DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 097 875 IH 001 236

AUTHOR Raben, Charles S.; And OthersTITLE Social Reinforcement: A Review of the Literature.INSTITUTION Air Force Human Resources Lab., Brooks AFB, Texas.REPORT NO AFHRL-TR-74-9(1)PUB DATE Aug 74NOTE 63p.

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

MF-$0.75 HC-$3.15 PLUS POSTAGEIncentive Systems; *Learning Theories4,PLiteratureReviews; *Motivation; Reinforcement; Reinforcers;*Social Psychology; *Social Reinforcement; Sociology;Training

ABSTRACTMajor studies and theoretical positions within the

incentive motivation field are reviewed in order to present anintegrated picture of past and present research. Special emphasis isplaced on delineating social reinforcement variables in an attempt toexplicate their relative importance within the context of socialreinforcement theory; however, little emphasis is placed onstrategies which have investigated different combinations of thesevariables. The review concludes with a summary of socialreinforcement concepts and research. (Author)

AIR FORCE

H

M

1

t f A

Ui DE PAIR TNIE NT Of NE AL ft4

EDUCATION &*ELfAWENATIONAL. INSTITUTE Of

EDUCATION'PI tt tyMt Nr t+A- tIt f N kt 044,,

0,, I 0A%1N wkif, V764 L!d 1 2)N

, po,No , 'IF If if, t.,k

S' f VC, Me, ht , of ouf,* 6 e. `AL NI- ,.(1144 t e t

F: AT Oh Pc:', 61u 1%;,

RES0UR

3E5 CCPir r!TI!Ari

AFHRL.TR.74-910

SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT:A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

BY

Charles Sr, Rubentatkaal T. Wood

Rkdard J. klinsosklNISton D. Maki

00.0rh000l Of PsychologyOlio Stets University

Columbus, Otdo MI5

TECHNICAL TRAINING DIVISIONLowry Air Force Bass, Colorado 80230

August 1974interim Ration for Period Jon 1912 September 1973

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

LABORATORY

AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMANDBROOKS AIR FORCE BASE,TEXAS 78235

NOTICE

When US Government dr.twings, specifications, or other data are usedfor any purpose other than a definitely related Governmentprocurement operation. the Government thereby incurs noresponsildity nor any obligation whatsoever, and the fact that theGovernment may have formulated, furnished. or in any way suppliedthe said drawings, specifications, or other data is not to be regarded byimplication or otherwise, us in any manner licensing the holder or anya her person or corporation, or conveying any rights or permission tomanufacture, use, or sell any patented invention that may in any waybe related thereto.

This interim report was submitted by the Department of Psycho logy,Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43215, under contractF41609.72-C-0044, project 1121, with Technical Training Division, AirForce Human Resources Laboratory (AFSC), Lowry Air Force Base,Colorado 80230. Dr. James R. Burkett, Technical Training Division,was the contract monitor.

This report has been reviewed and cleared for open publication and/orpublic release by the appropriate Office of Information (01) inaccordance with AFR 190-17 and DoDD 5230.9. There is no objectionto unlimited distribution of this report to the public at large, or byDDC to the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).

This technical report has been reviewed and is approved.

MARTY R. ROCKWAY, Technical DirectorTechnical Training Division

Approved for publication.

HAROLD E. FISCHER. Colonel, USAFCommander

UNCLASSIFlE4)SECURITY AVif lc A TION Of TniS PAGE: !iihnn tint. tetterea)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE- READ DISTRUCTIONSBEFORE COMPLETING FORM

3 RECIPIENTqa CATALOG faulasea1 REPORT NuihIRER 12

AFHRL-TR-74-9 (I)

GOVT ACCESSION NO

4, TITLE i411114 St Ajg tie, 1

SOCIAL, RI:INFORCEMENT: A MILD' OFLI*FIIRATIIIIL

1111;

D. Hakel

3, TYPE OF REPORT & PER+.10 COVEREDJun 72 - Sep 73Interim

8 PERFORMING ORB. REPORT NURSER

/ 8 CONTRACT OR GRANT MUNGER(*)

F 41609-72-C-0044

7 AUTHOR(i)Charles S. Raben Milton

Michael T. WoodRichard J. Klimoski

9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

Department of PsychologyOhio State UniversityColumbus, Ohio 43215

10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASKAREA a WORK UNIT NUMBERS

PE 62703F

11210406

il. CON TOOL LING OFFtCE NAME AND ADDRESS

HQ Air Force Human Resources Laboratory (AFSC)

Brooks Air Force Base, Texas 78235

12 REPORT DATE

August 1974'1 :. NUMBER OF PAGES

64

ri4 MONITORING AGENCY NAME 8 ADDRESS(ef different from Controlling Office)

Technical Training DivisionAir Force Human Resources LaboratoryLowry Air Force Base, Colorado 80230

15. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

Unclassified-Ise. DECLASSIFICATION DOWNGRAOING

SCNEDULE

---------16 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DtSTRi8JTION STATEMENT (01 the abstract entered in Stock 20, II different from Hen n't)

--------.---.,-----------38 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19 KEy WORDS iCnarinue on reverse side if necestien and Idertril% ht bier* number)

Social reinforcement incentives

contingency management, social incentives

incentive management reinforcementmotivationtraining

20 ABSTRACT rcortIntto on reverse side If necessary and idoluity by blink number)

This review summarizes major studies and theoretical positions within the

incentive motivation field in order to present an integrated picture of past

and present research. Special emphasis is placed on delineating social

reiaforcement variables in an attempt to explicate their relative iin'ortance

within the context of social reinforcement theory; however, little emphasis is

placed on strategics which have investigated different combinations of these

var4ables. The review concludes with a summary of social reinforcementranspntn and raRearrh,

DO t FjOA:M73 1473 ED1-JON OF I NOV SS IS OBSOLETE UNCLAFSIFIFnSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (R7ten Aeta Entered)

CONTENTS

1.1,r,f

INTRODUCTION 3

SOCIAL INCENTIVES 4

Variety of Social Incentives 4

Effects of Social and Nonsocial Incentives 6

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SUBJECT 10

Clinical Abnormality 10

Parental Associations 11

Socioeconomic Status 12

Sex 13

Age 13

Race 14

Personality Characteristics 15

Social Deprivation 18

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE REEMORCING AGENT ..... . . . . . . . . 19

INSTRUMENTAL BEHAVIORS 22

Verbal Behavior 22

Attitudes 24

Group Behavior 25

Classroom Behavior . ... 2(

Additional Behaviors 27

DYNAMICS OF THE SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT PROCESS . . . . 28

Reinforcement Schedules 28

Vicarious Reinforcement 29

Page

Awareness of. Performance-Reward Contingencies

Motivation Theory and Social Reinforcement

Motivational Properties of Incentives 35

iation of social Approval 37

T;; 'OM39

H.:FET1c;11,:. 43

INTRODUCTION

Incentive systems have experieneed an increasing popularity within

recent years. 'Programs design041 Won Principles of reinforcement have

attempted to motivate e-a wide range of behaviors in a variety of social

settings. ,Mae.eommon.feature shared by each of these various programa

is the goal of enhancinVierformance or PrOdietiVitY. It is with respect

to goal and its actualization that social reinforcement represents a

unique effort-to coibine,reinfOroeient oonCeptS.$44 Otherwise,natnrailr

occurring'Phenomenon. The reinforcing value of social behavior itielf

is presumed integral to its subsequent modification.

The empirical investigation of social reinforcement variables-has

been thorough yet unsystematic. This report represents SE effort to

organise and review this researchAn establishing a, macroscopic perspec...

tive current status.: 'The focus, .of contemporary research has been

upon the efficacy of social reinforcement as a motivational tool.. Thi4'

concern has taken the form of examining process And situational variables.

that .moderate it* effeCtiveness. :The,organizational sobs00 to-be employedin discuSsiag the existing body of research has been established upon

specific clabses at these Variables. .Since the Ochene is. intended to

summarize the status of coneeptual components and not the particular

strategies or.coObination of factors which have been adopted by re

Searchers, a st4dy may be mentioned a number of times in the contexts

to which it is relevant.

The first section of the report Is devoted to the nature .of social

incentives. The emPhasis is upou /he variety and comparison of rein.,

forcers which have been empirical?, ef7mmled. This initial review will

enable us to derive at least an oerational definition of what has come

to be known as "social" reinforcement,

The next two sections vill review research which has examined

various characteristics of the aubfrct and reinforcing agent as moder-

sting variables upon social reinforcer effectiveness. Although some

attempt will be made to discuss these areas of research separately,

they should be considered as interdependent determinants of reinforce-

ment effects. There are instances in which the characteristics of

Interest are established by the interaction of both participatingagents. For example, the effects of sex or race of the reinforcingagent must, to some extect be contidered in cOQUOction with the sub-

jeet's sex or race.

The fourth section discusses the range of behaviors which havebeen studied relative to the use of social reinforcers. In this

3

cateeory. are those studies which' have assessectthe strength of atiir4alreinforeeMent by examining .itS.abilitY to :tidily the particular formsof behavior under investigation. Also included. is research .distinguishedby its particular setting and to which the behavior studied is unique.

'A final ..review section' examines research which can be consideredunder the general rubric of process dynamilcs. While the greatest"7.k.ri-ZY: of research, .is -included here, all share -,in common-the 0.021:Ofdynamics: crucial'. to the social reinforcement prOcess. The'rePOrt con-cludea with a summary of the 'status of Social reinforcement. conceptsand.

4

kr, & annotated bit. AFT111L-T1.74-9(ii).

on social reinforcement is presented in-

SOCIAL INCENTIVES

An analysts of oocial.reinforeessent,reeearch_requires a .conaidera-tiOn of the particular reinforcer*, or incentives, that have beenri dol,ted. Generally speaking, the overwhelming majcsrity of studieshave simply investigated some form of verbal praise. While some re-Search has examined the dynamic and motivating*, proPerties of verbalpraise (e.g., informational and. approval functions). and will be reviewed.in later sections of this riper* this preliminary section will includeessentially two forMa of research: (1) .research which has examined theability of relatively novel social reinforcers to modify behavior, and(2) .research -. which has ccmipared the effects of social versus nonsocialreinforcers upon behavior. It will become surprisingly clear thatavailable research has not offered a consistent nor consensual defini-tion of what constitutes social reinforcement.

Variety of Social Incentives

Reitz and McDougall (1969) have examined the use of interest itemsfrom the strong Vocational Interest Bleu* as potential reinfbrcera.liesultr. indicated that significant performance gains on a visual dis-crimination task were due. to interest items which were .used as rein-forcers, and which had been previously endorsed as high in desirability.The authors concluded that interest items do affect performance in aorthr.er similar tti traditional reinforcers when they are made appropri-ately contingent upon a response.

Fennedy, Timmons and Nobbin (1971) investigated the differentialreinforcing effects of psychoanalytic type interpretations, reflections

of a nondirective nature, and mild affirmatory statements in raisingthe level of a selected response class during acquisition. Significantconditioning occurred with each of the three types of verbal reinforcers.Psychoanalytic type interpretations, however, were slightly less effec-tive (not significantly less effective) than the other two reinfurcers.It was suggested that interpretive statements may constitute a class ofnoxious stimuli and, therefore, function as a mild punishment. Inanother study employing three similar reinforcers; i.e., approval, re-flection, and interpretation, DiJames (1970) found that the applicationof those verbal reinforcers could also be used to significantly affectverbalizations connoting anxiety.

