Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Verbal operant conditioning as a function of need for social approval and connotative meaning of the… Lee, Dong Yul 1970

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1970_A2 L44.pdf [ 3.56MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0102279.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0102279-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0102279-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0102279-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0102279-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0102279-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0102279-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0102279-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0102279.ris

Full Text

VERBAL OPERANT CONDITIONING AS A FUNCTION OP NEED FOR SOCIAL APPROVAL AND CONNOTATIVE MEANING OF THE STIMULUS MATERIAL by DONG YUL LEE B. A., Seoul National University, 1962 M.Ed., Seoul National University, 1965 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n the Department of Counseling Psychology We accept t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February, 1970  In p r e s e n t i n g  this  thesis  an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t the L i b r a r y I  further  for  agree  scholarly  by h i s of  shall  this  written  the U n i v e r s i t y  make  tha  it  freely  permission  for  It  fulfilment  of  of  Columbia,  British  available  gain  the  requirements  reference copying o f  I agree and this  shall  that  not  copying or  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada  Columbia  thesis  be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  Dong Y u i Lee  Counseling Psyohology  that  or  publication  permission.  Department o f  for  study.  by t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t  is understood  financial  for  for extensive  p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d  representatives. thesis  in p a r t i a l  i Chairman! D r . Myrne B. N e v i s o n Lee, D. X. V e r b a l operant c o n d i t i o n i n g as a f u n c t i o n o f need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l and c o n n o t a t i v e meaning o f the s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l ABSTRACT One hundred and f o r t y f o u r c o l l e g e s u b j e c t s were d i v i d e d i n t o twelve groups on t h e b a s i s o f t h e s c o r e on a measure o f need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l  ( h i g h and low) and a  measure o f c o n n o t a t i v e meaning o f t h e concept  'hippie*  ( p o s i t i v e , n e g a t i v e , and n e u t r a l ) • By i n s t i t u t i n g two reinforcement  c o n d i t i o n s i n a T a f f e l type o f v e r b a l  c o n d i t i o n i n g t a s k , these twelve groups o f s u b j e c t s were p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e d on a 100$ r e i n f o r c e m e n t e i t h e r congruently or lnoongruently with t h e i r  schedule, initial  meaning o f h i p p i e (2 x 2 z 3 f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n ) . The r e i n f o r o i n g s t i m u l u s was t h e experimenter's  s a y i n g "Good" o r  "Pine" f o r a n e g a t i v e o r p o s i t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n o f h i p p i e , depending upon t h e r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n s . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d  t h a t s u b j e c t s w i t h a h i g h need  f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l would show a g r e a t e r c o n d i t i o n i n g performance than s u b j e c t s w i t h a low need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l . I t was a l s o h y p o t h e s i z e d r e c e i v e d reinforcement  t h a t s u b j e c t s who  c o n g r u e n t l y with t h e i r meaning o f  h i p p i e would show a g r e a t e r i n c r e a s e i n t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g performance than s u b j e c t s who r e c e i v e d  reinforcement  l n o o n g r u e n t l y w i t h t h e i r meaning o f h i p p i e .  ii The data showed t h a t t h e r e was  no  systematic  d i f f e r e n c e i n the c o n d i t i o n i n g performance between s u b j e c t s w i t h a h i g h and low need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l as measured by the Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y S c a l e . I n a d d i t i o n , the need v a r i a b l e d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t e r a c t e i t h e r w i t h the meaning, the r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n , or the b l o c k l e v e l o f the c o n d i t i o n i n g t r i a l s . However, s u b j e c t s who  were  r e i n f o r c e d c o n g r u e n t l y w i t h t h e i r meaning o f h i p p i e showed s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r i n c r e a s e i n the c o n d i t i o n i n g performance as compared t o those who  were r e i n f o r c e d  i n c o n g r u e n t l y w i t h t h e i r meaning o f h i p p i e . I n f a c t , s u b j e c t s who  r e c e i v e d incongruent r e i n f o r c e m e n t f a i l e d t o  demonstrate any c o n s i s t e n t changes i n the r a t e o f response emission d u r i n g the c o n d i t i o n i n g p e r i o d . S u b j e c t s w i t h a n e u t r a l meaning o f h i p p i e showed a c o n d i t i o n i n g performance g r e a t e r than t h e i n c o n g r u e n t l y r e i n f o r c e d groups, but  less  than the c o n g r u e n t l y r e i n f o r c e d groups i n both r e i n f o r c e m e n t conditions. The r e s u l t s were i n t e r p r e t e d as i n d i c a t i n g the Importance o f t h e c o n d i t i o n under which s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e reinforcement—congruent  o r incongruent r e i n f o r o e m e n t — i n  d e t e r m i n i n g r e s p o n s i v i t y toward s o c i a l l y r e i n f o r c i n g  stimuli.  iii TABLE OP CONTENTS CHAPTER I. II.  PAGE 1  PROBLEM METHOD Subjects  13  Apparatus  1^  Measurement Procedures  III.  13  .  15  .  Experimental Design  17  Procedure  19 23  RESULTS A n a l y s i s o f t h e C o n d i t i o n i n g Response Data  . .  A n a l y s i s o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Data IV.  23 36  DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION  kl 51  REFERENCES APPENDIX A.  The Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l S c a l e  5k  APPENDIX B.  The Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l Scale  56  APPENDIX C. APPENDIX D.  Desirability  The I n s t r u c t i o n f o r t h e V e r b a l C o n d i t i o n i n g Experiment The Awareness-testing  Questionnaire  58 . . .  59  LIST OP TABLES TABLE 1.  PAGE  The Number o f S u b j e c t s  f o r t h e Two Experimental  Treatments Based on a 2 x 2 x 3 F a c t o r i a l Design . 2.  23  Mean Frequency o f t h e R e i n f o r c e d Response C l a s s i n Each Block o f C o n d i t i o n i n g T r i a l s f o r t h e 12 25  Groups 3.  Analysis of Variance  on t h e Mean Frequency o f t h e 26  R e i n f o r c e d Response C l a s s *K  Comparison o f Mean Frequency i n Each B l o c k o f C o n d i t i o n i n g T r i a l s between Congruently R e i n f o r c e d and I n c o n g r u e n t l y  Reinforced  w i t h i n Each Reinforcement C o n d i t i o n 5.  Groups  . . . . . . .  31  Comparison o f Mean Frequency i n Each B l o c k o f C o n d i t i o n i n g T r i a l s between Groups who R e c e i v e d D i f f e r e n t Reinforcement C o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n P o s i t i v e , Negative, and N e u t r a l Meaning o f H i p p i e  6.  . . . . .  33  C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s among the V a r i a b l e s o f Need, Meaning, Awareness, I n c e n t i v e t o R e c e i v e Reinforcement, and C o n d i t i o n i n g Performance i n Each Block o f T r i a l s  7.  M u l t i p l e Regression  . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . .  38  A n a l y s i s u s i n g Awareness,  I n c e n t i v e t o R e c e i v e Reinforcement, Need f o r Approval,  and Meaning o f H i p p i e as P r e d i c t o r  V a r i a b l e s and T o t a l C o n d i t i o n i n g Performance as C r i t e r i o n V a r i a b l e  39  V LIST OP FIGURES FIGURE 1.  PAGE  C o n d i t i o n i n g Performance o f t h e Groups who R e c e i v e d Reinforcement  f o r P o s i t i v e and  Negative D e s c r i p t i o n o f H i p p i e 2.  28  C o n d i t i o n i n g Performance o f t h e Group w i t h a P o s i t i v e , Negative, and a N e u t r a l Meaning o f H i p p i e who R e c e i v e d Reinforcement f o r P o s i t i v e and N e g a t i v e D e s c r i p t i o n o f H i p p i e  . . .  30  vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS "Even a dog exposed f o r t h r e e years t o a s c h o o l v i c i n i t y can enjoy t h e b e a u t i e s o f n a t u r e by r e e l t i n g poems on them" i s an o l d Korean p r o v e r b . The i n v e s t i g a t o r i s n o t y e t sure how w e l l he can enjoy t h e b e a u t i e s o f b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e . He w i l l  j u s t keep t r y i n g t o f i n d t h e b e a u t i e s .  I t i s a p l e a s u r e t o acknowledge s e v e r a l debts t o those t o whom t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r i s i n d e b t e d . He would l i k e t o express h i s profound g r a t i t u d e as w e l l a s a d m i r a t i o n t o Dr. M. B. Nevison, t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s p r i n c i p a l a d v i s o r . Her patience,  assistance,  and c o n s i s t e n t  encouragement t o t h i s  ' i n s c r u t a b l e * O r i e n t a l boy were immeasurable. The  i n v e s t i g a t o r would a l s o l i k e t o acknowledge h i s  indebtedness t o h i s committee members} D r . S. S. Blank, D r . J . D. F r i e s e n , D r . B. Hare, and D r . S. S. L e e . P a r t i c u l a r l y , the i n v e s t i g a t o r i s h e a v i l y i n d e b t e d t o Dr. Lee, t e a c h e r and f r i e n d o f him. F i n a l l y , a s p e c i a l note o f g r a t i t u d e i s due t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s f a t h e r and mother. He wishes here t o express h i s whole-hearted g r a t i t u d e and indebtedness t o them by dedicating  t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n t o them. D.Y.L.  Dedication  t o my  f a t h e r and mother  1 CHAPTER I PROBLEM P e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s o f a c l i e n t and behaviors o f the c o u n s e l o r have both been r e c o g n i z e d as important i n d e t e r m i n i n g s u c c e s s f u l c o u n s e l i n g y e t inadequate has been done on the v e r y important these two  research  i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t of  facets* In l i n e with Erasner*s  t h a t the v e r b a l operant  factors  (1953)  suggestion  c o n d i t i o n i n g paradigm may  be a  u s e f u l model f o r the a n a l y s i s o f the psychotherapy  and/or  c o u n s e l i n g i n t e r v i e w p r o c e s s , t h e r e have been a number of s t u d i e s on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the m o t i v a t i o n a l nature o f the s u b j e c t ' s (S's) need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l and  the  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g i n the c o u n s e l i n g f i e l d . The g e n e r a l assumptions behind the s t u d i e s i n t h i s a r e a a r e t h a t a v e r b a l l y r e i n f o r c i n g s t i m u l u s g i v e n by experimenter  the  (E) i s a form o f s o o i a l a p p r o v a l mediated by  another person, and t h a t the need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l i s r e l a t e d t o S's r e s p o n s i v i t y t o t h i s g e n e r a l i z e d r e l n f o r c e r . Thus, i n a p s y c h o t h e r a p e u t i c o r c o u n s e l i n g i n t e r v i e w s e t t i n g , the c l i e n t ' s behavior i s determined  i n p a r t by  the  I n t e r a c t i o n a l e f f e c t o f the c l i e n t ' s need f o r s o o i a l a p p r o v a l and the i n t e r v i e w e r ' s r e l n f o r c e r s . While most o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n s a r e l i m i t e d t o the experimental  s e t t i n g o f v e r b a l operant c o n d i t i o n i n g , s e v e r a l  2  (Buckhout, 1965s Crowne & S t r i c k l a n d ,  investigators  1964-j Marlowe, 1962;  Epstein,  Doob, 1964)  have r e p o r t e d  196li  Marlowe, Beeoher, Cook, &  that there i s a p o s i t i v e  r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i f f e r e n t i a l o o n d i t i o n a b i l i t y and  19571  need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l , whereas others (Cushing, R o s e n t h a l , Kohn, G r e e n f i e l d , & C a r o t a , 1966» Berger, & Howard, 1963)  the  Spielberger,  have f a i l e d t o c o n f i r m these  findings. Cushing (1957) i n a t t e m p t i n g t o examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o n d i t i o n a b i l i t y and  a measure o f  need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l p r e s e n t e d a s e r i e s o f 80 t o h i s Ss and  had  pictures  them r a t e the p i c t u r e s as t o how  much they  thought they would l i k e o r d i s l i k e the p e r s o n . I n h i s experimental groups he r e i n f o r c e d e i t h e r the l i k e or responses, but conditioning  found a n o n s i g n i f i c a n t  the  two dislike  c o r r e l a t i o n between  e f f e c t and a p p r o v a l need. He a l s o o b t a i n e d  an  i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t ) the l i k e responses were e f f e c t i v e l y conditioned Crowne and  but  the d i s l i k e responses were not  S t r i c k l a n d (1961), u s i n g a v a r i a n t  conditioned. of  Greenspoon's word-generation method f o r c o l l e g e Ss, t h a t Ss whose need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l was tended t o i n c r e a s e  found  r e l a t i v e l y high  the r e l a t i v e frequency o f the  reinforced  response c l a s s o f p l u r a l nouns under a p o s i t i v e r e i n f o r c i n g stimulus, punishing  but these tended to decrease under a stimulus.  