f f i c i a l s of unions, lodges, societies, etc. Public officials Purchasing agents and buyers R e t a i l managers Ship Captains, mates, pilots and engineers Wholesales managers  C l e r i c a l and Sales Agents and appraisers Assistants and attendants to physicians and dentists Auctioneers Baggagement - transportation Bookkeepers and bookkeeping machine operators Cashiers  73  A P P E N D I X C (cont'd)  2.  C l e r i c a l and Sales (cont'd) Checkers Clerks - general (financial, institution, hotel clerks, insurance clerks, clerks in trade, file clerks) Collectors - bills and accounts Correspondence clerks Demonstrators Express messengers, railway mail clerks Library assistants and attendants Mail clerks Messengers, errand boys, o f f i c e boys and girls Newsboys O f f i c e machine operators Paymasters, payroll clerks and timekeepers Post o f f i c e clerks Salesclerk Salesmen - insurance, real estate, stocks and bonds Secretaries Shippers Shipping and receiving clerks Statistics clerks and compilers Stenographers and typists Technical clerks Telegraph operators Ticket agents  A P P E N D I X C (cont'd)  Service Occupations Domestic Service Occupations: Cooks - domestic Day workers Horseman and yardsman Housekeepers - private family Laundresses - private family Maids - general Miscellaneous servants - private family Nursemaids Parlor maids  Personal Service Occupations: Apprentice to service occupations Attendants - professional and personal service Attendants - recreation and amusements Bartenders Beauticians, manicurist Bellmen Boarding house and lodging house keepers Bootblacker Camp attendants Cooks - commercial Doormen  A P P E N D I X C (cont'd)  Service Occupations (cont'd) Personal Service Occupations; (cont'd) Guides (except hunting and trapping) Housekeepers, stewards and hostesses K i t c h e n workers - commercial Maids and housemen - hotels, restaurants, etc. Midwives and practical nursing Ship stewards Waiters and waitresses except private family  Protective Service Occupations: A r m e d forces Bridge tenders Firemen - fire  department  Guards and watchmen Policemen and detectives Sheriffs and bailiffs  Building Service Workers: Charwomen and cleaners Elevator operators Janitors and sextons Porters  76 A P P E N D I X C (cont'd)  4.  Agricultural, Fisheries, Forestry & Kindred Occupations Agricultural & Horticultural; Blight control laborers and weed eradicators F a r m managers and foremen F a r m mechanics Farmers Gardeners and grounds keepers - parks, cemetaries Graders of fruit and vegetables Hatchery men Irrigation workers Miners Nursery operators and flower growers Stablemen  Fishery:  Fishermen and oystermen  Forestry: Forest occupations (except logging) which is classified under skilled, . skilled or unskilled) semiHunters and trappers Hunting and trapping guides  77 5.  Skilled Occupations This  group  includes c r a f t  and  manual  occupations  that  require a  predominanatly thorough and comprehensive knowledge of processes involved in the work, the exercise of considerable independent  judgement, usually a  high degree of manual dexterity and in some instances extensive responsibility for  valuable product  or equipment.  Workers in these conditions usually  become qualified by serving apprenticeships or completing extensive training periods.  Foremen  of manual and  c r a f t workers are also included with  occupations. Bakers Bus Drivers Cabinetmakers Foremen Gas fitters, steam fitters Goldsmiths, silversmiths Jewelers Lithographers Locomotive engineers Locomotive firemen Motelmen Photo engravers Piano and organ tuners Plasterers Plate printers and processmen Seamstresses and dressmakers  these  78 A P P E N D I X C (con't)  Skilled Occupations (con't) Sheet metal workers Tailors and workers Textile weavers Tinsmiths, coppersmiths Toolmakers Watchmakers  Semi-skilled Occupations This group includes manual operations that are characterized by one, or a combination of parts of the following requirements: The  exercise of manipulative ability of a high order but limited to a  fairly well-defined work routine. Major reliance, not so much upon the worker's judgment or dexterity but upon vigilance and alertness in situations in which lapses in performance would cause extensive damage to product or equipment. The  exercise of independent judgment  to set variables in the  work  situation which is not based on wide knowledge of a work field and with the nature and  extent of the judgment limited either (a) by  application of a  relatively narrow task situaiton or (b) by having important decisions made by others. These occupations may  require the performance of part of a craft or  skilled occupation. Apprentices Attendants - filling stations and parking lots  7 9  A P P E N D I X C (cont'd)  Semi-skilled Occupations Gate  men  Loggers of semi-skilled type Non-process occupations in manufacturing Roofers and slaters Seamen Train callers  Unskilled Occupations This group includes manual occupations that involve the performance of simple duties that may  be learned within a short period of time and  that  require the exercise of little or no independent judgment. Characteristically, such occupations do not require previous experience in  the  specific  occupation  occupation environment may  in question, although  a  familiarity  be necessary or very desirable.  with  the  The occupations  in the group vary from those involving a minimum of physical exertion to those characterized by heavy physical work. Laborers Loggers (of unskilled type) Longshoremen Miscellaneous assembly occupations Oilers of machinery Stovedores  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095660/manifest

Comment

Related Items