A study conducted by Leventhal and Fischer (1970) has questionedthe basis of influence in typical social reinforcement settings. Theyhave examined the possibility that changes in performance are a functionof subtle cues in the experimenter's behavior and not due to the opera-tion of administering rewards. Findings indicated that increases inrate of responding did occur in the reinforcement conditions but beforereinforcement was initiated. Changes in performance were attributableto changes in the subject's emotional state created by the experimenter'spresence. Similar findings due to the presence of the experimenter arereported by Meddock, Parsons and Hill (1971). Thus, the mere physicalpresence of another in a potentially evaluative setting may simply con-stitute another form of "social" reinforcement.

An intriguing study by Turner, Foa and Foa (1971) has recentlyexamined the relationships of six classes of interpersonal reinforcers(love, status, information, money, goods and services) relative to theirposition on two con-eptual dimensions: particularism and concreteness.Particularism refers to the extent to which the value of the reinforceris influenced by the individual who administers it. Concreteness re-fers to a concrete-symbolic dimension along which reinforcers are dis-tinguished by the form or type of their expression. Data supported theorder of the reinforcers indicated above by demonstrating the following:a) reinforcers proximal in the order are perceived as similar and are.more ofte7, substituted for one another than distal ones, b) in exchangesituations, certain reinforcers are only traded for other particularreinforcers (there is an inverse relationship between the probabilityof choosing a reinforcer for exchange and its distance from the mostpreferred one), and c) the intercorrelation of reinforcers does notvary across exchange situations. These findings suggest that prefer-ences among reinforcers are relatively stable, and that an establishedorder among reinforcers can be a useful tool in choosing and/or substi-tuting available incentives in applied settings.

Other research efforts have shown that performance can be signifi-cantly modified with a varietl of other "social" reinforcers. Theseinclude: photographs of liked and disliked persons (Lott & Lott, 19C9);attitudinal agreement (Kapl.an & Olczak, 1970, 1971); massive verbal

5

reinforcement (clark Walberg, 1968) ; time off from work (Howell, 1971);increased responsibility (General Electric Personnel Research Bulletin,1971), rind nonverbal commuqication (Delahanty, 1970).

Effects kJf social and Nonsocial Incentives

The second major body of research concerning incentives to beITese:.11:, discussed includes those studies which have eampared thedifferential effects of social and nonsocial reinforcers upon behavior.(her qistinctions often made between these Ur° classes of reinforcers

nonveroal versus verbal or tangible versus intangible. Suchdistlions imply a tentative definition of social reinforcement. Yet

v!irjetw of actual reinforcers subsumed under each reference indi-c!Ites 1 more comprehensive interpretation than that suggested by "verbal"

"in!nno7ible"

Pirnhart (19,:8) has proposed that an individual learns to orienthimself selectively toward a stimulus which provides informative cuesin guiding his behavior regardless of whether those stimuli are socialor nonsocitAl in nature. This implies an informational, function to re-infor(lement, which will be more fully discussed later with regard to1%,CCSLI dynamics.

he effects of verbal-positive, non-verbal positive, verbal-nee,a`Ave, and non-verbal negative reinforcement upon the responses of

,ind middle class children to a discrimination task have beenxa:7,ihed by n'Ambrosio (1969). Verbal-negative reinforcement produced4.1,e i7reate3 t number of correct responses for both socioeconomic groups.

si,'hificant differences were found between the groups that receivedi)al and non-verbal positive reinforcement.

F,ur other rftudies have also studied the reinforcing properties ofsocial ls.d non-social incentives within the context of socioeconomicirip differences. Spence and Trunton (1967) found that the performance

v.;h:ects (mean age 4.9 years) given candy as a reward was inferiorthe Ierformance of other subjects given either punishment or a reward-

:n.n.i..siu:lent. combination regardless of socioeconomic status.

Examining the effects of tangible (tokens cashed for toys) andint'inelble (right/wrong feedback) rewards upon the conceptual thinkingof fourl,h grade lower class boys, Cernius (1968) found no significantdifff,rences between the types of rewards on concept attainment, conceptswitrhihg, or in decision accuracy. Highly anxious subjects, however,

fund to have performed poorer on some of the tasks.

,,,,r-try to these findings, Hollander (1968) found thrt candyrfifr1s ihcreased the performance speed of fifth and sixth graders

while verbal praise increased performance accuracy. tt was also found

that older children responded better to praise than younger ones.

A study by Bassett (1970) examined the effects of money, candy,

personal praise and praise in the task performance of several lower

class cultural groups (Anglo, Navaho, Spanish-American atd Black). Aunanimous response to material rewards observed among the groups wasattributed to lower cic.ss membership and not to the cultural differences.

Other research examinine the differential effects of social and

nonsocial incentives further suggests a simultaneous consideration of

individual characteristics and /or the behavior under investigation.

Witryol, Lowden, Fagan and Bergen (1968) examined the effects of rein-forcement schedule (100% verbal versus 100% material; 1(X51 verbal

versus material), motivation-inducing instructions, age and sex

upon a two-choice discrimination learning, problem-solving task, in

which one choice was rewarded with a verbalism and the other with a

small toy. Results indicated that choice of verbal reward increased as

a function of instructions, schedule, and age. Subjects who were low

in socioeconomic status chose more verbal than material rewards. Sub-

jects considered high in socioeconomic status were not responsive to

the schedule conditions while middle class subjects were most influenced

by the instructions.

Differences in persistence at a task due to monetary and social

incentives have been examined by Williams (1970). Findings demonstrated

that social reinforcement was more effective than monetary reinforcement

in increasing persistence. No differential effects due to socioeconomic

level were found. Females, however, demonstrated greater persistence

than males.

A recent study by Berger, MeManis & Melchert (1971) has investi-

gated the effects of token (later traded for money) r,nd social rein-

forcement on WISC (Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children) performoince.

Boys were found to be more accurate in the token reinforcement condition

than in the verbal or control conditions. Girls, on the other hand,

were more accurate when they received social reinforcement. Consider-

ing speed of performance, buys were the fastest when they received

social reinforcement while girls were equally fast in both reinforcement

conditions.

Brown (1971) found that a combination of tangible and social rein-forcement was more effective in modifying behavior than either form of

reinforcement alone. It was concluded that altering social and tangible

.incentives apparently altered the meaning of the tangible reinforcer

to include approval.

7

Deci (1972) found that verbal reinforcement was more effective inincrsine intrinsic motivation than was monetary reinforcement. Thisfinding, however, was restricted tx, male subjects.

Finally, two stuiies have examined ',he relationship of vicariousreinforcement (i.e., modeling) to both social and nonsocial incentives.In comparing the responsiveness of three rehabilitatian clients toverbal, vicarious and monetary reinforcers, Bowrsock (1970) reports afailure in one subject to condition to any reinforcer, good condition-ing in response te vicarious reinforcement, in the second subject, andsubstantial conditioning in response to both verbal and monetary rein-foroement in the final subject. Finch (1970) compared the effects ofdirect and vicarious delivery of social and monetary reinforcers onimitative responses. 'ignificantly, more imitative responses werefound among those eulelects in the direct monetary reinforcement groupthan in the vicarious monetary reinforcement group. Members of thedirect social reinforcement group also demonstrated more imitative re-sponses than those in the vicarious social reinforcement group. Further -

more, vicarious social reinforcement produced more imitative responsesthen eicarime monetary reinforcement.

It is evident from theipreceding review that the ability of socialreinforcers, at least when compared to nonsocial reinforcers, to signi-ficeetly modify behavior is fairly well established. Qualitative dis-tinctions as to the relative superiority of social or nonsocialreieforeers, however, remains equivocal. Situational constraints(e.g., sub:4,ect characteristics, operant behavior) apparently prohibitrun/ cenclusivr interpretation of unilateral effectiveness. Situationalvariables that moderate the effectiveness of social reinforcers, on the(,,her hand will be considered in other sections of this paper.

is asst, 'J;larent from the research considered here that whilethe maiority (f :"udies have interpreted social reinforcement to meanverbal praise ('eis is in reference to the remaining studies includedin this paler), ,lifferent interpretations have been offered. We haveseen tl-:at the mere physical presence of another individual as well asinterest items tt.14 allet7edly have social connotations have qualifiedas soeial reihforcers. For empirical purposes, therefore, it appearsthat any reinforr.f.r which denotes or even connotes the interventionand/or assorititi,h of other individuals has qualified as a social rein-fLreer. From 1.,yoretical paint of view anl with regard to theta:4!'itil-iniar.a.111#, dimension, however, the issue is still unresolved.For instance, does the receipt of a certificate granting an individualtime oft' from work constitute a social or nonsocial reinforcer? Theo-rwiee1iy, it. may be argued that when the time off is spent with familyW m other :;ocial cc tent. tt does Indeed qualify as a social in-

(.1 bfcallse a certificate is being awarded (not much differ(.nsp.rhai:: 'ea/ n,:f : when considered as burt er) it may qualify as a non-

ir-enlAvy i-f.ording the taegiUle-intangible criterion.

fhils. research and theory to date have not offered a meaningfuldefinition of social reinforcement. While a complete definition atthis point would be premature, our preliminary conceptualization dic-tates a social/non-social distinction on the basis of the reinforcement-roiss rather than discriminative stimulus characteristics of an in-centive. In very general form, let us say that a reinforcer qualifiesas social if its psychological reward value is altered by variations inother individuals or groups. This value dependency may be reflected intwo elements of the reinforcement process, administration and consumma-tion. Reward value may be determined by the context of the reinforcingagent and/or the subject's reference group for the consummation of thereinforcement. Diagrammatically, we have, for example:

Administering Agent

A leaderA colleagueA friendOneself

Consumed with orEsteemed by

OneselfReward Another(s)

(Praise, money,--m-A referent otherrecognition...) A friend

Family

Variations in the "socialness" of the reward could occur in either theantecedent Or consequent relationships.

Determination of the social nature of reinfOrcement implies analysisof the recipient's cognitions. Social reinforcement operates to fulfill

the social acceptance, affillative, interpersonal gratification motivesof people. Verbal praise, by this argument, may or may not be socialreinforcement; an alternate possibility would involve ego-enhancement.Similarly, "time off from duties" may or may not be social reinforcement{alternate interpretation: effort-avoidance). Thus most common rein-forcers could be viewed as social to some degree. An example of anextreme or "pure" social reinforcement in this framework would be aninvitation by a friend to attend a party with anyone of the subject'schoosing. An extreme nonsocial reinforcer (for a human) might be acandy bar delivered by a nachine and to be eaten alone. Obviously,commonly studied reinforcers will vary between such extremes. By defi-nition of "social" as involving associations between people, socialreinforcement will vary with the qualitative nature of those associ-ations.

9

A wide range of subject characteristics have been examined forpurposes of determining their moderating influence Upon social. rein-forcer effectiveness. Evidence concerning these moderating effectscomes from both theoretical and L.vplied research. efforts. SomeAltudieshave focused upOn"general'elest distinctions between people,- Whileothers have examined specific individual differences.