verbally  3 Although the v e r b a l m a t e r i a l employed i n the Crowne and S t r i o k l a n d * s study ( p l u r a l nouns) was  relatively  meaningless t o Ss, t h e i r f i n d i n g s were o l e a r l y confirmed  by  Marlowe (1962). U s i n g a meaningful v e r b a l i n t e r v i e w s e t t i n g f o r c o l l e g e Ss, Marlowe (1962) found t h a t Ss motivated f o r s o o i a l a p p r o v a l  highly  emitted more responses i n the  r e i n f o r c e d category of p o s i t i v e s e l f - r e f e r e n c e than Ss whom s o c i a l a p p r o v a l  was  f i n d i n g was  by employing a v i c a r i o u s  obtained  of l e s s importance. Another s i m i l a r  s i t u a t i o n i n which S simply another S who  was  to  reinforcement  observed w h i l e E r e i n f o r o e d  r e s p o n d i n g (Marlowe, Beecher, Cook, &  Doob, 1964). While the above t h r e e s t u d i e s  (Crowne & S t r i c k l a n d i  Marlowei Marlowe et a l . ) i n v o l v e d the reinforcement  of  r e l a t i v e l y n o n c o n f l i c t e d n e u t r a l v e r b a l behavior, E p s t e i n (1964) r a i s e d a q u e s t i o n about the o o n d i t i o n a b i l i t y o f v e r b a l behavior whose oontents were n o n n e u t r a l . sentence-construction  t a s k t o Ss, he found t h a t Ss w i t h a  h i g h need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l conditioned  By g i v i n g a  were more e f f e c t i v e l y  t o both h o s t i l e and n e u t r a l response c l a s s e s  than o t h e r s , and  showed s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r c o n d i t i o n i n g  performance i n h o s t i l e v e r b a l content than i n a n e u t r a l Ss w i t h a low need f o r a p p r o v a l  showed no  one.  conditioning  e f f e c t when they were r e i n f o r o e d f o r n e u t r a l v e r b s . He found a p u z z l i n g phenomenon! many Ss d i d not  also  show any  s i g n i f i c a n t c o n d i t i o n i n g e f f e c t even though they were a b l e  t o v e r b a l i z e the c o r r e c t response-reinforcement  contingency.  Another s i m i l a r f i n d i n g was r e p o r t e d by Buckhout (1965) w&o attempted  t o c o n d i t i o n a t t i t u d e toward t e l e v i s i o n  programming. By c o n d i t i o n i n g t h e v e r b a l i z a t i o n o f an a t t i t u d e c o n t r a d i c t o r y t o S*s p r e v i o u s a t t i t u d e toward t e l e v i s i o n programming, he observed t h a t more a p p r o v a l o r i e n t e d 3 showed a g r e a t e r c o n d i t i o n i n g t o c o u n t e r a t t i t u d i n a l v e r b a l i z a t i o n than l e s s a p p r o v a l - o r i e n t e d S. S p i e l b e r g e r e t a l . (1963), i n an attempt Dulany's (1961) r e i n f o r c e m e n t f o r a s s o c i a t i o n  to test  (RFA)  h y p o t h e s i s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e f i n d i n g s o f Crowne and S t r i c k l a n d (196l), found t h a t o n l y those Ss who were aware of c o r r e c t response-reinforcement  contingency gave  c o n d i t i o n i n g evidence over t r i a l s , w h i l e unaware Ss were not c o n d i t i o n e d no matter how i n t e n s e t h e i r a p p r o v a l need. He a l s o found a p u z z l i n g r e s u l t s t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between Ss* need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l and t h e i r i n o e n t i v e t o r e c e i v e r e i n f o r c e m e n t as measured by a q u e s t i o n n a i r e . T h i s f i n d i n g was c l e a r l y confirmed by R o s e n t h a l e t a l ; (1966) who found t h a t need f o r a p p r o v a l i n t h e i r c o l l e g e Ss was u n r e l a t e d t o Ss* c o n d i t i o n i n g s c o r e s ; they a l s o observed t h a t Ss h i g h e r i n a p p r o v a l need were l e s s l i k e l y t o become aware o f response-reinforcement contingency than Ss lower i n a p p r o v a l need. Although t h e need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l was not the main focus o f t h e i r study, the a b s e r v a t l o n seems t o c o m p l i c a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p  5 a t i s s u e between need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l and v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g . That i s , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f i n d i n g s o f R o s e n t h a l e t a l . (1966), i t would be l o g i c a l l y expected Ss w i t h h i g h a p p r o v a l need would show a poor performance  that  conditioning  s i n c e they a r e l e s s l i k e l y t o be aware Sst thus,  t h i s f i n d i n g seems t o c o n t r a d i c t t h e bulk o f the e a r l i e r s t u d i e s (e.g., S p i e l b e r g e r e t a l . ,  1963)  i n which awareness  o f response-reinforcement contingency was p o s i t i v e l y correlated to conditioning  performance.  While t h e reason f o r these i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s among t h e s t u d i e s d i s c u s s e d above may be a t t r i b u t e d t o B, S p o p u l a t i o n , the i n t e r a c t i o n between S and E, and t o t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e r e i n f o r c i n g s t i m u l i , some q u e s t i o n s t h a t commonly appear i n s e v e r a l s t u d i e s s h o u l d be i n d i c a t e d here t o form a b a s i s o f t h e problem  o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . They ares  (1)  why  c o n d i t i o n i n g was o b t a i n e d w i t h some response c l a s s e s but n o t w i t h other response c l a s s e s ? (2) Why some Ss d i d n o t c o n d i t i o n t o h o s t i l e verbs even though they knew t h e c o r r e c t response-reinforcement  contingency?  With these t h e o r e t i c a l q u e s t i o n s i n mind, i t s h o u l d be noted, f i r s t ,  t h a t few r e f e r e n c e s among t h e s t u d i e s  reviewed have been made t o S's thought and/or meaning i n e x p l a i n i n g h i s v e r b a l b e h a v i o r . The c o n d i t i o n i n g t a s k employed i n the p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s was e i t h e r a v a r i a n t o f Taffel's  (1955) s e n t e n c e - o o n s t r u o t i o n method o r a v a r i a n t o f  Greenspoon's (1955) word-generation  method. The p r o p e r t i e s  6  o f T a f f e l type o f v e r b a l m a t e r i a l as was  used by  et a l . (1963) and R o s e n t h a l e t a l . ( 1 9 6 6 ) ,  p r o p e r t i e s o f Greenspoon*s type as was Strickland  and  Splelberger  the  used by Crowne and  (1961) a r e l i m i t e d i n t h a t they seldom impose on  Ss p e r s o n a l l y meaningful v e r b a l responses "books"). E p s t e i n  (e.g.,  "I  walked."  (1964) and Marlowe ( 1 9 6 2 ) , however, d i d  use v e r b a l m a t e r i a l which was more m e a n i n g f u l ! the former r e i n f o r c e d n e u t r a l o r h o s t i l e v e r b s , whereas the l a t t e r r e i n f o r c e d a l l p o s i t i v e s e l f - r e f e r e n c e s . Thus, when oompared w i t h the v e r b a l m a t e r i a l o f S p l e l b e r g e r  e t a l . , Crowne and  S t r i c k l a n d , and R o s e n t h a l e t a l . , i t seems t h a t both Epstein's  and Marlowe's v e r b a l m a t e r i a l s were more  p e r s o n a l l y meaningful t o S s . However, no i n v e s t i g a t i o n s attempted t o take i n t o account how  S's meaning o r  perception  o f t h e manipulable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the response c l a s s  was  r e l a t e d t o t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the v e r b a l l y r e i n f o r c i n g s t i m u l u s . Only Buckhout's (1965)  study was  concerned w i t h a  c o n d i t i o n i n g o f v e r b a l i z e d a t t i t u d e toward t e l e v i s i o n programming1 however, a l l h i s Ss were pro t e l e v i s i o n programming and h i s e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n was merely t o condition counterattitudinal verbalizations. Recent s t u d i e s , however, have demonstrated  some  e m p i r i c a l evidence t h a t c o n d i t i o n i n g performance a t l e a s t i n p a r t depends upon S's response s e t o f t h e experimental t a s k (e.g., S p l e l b e r g e r & DeNike, 1966), t h e n a t u r e o f response class  (e.g., Buss & Durkee, 1 9 5 8 ) ,  the Impression v a l u e o f  7 the s t i m u l u s word (e.g., Dixon, 1962i Dixon & Dixon,  1964),  as w e l l as S's p r e c o n d i t i o n i n g s e l f - c o n c e p t (e.g., Nuthmann, 1957). F o r example, Dixon (1962) found t h a t S/s p e r c e p t i o n o f the v e r b as good o r bad  differential  significantly  I n f l u e n c e d the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the r e i n f o r c i n g s t i m u l u s . Nuthmann (1957)i who  s u c c e s s f u l l y c o n d i t i o n e d acceptance o f  s e l f responses on a t r u e - f a l s e p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t ,  observed  l a r g e i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o n d i t i o n i n g e f f e o t . P o s t u l a t i n g a reason f o r t h i s , she suggestedi As a r e s u l t o f a d i f f e r e n t i a l degree o f p a s t l e a r n i n g by the Ss o f responses i n v o l v i n g t h e i r s e l f concept, i t may take l o n g e r f o r r e i n f o r c i n g s t i m u l i t o b r i n g about a measurable change i n some Ss* b e h a v i o r than i n the b e h a v i o r o f o t h e r s . That i s , ~ S s who have responded, o v e r t l y o r c o v e r t l y , " I am w o r t h l e s s " hundreds o f times may take l o n g e r t o change t h i s response than Ss who have thus responded o n l y a few times [.p. 2 2 ] . T h i s may  be because the e x p e r i m e n t a l S may  have had  some p r e f e r r e d p r e e x p e r l m e n t a l response tendency or  life-  l o n g r e i n f o r c e m e n t h i s t o r y w i t h r e g a r d t o the v e r b a l response c l a s s , and thus brought t o the experiment  complex  and h i g h l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d r e p e r t o i r e s a l r e a d y under the c o n t r o l of t h e experimental s t i m u l u s , which may  have  a f f e c t e d the r e s p o n s i v i t y toward r e i n f o r c i n g s t i m u l u s . More r e c e n t l y , Insko and G i a l d i n i  (1969)  and  C i a l d i n i and Insko (1969) proposed a t w o - f a c t o r o r balance t h e o r y t o account f o r a t t l t u d l n a l v e r b a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t . A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s t h e o r y , one f a c t o r a c c o u n t i n g f o r the r e i n f o r c e m e n t i s t o oonvey i n f o r m a t i o n as t o E's a t t i t u d e .  8 The second f a c t o r i s t o c r e a t e p o s i t i v e r a p p o r t o r l i k i n g which s e r v e s f o r m o t i v a t i n g S t o conform t o t h e conveyed i n f o r m a t i o n as t o E's a t t i t u d e . U s i n g a t t l t u d i n a l v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g s i t u a t i o n , they found t h a t o n l y l n t h e c o n d i t i o n under which the d i r e c t i o n o f t h e r e i n f o r c e m e n t was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h E's s o c i a l a f f i l i a t i o n  significant  c o n d i t i o n i n g e f f e c t s d i d o c c u r ( C i a l d i n l & Insko,  1969)•  However, t h e balance theory does n o t account f o r t h e n a t u r e o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e between E's p e r c e i v e d f u n c t i o n s o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t s and S's p e r c e i v e d f u n c t i o n s o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t s i n e v a l u a t i n g r e i n f o r c e m e n t e v e n t s . I n t h i s r e g a r d , i t seems worthwhile  t o pursue a q u e s t i o n as t o how S's  p r e e x p e r i m e n t a l meaning o f t h e s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l a f f e c t s h i s r e s p o n s i v i t y toward r e i n f o r c e m e n t when E's conveyed i n f o r m a t i o n i s h e l d c o n s t a n t . I n so doing, the use o f meaningful m a t e r i a l s and t h e c o n t r o l o f t h e v a r i a b i l i t y o f S's p e r c e p t i o n and/or meaning o f these m a t e r i a l s by E i n s o f a r a s p o s s i b l e would l e a d t o a b e t t e r understanding o f v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g e f f e c t s • E x t e n d i n g t h i s i d e a even f u r t h e r , a q u e s t i o n c a n be r a i s e d about t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g e f f e c t s o f h i g h and low need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l S when the s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s a r e p r e s e n t e d l n such a way as t o r e l a t e S's meaning o f t h e r e i n f o r c e d response c l a s s t o h i s need f o r approval. The primary purpose o f t h e p r e s e n t study, t h e r e f o r e , was t o i n v e s t i g a t e how t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f v e r b a l  9 c o n d i t i o n i n g was  i n f l u e n c e d by S»s meaning o f the  properties  o f r e i n f o r c e d v e r b a l response c l a s s e s i n combination w i t h need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the present aimed t o answer the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s !  