Clinical Abnormality

Krueger,(1970),exaAned the. effects of peer and'aduWreinforceomaton the behavior of delinquent adolescents in group therapy, Peer reinforcement, when compared to other treatment conditions, produced ahigher rate- or verbalisation in,the,predefined responte_categories, moreresistance'to.,extinction.,the greatest amfbUist-Of geteralization-tO otherbehaviors outside-of therage, and > enabled'sUbjects-to delay .ate

Primary reinforcement for later Semmulailrreibforcemect. Delinquentsreceiving adult :reinforcement ,shaved. their greatest gains 'in the verbalretsponse categories. Not ally were operant techniquea effective withdelinquent adolescentia, but iruegeriareaearch daionstrates the enhancingeffect of using peers as reinforcing agents.

,

In comparing delinquent with otherwise "normal!' high-school ageboys, Reagor (1970 found no differences between the.. groups inresponseto three different types.of social reinforcer' (praise, attitude agreemeat, and correctness feedback) in a quasiAnterview verbal conditioningtask. Hypotheses that normal subjects would respond better to socialreinforcement than would delinquents and that there would be en inter-action between subjects and type of reinforces, were not supported.

When Peel (1970) ccmpared the effect of social reinforcement anprimary and secondary psychopaths and normal subjects, he also round, nosignificant differences among the groups. The pairing of social 'rein-forcers with tangible rewards. and puniehments (gain and loss of ciga-rettes or money) , howevei, increased the effectiveness of socialreinforcers for secondary psychopaths, decreased their effectivenessfor high anxious normals, and had no effect on the other groups.

Further evidence is available concerning the effectiveness of social,reinforcement with other "deviant" populations. Sterplight, Bialer andDeutich (1970) have studied the role or praise, censure, and aspirationson the motor performance of institutionalised retardates. Their datasuggest that censure alone surpassed censure plus aspirfttions in thefacilitation of learning. The effects of praise alone .4nd praise plusstated aspirations were not significantly different from control group

10

rearcnlses 4' A ..corxiurt e3 ss and. tiouts examined- the effects, ofA. -vsnr, Ls. upon,18.74r1Pr4i -patient

ret.n..tvi Wurd at id a f4f init:iat1Ve:a1nong the.,a',t'ttidyoi: operant

t.ive relationship was fou.t'41 etween patient satisfaci ion and perceivedst4pport and on_ tt-te ward.

-umerous other sui-'ect .populatrims have beenerattined in- `:heirrsi'or:aiveLest4" ,4';4 reiaforcemen-t. Warner (1971) .has-recerrtlys''Udied the :-effer.' of. moclet-reinfbicemetit and' verbal;-reinferceaent,

cOtznseling on. the over-, vehavior .of. alienated students. 1;tudents.tttfolei-r-eit:fdre,trietit, tre:rbil3:ZrOinforeAMeriA A1)141401tilig FrX°UPt

demttils4 Tv*, ea nacre appropriat,!-I behaviors as indicti,ted by,teacher ratings..1,11 a p3-scel,o counseling group br those 'who received

ro'ik'rOur c.ounateling.'s

, relaldot:s14p: or p+.:,-le-tO the effectiveness of.. verbal-revarqintinishment. combinations have. been

from: fi rst :gindertiales penforzning'..aliscriminat ion learLifw: task Indicated that redective subjects produced

rewrYs', errors. N'tierall :tterforma:L,:e tinkS poOrest iu the. rewardIiiitin.14,e41,01.irt the- ptiniShment .("Wronget. or buzzer) and

roitadipnhishmipnt conditions.

(wenii,ai Apzociatio ys

l!fira(t1:tiriSties arising, from various parertal.associk+ionsnave Lee ir-,.estigated by three stk:dies kS potential moderating in-fillences on 50Pia7. _rein fr.:,rf._i_!r effectivenesS 11-10-lips ( ) reports

1.1 wfyi n-.! examired the rc-sponsiveness Of frither-present. andfather-at,srnit Tesulr: rota exited, ac predi0.0dst1;4t. Si4r1tr; r'svrit'ded mnre t o :,egro than white; adult. reinforcing

, t.rgo: father-all:el t sklilee7tz were more responsive. than father-1.°re3en' so,;ects. 1'10-1 expet,ta-tion that father-shsent Win wrJuldhe morere:;t1:Isiv,. to uftlitv ".11Fin ',0gro reinforcing agents due to a leek of

if i inn w14 rs t he !,,#.rrf. male sex role 17813 also supported. Pre-regtionsivr...nPss to sex of Yf.?I.,;ro reinforcing agent. arnong father-

Fwcent, 6(1%11 was supported. tsillips speculates that this findinga:: 1\e t.n the hip,:h degree of authoritarianism associated wits, both

roles in 3 over oleos :egro cultures.

A stud7,' conrrIct ed Ward, Day and liastain (19(.,9) examined theeffects of' peroeived similarity 1.o parents upon responsiveness to socialry4nforcement. Contrar:; to erpectation, et negative relationship wasdemonstrated. Sub,!ects low in perceived similarity t() parents were moreresponsive t.o social reinrorcvnent than those high in perceived simi-larity. fir lbrun (1970) has presented data which indicates that

responsiveness to social reinforcement is also related to perceivedmw,ernal thild-rearing experience.

Aueeonomie Status

Another area of research has focused upon biographic and demographiccharacteristics.- Lumerous studies have successfully demonstrated-differentjal effects in reinforcer effectiveness attributable to levels of

-.*ucioeconomic class. Davison (1967). reports a study in which he examinedthe sittnificance students attached to various teacher behaviors, Whichwere intended to reinforce student behavior in the classroom. Upper'

zof!ioemnomic class students attributed less significance to positivereinforcement than did students from the middle socioeconomic class.Lower olass students attached an intermediate level of significance to14sitive reinforcement relative to both upper and middle classes. Nodifferenees were found in the significance that any of the classesat±riblfted to negative reinforcement.

(19i69) found, in comparing the relative preference ofreinforcers among groups of different soAoeconomic levels, that middleclass children responded equally well when pennies and candy were usedat reinforcers and demonstrated a stronger preference for pennies thanfor verbal praise. Lower class children preferred pennies to candy andjet preferred both to verbal reinforcement. Looking exclusively at re-sl)onsiveness to tangible incentives, Olson, Bibelheimer, & Stevenson(197) found that middle class children performed at a significantlynigher level than lower class children., In a study conducted by SaferL. Kornreich (194) however, it was demonstrated that lower class childrenlearn Vaster when given "concrete" candy reinforcers while middle class(lhildreh learn faster with "abstract" light reinforcers. Similar find-

.e reported by Swingle and Coady (1969). After studying the dif-ferential responses of middle and lower class children of varying ages,they, conclude that the middle class sensitivity to verbal incentivesand lower class sensitivity to monetary incentives become more estab-lished 4s the child grows older.

ifiker (1970) found that while there is usually a greater frequencyof imitative responses among middle than lower class children, no dif-ferer.r.tes were fol.nd between the, groups when M & M candies were used asrel;.fucers. A mparison of reinforcement and no reinforcement groupsdemonstrated that both had actually increased their imitative responses.:* was suggested that these findings may have been due to experimenteratent_ior or perhaps some other form of social reinforcement operating

experimental situation. When King (1970) studied the effects ofsu.ill reinforcement on the motor performance of lower and middle classegro pre-school children, he found no differential effects due to

socioecunomi class. Tramontana (1971) also found no significant

12

differences in the responsiveness of middle and lower class children to

social and edible rewards.

Sex

The effects of sex upon the efficacy of social reinforcement havereceived much attention in the form of research. A good deal of thisinterest concerns the cross-sex effect attributed to the interaction of

subject and reinforcing agent. The major discussion of research examin-ing this effect will be reserved until later. One study however, does

deserve to be mentioned in the present context. In the study by Davison(1967), cited earlier in this paper where students identified the rein-forcing significance of various teacher behaviors, it was found thatmore significance was attached to positive reinforcement by boys than by

girls. Yet there was no sex difference in the significance attached tonegative reinforcement.

Age has also been tatensively studied as a moderiting factor.Stabler (1967) compared the responses of 5-6, 9-10, ant 14-15 year-old

children to varying levels and schedules of reinforcement. Data indi-cated that older children had the highest proportion of correct re-

sponses. An interaction between age and schedule of reinforcement (50%

vs. 80%) also occurred. Older children produced a greater proportionof correct responses at the higher percentage of reinforcement. Allen,

Spear, and Lucke (1971) found that older subjects (2nd graders) increased

response latency in a discrimination learning task when they received

either praise or criticism following their responses, and demonstrateda lower response latency when they received no reinforcement. Youngersubjects (1st graders), on the other hand, evidenced Caster latencyunder praise and no reinforcement conditions than when they receivedcriticism. Fujitani's study (1969) of relative preferences for verbalpraise, pennies, and candy among groups of varying ages demonstratedsignificant differences between pre-school and second graders in theirpreference for the tangible reinforcers but not for verbal praise. Thisfinding may be attributed to the use of a taped voice in the administra-tion of praise which, as suggested, rapidly loses its reinforcingproperties, and may not qualify as a social reinforcement.

Swingle and Coady (1969) found a significant age effect in whicholder children responded more rapidly than younger children to a lever

pressing task. Their findings, including those mentioned earlier con-cerning the relationship of age to incentive preference among lower andmiddle class subjects, summarizes the importance of these factors (incombination) upon social reinforcer effectiveness.

13

!,inforromeht concepts have also facilitated the modification oftolhvior amonte elderly adults. Leech and Witte (191) have shown that

r,.inrorcemenl of commission errors resulted in fewer errors ofu,mission which hud been previously noted as characteristic of olderpe4.1t! ih response to paired associate learning tasks.

lirtee

The examination of race as a moderating variable has, for the mostpart, teen placed within the context of the subject's prior reinforce-ment history. Theoretically, the effects attributed to race arise fromthe s.:411.]ect's lack of exposure to, and reinforcement from, ,members ofother races. ance prior reinforcement history and its relationship tothe satiation of social reinforcers have been studied independently ofrace and will be discussed later with regard to process dynamics, onlythe sfl studies examining race in particular will be reviewed here.Furthermore, it is fairly clear that the investigation of the subject'srace (much like that of the subject's sex) presumes a simultaneous con -sideration of the reinforcing agent's race.

Heckeamueller, Ochultz and Baron (w,8) manipulated prior availa-bilit:; of social reinforcers by having a white reinforcing agent admin-ister verbal praise to black and white subjects on a fixed intervalnon-contingent basis. This was followed by the test phase in which the

reinforcing agent. provided 1001, contingent reinforcement for "correct"responses to an emotional labeling task. Although black and white sub-,ects demonstrated equal base rate levels of the operant response, blacksshowed a dramatic increase in its subsequent use significantly differentfrom tt,at of the white subjects.

In a later study baron, Heckenmueller and Schultz (1971) once againfound 4 significant main effect for race. Black subjects were moreresponsive than white subjects to a white examiner's verbal reinforce-ments despite variations in the presentation of the reinforcer duringan initial interview task. Replicating this study with a black rein-forcing agent, banns, Jackson and Fish (1972) found that prior availa-bilit of reinforcement exerted a stronger differential effect than racecif sl,lb,,ect. Low initial availability produced significantly more con-ditioning across race of subject than did high initial availability.AIparo:Itl:/, responsiveness to social reinforcement is not simply a

(A* prior availability or race of reinforcing agent. As baronet al. suggest "...there is no single optimal pairing; whether a blackcr white examiner is likely to be more effective for black or whiteL.,it.:ef!',s is highly situationally determined; that is, is a joint rune-

availability of praise and race of reinforcing agent (1972, p.12";)."

114

'Personality Characteristics

Numerous psychological hnd personality characteristics have alsobeen studied relative to their impact on social. reinforcement. Edep

(1969) studied the use of positive reinforcement on the verbal and per-formance hehavior of subject with given leadership orientations meacuredby the California Personality Inventory. Participation levels of sub-

jects with low leadership scores were not altered by reinforcement. It

was concluded that positive reinforcement could not alter established

leadership patterns.

A study conducted by Leonard and Weitz (1971) examined the relation-ship of self-esteem to task enjoyment following success and failure.The expectation that self-esteen would Moderate this relationship wasnot demonstrated. Task enjoyment was related to success for both groups.

Simpkins (1968) found no support for the hypothesis that sociallyimmature subjects, in oamparison to those considered socially matiretwould perform poorly under conditions of verbal incentive, but markedly

better when monetary incentives were offered. Similarly, Costello

(1967) found no significant relationship between child's social'compe-tence and social reinforcer effectiveness.

A study by Sterner (1970) examined the effects of social rejectionand social reinforcements on adolescents who differed in their level of

peer social interest. It was expected that high social interest wouldinteract with social rejection to produce an increased effectiveness of

social reinforcers. Data indicated, however, that conditioning wasenhanced among high social interest students when they received rein-forcement in the absence df rejection. Furthermore, no differences inconditioning were observed among low social interest students when rein-forcement followed either rejection or nonrejection.

Gouaux and Gouaux (1971) have recently examined the influence ofinduced affective states on the effectiveness of social and nonsocialreinforcers. A main effect for affective state was found. Elated sub-

jects conditioned the fastest, then neutrals and finally depressed sub-,lects conditioned the slowest. While social and nonsocial incentiveshad equal effects on elated subjects, depressed subjects respondedslower to social than nonsocial reinforcers as indicated by a non-significant trend.

Evans (1969) has explored other possible relationships betweenresponsiveness to positive social reinforcement and personality vari-ables (psychological differentiation, emotional distance from reinforc-ing agent, and emotional arousal). Only one significant correlationwas found which demonstrated en inverse relationship between responsive-ness to social reinforcement and emotional arousal of the subject uponhis initial contact with the experimenter. This finding was attributed

15

to the dual function hypothesis of social reinforcement which statesthnt social reinforcement for children serves only to lower anxiety in

anxIms subJects, but yet strengthens perfOrmance in less anxiouschildren.

Five studies have focused upon the moderating effects attributedt4.1 anxiety. Barton (1971) found no support for the hypothesis that theincreased responsiveness of high-verbal - low spatial Skill subjectsover high spatial, skill - low verbal subjects to social reinforcementis due to aroused anxiety in the former group. A study by Lepper (1970)indicated a significant interaction between anxiety and experimentervalence in determining the effectiveness of .social reinforces. Anxiouschildren more readily complied with a previously negative (i.e., experi-ences of failure and criticism) than a previously positive (i.e.,experiences of success, praise) adult in a social reinforcement situ-aticn. Children who were not anxious however, more readily compliedwith the previously positive adult.

Hill and Dusek (1969) conducted a study in which they examined theeffects of social reinforcement on the achievement expectations of sub-jects high and lcw in test anxiety. Their findings indicated thatinitial achievement expectations correlated negatively with test anxietyfor girls, whereas change in achifvement expectation correlated posi-tively with test anxiety for boys in the social reinforcement condition.Cilverman and Waite (1969) found no difference between high and lowtest anxious groups in responsiveness to social or nonsocial reinforce-ment. Flynn and Morgan also report no differential effects due toanxiety in the responsiveness of subjects to programmed or regularclassroom methods of instruction.

Three research studies have directed their inquiry to the role ofexpectations in the social reinforcement process. Kaplan (1970) positstna4 it is the unexpected and unfamiliar aspect of the reinforcingagent which enhances the effectiveness of social reinforcement, frompeers. Results obtained by manipulating the expectation for reinforce-ment through a pre-training experience did suggest a differentialresponse to subsequent reinforcement. Scoresby (1969) reports thatwhen subjects in counseling received language consistent with theirpreference for expression or that Confirmed their induced expectations,it did not significantly affect satisfaction with counseling, perceivedinterpernonal effectiveness, or the acquisition or learning of treatmentterms and concepi,s. A study conducted by Ullrich (1969) however, foundthat client expectations about reinforcement and intervention fromcoinselors did not affect their certainty or satisfaction with voca-%1Qnal choices after counseling.

Loc,As of control has constituted yet another variable of studywithin the preserA framework. Existing evidence offers only partialsupport, however, for its moderating effects upon social reinforcement.

1.

Lawrence (19t.9) and Martens 0.971) report that differences in locus of'control did not mediate the vffects of social reinforcement. A studyconducted by Wachowiak (1970) also found that the internal/externaldimension was not, predictive or responsiveness to model-reinforcingcounseling. It should be nosed, however, that other data from theWachowiak study indicated that self-confidence, extroversion, and mas-culine interests were predictive of counseling outcomes.

Exe,ining the effects of both field dependence and locus of controlupon effectiveness of external social reinforcement, Fits (1970) foundthat field dependent subjects performed best under %.,,nditions of censurethan either those of praise or control. Internally controlled subjectsperformed best in the control condition than either of the two treat eatconditions (praise or censure). Furthermore, Pits reports no carrels.tion between field dependence and locus of control.

Looking exclusively at the effects of field dependence upon problemsolving performance under conditions or praise, criticism or failure,Randolph (1971) reports that field dependent boys, when compared tofield independent boys, performed more effectively when praised thanwhen criticized. Whereas, any stress disrupted field dependent sub-jects, field independent subjects were less vulnerable to stress fac-tors.

The locus of control variable has also been extended to an inter.pretation of the differences observed between races in responsivenessto social reinforcement. In a study by Tedeschi and Levy (1971),hypotheses concerning the effectiveness of social reinforcement werebased upon the belief that lower class blacks possess an external con.trot orientation and that middle class whites maintain an internal con.trol orientation. Furthermore, since internally controlled subjectsappear to perform better in ,kill task situations due to the control oftheir own rewards and exl.crnelly controlled subjects perform better inchance situations, it was expected that blacks would be more responsiveto social reinforcement in a skill situation while whites would be morereslonsive in a chance situation. Findings supported these hypotheses.

Other ar.!ss of research have identified additional personalityvariables that may moderate the effectiveness of social reinforcement.Berger (19,8) has studied the effects of influence feedback and needinfluence as the relationship between incentive magnitude and attitudecharge. Data indicated no support for the predicted inverse relation-ship between incentive magnitude and attitude change among low needinfluence persons. When given success feedback concerning theirattempts to influence otlers on personally discrepant beliefs, indi-viduals high in need '',sluence demonstrated greater self-persuasionthan individuals low .1 influence. It was proposed that, at least,thecreticelly, the opport,..nity to influence others constitutes enough

17

!1.: , high rieed infiqence iLdividuals to engaee in belief-th;vrfltc. owhavL

(1.0) reported thtt :while incentives had a significantfre-t rtaf! performance, no differential effects .could be'

motives. r, studrintr the responsiveness of under-'4nd -verat7hit,!ver3 to programmed end traditional methods of .instruction,

aA, (19.) found thRt underaehievers performed as wellr.t.0:,11,Jsr, of in.ltrn,tiarlal metho4. 1...hievers, however, benefited more

i:rot!;eulznv' tflictit3Ite

1,0frivq*10!

satirttl.,1; t'%(!tion of social reinforcement is, conceptually,

a pro..or. ,tnamio PiN,J will be disclAssed in greater detail in e laterll'is ;Aper. .:et certain of its underling theoretical ele-

n,e:.t;; !tin be cmlivmed as individual characteristics and, therefore,approtTiatel:,f dism;ssed it the present context. Social deprivation

t() the r social reinforcement.constitutes such a variable.',1r11.01ri!o.r. the re.Tunses of high and low anxious children to social re-

1:.!%reement pater varing periods of social isolation, Kozma (l%9)iiuear relatiunship between length of isolation and reinforcer

rur low anxious subJects. High anxious suboeets showedIRisoeplitAlity to social reinforcement only after brief and

prA,,!,-ed !,eriods of isolation. When subjects experienced visual stimu-lutiun isolation, visceptibility to social reinforcement was de-lte;e(i f) ho,h high and low anxious suhjcto. In n later study, Kozma1 W1) +lat aroused anxiety during isolation is due to the

evalkintion by a strange experimenter in a test-likeA pul:it.Ive evaluation should effectively reduce anxiety,

Ficarrjnin 4ne rote of anxiety- inducing instructions in contributing toine infrelzed effec.i'renesz of social reinforcement, Koran observed

1::Strt.W.img only led to increased effectiveness when cOmbinedWitt: :,rte x' periodc. Anxiety reducing instructions, however,

eV the social isolation effect when adminis-'ered '6 KOMI con(!luded support rur the anxiety

t!JI. social isolation effect.

Yillf!r EVA .kAA (1910) have also examined the effects of social.:i)ne n evidence to support differential effects

isolation. They concluded, however, that the1:94,Jre sr. i d-rh of deprivation 'ised in their study may have been

-d, a test of social drive and arousal hypotheses con-ceL. 4t!,, increased effectiveness of social reinforcers, found supportfor ciiv*.! InterpretAiion with middle o. sass subjecls but

''neses could edequatel:: explain the responses ci'

1",

lower class subjects. Richards (19)) has also examined the relation-sip of social Aerriv4tioli and IAN:sioloeical arousal. and Was concludedthat while isolation is associated with greater increases in arousalthan'noniSolation, the effect of isolation upon respOntiveheatto socialreinforcers is questionaae. ;1t.erner's (l9(0) study, as reported earlierconcerning the effects or social rejection and reinforcement upon ado-lescents of .high and low ,peer social interest, produced data which werealso interpreted as incompatible with the arousal or social drivehypotheses.

Hill and ntevenson (19w) have recently studied the effects ofverbal, visual (colored slides) and social (presence of experimenter)reinforcement following three kinds or pretraining (isolation, film andsatiation). He found that change in performance from baseline washigher following isolation than satiation in the verbal reinforcementcondition for boys and in the social reinforcement condition for girls.Considering the visual reinforcement condition, change in performancefor girls was highest following isolation, intermediate following thefilm, and lowest following the satiation experience. The opposite was

true for boys.

CHARACTERISTICO OF THE REINFORCING AGENT

Research examining the moderating effects attributed to chas%.icter-istics of the reinforcing agent has, to a great extent, paralleled theresearch covered in the previous section. Conceptually, both the sub-ject and reinforcing agent represent entities whose characteristicsmust be considered equally and jointlw as in any social psychologicalsit.ation. The difference in the two bodies of research is that dif-ferential effects due to the reinforcing agent have received lessat than those due 4x. t,!le, subject.