study  (1) I s the r a t e of  e m i s s i o n of the r e i n f o r c e d response c l a s s s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o S*s  o o n n o t a t i v e meaning o f the r e i n f o r o e d  response o l a s s ( i . e . ,  s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l ) and h i s need f o r  s o o i a l a p p r o v a l ? ( 2 ) I f so, which o f the two more r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the d e t e r m i n a t i o n e f f e c t ? The  of the  term meaning i n the present  variables i s conditioning  study was  restricted  t o the o o n n o t a t i v e meaning o f a concept. Thus, by i n q u i r i n g i n t o S*s meaning o f r e i n f o r c e d response c l a s s , the study a t l e a s t i n p a r t attempted t o e x p l a i n the t h a t was  r a i s e d earlier» why  conditioned The  question  some Ss a r e more e a s i l y  f o r some response o l a s s than way  present  others?  the s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l can be r e l a t e d t o  meaning o f the r e i n f o r o e d response c l a s s may  S*s  i n d i c a t e the  n e c e s s i t y f o r the c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the s i t u a t i o n under which a r e i n f o r c i n g stimulus s i t u a t i o n . An S may  i s delivered i n a verbal conditioning  be i n an experimental s i t u a t i o n where a  v e r y dominant p r e e x p e r i m e n t a l v e r b a l b e h a v i o r I s g i v e n w i t h a r e i n f o r c i n g stimulust  o r he may  be i n a s i t u a t i o n where a  l e s s dominant p r e e x p e r i m e n t a l v e r b a l b e h a v i o r i s f o l l o w e d  by  r e i n f o r c i n g s t i m u l u s . I f the c r e a t i o n o f p o s i t i v e r a p p o r t  or  l i k i n g i n c r e a s e s the r e s p o n s l v i t y toward r e i n f o r c i n g event, i t may  then be p r e d i c t e d t h a t , an S who  i s reinforced for a  v e r b a l response c l a s s which i s not congruent  with h i s  c o n n o t a t i v e meaning o f i t w i l l show poor c o n d i t i o n i n g performance because the n a t u r e o f the r e i n f o r c e d c l a s s i s not congruent  response  w i t h h i s dominant p r e e x p e r i m e n t a l  meaning t h a t he a s s o c i a t e s w i t h t h a t response. I n t h i s s i t u a t i o n , t h e d i f f e r e n c e between S's  preexperimental  c o n c e p t i o n o f the r e i n f o r c e d response c l a s s and r e i n f o r c e m e n t contingency may  E's  oreate negative rapport or  d i s l i k i n g which l n t u r n decreases r e s p o n s i v i t y toward r e i n f o r c i n g s t i m u l u s . On the o t h e r hand, an S who  is  r e i n f o r c e d f o r a v e r b a l response c l a s s whenever he  responds  oongruently w i t h h i s c o n n o t a t i v e meaning i f i t w i l l show g r e a t e r c o n d i t i o n i n g performance because the n a t u r e o f the r e i n f o r c e d response c l a s s i s congruent  with h i s  p r e e x p e r i m e n t a l meaning a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h a t response. t h i s s i t u a t i o n , the s i m i l a r i t y between S's  preexperimental  c o n c e p t i o n o f the r e i n f o r c e d response c l a s s and r e i n f o r c e m e n t contingency may  In  E's  oreate p o s i t i v e rapport or  l i k i n g which i n t u r n Increases r e s p o n s i v i t y toward r e i n f o r c i n g stimulus. I f we combine t h i s oongruenoy-lnoongruency  dimension  w i t h Crowne and S t r i c k l a n d ' s (l°6l) h y p o t h e s i s t h a t S's need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g , i t may  be p r e d i c t e d  t h a t need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l and congruenoy and incongruency  o f S's meaning o f the response c l a s s may  play  11 an Important  r o l e In d e t e r m i n i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f v e r b a l  c o n d i t i o n i n g . On the b a s i s o f t h i s , f o l l o w i n g hypotheses  can  be f o r m u l a t e d . Hypothesis I Ss w i t h a h i g h need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l show a h i g h e r r a t e of emission o f the r e i n f o r o e d response  class  than Ss w i t h a low need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l . Hypothesis I I Given a c e r t a i n l e v e l o f need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l , Ss who  a r e p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e d f o r the v e r b a l response  c l a s s which i s congruent w i t h t h e i r o o n n o t a t i v e meaning o f i t show a h i g h e r r a t e o f emission o f the r e i n f o r c e d c l a s s than Ss who  response  a r e p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e d f o r the v e r b a l  response c l a s s which i s not congruent w i t h t h e i r meaning of it. The i m p l i o a t i o n o f t h i s r e s e a r o h q u e s t i o n t o c o u n s e l i n g i n t e r v i e w seems c l e a r . As suggested by Hlldum Brown  (1956),  and  an i n t e r v i e w e r i n an i n t e r v i e w s i t u a t i o n i s  more l i k e l y t o r e i n f o r c e h i s c l i e n t ' s v e r b a l behavior w i t h r e f e r e n o e t o a l i n e o f thought o r a t t i t u d e as expressed by the c l i e n t . A oounselor seen as a "behavior engineer [ M i c h a e l & Meyerson, 1962,  p. 400]" o r as a  r e i n f o r c e m e n t machine [Krasner,  1961]"  "social  must s e l e c t i v e l y  r e i n f o r c e t h e v e r b a l response c l a s s o f h i s c l i e n t which appears  s i g n i f i c a n t t o him and/or t o h i s c l i e n t . C o n s i d e r i n g  the d e s i r a b l e r o l e o f the c o u n s e l o r a l o n g t h i s l i n e , a c o u n s e l o r must be s e n s i t i v e t o h i s c l i e n t ' s p r e i n t e r v l e w meaning o f the v e r b a l content f o r which he i s r e c e i v e d reinforoing  events.  13 CHAPTER I I METHOD F o r t h e t e s t o f t h e two hypotheses,  the verbal  c o n d i t i o n i n g s i t u a t i o n employed was t h e one i n which S's meaning o f the s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l c o u l d be e a s i l y  controlled,  and t h e c o n d i t i o n o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t — c o n g r u e n t and incongruent w i t h S's meaning o f t h e r e i n f o r c e d  response  c l a s s - - c o u l d be measured* F o r t h i s reason, a sentencec o n s t r u c t i o n type o f v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g s i t u a t i o n was employed, s i n c e i t had some a d d i t i o n a l m e r i t i n t h a t discrete t r i a l s y i e l d better control of the r e i n f o r o i n g s t i m u l u s g i v e n by E . Any v e r b a l i z a t i o n o f S t h a t d e s c r i b e d a ooncept  ' h i p p i e * w i t h p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e verbs w i t h i n t h e  l i m i t o f t h e experimental t a s k comprised t h e r e i n f o r c e d response c l a s s . The r e i n f o r c i n g s t i m u l u s was E's s a y i n g "good" o r " f i n e " l n randomized  order l n approximately  equal  proportions. Subjects Ss were 144 undergraduates,  predominantly  freshmen,  e n r o l l e d i n a l a r g e I n t r o d u c t o r y psychology c l a s s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia,  d u r i n g t h e academic year o f  1968-69• Ss c o n s i s t e d o f those who v o l u n t e e r e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e f o r an experiment 144,  on 'human v e r b a l b e h a v i o r . ' Of  64 were males and 80 were females. T h e i r age ranged  from 16 years and 3 months t o 33 y e a r s and 3 months w i t h a median age o f 18 y e a r s and 5 months a t t h e time t h i s study was conducted* A l l Ss were n a i v e as t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l problem and procedures* Apparatus The s t i m u l u s cards were 120 3- by 5-inches white index c a r d s * I n t h e upper h a l f o f each c a r d , t h r e e p a s t tense verbs w i t h d i f f e r e n t meanings were typed i n randomized orders one n e g a t i v e , one p o s i t i v e , and one n e u t r a l verb* Below t h e t h r e e verbs were typed two person-concepts, ' h i p p i e ' and 'policeman,' i n c a p i t a l l e t t e r s i n randomized order* The verbs on eaoh c a r d were s e l e o t e d from ThorndikeLorge's (1944) word-count, and, on each c a r d , they were matched i n terms o f t h e frequency o f usage. The f o l l o w i n g procedures were used t o determine t h e frequency o f usage and the meaning o f eaoh verbs  (1) A t o t a l o f 711 verbs which  were r e p o r t e d by T h o m d i k e and Lorge (1944) as words o c c u r r i n g a t l e a s t once p e r m i l l i o n i n g e n e r a l were selected*  (2) These 711 verbs were g i v e n t o e i g h t graduate  students i n c o u n s e l i n g psychology who were working toward a Master's o r D o c t o r a l degree i n t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, and they were asked t o c l a s s i f y t h e verbs e i t h e r i n t o p o s i t i v e , n e g a t i v e , o r n e u t r a l meaning v e r b s . A t o t a l o f 480 verbs which were agreed upon by f i v e o r more r a t e r s  15 as t o be c l a s s i f i e d i n t o one o f the t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s ( p o s i t i v e , n e u t r a l , and n e g a t i v e ) were s e l e c t e d * 480 verbs were a g a i n randomized  (3)  These  i n o r d e r and then were g i v e n  t o a t o t a l of 45 sophomore students (males and f e m a l e s ) • They were asked t o r a t e t h e meaning o f the verbs on a 9 p o l n t r a t i n g s c a l e , a s s i g n i n g from 1 t o 7. most p o s i t i v e r a t i n g f o r each word. (4)  w i t h 7 b e i n g the  On the b a s i s o f the  mean s c o r e f o r eaoh verb, the verbs were c l a s s i f i e d  into  n e g a t i v e verbs ( 1 . 9 8 - 4 . 4 9 ) , n e u t r a l verbs ( 4 . 5 3 - 5 . 8 9 ) ,  and  p o s i t i v e verbs ( 5 * 9 5 - 6 . 8 9 ) . W i t h i n each l e v e l o f meaning, the verbs were a g a i n grouped usage (1-9.  10-19. 20-29,  T h o m d l k e and Lorge  i n t o t h r e e l e v e l s o f frequency o f 30-39. 40-49, A, AA) a c c o r d i n g t o  (1944). Thus, w i t h i n each combination of  mean v a l u e and the l e v e l o f frequency o f usage, the verbs were randomly s e l e c t e d f o r each c a r d * However, f o l l o w i n g exceptions were madei (1)  when the two verbs i n a s i n g l e  c a r d were s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y In meaning (e.g., l o v e d - h a t e d ) , they were a v o i d e d i n t h e same card) (2)  the  verbs whose meaning were extremely p o s i t i v e o r extremely n e g a t i v e were excluded from f i n a l use. T h i s was  done t o  decrease the cue v a l u e o f the words as a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e stimulus f o r Ss. Measurement Procedures §.*  s  o o n n o t a t i v e meaning o f h i p p i e . A  D i f f e r e n t i a l S c a l e (SDS)  Semantic  t o measure the o o n n o t a t i v e meaning  o f h i p p i e was  c o n s t r u c t e d and was  c o n t a i n e d the sample o f Ss contained  15  g i v e n i n groups which  (See Appendix A ) . The  e v a l u a t i v e , 4 a c t i v i t y , and  SDS  6 potency f a c t o r s ,  which were drawn from Osgood, S u c i , and Tannenbaum (1957)* These 25 s c a l e s were r e f i n e d through a p r e l i m i n a r y and have demonstrated c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h c o e f f i c i e n t s w i t h the t o t a l s c o r e  study  correlation  (range from .70  with median c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t o f .73)•  to  .84  However, i n  a c t u a l s e l e c t i o n o f Ss f o r the c o n d i t i o n i n g experiment, o n l y e v a l u a t i v e f a c t o r s o a l e s were used; the a c t i v i t y potency f a c t o r s c a l e s were i n s e r t e d n e v e r t h e l e s s t o the response s e t of Ss i n t a k i n g the The response format of the SDS 7-point  and  prevent  SDS. i n t h i s study was  a  b i p o l a r s c a l e , which asked the t e s t e e s t o a s s i g n  from 1 f o r n e g a t i v e t o 7 f o r the p o s i t i v e continuum.  The  o r d e r of the placement o f the s o a l e s as w e l l as the p o l a r i t y o f each s c a l e f o r the concept h i p p i e were randomized, the standard I n s t r u c t i o n (Osgood, S u c i , & Tannenbaum, was  used. The  i n d i v i d u a l SDS  s c o r e I n c l u d e d the  individual  105•  Need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l . Need f o r s o c i a l was  1957)  15  e v a l u a t i v e f a c t o r s c a l e s ; thus, the soore f o r an c o u l d range from 15 t o  and  d e f i n e d as the tendency t o say s o c i a l l y  t h i n g s and a c t i n a s o c i a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e way a p p r o v a l . In the present study,  approval  appropriate to obtain  t h i s was o p e r a t i o n a l l y  17 d e f i n e d by the soore on the Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale  (MCS). T h i s i s an i n v e n t o r y w i t h  two  dichotonomous response c a t e g o r i e s , c o n t a i n i n g 33 items t o measure the need f o r s o o i a l a p p r o v a l  (See Appendix B ) •  s c o r e o f an i n d i v i d u a l c o u l d range from 1 t o 33* i l l u s t r a t i v e item o f the s c a l e 1st d i s l i k e d anyone [ i t e m 4]»°  The  The  An  " I have never i n t e n s e l y  internal  consistency  c o e f f i c i e n t f o r t h i s s c a l e u s i n g Kuder-Bichardson formula and based upon 39 undergraduate students was  .88, and  20  a  t e s t - r e t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t w i t h one month I n t e r v a l based upon 31 students was Experimental  .89  (Crowne & Marlowe,  I960).  Design  Ss were measured f o r t h e i r need f o r s o c i a l  approval  and meaning o f h i p p i e p r i o r t o the v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g experiment. They were d i v i d e d i n t o two low)  c a t e g o r i e s ( h i g h and  of the need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l and  three categories  ( p o s i t i v e , n e g a t i v e , and n e u t r a l ) o f the meaning o f h i p p i e . These Ss r e c e i v e d two  d i f f e r e n t reinforcement  conditions—reinforcement (BJPD) and r e i n f o r c e m e n t (END). Under RFD, end o f any  treatment  f o r p o s i t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n of hippie  f o r negative d e s c r i p t i o n of h i p p i e  E's r e i n f o r c i n g event was  delivered at  sentence u s i n g the word h i p p i e and one  p o s i t i v e v e r b s i under RND,  E's r e i n f o r c i n g event  the  o f the was  d e l i v e r e d a t the end o f any sentence u s i n g the word h i p p i e and one of the n e g a t i v e v e r b s . Thus, the nature of  the  18 d i f f e r e n c e between S*s p r e e x p e r i m e n t a l o o n n o t a t i v e meaning o f h i p p i e and the r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n he i s a s s i g n e d generated congruent and incongruent r e i n f o r c e m e n t . Por example, i f an S showed a p o s i t i v e meaning o f h i p p i e i n SDS and r e c e i v e d t h e treatment c o n d i t i o n o f RPD, he was c l a s s i f i e d as a c o n g r u e n t l y r e i n f o r c e d S, s i n c e h i s meaning of h i p p i e was c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e r e i n f o r c e d response  class  i n the r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n } however, i f he r e c e i v e d t h e treatment  o o n d i t i o n o f RND,  he was c l a s s i f i e d as an  i n c o n g r u e n t l y r e i n f o r c e d S, s i n c e h i s meaning o f h i p p i e was not congruent  with the r e i n f o r c e d response c l a s s i n the  reinforcement c o n d i t i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the f o l l o w i n g groups were i n s t i t u t e d f o r the s e l e c t i o n and assignment f o r t h e r e i n f o r c e m e n t conditions• Group H-Pot Ss h i g h on MCS  (above median score) w i t h a  p o s i t i v e meaning i n SDS Group H-Ne» Ss h i g h on MCS  (above median score) w i t h a  n e g a t i v e meaning i n SDS Group H-Nui Ss h i g h on MCS  Ss low on MCS  55)•  (55-64 i n c l u s i v e ) •  (below median score) w i t h a  p o s i t i v e meaning i n SDS Group L-Nei Ss low on MCS  ( l e s s than  (above median score) w i t h a  n e u t r a l meaning i n SDS Group L-Pot  ( g r e a t e r than 64).  ( g r e a t e r than  64).  (below median score) w i t h a  n e g a t i v e meaning i n SDS  ( l e s s than  55).  19 Group L-Nui  Ss low on MCS (below median score) w i t h a  n e u t r a l meaning i n SDS F o r a c t u a l assignment  (55-64 i n c l u s i v e ) .  o f Ss f o r t h e treatment  c o n d i t i o n s , however, t h e s c o r e s were d i v i d e d I n t o s e v e r a l b l o c k s f o r both MCS ( l - 6 « 7-131  14-20: 21-28) and SDS ( 1 5 -  44j 45-54j 55-641 65-741 75-95). and w i t h i n each l e v e l o f MCS-SDS combination, Ss were randomly a s s i g n e d I n equal numbers t o two d i f f e r e n t experimental treatments, i . e . , RPD and RND. Thus, t h e combinations  o f t h e two l e v e l s o f t h e  need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l , t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s o f meaning o f h i p p i e , and two treatment c o n d i t i o n s generated a 2 x 2 x 3 f a c t o r i a l design. Procedure The MCS and SDS were a d m i n i s t e r e d t o t h e same Ss group i n a s i n g l e t e s t i n g s e s s i o n . I n o r d e r t o e l i m i n a t e o r d e r e f f e c t , they were counterbalanced I n approximately equal p r o p o r t i o n s . The two s c a l e s were a d m i n i s t e r e d by a Master's c a n d i d a t e (male) i n s c h o o l psychology who has had p r e v i o u s experiences l n group p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t i n g . W i t h i n 7 t o 97 days a f t e r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e p r e t e s t s (MCS and SDS), experiment  t h e main v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g  was conducted by t h i s i n v e s t i g a t o r . Students were  asked t o v o l u n t e e r t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n an experiment  on 'human  v e r b a l b e h a v i o r , • and a sign-up sheet was d i s t r i b u t e d i n t h e c l a s s throughout t h e experimental p e r i o d . E met S  i n d i v i d u a l l y , E always i n t r o d u c e d h i m s e l f as a  graduate  student working on a d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . E was a t t i r e d i n a s u i t and t i e .  always  The experimental space was  an  empty room except f o r a desk and two c h a i r s . Oh the desk, a 12-  by 16-inches paper-board  s h i e l d was  e r e c t e d between E  and S so t h a t d u r i n g the c o n d i t i o n i n g proper, S c o u l d observe E's f a c e but not h i s r e c o r d i n g b e h a v i o r . A f t e r a b r i e f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r v i e w a s k i n g about S's year i n c o l l e g e , major, and v o c a t i o n a l a s p i r a t i o n , S was  g i v e n the  s t i m u l u s cards one a t a time i n same o r d e r and then  was  r e q u e s t e d t o make up a sentence b e g i n n i n g w i t h one.of  the  two person concepts and one of the t h r e e v e r b s . The i n s t r u c t i o n (See Appendix C) was  a s l i g h t m o d i f i c a t i o n of  the one used by S p i e l b e r g e r and L e v i n (1962). The reason person-concepts the concept  appeared  two  i n each s t i m u l u s c a r d i n s t e a d o f  ' h i p p i e * a l o n e was  t o make S's  response-  r e i n f o r c e m e n t contingency more complex. The advantage o f t h i s was  demonstrated  by a p i l o t  study.  A t o t a l o f 120 t r i a l s were r u n f o r every S, where eaoh response t o each c a r d was  d e f i n e d as a t r i a l .  To  determine the f r e e operant l e v e l o f responding w i t h the r e i n f o r o e d response c l a s s , no E's r e i n f o r c i n g s t i m u l u s 20 t r i a l s .  Prom t h e 21st  was  g i v e n d u r i n g the f i r s t  was  p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e d on a 100% r e i n f o r c e m e n t s c h e d u l e :  E's r e i n f o r c i n g s t i m u l u s "good" o r " f i n e " was  given  trial,  S  21 continuously  when S emitted a v e r b a l response t h a t belonged  t o t h e r e i n f o r c e d response c a t e g o r y (depending upon t h e reinforcement  treatment c o n d i t i o n ) •  Immediately f o l l o w i n g t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g t r i a l s , a p o s t c o n d i t i o n i n g t e s t i n g s e s s i o n was i n s t i t u t e d t o e l i c i t i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g S's awareness o f t h e responsereinforcement concerning  c o n t i n g e n c y . I n f o r m a t i o n was a l s o gathered  t h e i n c e n t i v e t o r e c e i v e reinforcementt  that i s ,  a measure o f how much 3 r e a l l y wanted E's a p p r o v a l . The content o f t h i s awareness t e s t i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e  and t h e  measure o f h i s i n c e n t i v e t o r e c e i v e reinforcement shortened form o f t h e one used by S p l e l b e r g e r Splelberger  was a  (1962) and  e t a l . (1963). but w i t h s l i g h t m o d i f i c a t i o n i n  wording t o f i t i n t o t h e p r e s e n t  study (See. Appendix D)•  This postexperimental questionnaire  was g i v e n by t h i s  i n v e s t i g a t o r immediately a f t e r t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g p r o p e r . The w r i t t e n response t o t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e  was independently  scored by two r a t e r s i n o l u d i n g E. Another r a t e r was a female w i t h a graduate t r a i n i n g i n e d u c a t i o n a l S i n c e E scored t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e  psychology.  responses a f t e r  gathering  a l l d a t a f o r t h e 144 Ss, i t may be s a f e l y assumed t h a t both E and t h e female r a t e r had no p r i o r knowledge o f S's performance i n t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g Following  trials.  the postconditioning t e s t i n g session, E  urged S n o t t o communicate about the n a t u r e o f t h e  experiment to fellow students.  23 CHAPTER I I I RESULTS A n a l y s i s o f the C o n d i t i o n i n g Response Data The number o f Ss gathered f o r t h e two  experimental  r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n s a r e shown i n T a b l e 1*  TABLE 1 THE NUMBER OF SUBJECTS FOR THE TWO EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENTS BASED ON A 2 x 2 x 3 FACTORIAL DESIGN s r s s s s s r s s s s x  s n s s s s s n s B B s a s rssssssss a s s e s s e s  S S B S B S S S B  END  RPD SDS  SS! 5EX2SSS5SS  MCS  Po  Nu  Ne  Po  Nu  Ne  High  12  12  12  12  12  12  72  Low  12  12  12  12  12  12  72  24  24  24  24  24  24  144  Total  Total  N o t e . - - A b b r e v i a t i o n s ! RPDsReinforcement f o r p o s i t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n o f h i p p i e , RNDssRelnforcement f o r n e g a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n o f hippie» P o = P o s l t i v e meaning of h i p p i e , Nu=Neutral meaning o f h i p p i e , Ne=Negative meaning o f h i p p i e i MCSsMarlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale« SDS=Semantie D i f f e r e n t i a l S c a l e .  The r e i n f o r c e d response o l a s s e m i t t e d by S was observed as the response measure i n the p r e s e n t study. O p e r a t i o n a l l y , t h i s was t h e frequency o f occurrence o f a sentence u s i n g the word  ' h i p p i e ' and one o f t h e p o s i t i v e o r  24 n e g a t i v e verbs, depending upon t h e r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n . A response t o each c a r d i n a sentence a t r i a l . For the s t a t i s t i c a l  was d e f i n e d as  a n a l y s i s o f t h e data,  trials  from t h e f i r s t t o t h e l a s t were d i v i d e d i n t o s i x b l o c k s o f 20 t r i a l s  eaoht b l o c k 1 ( t r i a l 1-20), b l o c k 2 ( t r i a l  block 3 ( t r i a l 41-60),  b l o c k 4 ( t r i a l 61-80), b l o c k 5  81-100), and b l o c k 6 ( t r i a l The mean frequency for  21-40), (trial  101-120). o f t h e r e i n f o r c e d response c l a s s  t h e s i x t r i a l b l o c k s f o r t h e 12 groups i s p r e s e n t e d i n  T a b l e 2. P r i o r t o t h e main a n a l y s i s o f t h e data,  departure  from homogeneity o f v a r i a n c e s f o r t h e t o t a l b l o c k s o f t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g t r i a l s among t h e 12 groups was t e s t e d by Cochran's method (Myers, 1966), and t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s  that  p o p u l a t i o n v a r i a n c e s o f t h e 12 independent groups would be equal was n o t r e j e c t e d (observed C=. 1841  d f = 1 2 / l l i p_>.05) •  S i n c e t h e t e s t o f i n i t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e 12 independent groups i n terms o f operant  performance l e v e l  u s i n g S o h e f f e ' s m u l t i p l e comparison method (Myers, 1966) showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s ( d f = l 1 / 6 6 0 1 jg's>.10) i n the operant  r a t e among t h e groups, an a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e  was performed i n a r e p e a t e d measure d e s i g n t o determine t h e main e f f e c t o f t h e need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l  (need),  c o n n o t a t i v e meaning o f h i p p i e (meaning), and t h e i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between need and meaning. The r e s u l t s o f t h e a n a l y s i s are presented i n Table 3*  25 TABLE 2 MEAN FREQUENCY OF THE REINFORCED RESPONSE CLASS IN EACH BLOCK OF CONDITIONING TRIALS FOR THE 12 GROUPS Reinforcement  f o rpositive description of hippie  block 1  block 2  block 3  block 4  block 5  block 6  Mean  Mean  Mean  Mean  Mean  Mean  H-Po  5.75  4.50  5.58  6.75  6.00  6.00  H-Nu  4.67  3.17  4.25  4.42  5.25  3.75  H-Ne  3.83  3.17  3.25  4.67  3.75  3.83  L-Po  5.00  5.33  6.42  6.83  8.33  8.25  L-Nu  3.92  3.67  5.08  6.00  6.33  5.75  L-Ne  3.92  1.83  3.58  3.17  4.08  3.00  Group  Reinforcement  f o r negative d e s c r i p t i o n of hippie  H-Po  3.58  3-33  3.58  4.00  3.92  3.83  H-Nu  4.17  4.58  3.83  6.58  6.50  6.67  H-Ne  4.67  4.42  6.50  8.50  8.33  8.25  L-Po  4.75  2.75  4.17  5.25  4.58  5.50  L-Nu  4.50  4.75  5.75  7.25  5.92  8.75  L-Ne  5.33  6.08  6.25  9.50  7.33  9.58  Note.—MSb=33.83i MSe=4.80. A b b r e v i a t i o n s : H=group w i t h a h i g h ne"ecl f o r a p p r o v a l , L=group w i t h a low need f o r a p p r o v a l ; Possgroup w i t h a p o s i t i v e meaning o f h i p p i e , Nu= group with a n e u t r a l meaning o f h i p p i e , Nesgroup w i t h a negativetmeaning o f h i p p i e .  