The impact of varLAAL t:,.-pr q3 of reinforcing agents upon socia.;

rei;_forcer effectiveness has been examined. Moyer (1968) reports thatleaer verbal reinforcement did not affect understanding responses ofstudent nurses to other gruup members or their references to and de-scrfptions of the psychological state-of-being of' patients. Clark(199) demonstrated that the verbal .reinforcements emitted by counselorsupervisors significantly affected counselor trainees' verbal behavior.In a workshop intended to increase rates of reinforcement among educa-tors, Kidd (1970) found that while the workshop did help to. increasethe use of reinforcement, rates of rPinforcement were also a fUnctionof personality and anxiety .ariables.

19

Charlesworth and Hartup (1967) studied the reinforcement frequen-cies occurring in nursery school peer groups. Data indicated thatchildren in the older groups reinforced one another at a significantlyhigher rate than those in the younger groups. It was also found thatthe amount of reinforcement given was' positively related to the amomst-received. In study examining the relationship between peer reinforce-ment and social status, Hartup, Glayer and Charlesworth (1967) foundthat social acceptance Was significantl,y correlated with frequency ofgiving positive reinforcement but not with frequency of giving negativereinforcement. Rejection was significantly related to negative rein-forcement and not to positive reinforcement. Children received morepositive reinforcement from liked peers than from disliked peers, yetdisliked and liked peers did not differ in the amount of negative rein-forcement they emitted. In a later study Hartup and Coates (1967)examined a subject's general history of reinforcement from his peergroup as a determinant of responsiveness to a rewarding peer modelversus a non- rewarding model. Results indicated significantly morealtruism among those subjects exposed to an altruistic peer model thanthose subjects not exposed to a model. Furthermore, subjects with ahistory of frequent re'nforcements from their peers imitated a rewardingmodel significantly more than a non - rewarding model. Subjects with ahistory of infrequent reinforcement from peers, however, revealed theopposite response. They imitated non-rewarding peers significantlymore than rewarding peers.

The effects of model competence on the behavior of subjects havebeen examined by Kanter and Duerfeldt (1967). Total performance dataindicated no significant differences among experimental groups asfunction of the number of modeling experiences or Model competence.Yet further analysis revealed the interesting finding that subjectswho received modeling early during acquisition performed better thanthose who received modeling late in acquisition.

Kessel (1%7) examined the effects of social reinforcement and thesubject's conception of an interviewer's values relative to his own onthe control of verbal behavior. Results indicated that subjects whowere led to believe that their interviewer had values dissimilar totheir own, rated their interviewer lower than those subjects who be-lieved they shared similar values with their interviewer or controlgroup subjects. :',ubjects talked longer on reinforced topics than onnon-reinforced topics. Reinforcement was only effective with thosesub;ects who reported awareness of the response/reinforcement contin-gency. Contrary to expectation, the dissimilar group was more respon-sive to reinforcement than the similar group (in analysis of awareness

a only ).

A study conducted by Griffitt and Gumy (1969) tested the hypothesisthat attraction toward others both responsible and not responsible forreinforcement woid d be a function of the proportion of positive

20

reinforcements received by thv Fesults supported thishypothesis. .Furthermure, evaluative responses to non-humnn elementsassociaLed with the rcinfercement were else a Vnhctian of reinforce-ments received'. Lanford and Duthie (1970) found that the physicalpresence of the eseerimenter had becOMe'a conditioned reinforcer whichprevented the extinction of a previous, intentionally reinforced.response. Studies such as teese suggest that responsiveness to a rein..forcing agent as influenced oy that teueit's particular set of charac-teristics, thus, IndirectU accounts for the form of the conditimodresponse generalized to other stimuli.

The visual and auditory characteristics of an experimenter havebeen studied by Jones (19,:b) in assessing the extent to which theyinfluence the verbal conditioning rates of subjects. It was found thatthe conditioning rates of those reinforced for the use of "mildlyhostile" verbs were significantly related to the physical size andvoice intensity of the expertmentor. The conditioning rates of thosesubjects reinforced for the use of "mildly friendly" verbs were unre-lated to these experimenter characteristics.

As suggested in the previous sect ton the effects of the reinforc-ing agent's sex upon a subject's responsiveness to social reinforcementhas been of particular interest to contemporary research. Silvermanand Waite (1969) report an interaction between sex of experimenter andreinforcement condition. Male experimenters were more effective thanfemale experimenters with subjects of both sexes under social rein-forcement. No differential effects due to sex of experimenter wereobserved in the nonsocial reinforcement conditions.

Goldsmith (l%9) found that the highest performance levels awngblack males and females occurred when }.he sex of the examii,er was thesame as that of the subject. Considering the three way interaction ofrace of experimenter, race or subject and reinforcement condition, re-sults indicated that males verformed Lest with a bleu. male experimentertinder praise conditions and females performed best with a white femalelxaminer also in the praise :!endition.

A study by ieinsom (19 9) investigated the le-pot:heels that the

effects of social reinforcement coming from opposite-sex reinforct.ggerts (known as the cross-sex effect) would be greater than the effectscoming from same-sex reinforcing agents at the mid-childhood and lateadolescent levels and not at the early childhood level. In addition,it vas also expected that social reinforcing ztatements from an olderpeer of the same sex would have a greater influence on learning thrtnwould statements from a same aged, same-sexed peer at the early - andmid-childhood levels. Besides the major finding that reinforcement didsignificantly affect learning, data previded AmIly partial support tothe crincipal hypotheses.. The cress -sex effect W43 found at the nod-Childhood and late adolescent levels as predicted, but only for gills.

21

The ether predicted effects were upheld in only two of the four experi-mental groups.

Kaplan (1970) examined the effects of pretraining on the subsequenteffectiveness of socitil reinforcement and predicted the cross-sex effectto occur in the nu-pretraining condition. This prediction was notupheld, but the cross-sex effect was found after nonreinfOrcement pre-training. Palets (1970) proposes that the cross-sex effect is, at'least partially, a function of a child's prior reinfOrcement history;I.e., relative frequencies of reinforcement received from same-sex anduppusite-sex adults. Examining this theoretical base, Metz predictedthat a subject's response frequency would be higher when a previouslyneutral experimenter was reinforcing or when a previously reinforcingexperimenter was neutral than when the previously reinforcing experi-menter was reinforcing or when a previously neutral experimenter wasneutral. to support could be found for this hypothesis. Although asignificant cross-sex effect was found for the pretraining games, asignificant trend toward a same-sex effect was found over trials.

The examination of cross-sex and same-sex effects bears a strikingresemblance to research examining the race variable. Since prior rein-forcement history has been suggested as a possible theoretical base ineach of these contexts, this coincidence should be further explored andinvestigated. A theoretical framework may exist in which the observedeffects arising from variables such as sex and race can be systemati-cf114 linked. Baron's work (1970) offers a promising effort to explainrespowiiveness to social approval in the context of situational con-zilerritions of reinforcement history and sex and race similarities ofsubtLI and reinforcing agents.

INSTRUMML BEHAVIORS

rjther areas of research have examined, either directly or indi-rectly, the range of behaviors vulnerable to social reinforcement. Insome instances, the actual form of behavior modified constitutes themajor focus of the study. In other research, the behavior under inves-tigation is only of secondary interest. Both kinds of research are ofimi,orlqnce qssessing the parameters of social reinforcement.

vq.bnl Tenaltior

,t,rnber of research efforts have examined the ability of socialreirifurcument to modify various forms of verbal behavior. Ingling(194.S). rerurts thlt, compared to other experimental conditions, only

22

',hose subjects obtaining 3 nickel as -reinforcement demonstrated cendi-liening in a sentence construction task, A study conducted by Fielding(icOO8) revelled tut f..0(l1aL feinforeement, Whet administered on fixedletervel end ratio interval schedules, wus unable to sigeificantlyWect cnildren's rate of verballention, .011 the other bend, Block (196Y)examined Olc ability of words rated as high on the evaluative, power,and activity dimensions of the semantic differenuial to alter the fre-quency of a verbal operant. His data confirmeo the expectation thatthese foros or verbal reinforcement could alter the frequency of verbaloperArts.

Strauss (1970) reports a case study in which reinforcement waseffectively used in controlling the talking behavior of a three-and-one-half-year-old girl. Strauss further reports that, when the experimenterremoved the reinforcement, talking and other demonstrative behuviorssuch as playing, laughing, and yelling decreased. Mildly disruptivebehaviors increased. Strauss conctude that the subject's display ofdisruptive behavior was an attempt to regain the experimenter's atten-tion (previously under the control of her talking, playing, laughing,etc.).

A study conducted by Toni, 1shaw, Lrnde, and Waldron (1971)examined the effects cf social reinforcement, tealher expectations, andPrenack prccedures (i.e., if you do x, y will follow) upon voluntaryclass-relatel verbalizations emitted by subjects. Whereas, social re-inforcement and teacher expectations significantly affected voluntaryverbalizations, Pre mack did Lot differ from control conditions.

Social reinforcement han been of iarticular interest within ttiecontext of counseling reioitionships. r.7onger (1968) investigated client

use of social reinforcement in influencing the therapist's verbal be-havior. Client use of smiling, arguing, etc., did not significantlyAffezt past and present verb forms (target response class) emitted bythe therapist. Heterogeneity or variance due' to sex differences amongclients was believed to have obscured amain effect.

:,awls and Beier (197L) cLuipared two model reinforcement couneding4.otions to assess the effects of reinforcing actual behaviors FL

oroosed tc statements of intent. No significant differences were foundbetween subjects who had been exposed to a video tape of students rein-forced for their statements or actual behaviors.

Lee (1968) reports that contingent social reinforcement was ableto increase the confrontative and relationship statements of counselorsfrom operant level to acquisition. The withdrawal of reinforcement,nowever, led to decreased response levels. Noncontingent reinforcementwas also found effective yet had a greater impact on total responsefrequencies thee on specific confrontative and relationship statemonts.

23

The differential effects of three verbal reinibroers ("sin -hm,""good," wid "wonderful ") on the verbal conditioning of affective self-referellces were ekcindlifid by [Mtat and Lee (1970). The highest fre-quency of self-references occurred when individuals were reinforcedwith "wonderful," The lowest frequency occurred when "mm*hm" was usedftr. the reinforcer. Furthermore, the strongest conditioning effectswere prcduced by the verbal reinforcer rated positively highest on the

a1.',of4i. senvillti.c differential =ales. Hekmat and. Lee conclude that thenlaszicel eonditiccing of meaning may underly the established rewardvatee of verbal reinforcers.

Wilder (19,W),.examining the effects of verbal and verbalreinforcement on the frequency of self- referred affect (SEA statements,found no scgnificant differences between modeling and direct reinforce-ment yet a significant increase in SRA due to modeling when compared tothe control condition. The inability of "mm-hm" t significantly affect:11A through operant reinforcement was primarily,attributed to the rela-tively low number of reinforcements administered.

King (19t' i) investigated the ability of reflection when used an averbal reinforcer to condition self-references. Data confirmed theexpectation that both positive and negative self-references were amenableto c-nAltioning. Other recent studies (Ferreira, 1969; Schilt, 1969;DusLin, 1971) have demonstrated social reinforcement to be effective inLao increasing underntanding and attending responses in either counsel-

ing, or exTerimentlil settings.