TABLE 3 ANALYSIS GF VARIANCE ON THE MEAN FREQUENCY OF THE REINFORCED RESPONSE CLASS Source  df  MS  1  151.67  M (Oonnotative meaning)  2  1.01  N (Need)  1  71.19  T x M  2  584.09  T x N  1  3.89  <1  M x N  2  15.34  <1  T x M x N  2  8.37  <1  Between Ss T  observed F  143  (Reinforcement)  4.48* <1 2.10 17.26**  132  33.83  B (Block o f 20 t r i a l s )  5  118.95  24.78**  T x B  5  21.53  4.48**  M x B  10  2.38  N x B  5  7.76  T x M x B  10  14.65  T x N x B  5  8.54  M x N x B  10  3.98  T x M x N X B  10  5.28  660  4.80  Subjects  (T x M x N) 220  W i t h i n Ss  Subjects x B 863  Total *£<.05  **£<.01  <1 1.62 3.05** 1.78 <1 1.10  2? As can be seen from t h e d a t a shown i n T a b l e 3 , t h e r e was  a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n t i a l reinforcement e f f e c t  (Pss4.48»  df=1/132i £<.G5) between t h e groups which r e c e i v e d r e i n f o r c e m e n t f o r p o s i t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n o f h i p p i e (RPD) and the groups which r e o e i v e d r e i n f o r c e m e n t f o r n e g a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n o f h i p p i e (RND). However, both  reinforoement  c o n d i t i o n s showed a s i g n i f i c a n t departure from a zero s l o p e , i . e . , b l o c k e f f e c t . When t r e n d a n a l y s e s were performed t o t e s t the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f l i n e a r , quadratic, o r other higher order components, s i g n i f i c a n t l i n e a r  (P=19«63i dfsl/660 1  £<;.01) and c u b i c (F«15»47i d f = l / 6 6 0 i  j><»01) t r e n d s were  o b t a i n e d f o r t h e groups under RPD, w h i l e f o r t h e groups under RND, o n l y t h e l i n e a r t r e n d (F=87.02» d f « l / 6 6 0 1 j>^.01) was  s i g n i f i c a n t . I t was c l e a r t h a t , a c r o s s t h e treatment  c o n d i t i o n s , change i n t h e frequency o f u s i n g r e i n f o r c e d response c l a s s o c c u r r e d l n t h e course o f t h e experiment 1 however, t h e groups under RPD changed w i t h a tendency t o decrease i n t h e frequency o f u s i n g t h e r e i n f o r c e d  response  c l a s s d u r i n g t h e second b l o c k o f t r i a l s and then s t e a d l y i n c r e a s e u n t i l b l o c k 5 . F i g u r e 1 shows t h e t r e n d s . Need f o r a p p r o v a l and c o n d i t i o n i n g performance. I n h y p o t h e s i s I , i t was p r e d i c t e d t h a t Ss w i t h a h i g h need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l show a g r e a t e r c o n d i t i o n i n g e f f e c t  than  Ss w i t h a low need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l a c r o s s t h e experimental c o n d i t i o n s . However,  an i n s p e c t i o n o f T a b l e 3  L e a f 28 omitted i n page numbering.  29 d a t a was mainly devoted t o the d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g performance between oongruently  reinforced  groups and i n c o n g r u e n t l y r e i n f o r c e d groups d i s r e g a r d i n g S*s need v a r l a l b e . E f f e c t of congruent and Incongruent In h y p o t h e s i s I I , i t was  reinforcement.  predicted that, given a c e r t a i n  l e v e l o f need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l , Ss who  were r e i n f o r c e d  c o n g r u e n t l y w i t h t h e i r meaning o f the r e i n f o r o e d response c l a s s (congruent reinforcement) show a g r e a t e r c o n d i t i o n i n g performance than Ss who  were I n c o n g r u e n t l y r e i n f o r c e d with  t h e i r meaning o f t h e r e i n f o r o e d response  o l a s s (incongruent  r e i n f o r c e m e n t ) . R e s u l t s o f the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e shown i n T a b l e 3 r e v e a l e d n o n s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t o f Meaning df=2/132), Meaning x B l o c k ( F < l i  (F<1»  d f o l G / 6 6 0 ) , Meaning x Need  x B l o c k (F<lt d f s l O / 6 6 0 ) , Treatment x Meaning x Need x B l o c k ( F s s l . l O i dfc10/6601 £>.05) t however, t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s between Treatment x Meaning df»2/l32» j><.01) and Treatment x Meaning x B l o c k  (F=17.26j (F=3.05i  df=10/660« p ^ . 0 1 ) . F o r s p e c i f i c comparison f o r h y p o t h e s i s I I , a s t a t i s t i c a l p r e d i c t i o n was  t h a t among the groups under  RPD,  mean of the c o n d i t i o n i n g performance of the group w i t h a p o s i t i v e meaning of h i p p i e would be g r e a t e r than t h a t o f the group w i t h a n e g a t i v e meaning o f h i p p i e . Among the groups under RND,  on the o t h e r hand, mean o f the c o n d i t i o n i n g  performance of the group with a negative meaning of hippie would be greater than that of the group with a p o s i t i v e meaning of hippie. Figure 2 represents the curves of the conditioning performance of the groups under RPD and RND.  • • Group PO under 0----0 Group PO under A A Group NU under A - — A Group NU under  RPD RND RPD RND  •  •  Group NE under RPD  a  a  Group NE under RND  4 2  3  4  BLOCK OP 20 TRIALS PIG. 2. Conditioning Performance of the Group with a Positive, Negative, and a Neutral Meaning of Hippie who Received Reinforcement f o r Positive and Negative Description of Hippie.  31 T a b l e 4 s p e c i f i c a l l y compares t h e mean frequency o f each b l o c k between t h e group w i t h a p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e meaning o f h i p p i e w i t h i n each r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n . S c h e f f e ' s m u l t i p l e comparison method (Myers,  1966) showed  t h a t t h e data were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p r e d i c t i o n . That i s , of t h e groups under RPD, t h e group w i t h a p o s i t i v e meaning  TABLE 4 COMPARISON OP MEAN FREQUENCY IN EACH BLOCK OF CONDITIONING TRIALS BETWEEN CONGRUENTLY REINFORCED AND INCONGRUENTLY REINFORCED GROUPS WITHIN EACH REINFORCEMENT CONDITION = B s r = B S C B a 3 s s = a c = s s = = = s s = = s = = = = = = = = = s = = = = = = = s = = = = S B = = r s E :  Reinforcement  f o rpositive description  Group block-1 block-2 block-3 block-4 b l o c k - 5  blook-6  Positive*  5.38  4.92*  6.00*  6.79*  7.17*  7.13*  Negative  3.88  2.50  3.42  3.92  3.92  3.42  Neutral  4.29  3.42  4.67  5.21  5.79  4.75  Reinforcement Positive Negative Neutral  13  f o r negative description  4.17  3.04  3.88  4.63  4.25  4.67  5.00  5.25*  6.38*  9.00*  7.83*  8.92*  4.33  4.67  4.79  6.92  6.21  7.71  C o m p a r i s o n w i t h n e g a t i v e meaning group ^Comparison w i t h p o s i t i v e ; meaning group *£4.05  of hippie showed s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater mean scores i n most blocks of conditioning t r i a l s  (p/s<.05) than the group with  a negative meaning of hippiet while, of the groups under RND, the group with a negative meaning of hippie showed greater mean scores i n most blocks of conditioning t r i a l s than the group with a p o s i t i v e meaning of h i p p i e . In f a c t , the groups which received incongruent reinforcement, i . e . , the group with a negative meaning of hippie under RPD (F<1| df=1/660) and the group with a p o s i t i v e meaning of hippie under RND (F=3«38t d f e l / 6 6 0 t £>.05) showed zero slope of the conditioning performance curves over t r i a l blocks, i n d i c a t i n g that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n the conditioning performance under the incongruently reinforced conditions. Further inspection of the e f f e c t of congruent and incongruent reinforcement condition may be obtained by comparing the conditioning performance of the groups which had a s i m i l a r meaning of hippie but received a d i f f e r e n t reinforcement treatment. That i s , i t would be predicted that, among the groups with a p o s i t i v e meaning of hippie, the conditioning performance of the groups which received RPD would be greater than that of the group which received RND1 of the groups with a negative meaning of hippie, on the other hand, the conditioning performance of the group under RND would be greater than that of the group under RPD; Table 5 s p e c i f i c a l l y compares the mean frequencies of eaoh  b l o c k o f t r i a l s between t h e groups which r e c e i v e d d i f f e r e n t treatment w i t h i n each p o s i t i v e , n e g a t i v e , and n e u t r a l  TABLE 5 COMPARISON OF MEAN FREQUENCY. IN EACH BLOCK OF CONDITIONING TRIALS BETWEEN GROUPS WHO RECEIVED DIFFERENT REINFORCEMENT CONDITIONS WITHIN POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, AND NEUTRAL MEANING OF HIPPIE S S S S S S S S B S 1  P o s i t i v e meaning group  Treatment Condition  RPD  a  RND  sssssstssssssss  u  block-1 blook-2 blook-3 block-4 blook-5 block-6 5.38  4.92  6.00*  6.79*  4.17  3.04  3.88  4.63  7.17*  7.13*  4.25  4.67  N e g a t i v e meaning group RPD RND  b  3.88  2.50  3.42  3.92  3.92  3.42  5.00  5.25*  6.38*  9.00*  7.83*  8.92*  N e u t r a l meaning group RPD  4.29  3.42  4.67  5.21  5.79  4.75  RND°  4.33  4.67  4.79  6.92  6.21  7.71*  N o t e . — A b b r e v i a t i o n s J RPD=Reinforcement f o r p o s i t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n o f h i p p i e t RNDstReinforoement f o r n e g a t i v e description of hippie. C o m p a r i s o n w i t h RND ^Comparison w i t h RPD C o m p a r i s o n w i t h RPD *2<.05  34 meaning groups. The S c h e f f e ' s  m u l t i p l e comparison method  (Myers, 1966) showed t h a t , o f t h e groups w i t h a p o s i t i v e meaning, t h e mean s c o r e s o f t h e group under RPD were s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater  (p s<.05) than t h e group under RND i n #  most b l o c k s o f t r i a l s 1 whereas, o f t h e groups w i t h a  negative  meaning, t h e group under RND showed g r e a t e r mean s c o r e s I n most b l o c k s o f t r i a l s than t h e group under RPD. Thus, when a pooled comparison o f t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g performance i s made between t h e congruently  r e l n f o r e e d and i n c o n g r u e n t l y  r e i n f o r o e d groups r e g a r d l e s s  o f both reinforcement  condition  they r e c e i v e d and t h e meaning o f h i p p i e , i t i s c l e a r t h a t d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g performance between t h e congruently  r e i n f o r o e d and i n c o n g r u e n t l y  r e i n f o r c e d groups  increases, with a greater c o n d i t i o n i n g e f f e c t i n the congruently  r e i n f o r o e d than t h e I n c o n g r u e n t l y r e i n f o r c e d  groups• I t would be necessary t o compare t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g performance o f t h e group with a n e u t r a l meaning w i t h t h a t o f the p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e  groups i n order t o have a  stringent t e s t of the hypothesis.  S i n c e t h e groups with a  n e u t r a l meaning o f h i p p i e were r e i n f o r o e d i n a s m a l l degree o f incongruency In each reinforcement  c o n d i t i o n , I t was  p r e d i c t e d t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g performance o f these n e u t r a l groups should  be g r e a t e r than t h e i n c o n g r u e n t l y  group but l e s s than t h e congruently  reinforoed  r e i n f o r c e d group I n both  35 treatment c o n d i t i o n s . As can be seen from F i g u r e 2, the data were c l e a r l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the p r e d i c t i o n . That i s , t h e magnitudes o f the c o n d i t i o n i n g performance o f the groups w i t h a n e u t r a l meaning o f h i p p i e , i . e . , the groups which r e c e i v e d a s m a l l degree o f incongruent r e i n f o r c e m e n t , were i n between the c o n g r u e n t l y r e i n f o r c e d and i n c o n g r u e n t l y r e i n f o r c e d groups under both r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n s . However, i t was i n t e r e s t i n g  t o note t h a t , o f t h e groups w i t h  a n e u t r a l meaning o f h i p p i e , the group under END  showed a  s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r c o n d i t i o n i n g performance than the group under  BPD.  The t r e n d s among t h e group r e g r e s s i o n curves i n each treatment c o n d i t i o n were a l s o i n t e r e s t i n g . None o f the curves under RND  showed a s i g n i f i c a n t q u a d r a t i c o r any o t h e r  h i g h e r order t r e n d s (p/s>.05)  but a s i g n i f i c a n t  linear  trends f o r t h e group w i t h a n e g a t i v e (F»64.11i df«1/660t p_<.01) and a n e u t r a l (F=39»87» df«l/6601 £<.01) meaning o f h i p p i e . Of the groups under RPD,  on t h e o t h e r hand,  were s i g n i f i c a n t l i n e a r t r e n d (F=sl8.96i the  there  df=l/660» £<.01) i n  group w i t h a p o s i t i v e meaning o f h i p p i e , a s i g n i f i c a n t  linear  (£=7.08$ df =1/660t p_<.01) and c u b i c t r e n d  df=l/66o» £<.01)  (£=7.561  i n the group w i t h a n e u t r a l meaning,  and  o n l y a s i g n i f i c a n t c u b i c t r e n d (£=5.611 d f c 1 / 6 6 0 1 p_<.025)ln the  group w i t h a n e g a t i v e meaning o f h i p p i e . However, none  of the groups i n both RPD and RND quadratic trend.  