IVAitudes

:-,one research exists which indicates that attitudes can also besignificantly influenced by social reinforcement. 'mato and Nielson(1969) studied the effects of verbal reinforcement of attitudes in bothlaboratory and nonlaboratory contexts. Data indicated a significantmain effect upon attitudes due to reinforcement. No significant dif-ferences were found between verbal reinforcement administered in thelaboratory or by telephone (nonlaboratory)

. Three types of awarenessscores: awareness of the reinforcement contingency, awareness of whatthe experimenter wanted the subject to do, and intention to do what theexperimenter wanted the subject to do were found to be positively cor-related with the attitude score. Only a subset of the correlationswere significant. Reinforcement did have a significant effect amongunaware subjects.

Further examination of attitude reinforcement has been conductedLy iTestholdt (1968). He posits that attitude behavior controlled onlyby the attitude object constitutes a "rear attitude. He further con-tends that control of attitude behavior is also possible through rein-forcement or punishment administered by another person. This type of

214

control can take the form of conformity, compliance, or demand charac-teristics. Consequently, Prestholdt examined the effects of reinforce-ment (social approval) and punishment (social disapproval) upon attitudeacquisition. Results indicated that the frequency of "correct" attitudestatements increases with -tie use of social reinforcement and, further-more, lends to the acquisition of a "real" attitude. Social, punishmentalso increases the frequency of "correct" statements, but does not leadto the acquisition of a "real" attitude. Prestholdt concludes thatsocial punishment produces compliant behavior under the control of thesocial punisher, but does not relate to "real" attitudes like that ofapproval.

Suinn. Jorgensen, Stewart, and McGuirk (1971) have recently pro-posed that fears, when conceived.as attitudes, can also be changedthrough selective positive reinforcement. A teat of this hypothesisindicated a significant increase in approach behavior toward the phobicobject but no significant decrease in subjective level of fear. Inthis instance, reinforcement did not lead to the acquisition of a"real" attitude as previously demonstrated by Prestheldt but simply"compliant" behavior (a pattern previously attributed to punishmentalone . Agree, Leitenberg, and Barlow (1968) were able to demonstratethat social reinforcement could effectively modify agoraphobia. It

should be noted, however, that this conclusion is based on behavioralmeasures (which imply "compliant" behavior in the present context). Nosubjective measure of fear was gathered.

Birney (1970) has further investigated the dynamics of fear reduc-tion. Discussion of high-anxious topics utth verbal feedback was foundto 71ead to increased anxiety among males and decreased anxiety amongfemales. Confounding measurement within the experiment, however, causesone to question this finding.

".1roup Behavior

Various forms of group behaviors have been examined relative Loreinforcement techniques. Sarbin and Allen (1968) examined the

abiity of social reinforcement to alter the participation rates of highand low participators in a seminar. Low participators who receivedpositive reinforcement increased participation during the first half ofthe reinforcement sessions and maintained that level in the remainingsessions. High participators who received negative reinforcement de-creased participation sharply in the first half of the sessions yetincreased to original operant levels during the remaining half. Datapresented by Sorensen (1968) further support the conclusion that socialreinforcement can successfully strengthen dominant behavior in a groupsetting.

25

The reinforcement of mutual recognition, interest, concern, andacceptance among group members was compared by Liberman (1970) to amore conventional group-centered counseling approach in assessing theutility of social reinforcement. Results demonstrated that patients inthe experimental group showed significantly more cohesiveness andearlier symptomatic improvement than those in the comparison group.

Intragroup reinforcing behaviors have been investigateli by Mull(19a). Data presented indicate that the intensity of a group's dis-approval of an offensive behavior varies in linear proportion to thedegree of deviation of the behavior frdm the group norm and the_impor-tance of that norm to the group. Although not a direct test of rein-forcer effectiveness, the findings of this study suggest that reinfiorcingmechanisms are used 'within groups to maintain conformity to their awn

Hallam (1970) conducted a study in which he examined changes ininterpersonal behavior following selective reinforcement. Visual rein-forcement was shown to increase leadership behavior and participationwithin the group. When not personally reinforced and yet exposed to thereinforcement of another subject, interaction-oriented subjects tendedto lower their self-evaluation. Under the same circumstances, task-crierited subjects lowered the quality and quantity of their response.:.'elf - oriented subjects lowered the quantity of their responses when nutpersonally reinforced. This set of findings appears to concur withprevious studies in confirming the ability of social reinforcement tomodify group behaviors.

Classrne*L Behavior

Classroom behavior constitutes yet another important set of be-haviors which have been examined in the social reinforcement paradigm.Hall, Panyan, Rabon, and Broden (1968) have presented case studieswhich demonstrate how beginning and inexperienced teachers were trainedin the successful use of reinforcement principles to control classroombehaviors. Further evidence to support the effectiveness of reinforcersin the classroom is offered by Hapkiewicz (1972); Field, Simpkins,Browne, and Rich (1971); and a review by Altman and Linton (1971).

Some research has further qualified the use of social reinforcersin the classroom. A study by Buys (1970) found that although disruptivebehavior decreased with the use of contingent social reinforcement, itrose again when reinforcement ceased. Herman and Tramontana (1971) haveshown that individual and group reinforcement were not differentiallyeffective in.modifying classroom behavior. Furthermore, the addition ofinstmctiuns to reinforcement strengthens the 'capacity to modify behavior:

26

Iraubard (1968) has argued that contemporary teaching methods,

. Alien offer incentive:; bazed on indlviduft1 perfOrmance, force an accept -

ance of societal aorms. Furthermcre, he contends that existing group

norms' could be utilized in effectively creating desired. change. In the

research exariining this proposition, Graubard made rewards contingent

upon group performanee. Every group member had to perform effectively;

e.g., learn, in order for anyone to receive a reward. Data confirmed

the effectiveness of this method in altering classroom behavior.

Additional behaviors

Besides the behaviors which have been identified thus far, research

has also focused upon a variety of other behaviors either unique to theparticular setting or simply so novel as to not have attracted much

empirical investigation. This body of research indicates that socialreinforcement can be used effectively to modify the following types of

behaviors; social isolation and various forms of adaptive behavior

(Milby, 1970; Oturm, 19,',9) ; interest selection (Wandzek, 1969); cigarette

zmeMng (Tighe Pegers, 1):7; ilvlifnral 1972); health reporting

(Marquis, 1970); Encopresis, i.e., soiling behavior (Conger, 1970);

marital relationfl (Goldstein, 1971); information-seeking behavior in(Samann, 1970); and client perception of counselor effective-

.lev, and achievement of counseling goals (Ryan, 1966). Other behaviors

t1 successfulk: influenced by social reinforcement include: achieve-

Tent motivation :rang, 3970); altruistic behaviors (Carpenter & Carom,

19,Th discriminatien among children's names (Blain & Ramirez, 19t6);

resonsiveness to hypnotic suggestion (Bullard, 1971); attendance ,Nord,.

197n; Carpenter e C7arom, 198); shifts in performance from quality to

eitiftt ity (Adam, 1972); group alelvieg (Cohen & Jaffee, 1970);

rest ens latence: (Weinl:erg, 1968); leadership. behavior (Eaglin, 1970);

flsic combat. training performance of Army recruits (Datel & Le,Iters,

197C).

AvnAlble Pviden.t' from other research indicates that social rein-en-:.t has tem less si.JccessfUl in controlling: arithmetic acteve-

0.- f'1%30ewski. in70); aeademic standing of underachievers (Goul,,_ey,

): career information seeking (Anderson, 1970); stealing behavior1971); and dependent and competent behaviors (Speer, 1966)

aeo:e concerning the ability of social reinforcement to Rorschack

vri .ice,ivity appears equivocal. While Boulay (1969) has offered non-sullortive evidence, Hersen and Greaves (1971) found significant dif-fere lees among experimental groups.

Existing evidence apparently does seem to indicate that socialreilfercement can be used effectively to modify h wide range of be-hvlors. In most instances, this effectiveness has been demonstratedlcslite variation.: in exper mental design and/or setting. Conclusionslb, forms cif behavior which have derived supporting

27

evidence from only one study, or which have been found to be unaffectedby social reinforcement, should be reserved pending replication.

DYNAMICO OF THE SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT PROCESS

A large number of studies have examined various dynamic aspects ofthe social reinforcement process in order to fUrther develop an understanding of its theoretical elements. The major areas of investigationham included: schedules of reinforcement, vicarious reinfOroement,i.e., modeling, awareness of the perftwmance/reinforcement contingeney;.the relationship of social reinforcement to explanatory and motivationaltheories with particular regard to the function of incentives, and thesatietion-deprivation function of social reinforcement.

Reinforcement Schedules

At least three recent studies have led to the general conclusionthat partial reinforcement is more effective than continuous reinforce-ment in the modification of behavior. Crowley (1968) found far greaterpersistence among subjects working at an insoluble task on partial re-inforcement than among subjects working on any of three continuousschedules (praise, blame, or blank). Looking exclusively at the partialreinforcement conditions, subjects receiving praise and blame persistedlonger than those receiving praise when paired with blank. Furtherevidence is offered by Breitmeyer (1969). A study by Yukl, Wesley,and Seymore (1972) found a variable ratio schedule also more efficientthan a continuous reinforcement schedule using monetary incentives toincrease task performance.

Two additional studies have looked specifically at differencesamong partial reinforcement schedules. Braun (1970) found that avariable ratio 20% schedule produced more persistence at a task than avariable ratio 803 schedult,, regardless of whether subjects were di-rectly or vicariously reinforced. In a comparison of fixed ratio andfixed intera schedules, Rosenbaum (1969) found that subjects persistedat a task longer when they received reinforcement on the intervalschedule than on the ratio schedule. Furthermore, there was an inter-action between sex of subject and type of schedule used. Boys demon-strated higher rates of response on fixed ratio schedules, while girlsperform:1 best on the fixed interval schedules.

Bra-on, imblusons and Lawrence (1968) have investigated rates ofreinnweemeNt us deviations from esperimenitedly manipulated base-lineleveln of reinrorement. The examination Is guided by a model of span'

28

reinforcemeet nrsented by :iron in which he suggests that an indi-vidual's social reinforcement history creates an internal standard by

tu ,..udc,e the wiuquacy of present social reinforcement. (,'his

nocinl reinforcement standard (SRS); i.e., SRO model has also total-.fished the basis of investigations .conducted by Baron and hiS.associatesof the differential effects attributed to race as discussed in a pre-vion ofs section, and will be further importance in a discussion of thesatiation funetion of social reinforcement to follow later.) Conse-quently, it was expected that the introduction of uncertainty wouldcause an individual to alter his behavior in .`an attempt to identify theresponse pattern likely to produce a rate of reinforcement that better'approximates his an. A significant interaction between initial rateof reinforcement and %mount of change confirmed this hypothesis.

Vicarious Reinforcement

The effects of vicarious reinforcement have been found, in mostinstances, tu effectively modify observer responses. Berger andKllaburg (199) found that subjects who observed a model receive enthu-siastic reinforcement In a nonsense syllable task correctly recalledmore of thoze syllables than subjects in the non-enthusiastic condition.Findings also revealed that subjects who received "right" reinforcementrecalled more than those who received "wrong" or "nothing" as reinforce-nent. Similarly, Flanders and Thistlethwaite (1968) report that sub-:eons comprehended and imitated a model's solution of a discriminationtank to a greater extent when the model verbalized his choice.

A study condncted by Marlatt (19O8) compared the effects of vcar-Ions and direct reinfcrcement upon problem admission in rum interview

setting. Resultr indicated that subjects exposed to a verbal trodelrtTorted more problems than control subjects. Positive vicarious rein-forl,ement elieiten more problems from subjects than positive directreinforcement. The must effective reinforcement combination was posi-tive ViC9ri()11$ reinforcement when followed by neutral direct reinforce-

effects (f 'lifferent reinforcement combinations to a m()(1,1 upon-enaeney L,f an observer if) imitate the model have recently been

-x-wined by Cheyrie (1971). Findings indicated thaw observation affected,o4 r: performance and recall of modeled behavior. Observing a modelreceive positive reinforcement enhanced the subsequent performance oftAie observer, while receipt of negative reinforcement led to the sup-pression of the oboerver's imitative behavior. Recall of the model'sverbal behavior, however, increased with both positive and negativereinforcement outcomes. The:ine attributed a halo effect to positivereinforcement; i.e., negative and neutral modeled items were also re-peated more often when the model received at least some positive roin-forcemeni.

29

A study conducted by Kanter) Duerfeldt, Martin, and Dorsey (1971)has examined factors that influence en observer's attentiveness andimitation of a model's behavior. They found that children who expectedto.subsequently perforb the modeled behavior attended more to the modelthan did children who had no such expectation.. The performance of sub-jects exposed to a model was significantly better than those subjectswho did not observe model. The authors concluded that while vicariousreinforcement may not Influence attentiveness, it is related to subse-quent performance. Attentiveness apparently varies with the expectationof performing the task.

Two studies have recently suggested that competence is an importantconsideration in determining a model's' effect upon an observer. Britt(1971) examined the responses of subjects after observing two models(one competent and one thcompetent) who varied in the number of timesthey agreed with one another. The results of his study demonstratedthat subjects in ambiguous, competitive situations tend to imitatemodels to the extent that they are competitive; i.e., to the extentthatfthey are reinforced for a correct response. Znpnick (1971) pre-sents data which support a similar hypothesis: extinction of a phobicresponse (fear of handling snakes) would increase as the perceivedperformance and ability; i.e., competence, of a model increased. Sub-jects who were exposed to a model regarded as "fearless-competent"demonstrated significantly greater approach and handling behavior thansubjects exposed to a "fearful-incompetent" model or control groupsubjects.

Other available data further support expected modeling effect uponverbal operants (Anderson, 1970), aggressive behavior (Lidman, 1969),sociomctric status (Hansen, Inland & Zuni, 1969), and classroom be-havior (Friedman and Bowers, 1971). In only three studies were effectsdue to vicarious reinforcement not found significant. Bourdon (1968)demonstrated that a tape-recorded model was unable to alter the verbalresponse rate of observers. Scoresby (1969) also found that the videopresentation of a decision and deliberation model had no effect uponcorresponding behavior among observers. It should be noted that boththese studies employed a medium of model presentation unlike themajority of studies which have found modeling to be effective. Onepossible explanation of these findings may be that the video or audiopresentation of a model is simply not as strong a manipulation as thelive presentation of a model.

The third study (Weiner, 1970) to find non-supportive evidence formodeling actually examined an alternative hypothesis unlike those whichhave been traditionally proposed. Weiner proposed that the direct re-inforcement of one child in a dyad (or two children in a group of four)woui4 "negatively" reinforce the other member(s) of the group. No evi-dence f:ould be found to supq his hypothesis. Consequently, this

30

finding can not really be considered inconsistent with previous studies

which have demonstrated the positive reinforcing value of modeling.

Aware.Awareness Goa encies

Another factor that has undergone empirical inquiry eoncerns the

role of awareness in the reinforcement process. The majority of studies

reviewed nay, indicated that an awareness of the perfornance/rewardcontingency is necessary for subsequent conditioning to occur.

Ault and Vogler (1969) have examined the relationship of variousreinforcing cues to awareness of the response- reinforcement contingency.They propose that a subject will be slower in becoming aware of thereinforcement contingency when "blank" is paired with an ambiguous cue,which possibly indicates correct (e.g., "right") than when blank ispaired with an unambiguous cue indicating correct (e.g., "correct").

Results demonstrated that conditioning occurred only for those subjectswho were both aware of the performance/reinforcement contingency andfor whom the appropriate cues were actually reinforcing.

Hamilton, Thompson and White (1970) have indicated the importanceof awareness to vicarious reinforcement as well. They report thatlienlficant changes in performance were found only among those subjectsoho were aware of the contingency between an observed model's responsesled the administration of reinforcement, and who expressed the intention

.to imitate the model's behavior.

Although other evidence also exists (Herren k Greeves, 1971, !ory,.ioPkins & Hoge, 1970) to further support the necessity of awareness tolanditioning, there have beer instances where its necessity has not.leen demonstrateq. A study by Miller and Hood (1970) reports that bothen trI 'end unaware sub:sects conditioned in response to the receipt of

reinfor:!ement. Most research, however,. does.seem to support the pre-

floes conclilsion.

ion Theorr and Social Reinforcement

The motivational concepts underlying the social reinforcementcomprise an important set of variables and area of research.

he -!ontribution of learning principles (notably knowledge of results)numeroes motivational theories to a further, understanding of the

reinforcement process have been empirically explored.

Moffat and Miff (1970) studied the performance of four- and six-year-olds =it discrimination task under three different knowledge ofres,,,As conditions. It was proposed that when subjects receivedknowledge of results for ritynt and wrong answers (IV) or for wrong

31

answers only (ft, i.e., %Tong" paired with blank) they would perfOrmbetter than subjects who received knowledge of results for right answersonly (Rb). It was believed that the RW aid Wb conditions provide anindividual with more information than the Rb condition, since blanks areoften interpreted as "correct" feedback and, therefore, confusing in theRb situation. Data confirmed the performance order of the three groups.

In a study by Crowley (1 ), the experimenter administered praise,blame or silence to subjects as knowledge of results in the performanceof an insoluble task. It was found that subjects receiving praise per-slated the longest and those receiving blame remained at the task theshortest period of time.

The relationship of feedback to performance in programmed instruc-tion has been emmilnedbyAnderson,Kulhavy, and Andre (1570). It was-hypothesized that knowledge of correct responses (KCR) disrupts astudent's attention and that presenting answers on the same page as aframe merely produces copying and not learning. Two experiammilimmeconducted to test these predictions. Results indicated that copyingand not learning did occur. Furthermore, a mildly frustrating situationwas not able to increase attentiveness above that achieved by 100% KCR.Unikel and Strain (1971) examined the qualitative differences arisingfrom the use of social approval ("good") and correctness ("right") feed-back on verbal operant conditioning. Both groups were equal to oneanother and superior to controls during acquisition. In the extinctionphase a different experimenter ran half of each group while the sameexperimenter ran the remaining half. Subjects who had received correctreinforcement revealed no differences in their rate of extinction witheither the same or different experimenter. Subjects who had receivedsocial approval reinforcement, however, extinguished fester when thedifferent experimenter was present.

A study conducted by Solomon and Yaeger (1969) examined the effectsof content and intonation on perceptions of verbal reinforcers. It wasfound that content significantly affected the perception of a reinforcer's"objective" meaning and only moderately affected the subject's feeling.Intonation, on the other hand, significantly affected the perception ofthe speaker's liking for the subject. These findings suggest a dualinformational and approval function to reinforcement.

Insko and Cialdini (1969) tested predictions based on the hedon-

istic, informational and two-factor interpretations of attitudinalverbal reinforcement. Examining the role of reinforcers, each approachsuggested a different explanation as to their function in verbal condi-tioning. The rewarding value of "good" according to the hedonisticinterpretation, apparently motivates individuals to make correct re-

sponzes. The informational interpretation proposes that "good" merelyinforms the subject of the reinforcing agent's point of view which isthen followed by a simple conformity effect. According to the

32

interpTetation, ";.:0:41" functions in two ways: 1) it offers

:formution as to tne agent's attitude, and 2) it offers approval of

suli)ect'l; resj onsc. which by implication also approves of the sub.

..lect himself. Differential, predictions concerning the effects of "good"

and "huh" as based upon these three interpretations were subsequently

examined. Data confirmed the two- factor interpretation.

In a further examination of the two-factor theory, Cialdini andInako (19E9) propose that if both factors are necessary in order for

influence to occur in a conditioning situation, the manipulation of only

one of the factors (while holding the other constant) should produce a

differential effect. The data again confirmed the importance of both

factors to attitudinal verbal reinforcement.

A recent article by Buckwald (1969) has argued that the traditional

effects attributed to "right" and "wrong" can be explained without using

the principle of reinforcement. Be posits that this la possible if one

assumes that: 1) a subject may recall a response without recalling its

outcome (and conversely), 2) a response that is not recalled can only

be repeated by chance, and 3) the probability of repeating a reepcnee

+hilt is recalled is independent of the outcome of that response unless

the outcome is also recalled. Two experiments were conducted to test

this alternative: interpretation to reinforcement. kindings were inter-

,reted as consistent with the theoretical predictions offered. Appar-

st1;y more research needs to be conducted, however, before any conclusive

udgments can be made about the ability of this alternative theory to

.;:count for all the effects that have been observed and attributed to

eint orcment concepts.

The examination of alternative theoretical frameworks in whici. to

lace the observed effects of reinforcement has continued. Sholley

L9(9) investigated EU: extension of Feetinger's effort justification%-pottesis as an alternative explanation for resistance to extinction

%-dlowing a partial roinforcement schedule. It was proposed that wizen

i't'ovt is exerted achieve In insufficient reward, the individual will

:frivItyp a preferenc , for *he oehavior because of the effort expended..xperimentt were condi...OA-la which yielded results in support of the

4-po heniL.

Hornbeck (19/1) has recently examined the relationship between the.agn...t,Aue of incentive offered to perform a counterattitudial act and;ubscquent attitude change as based upon dissonance theory predictions.lesu_4.ts indicated that subjects who were paid $1.50 evidenced moreAtti.,ude change as an immediate post -test than those who were paid $.25

to write the coanterattitudivil essay.

Other relationships based upon aspects of balance theory have also:Jeer. explored. A study by Ostrom and Goldstein (1970) focused upon theeffects of reinforcement on the perception of the interviewer's attitude.

33

Results ttat

tively pro lttitdeaLt3 Jtitu,w wunless of prior inf,.r:;:

favoriLi unfivorahl

an interviewer was rlen as possessing a rela-n ne reinforced pro responses and a relatively

rezpos. This occurred regard-;. abouf the attitude: i.e.,

tic information.