showed any s i g n i f i c a n t  36 I t s h o u l d be noted t h a t the c o n d i t i o n i n g performance curves tended t o show more s i m i l a r p a t t e r n s among the groups which r e c e i v e d the same r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n than among the groups w i t h a s i m i l a r meaning o f h i p p i e . As can be from F i g u r e 2, the groups under RPD  showed a s l i g h t  seen  decrease  i n the c o n d i t i o n i n g performance i n b l o c k 2, g r a d u a l i n c r e a s e up t o the peak c o n d i t i o n i n g p e r i o d of b l o c k 5. and a decrease i n the f i n a l b l o c k i o f the groups under  slight  RND,  however, o n l y the group w i t h a p o s i t i v e meaning of h i p p i e tended t o show a s l i g h t decrease i n b l o c k 2, w h i l e the remaining two groups d i d n o t . I n s t e a d , a l l the groups under RND i n b l o c k 4,  experimental  showed the h i g h e s t c o n d i t i o n i n g performance  d e c r e a s i n g i n b l o c k 5» and then r a p i d l y  i n c r e a s i n g i n the f i n a l b l o c k . A n a l y s i s o f the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Data Awareness and c o n d i t i o n i n g performance. awareness was  The  d e f i n e d by S's a b i l i t y t o g i v e w r i t t e n  response t o f o u r q u e s t i o n s a s k i n g v a r i o u s k i n d s of r e l a t i o n s h i p s between h i s responses and the r e i n f o r o i n g s t i m u l u s employed. The l e v e l o f awareness was i n t o t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s : Aware Ss were those who somewhere i n t h e i r notes the  classified recorded  response-reinforcement  contingency c o r r e c t l y (one which would y i e l d  essentially  100% r e i n f o r c e m e n t i f a c t e d upon c o n s i s t e n t l y ) • Unaware Ss were those who  d i d not show any i n d i c a t i o n o f knowing the  37  response-reinforcement contingency i n any o f the f o u r q u e s t i o n s . Correlated-aware Ss were those who c o u l d n o t be c l a s s i f i e d e i t h e r a s aware o r unaware Ss, i . e . , those who r e c o r d e d i n t h e i r notes any awareness o t h e r than the c o r r e c t response c l a s s t h a t c o u l d account f o r b e t t e r than chance performance. Two r a t e r s a s s i g n e d 1 f o r unaware, 2 f o r o o r r e l a t e d aware, and 3 f o r aware S s . They were c o n s i d e r e d t o be i n agreement w i t h r e s p e c t t o a p a r t i c u l a r S i f they both c l a s s i f i e d him a s an aware, unaware, o r c o r r e l a t e d - a w a r e S. The percentage o f Ss on whom the two r a t e r s I n i t i a l l y was 8 6 $ i  agreed  t h a t i s , o f t h e 1 4 4 Ss, t h e r e were 1 2 4 Ss f o r whom  two r a t e r s completely agreed. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses o f 20 Ss f o r whom t h e r e was no agreement between t h e two r a t e r s were submitted f o r open d i s c u s s i o n between the two r a t e r s and c a t e g o r i z e d . By t h i s p r o c e s s , 5 5 Ss were u l t i m a t e l y judged aware, 4 2 unaware, and 4 7 c o r r e l a t e d - a w a r e . S i n c e the i n i t i a l percentage o f the agreement between t h e two r a t e r s were r e l a t i v e l y h i g h , I t was concluded t h a t t h e reliability  o f the awareness r a t i n g was s a t i s f a c t o r y .  Pearson produot-moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were c a l c u l a t e d t o determine  the c o r r e l a t i o n between the l e v e l o f  awareness and performance l e v e l i n eaoh t r i a l  b l o c k assuming  t h a t t h e l e v e l o f awareness was c o n t i n u o u s . T a b l e 6 shows the c o r r e l a t i o n a l m a t r i x among the v a r i a b l e s • There were significant positive correlation coefficients  (range from  38 TABLE 6 CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AMONG THE VARIABLES OF NEED, MEANING, AWARENESS, INCENTIVE TO RECEIVE REINFORCEMENT, AND CONDITIONING PERFORMANCE IN EACH BLOCK OF TRIALS S B B S S B X r e s e t s e s si B S S  s s s s s ; » B B S S S S S S S B S B O S X :  Need  Mea  Awa  -05  05 02  Mea Awa  Ino  14 -15 09  Inc B-l  B-l  B-2  B-3  B-4  B-5  B-6  B-T  -05  -07  -07  00  -05  -16  -08  10  01  00  -05  00  -03  -02  23*  21  33*  41*  45*  41*  44*  11  16  19  26*  26*  31*  29*  33*  30*  35*  37*  31*  39*  59*  64*  54*  63*  76*  64*  54*  6l*  77*  74*  81*  91*  78*  87*  B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5  92*  B-6 N o t e . — D e o l m a l p o i n t s o m i t t e d . A b b r e v i a t i o n s t Mea=meanlngj Awasawarenesst I n c l i n e e n t i v e i B»blooki B-T= b l o c k t o t a l . *£<.05  •21 t o .45) between t h e l e v e l o f awareness and each b l o c k o f the c o n d i t i o n i n g t r i a l s j however,  o n l y 19«4# o f the t o t a l  c o n d i t i o n i n g v a r i a b l e was accounted f o r by t h e awareness v a r i a b l e . There were s l i g h t t e n d e n c i e s t h a t t h e s i z e s o f c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s i n c r e a s e as t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g  trials  i n c r e a s e . I n t h e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s , as shown l n T a b l e 7* awareness was t h e v a r i a b l e t h a t had t h e g r e a t e s t  39 p r e d i c t a b i l i t y among o t h e r v a r i a b l e s i n a c c o u n t i n g  f o r the  c o n d i t i o n i n g performance.  TABLE 7 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS USING AWARENESS, INCENTIVE TO RECEIVE REINFORCEMENT, NEED FOR APPROVAL, AND MEANING OF HIPPIE AS PREDICTOR VARIABLES AND TOTAL CONDITIONING PERFORMANCE AS CRITERION VARIABLE SSSSSSSSSSSBSSS^SBSBBCSSaSSSSSESSS  Predictor variable  R  RSg  Increase  Awareness  .442  .195  .1952  Incentive  .507  .257  .0616  Need  .526  .277  .0201  Meaning  .535  .286  .0001  Incentive to r e c e i v e reinforeement. r e c e i v e reinforcement  I n RSQ  Incentive to  was d e f i n e d a s S's w r i t t e n response t o  a q u e s t i o n , "Would you say you wanted me t o say 'good* o r ' f i n e * more o f t e n ? " The q u e s t i o n p r o v i d e d t h r e e l e v e l s o f c a t e g o r i e s from which S was asked t o chooset  "very muoh,"  " o f t e n , " and " d i d n o t c a r e . " There were 17 Ss i n "very muoh" category,  64 Ss i n " o f t e n , " and 63 Ss i n " d i d not c a r e "  c a t e g o r y . F o l l o w i n g numbers were a s s i g n e d f o r S*s response t o t h e questiont  3 tor "very much," 2 f o r " o f t e n , " and 1 f o r  " d i d n o t c a r e . " As can be seen from T a b l e 6 , t h e r e were significant  p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e l e v e l o f  Incentive t o r e c e i v e reinforcement  and most o f t h e  conditioning t r i a l blocks  (range from .16 t o . 3 D * However,  the s i z e s o f c o e f f i c i e n t s were n e g l i g i b l e ! o n l y 9*6% o f variance  o f t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g performance was accounted f o r  by t h e l e v e l o f i n c e n t i v e t o r e c e i v e r e i n f o r c e m e n t . I n t h e m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s i n T a b l e 7» t h e i n c e n t i v e v a r i a b l e was t h e second most powerful p r e d i c t o r o f t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g performancet however, t h e s i z e o f i n c r e a s e i n the percentage o f v a r i a n c e  o f t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g performance  a c c o u n t a b l e was a l s o n e g l i g i b l e . When t h e awareness, i n o e n t i v e , and need v a r i a b l e were entered as t h e p r e d i c t o r variables i n multiple regression  equation, H was .535*  41  CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION As p r e v i o u s l y I n d i c a t e d , t h e main purpose o f t h e p r e s e n t study was t o e v a l u a t e the e f f e c t o f v e r b a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t as r e l a t e d t o S's c o n n o t a t i v e meaning o f the s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l and need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l . I n h y p o t h e s i s I , I t was p r e d i c t e d t h a t Ss w i t h a h i g h need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l show a h i g h e r c o n d i t i o n i n g performance than Ss w i t h a low need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l . I n h y p o t h e s i s I I , i t was p r e d i c t e d t h a t , g i v e n a c e r t a i n l e v e l o f need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l , Ss who were p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e d f o r the v e r b a l response  c l a s s which was congruent  (congruent  reinforcement)  w i t h t h e i r meaning o f i t  show a h i g h e r c o n d i t i o n i n g  performance than Ss who were r e i n f o r c e d l n o o n g r u e n t l y (inoongruent r e i n f o r c e m e n t ) . I n o r d e r t o t e s t t h e above hypotheses,  a v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g s i t u a t i o n was designed i n  such a way t h a t the c o n d i t i o n under which S r e c e i v e d congruent  o r inoongruent  reinforcement w i t h i n each l e v e l o f  a p p r o v a l need c o u l d be manipulated.  The v e r b a l r e i n f o r c e r  employed i n t h e study was E*s a l t e r n a t i v e l y s a y i n g "good" o r "fine." The data g e n e r a l l y showed t h a t the groups under t h e two d i f f e r e n t treatment  c o n d i t i o n s o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t showed  an o v e r a l l i n c r e a s e l n the frequency o f u s i n g the r e i n f o r c e d  response c l a s s , I n d i c a t i n g t h a t the v e r b a l l y r e i n f o r c i n g stimulus  used i n t h i s study was  generally e f f e c t i v e .  However, the groups which r e c e i v e d r e i n f o r c e m e n t f o r a negative d e s c r i p t i o n of h i p p i e  (RND)  showed a  significantly  g r e a t e r c o n d i t i o n i n g e f f e c t than the groups which r e c e i v e d r e i n f o r c e m e n t f o r a p o s i t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n of h i p p i e Buss and  (RPD)•  Durkee (1958) a l s o found a s i m i l a r r e s u l t i n t h a t  t h e i r c o l l e g e Ss c o n d i t i o n e d w i t h n e u t r a l words. One  f a s t e r w i t h h o s t i l e words than  possible explanation  be t h a t c o l l e g e students o f the age  f i n d i n g may  r a t h e r than  of words. A l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n  be due  may  l e v e l used i n the  p r e s e n t study l o o k f o r somewhat n e g a t i v e , p o s i t i v e , use  for this  for this  t o the s i z e of response c l a s s (Buss &  Durkee, 1958)• S i n c e the p o s i t i v e verbs i n t h i s study may sampled from a l a r g e r p o p u l a t i o n population  the  of n e g a t i v e v e r b s , l e a r n i n g of a l a r g e c l a s s o f  responses may  be slower than l e a r n i n g o f a s m a l l c l a s s .  Hypothesis I was systematic  o f p o s i t i v e verbs than  be  not  confirmedt  t h e r e was  no  d i f f e r e n c e i n the c o n d i t i o n i n g performance  between the groups w i t h a h i g h and  low need f o r s o c i a l  a p p r o v a l as measured by the Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale not  (MCS)• Furthermore, need f o r a p p r o v a l d i d  s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t e r a c t w i t h o t h e r v a r i a b l e s such as  connotative  meaning and  the treatment c o n d i t i o n s .  f i n d i n g was  c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the f i n d i n g s of Cushing  R o s e n t h a l et a l . ( 1 9 6 6 ) , and S p l e l b e r g e r  the  This (1957),  et a l . ( 1 9 6 3 ) ,  but  43 i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Buckhout  ( 1 9 6 5 ) . Crowne and S t r i c k l a n d  ( 1 9 6 1 ) , E p s t e i n ( 1 9 6 4 ) , Marlowe ( 1 9 6 2 ) , and Marlowe et a l . ( 1 9 6 4 ) . F a i l u r e t o o b t a i n evidence f o r d i f f e r e n t i a l c o n d i t i o n i n g e f f e c t s between t h e h i g h and low need f o r a p p r o v a l S may  be i n p a r t due t o the l a o k o f c o n s t r u c t  v a l i d i t y o f t h e MCS  as a measure o f need f o r s o o i a l  a p p r o v a l , o r may be i n p a r t due t o E who was always i n t r o d u c e d as a graduate s t u d e n t . Thus, S's p e r c e p t i o n o f E as a student who  i s In s i m i l a r s o c i a l p o s i t i o n w i t h S  h i m s e l f may have lowered the e f f e c t o f E as a r e i n f o r c i n g agent• Hypothesis I I t h a t Ss under a congruent r e i n f o r c e m e n t show a h i g h e r c o n d i t i o n i n g performance than Ss under an incongruent r e i n f o r c e m e n t was c l e a r l y supported. The major evidences f o r t h i s were found when comparisons o f the c o n d i t i o n i n g performance were made among the groups which had d i f f e r e n t meaning o f h i p p i e but r e c e i v e d the same reinforcement conditiont  (1)  o f the groups under RPD,  the  group w i t h a p o s i t i v e meaning showed a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r c o n d i t i o n i n g performance than the group w i t h a n e g a t i v e meaning o f h i p p i e t  ( 2 ) o f t h e groups under RND,  t h e group  with a n e g a t i v e meaning showed a g r e a t e r c o n d i t i o n i n g performance than t h e group w i t h a p o s i t i v e meaning o f h i p p i e . Other evidence was p r o v i d e d i n t h e comparison o f the c o n d i t i o n i n g performance o f the groups which had a s i m i l a r meaning but r e c e i v e d d i f f e r e n t treatment c o n d i t i o n s : (1)  of  44 t h e groups w i t h a p o s i t i v e meaning o f h i p p i e , the group under RPD  showed a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r Increase i n the  frequency o f the r e i n f o r c e d response o l a s s than d i d the group under RND j ( 2 )  o f the groups w i t h a n e g a t i v e meaning  o f h i p p i e , the group under RND  showed a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r  i n c r e a s e i n the r e l n f o r e e d response o l a s s than d i d the group under RPD.  I n f a c t , the two groups whloh r e c e i v e d  incongruent r e i n f o r c e m e n t , i . e . , the group w i t h a p o s i t i v e meaning under RND under RPD,  and the group w i t h a n e g a t i v e meaning  f a i l e d t o demonstrate any c o n s i s t e n t changes i n  the r a t e of response  emission d u r i n g the c o n d i t i o n i n g  period. Of I n t e r e s t a t t h i s p o i n t i s the c o n d i t i o n i n g performance o f the groups w i t h a n e u t r a l meaning o f h i p p i e . S i n c e these n e u t r a l groups can be c o n s i d e r e d as a base l i n e group i n the sense t h a t they r e c e i v e d a s m a l l degree o f incongruent r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n eaoh treatment  c o n d i t i o n , the  c o n d i t i o n i n g performance o f these n e u t r a l groups s h o u l d be somewhere In between the c o n g r u e n t l y r e i n f o r c e d and I n c o n g r u e n t l y r e i n f o r c e d groups i n both r e i n f o r c e m e n t c o n d i t i o n s . The d a t a were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the p r e d i c t i o n s the groups w i t h a n e u t r a l meaning showed a g r e a t e r c o n d i t i o n i n g performance than the i n c o n g r u e n t l y r e i n f o r c e d group but l e s s than t h e c o n g r u e n t l y r e i n f o r c e d group i n both RPD  and RND.  However, i t i s a l s o I n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t  among the groups w i t h a n e u t r a l meaning, the group under  RND  45 showed a h i g h e r c o n d i t i o n i n g performance i n c r e a s e than d i d the group under RPD. The  i n c r e a s e o f the c o n d i t i o n i n g performance over  the t r i a l blocks  i n each treatment c o n d i t i o n showed  predominant l i n e a r trends a c r o s s  the  reinforcement  c o n d i t i o n s : o n l y t h e group w i t h a n e u t r a l and n e g a t i v e meaning o f h i p p i e showed s i g n i f i c a n t c u b i c trends  i n the  c o n d i t i o n i n g c u r v e s . T h i s seeems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t performance i n c r e a s e i n a v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g s i t u a t i o n as i n t h i s  study  i n c r e a s e s l i n e a r l y without any remarkable s h i f t over t h e t r i a l b l o c k s . Exhaustion phenomenon o r s i g n i f i c a n t  decline  i n t h e r a t e o f response emission d u r i n g t h e t h i r d p e r i o d o f c o n d i t i o n i n g block as was r e p o r t e d by Marlowe (1962) was n o t found i n t h e present  study. However, t h e p a t t e r n o f t h e  c o n d i t i o n i n g curves among t h e 12 groups was i n t e r e s t i n g : they showed more s i m i l a r p a t t e r n s  o f t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g curves  among t h e groups which r e c e i v e d t h e same  reinforcement  c o n d i t i o n than among t h e groups w i t h a s i m i l a r meaning o f h i p p i e . The d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e l o c u s o f t h e peak c o n d i t i o n i n g b l o c k and t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g performance i n t h e f i n a l  block  between t h e groups under RPD and RND seems t o suggest t h a t the n a t u r e o f t h e treatment c o n d i t i o n , i . e . , for  p o s i t i v e or negative  description of hippie  produces c e r t a i n s i m i l a r p a t t e r n s  reinforcement itself,  of conditioning  curves.  T h i s may i n d i o a t e t h a t the n a t u r e o f t h e r e i n f o r c e d response c l a s s may p l a y more important r o l e i n p r o d u c i n g c e r t a i n  46 p a t t e r n of c o n d i t i o n i n g performance than S*s  meaning i t s e l f .  However, the poor c o n d i t i o n i n g e f f e c t o f the groups which r e c e i v e d r e i n f o r c e m e n t which was  inoongruent w i t h  t h e i r meaning can be i n t e r p r e t e d as the r e s u l t o f a f f e c t i v e components a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Ss* c o n c e p t i o n o f h i p p i e . As who  responses i n v o l v i n g t h e i r  suggested by Nuthmann (1957)? those  have responded o v e r t l y and  c o v e r t l y , "Hippie  w o r t h l e s s " hundreds o f times, f o r example, may  is  have found  some i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n t h e i r c o g n i t i o n when they have t o v e r b a l i z e a response c l a s s somewhat c o n t r a d i c t o r y t o t h e i r conception of h i p p i e o r d e r t o o b t a i n E*s between S's  (e.g.,  "Hippie  i s trustworthy.") i n  r e i n f o r c i n g stimulus. This  p r e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n c e p t i o n and  response c l a s s on which E's  inconsistency  the  reinforced  r e i n f o r c i n g stimulus  have c r e a t e d a n e g a t i v e r a p p o r t ,  and  lowered h i s r e s p o n s i v i t y toward E's  based  t h i s i n t u r n , may reinforcing  may have  stimulus.  Thus, the f i n d i n g s o f the p r e s e n t study d i r e c t l y support n o t i o n o f balance t h e o r y (Insko & C i a l d i n i ,  1969)  t o the a f f i l i a t i o n o f S as w e l l as E. Baron (1966)  as  the  applied  earlier  proposed t h a t r e s p o n s i v i t y toward s o c i a l l y a p p r o v i n g stimulus  i s determined by the s o c i a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t standard  (SB.S) which r e f e r s to the d i s c r e p a n c y between past p r e s e n t reward r a t e . While SHS d i f f e r e n c e between S*s present reward r a t e and  and  e s s e n t i a l l y emphasizes  subjectively perceived  the  l e v e l of  t h a t o f h i s p a s t r a t e as a f a c t o r i n  d e t e r m i n i n g c o n d i t i o n i n g performance, the f i n d i n g s of  the  47 p r e s e n t study suggest t h a t the d i s c r e p a n c y between S's p r e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n c e p t i o n o f the r e i n f o r c e d response  class  and the c o n d i t i o n under which he r e c e i v e s r e i n f o r c i n g s t i m u l u s f o r the response c l a s s may  be an  Important  parameter i n determining r e i n f o r c e m e n t e f f e c t . As a p p l i e d t o the a r e a o f , c o u n s e l i n g o r psychotherapy,  f o r example,  a p p r o v a l behavior g i v e n by the t h e r a p i s t t o the c l i e n t i n an i n t e r v i e w s i t u a t i o n may  have a d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t depending  upon the c l i e n t ' s e x i s t i n g meaning of the response c l a s s f o r which the t h e r a p i s t ' s a p p r o v a l b e h a v i o r i s d e l i v e r e d . Thus, when a c l i e n t r e c e i v e s an incongruent  reinforcement,  b e h a v i o r a l change o f the c l i e n t would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y than under the s i t u a t i o n i n which he r e c e i v e s a  less  congruent  r e i n f o r c e m e n t . T h i s form of minimum r e s p o n s i v i t y toward the t h e r a p i s t ' s behavior may  be I n t e r p r e t e d as a r e s i s t a n c e o f  the c l i e n t . Rogerian approach t o c o u n s e l i n g and  psychotherapy  u s i n g the t h e r a p i s t ' s empathlc behavior o r acceptance as the main techniques of I n t e r v i e w may way  e s s e n t i a l l y be seen as a  o f changing the c l i e n t ' s behavior u s i n g minimum l e v e l o f  Incongruent  r e i n f o r c e m e n t . However, i f minimum l e v e l of  incongruent r e i n f o r c e m e n t produces s u b s t a n t i a l amount of r e i n f o r c e m e n t e f f e c t , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o e x p l a i n how  the  c l i e n t ' s b e h a v i o r c o u l d u l t i m a t e l y be changed toward c o n s t r u c t i v e a s p e c t s o f b e h a v i o r . While the d i f f e r e n c e s between the v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g and the c o u n s e l i n g I n t e r v i e w s i t u a t i o n (e.g., r o l e expectancy,  n a t u r e of b e h a v i o r a l  48 change, and  emotional Involvement o f S) may  be the f a c t o r s  which make I t d i f f i c u l t t o e x p l a i n t h i s , a v a r i a b l e t h a t not c o n s i d e r e d  p r e v i o u s l y must be taken Into accountJ  degree o f lnoongruency, I.e., between S's  was  the  the amount o f the d i f f e r e n c e  preexperimental conception  and  the nature o f  the  r e i n f o r c e d response c l a s s . S i n c e the n e u t r a l meaning groups i n t h i s study showed s i g n i f i c a n t c o n d i t i o n i n g e f f e c t i n both reinforcement  c o n d i t i o n s , i t seems t h a t not o n l y congruent  reinforcement  but a l s o a s m a l l degree of Incongruent  reinforcement  produces s i g n i f i c a n t c o n d i t i o n i n g e f f e c t . Thus  i t may  be suggested t h a t s m a l l degree o f incongruent  reinforcement  i n psychotherapeutic  interview s e t t i n g  may  produce e f f e c t i v e b e h a v i o r a l change o f the c l i e n t . T h i s t u r n may  e x p l a i n how  In  the c l i e n t ' s behavior c o u l d u l t i m a t e l y  be changed toward c o n s t r u c t i v e d i r e c t i o n u s i n g minimum l e v e l of inoongruent  reinforcement.  I n the present  study, t h e r e were low p o s i t i v e  c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between the performance and  conditioning  the l e v e l o f awareness as measured by  w r i t t e n response the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  The  s i z e s of  c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s tended t o i n c r e a s e as conditioning t r i a l s increased,  the  the  thus I n d i c a t i n g some growing  awareness. There have been many c o n t r o v e r s i e s o f awareness ( i . e . ,  S's  over the r o l e  d e s c r i p t i v e behaviorism versus c o g n i t i v e  theory) i n d e t e r m i n i n g v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g performance  (e.g.,  S p i e l b e r g e r & DeNike, 1966)t however, the data o f t h i s study  49 suggest t h a t o n l y one  t h i r d o f the v a r i a n c e of  the  c o n d i t i o n i n g performance can be accounted f o r by  the  awareness v a r i a b l e . There was  a low p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the  l e v e l of the l n o e n t i v e t o r e c e i v e reinforcement by a q u e s t i o n n a i r e and  as measured  the c o n d i t i o n i n g performance of  S.  Furthermore, the c o r r e l a t i o n between the need v a r i a b l e  and  the l e v e l o f i n c e n t i v e a l s o showed a n e g l i g i b l e s i z e o f c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t . T h i s was obtained  by S p l e l b e r g e r  c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the data  et a l . (1963). T h i s low p o s i t i v e  c o r r e l a t i o n between the i n c e n t i v e t o r e c e i v e and  reinforcement  the c o n d i t i o n i n g performance r a i s e s a q u e s t i o n as  to  what i s r e i n f o r c e d i n a v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g task i n t h i s study. I t should be noted, however, t h a t the measure o f i n c e n t i v e l e v e l i n t h i s study was  g i v e n a f t e r the  completion  o f the c o n d i t i o n i n g p r o p e r . S i n c e each S might have some k i n d of s u b j e c t i v e l y e s t i m a t e d success or f a i l u r e f e e l i n g w i t h r e g a r d t o h i s performance, i t seems p o s s i b l e t h a t S who  f e l t t h a t h i s performance was  poor would more l i k e l y  to  have responded t h a t he d i d not want t o r e c e i v e r e i n f o r o i n g s t i m u l u s as a way  o f r a t i o n a l i z i n g h i s poor performance  d u r i n g the c o n d i t i o n i n g t r i a l s . I f t h i s i s the case, f u t u r e research  should d e v i s e a measure o f S's  observing  S's  incentive level  performance d u r i n g the c o n d i t i o n i n g  In conclusion,  by  trials.  the data i n t h i s study d i d not  c o n f i r m the f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e r e would be  systematic  5© difference  i n t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g performance "between Ss w i t h a  h i g h and l o w need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l . However, t h e d a t a s u p p o r t e d t h e second h y p o t h e s i s t h a t congruent  reinforcement  would y i e l d a g r e a t e r c o n d i t i o n i n g e f f e c t t h a n would i n o o n g r u e n t r e i n f o r c e m e n t . The f i n d i n g s were i n t e r p r e t e d as i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e between S»s p r e v i o u s meaning o f t h e r e i n f o r c e d r e s p o n s e c l a s s and t h e c o n d i t i o n under w h i c h he r e c e i v e s r e i n f o r c i n g s t i m u l u s i s a n Important f a c t o r In determining c o n d i t i o n i n g performance. However, more e v i d e n c e must be a c c u m u l a t e d t h r o u g h f u t u r e study w i t h regard to the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of  the  f i n d i n g s o f t h i s s t u d y . S i n c e Ss i n t h i s s t u d y were s e l f selected volunteers,  i t c o u l d be a r g u e d t h a t S group may n o t  be t y p i c a l o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n group t o w h i c h t h e study intends to generalize  present  ( S o h u l t z , 1 9 6 9 ) * Thus,  future  study should r e p l i c a t e the present study u s i n g nonvolunteers a n d / o r n o n o o l l e g e S s . F u r t h e r m o r e , f u t u r e s t u d y s h o u l d be c o n d u c t e d t o e x p l o r e as t o whether c o n g r u e n t  reinforcement  would produce a g r e a t e r r e i n f o r c e m e n t e f f e c t t h a n inoongruent reinforcement i n a n a t u r a l c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n such as a c o u n s e l i n g a n d / o r p s y c h o t h e r a p e u t i c interview situation.  51 REFERENCES Baron, R. M. S o c i a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t e f f e c t s as a f u n c t i o n o f s o c i a l reinforcement h i s t o r y . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1966, 22* 527-539. Buckhout, R. Need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l and a t t i t u d e change. The J o u r n a l o f Psychology. 1965, 60, 123-128. Buss, A. H., & Durkee, Ann. C o n d i t i o n i n g o f h o s t i l e v e r b a l i z a t i o n s i n a s i t u a t i o n resembling a c l i n i c a l i n t e r v i e w . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g Psychology. 1958, 22, 415-418" C i a l d i n i , R. B., & Insko, C. A. A t t i t u d i n a l v e r b a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t as a f u n c t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n a l consistency} A f u r t h e r t e s t o f t w o - f a c t o r t h e o r y . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1969,  12, 3^2-35©.  Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. A new s c a l e of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y independent o f psychopathology. J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g Psychology, i960, 24, 349-354. Crowne, D. P., & S t r i c k l a n d , B. R. The c o n d i t i o n i n g o f v e r b a l behavior as a f u n c t i o n o f the need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o o i a l Psychology, 1961, 62, 395-^01. Cushing, M. C. A f f e c t i v e components o f the response e l a s s as a factor i n verbal conditioning. (Dissertation A b s t r a c t . 1957, 12, 2313.) " Dixon, T. R. The v e r b as a d i s c r i m i n a t i v e stimulus i n v e r b a l operant c o n d i t i o n i n g . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Washington U n i v e r s i t y , 1962. Dixon, T. R., & Dixon, J . F. The impression v a l u e of v e r b s . J o u r n a l o f V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l Behavior, 1964, 3,"T6l-i63. ~~ Dulany, D. E. J r . Hypotheses and h a b i t s i n v e r b a l "Operant c o n d i t i o n i n g . " J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o o i a l Psychology. 1961, 6%, Zjl-JGT. E p s t e i n , R. Need f o r a p p r o v a l and the c o n d i t i o n i n g o f v e r b a l h o s t i l i t y i n asthmatic c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o o i a l Psychology. 1964, 6£, 105-109.  52 Greenspoon, J . The r e i n f o r c i n g e f f e c t o f two spoken sounds on t h e frequency o f two responses. American J o u r n a l o f Psychology. 1955. 68, 409-416. Hildum, D. C , & Brown, R. W. V e r b a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t and i n t e r v i e w e r b i a s . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1956, £2» 108-111. Insko, G. A., & C i a l d i n i , R^ B. A t e s t o f t h r e e interpretations o f a t t i t u d i n a l verbal reinforcement. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1969.  12, 333-351.  Krasner, L . S t u d i e s o f t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g o f v e r b a l b e h a v i o r . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1958, J ^ , 148-170. Krasner, L. The t h e r a p i s t as a s o c i a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t machine. I n H. H. Strupp (Ed.), Second r e s e a r c h conference on psychotherapy, Chapel H i l l , N. C.» American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1961. Marlowe, D. Need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l and t h e operant c o n d i t i o n i n g o f meaningful v e r b a l b e h a v i o r . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g Psychology. 1962, 26, 79-83. Marlowe, D., Beecher, R. a p p r o v a l motive, conditioning. In a p p r o v a l motive1 New Yorkj Wiley,  S., Cook, J . B., & Doob, A. N. The v i c a r i o u s r e i n f o r c e m e n t and v e r b a l D. P. Crowne & D. Marlowe, The S t u d i e s i n e v a l u a t i v e dependence. T$W.  M i c h a e l , J . , & Meyerson, L . A b e h a v i o r a l approach t o c o u n s e l i n g and guidance. Harvard E d u c a t i o n a l Review,  1962, ,22, 382-402.  Myers, J . L. Fundamentals o f experimental d e s i g n . A l l y n and Bacon, Boston, 1960T Nuthmann, A. M. C o n d i t i o n i n g o f a response c l a s s on a p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1957. J£4, 19-23. [ Osgood, C., S u c i , G., & Tannenbaum, P. The measurement o f meaning. Urbana, 111.t U n i v e r s i t y ~ o f I l l i n o i s P r e s s , 1957. R o s e n t h a l , R., Kohn, P., G r e e n f i e l d , P. MV, & C a r o t a , N. Data d e s i r a b i l i t y , experimenter expectancy, and t h e results of psychological research. Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, l y g g , ^,"20-27.  53 S o h u l t z , D. P. The human s u b j e c t l n p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1969. 22, 214-228. S p l e l b e r g e r , C. D. The r o l e o f awareness I n v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y . 1962, 30» 73-101. Splelberger, C D . , Berger, A., Sc Howard, K. C o n d i t i o n i n g o f v e r b a l behavior as a f u n c t i o n o f awareness, need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l , and m o t i v a t i o n t o r e c e i v e r e i n f o r c e m e n t . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology. 1963, 6£, 2¥l-25o"I S p l e l b e r g e r , C. D., & DeNike, L. D. D e s c r i p t i v e behaviorism v e r s u s c o g n i t i v e t h e o r y i n v e r b a l operant c o n d i t i o n i n g . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1966, 73, 306326. S p l e l b e r g e r , C. D., & L e v i n , S. M. What i s l e a r n e d i n v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g ? J o u r n a l o f V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l Behavior . 1962, 1, IZ^ljT, T a f f e l , G. A n x i e t y and t h e c o n d i t i o n i n g o f v e r b a l b e h a v i o r . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology. 1955, 51, Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I . The teachers» word book o f 30.000 words. New Yorkt Teacher's C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , Bureau o f P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1944.  54 APPENDIX A THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE NAME ( i n  block l e t t e r s ) :  STUDENT NO.  first  AGE:  last yrs  mon.  SEX: M  F  GRADE:  DIRECTIONS The purpose o f t h i s study i s to know the meanings o f c e r t a i n t h i n g s to v a r i o u s people by having them judge them a g a i n s t a s e r i e s o f d e s c r i p t i v e s c a l e s . In doing t h i s , p l e a s e make your judgements on the b a s i s o f what these t h i n g s mean to you. On each page o f t h i s booklet you w i l l f i n d a d i f f e r e n t concept to be judged and beneath i t a s e t o f s c a l e s . You are to r a t e the concept on each o f these s c a l e s i n order. P l a c e a check-mark ( V ) between the two dots at the approp r i a t e p o i n t on the s c a l e s , depending on how you r e l a t e the s c a l e to the concept. For  Example:  good  :  if  :  the concept i s e q u a l l y a s s o c i a t e d or completely i r r e l e v a n t to you :  T T ]  : V  :  :  :  : bad  T T T "  -slightly-quite closely related—----  very c l o s e l y r e l a t e d  : —  IMPORTANT '  1. Do not look back and f o r t h through the pages, 2. Make each item a separate and independent judgement. 3 . Work a t a f a i r l y high speed; i t i s your f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n s and immediate • f e e l i n g s ' about the item that we want. k. BE SURE TO CHECK EVERY SCALE F O R EVERY CONCEPT. THE CONCEPT TO BE R A T E D WILL APPEAR ON THE TOP O F EACH PAGE.  55 HIPPIE healthy  :  :  :  hot  :  :  harmful  :  :  :__  soft  :  :  :  skillful  :_  passive  :  unimportant  :  masculine  :  :  top  :  :  slow  :  :  meaningless  :  humerous  :  sick  :  cold  :  beneficial  _:_  hard  :  : _  bungling  :  :  active  "  :  important  :  :  feminine  :  bottom  :  :  fast  :  :  :  meaningful  :  :  :  :  serious  useful  :  :  :  :  useless  vibrant  :_  sour  :  intelligent  :  good  :  _:  still  _:  :  sweet  :  :  :  unintelligent  :  :  :  :  bad  small.  :  _:_  ;  :  large  painful  :  :  :  ;  pleasurable  :  :  rational  :  guilty  :  :  right  __:  :  light  :  uncomfortable  :  progressive  _:  emotional innocent  :_  :  wrong  :  :  heavy comfortable regressive  : :  :  :  _ 2 -  56  APPENDIX B THE MARLOWE-CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY  NAME ( I n B l o c k L e t t e r s ) f i r s t STUDENT NO. AGE  SCALE  last mon. MAJOR  yrs  SEX M F GRADE  Personal Reaction Inventory L i s t e d below a r e a number o f statements c o n c e r n i n g p e r s o n a l t h i n g s . Read each i t e m and decide whether you would answer y e s o r no as i t p e r t a i n s to you p e r s o n a l l y . Mark ( V ) under t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p l a c e . Important:  1 . Be sure to answer every i t e m . 2. Make each i t e m a s e p a r a t e and independent  judgement. YES  NO  1.  Before v o t i n g I thoroughly i n v e s t i g a t e the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f a l l the candidates  (  ) (  2.  I never h e s i t a t e to go out o f my way to h e l p someone i n trouble.  (  ) (  (  ) (  (  ) (  succeed i n l i f e  (  ) (  6.  I sometimes f e e l r e s e n t f u l when I don't g e t my way.  (  ) (  7»  I am always c a r e f u l about my manner o f d r e s s  ( ) (  8.  My t a b l e manners a t home are as good as when I e a t out i n a restaurant. . I f I c o u l d g e t i n t o a movie w i t h o u t p a y i n g and be sure I was n o t seen I would p r o b a b l y do i t . . . . . . . On a few o c c a s i o n s , I have g i v e n up doing something because I thought too l i t t l e o f my a b i l i t y I l i k e to g o s s i p a t t i m e s . .  3.  I t i s sometimes h a r d f o r me to go on w i t h my work i f I. am n o t encouraged.  . . . . . . . . . . .  Zf.  I have never i n t e n s e l y d i s l i k e d anyone.  5.  On o c c a s i o n I have had doubts about my a b i l i t y t o  9. 10. 11. 12.  13.  . . . . . . .  There have been times when I f e l t l i k e r e b e l l i n g a g a i n s t people i n a u t h o r i t y even though I knew they were r i g h t No matter who I'm t a l k i n g t o , I'm always a good listener -  1  -  (  ) (  (  ) (  ( ) ( ( ) (  • (  ) (  (  ) (  14.  I can remember " p l a y i n g s i c k " to get out o f something.  \  15.  There have been o c c a s i o n s when I took advantage o f someone  (  16.  I'm always w i l l i n g to admit i t when I make a mistake.  (  1?.  I always t r y to p r a c t i c e what I preach  (  18.  I don,' t f i n d i t p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t with l o u d mouthed, obnoxious people  19.  I sometimes t r y to get even r a t h e r than f o r g i v e and forget  (  20.  When I don't know something I don't at a l l mind admitting i t . . . . . . . . . . . .  (  I am always courteous, even to people who are d i s agreeable. . . 0 ,  (  At times I have r e a l l y i n s i s t e d on having t h i n g s my own way. . . . . . . ,  (  There have been o c c a s i o n s when I f e l t l i k e things. . . . o . . . o '  (  21. 22. 23.  to get along  (  smashing  24.  I would never think o f l e t t i n g someone e l s e be punished f o r my wrong-doings (  25.  I never resent being asked to r e t u r n a favor  26.  I have never been i r k e d when people expressed i d e a s very d i f f e r e n t from my own.  27.  I never make a long t r i p without checking the s a f e t y  28.  There have been times when I was q u i t e j e a l o u s o f the good fortune o f o t h e r s . . . . . . « . . »  ( . (  (  29.  I have almost never f e l t the urge to t e l l someone o f f . (  30.  I am sometimes i r r i t a t e d by people who ask favors o f me.(  31.  I have never f e l t that I was punished without cause.  (  32.  I sometimes t h i n k when people have a misfortune they only got what they deserved,  (  I have never d e l i b e r a t e l y s a i d something that h u r t someone's f e e l i n g s . . . . . . . . . . . •  (  33.  END BE SURE TO CHECK EVERY ITEM.  58  APPENDIX C THE  INSTRUCTION FOR  THE VERBAL CONDITIONING EXPERIMENT  T h i s i s an experiment  i n v e r b a l behavior which uses  a sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n t a s k . I w i l l show you some cards l i k e t h i s one.  (The E d i s p l a y s a sample card.) Each c a r d  w i l l have t h r e e words above and two words on a  line  underneath. What I want you t o do i s t o make up a  sentence  c o n t a i n i n g any one of the words above and b e g i n n i n g w i t h any one o f the words on the l i n e below. F o r example (The E p o i n t s t o words on the sample c a r d w h i l e e x p l a i n i n g . ) , might make up t h i s sentence> one,  you  "A h i p p i e concluded." or t h i s  "A policeman p a i r e d . " In every case, use any one o f the  t h r e e words above i n a sentence which begins with any one of the two words i n the l i n e below. Do you have any q u e s t i o n s ? (The E w i l l answer a l l q u e s t i o n s by r e r e a d i n g r e l e v a n t p a r t s of the i n s t r u c t i o n . ) L e t us t r y about practice.  20 sentences f o r  59 APPENDIX D THE AWARENESS-TESTING QUESTIONNAIRE T h i s i s t o ask you some q u e s t i o n s about the experiment  t h a t you were j u s t i n . I n answering  these  q u e s t i o n s , i t i s important t h a t you t h i n k back t o when you were going through the c a r d s * 1. What do you t h i n k t h i s experiment  i s a l l about?  2 . D i d you t h i n k you were u s i n g some sentences more o f t e n than o t h e r s ? Which sentences 3* Was  (or words)  (or words)? Why?  t h e r e a n y t h i n g t h a t you were supposed t o say i n order  t o be c o r r e c t ? 4. What i d e a s d i d you have about what was "Good" or  making me  say  "Pine"?  5* Would you say you wanted me  t o say "Good" or " F i n e " more  often? Check where a p p r o p r i a t e s Very much D i d n ' t c a r e one way  or the o t h e r  Some  

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.831.1-0102279/manifest

Comment

Related Items