'1"iegman, und.rope (1970) attemvted to use balance theory toexplain why interviewers talks a more whin, an interviewer disagreed withthem than who, he weeil. It wig sugge3ted that a liked interviewerwho disagroL,s with a au4o,;ect aill tansioL in the subject and,therefore, lead th te eng%c; in tf:rImin redqcing behavior;i.e., taikin4, its ut7o114t tc, rtzstvr c,riginal state. Resultsindicated that meaL speo,h rate of subjects was significantly higherin th.. unbalanced than t.alwiced eudition. that productivity. re-

al :Mae:: Were eq.LiivocLi.1..

A study by Cialdini (1972) observed how tv.ljects who reinforcedothers in their expression of ceith:% atLituir.aal items were affectedthemsulves th, reliafLreemeLt. revealEd an advocacy effect

3ub:1.r, Y V ryLnfore,1 Ana, th,Js, advocated a, pro position ontne issue subseluently Leclme moat pro than subjects who reinforced aeon positiot oti thu

'i.ouihson (1.969) fl,.:, recently ocamined dissonance theory and incen-

tive L,tfory predillz concerning. th4,. effei.:t of positive, negative, or

neutru.:. cc,;Isequf:Incez attitudir.%7.'.y diszcmant, consonant, and

irrt:ici.unt behavior. 6i.,,Lnat6 orfere0 i4ArLi..1.L support to incentive

theory but, generally speaking, did not confirm predictions based oneither theory.

Research has also demonstrated the important role payed by expect-ancies in determining the frequency and accuracy of reinforcement RSsdminislered experimentfrs (Jakubowski, 1968) and in leading to dis-

crepan(!:; reducing strategies among subjects (Fox, 190). The moatsophisticnted and dynamic model of social reinforcement to subsume thefunction of expectan(!l.e!; a%d propose a theoretical framework basedupon f,.,11a:t.ental "1:u2.:,:e" principles is that offered by Baron (1970).

The si,)elai reinforcen'en7. sta:Aard (:;BS) model (which has been previouslydisilssa in various ecn',exts) WIZ %zed by 71'3.TOTI to examine Negro re-

spr%sivenert ,c.) social reinforcemen-, 1-.e!..11ts from a series of studies

offerc., general r,T-Tor to the mode 'l proposition that, at least

in certain cirnostances, NegrtJes .4c,n11 find a low rate of approvalfrom 1 white auth,.,rit7; figure more appropriate than a high rate ofapproval. Mere recent examinations of the model by Baron and hisassociates (Baron, heckenmueller Rc e,c'hultz, 1971; Baron, Jackson &

i.72) have demonstrated the.,cumplex relationship of race, sourceof rf.:forcement, reinfercenen4, standard, type Ofreinforcer, and

rer.v!ptivity !.o social reinforcement.

Other theories acid models of motivation have also contributed to

an understanding of contingency reinforcement. Instrumentality theories

(cf. Broom, 19C44 Lawler, 1971) have been particularly important in

this regard. The basic distinguishing element of instrumentality theory

is. the belief that cognitions mediate behavior. Purthermore, behavior

is interpreted as a consequenee of its instrwnentality in obtaining

rewards and the attractiveness (valence) of those rewards. Available

research has supported elements of this model and the general proposi-

tion that individuals will behave in ways which they expect ,will lead

to valued rewards (Green,. 1969; Galbraith & Cummings, 1967; Schneider

&Olsen, 1970; Cherrington, Reitz, & Scott, 1971; Arvey & Dumiette,

197O; Deci, 1971). In a recent review of Instrumentality theory

research, Mitchell and Biglan (1971) conclude that instrumentality

theory has been less successful in predicting behavior and satisfaction

in organizations than in explaining attitude and verbal conditioning.

They attribute the differences in success to the complexity of real life

rhenamens (as evident in organizations) which usually does not pervade

the settings in which attitude and verbal conditioning are studied.

Equity theory constitutes another motivational framework in which

to interpret the meaning of rewards. Theoretically, an individual com-

pares his ratio of job inputs (any investment in a job) and job outeames

(returns on the investment) to the same ratio of same other individual

within the work setting. To the extent that the ratios are unequal,

the individual is motivated to reduce the discrepancy. Research examin-

ing these dynamics (cf., Pritchard, 1969; Pritchard, Jorgenson &

Runnette, 1972) has offered general support to the theory. Such an

approach has implications for systemic behavior observations and mlti-

j:le ;social reinforcements in a group or classroom netting, as selective

;inalvidual) reinforcement could potentially generate inequity.

The relative value of reviewing research which has examined instru-

2,ent,Ality and equity theories has been to establish an additional anti-

iatipnal basis for incentives. The functional utility of incentives

within the context of either incentive theory or other motivation

'ha,ries has led numerous authors (e.g., Nord, 1969; Jablonsky & D,Afries,

Fcirness, 1970; Lehrer, Ochiff Kris, 1970) to propose its prac-

ici Application.

Moti;a/lonal Praerties of Incentives

Research has also focused specifically upon various motivational

aspects of incentives themselves. Incentive magnitude, incentive con-

trast, and stability of incentive values illustrate the properties

which have been investigated. Although all of these studies do not

eal exclusively with social incentives, they are of isportance in

identifying critical process variables common to both social and non-

social incentives.

35

A study by Weinstein and Colucci (1970) compared the responses madeby sub,lects who were offered different amounts of incentives in the per-t:mance of ariticnetle problems. An inverse relationship was foundbetween 817e. of incentive and .latency of response. Subjects who receivedthe largest incentive took the shortest amount of time to respond.

Blank and Monge (1970) have recently examined absolute and relativeinterpretations of incentive magnitude effects. They hypothesized thata performance difference favoring the high incentive ($3.00) group wouldoccur only when subjects knew the size of the alternative incentive($.25); i.e., in the relative condition. No differences were fOundamong experimental treatments. A study by Humphries and Stabler (1969)was also unable to demonstrate any differences in the probability learn-ing or children due to level of incentives (arbles later traded for asmall toy or feedback of correct responses).

Prase (1971) was able to demonstrate how incentives could be usedto facilitate text learning among undergraduates. He had hypothesizedthat incentives will lead to greater recall when subjects are informedof the incentives before reading a passage than when they are informedor the incentives after reading the passage. Results confirmed theexivctntions.

Effects due 6o incentive contrast have been investigated in atleast two studies. Baldwin (1968) was unable to demonstrate any con-trast effects by varying the availability of rewards in two situations.A study by Weinstein (1970), however, found significant effects due toboth positive and negative incentive contrasts. In the first of twoexperiments examining these effects, Weinstein found a positive rela-tionship between latency of response and size of reward decrement.Ziailarly, in a second experiment, he demonstrated that positive incen-tive contrast effects were a monotonic function of reinforcement increments.

Cther research has examined possible factors that may influencethe value attributed to an incentive. Knott (1967) found that subjects,who were frustrated in their attempts to acquire available monetaryincentives, looked at pictures of money more often, overestimated theamount of money to a greater extent, and attributed more positive state-ments to a neutral stimulus associated with the rewards than controlsui:(lects. It war; concluded that frustration produces a temporary,immediate increase in the incentive value of a reward.

A fUrther examination of incentive value stability has been con-dveted by Shealy (19i,17:9). He studied changes in color preferences as a:4w:,7,-.1un of pairing with other colors of various preference values and

alalok;n, of pairing. Results indicated that color preferences were stableand riot sr1r7ificantly affected by either the pairing of incentives oramount of pairir47. Other research (cf. Nealey, 1964; Nealey & Goodale,

36

1967; Hate, Feldstein, & Witryol, 1970; Haaf, 1971) suggests that thevalue of an incentive may be a function of the situation in which it isoffered and the variety of other incentives also available.

Incentives have also been ,studied as determinants of individual

goals and intentions. Locke, Bryan and Kendall (1968) have presentedevidence to demonstrate that incentives; e.g., money, affect peribrmanceonly to the extent that they affect an individual's goals and intentions.Further support for the relationship between goals and performance isoffered by Cummings, Schwab and Rosen (1971).

The apparent emphasis upon monetwy incentives in the examinationof their motivational properties has recently been criticized by17chrieber and Sloan (1970). Claiming that financial, incentives arebasea upon an outmoded economic model of man, they argue in defense ofa broadened concept of incentives to include a variety of psychological

(e.g., social) incentives. They contend that this integration of avail-able incentives is consistent with contemporary theories of human moti-vation which emphasize the importance of psychological needs. Researchexamining social systems of reinforcement as evident in the currentreview would appear to support the erg eat posited by Scbrieber and

Sloan.

._:atiation of 7ocial Approval

An important process dynamic concerns the satiation function of

sac :i,1 approval. !peaking, the deprivation-satiation ef.'ectis characterized by an inverse relationship between the frequency flsocial reinforcement received during a preceding perio4 of time and it$subsequent effectiveneEc as h reinforcer. The following eight studiespresent our current understanding of this relationship.

A stld: tt;, (196i3) examined the verbal satiation process in

children. He frnd that the continued repetition of a positive or nega-lye verbal reiforfter did uecrease its effectiveness as a reinforcer.

FsIrtermore, it Muni that the effectiveness of a reinforcer vt.sallTerel regardlen of whether the previously repeated word was postive'Jr At--...aren-ly, the satiation effect was not dependent upon

aemantic characteristics (positive or negative) of the word. In ala.er study, Cook (1970r has offered additional evidence to support thesatlition effect by demonstrating that the effectiveness of '"good" as areinforcer decreased as the duration of its continuous repetition in-creased.

(Alley (1969) extimined the effect of vicarious reinforcement uponthe satiation of social approval. insults indicated that subjects whohad .)bserved a model being reinforced and who had been reinforced them-selves demonstrated significantly better performance than control

37

subjects. Satiation apparently did not occur through the mechanism ofvicarious reinforcement.

In order to test the proposition that social incentives are moreeffective with people who have been historically deprived of them,yen and Lyle (1971) Compared the responses of retarded and normalreaders to a learning task under the assumption that the latter havetraditionally received more social reinforcement than the former. Nosignificant differences were found between the groups on task performanceor rite of learning. The tenuous nature of the original assumption maybe more responsible for these findings than the possible conclusion thatprior deprivation is unrelated to the subsequent effectiveness of socialreinforcers.

Babad (1971) has offered a cognitive interpretation of the socialdeprivation-satiation. effects. He posits that the critical process islearaing the reinforcing value of the particular source of the reinforc-ing stimuli, This stresses the role of information as derived fromdeprivation and satiation experiences. Furthermore, it focuses on thesubject's perception of the contingencies of the interaction betweenhimself and the reinforcing agent, Babad tested two birPotheaes: 1)that the social deprivation- satiation effect (SDSE) is a person-specificeffect, nut readily generalizable to other reinforcing agents, and 2)that the SDSE pattern can be created by providing the subjects withappropriate information input without subjecting them to actual depri-vation or satiation treatments. Both hypotheses were confirmed withmiddle class children, but not with lower class children. Babad con-eluded that the failure of lover class children to cognize as hypothe-sized was due to the combination of long-term social deprivation, anunstable environment which encourages reaction to the immediate andconcrete, and the arousing nature of the experimental situation.

In a review of research examining the deprivation-satiation func-tion of social approval, Eiaenberger (1970) its that while a largenumber of studies have successfully replicated the deprivation-satiationeffect using choice measures of instrumental performance, other studiesusing rate or duration measures have produced weak and inconsistent find-ings. Eisenberger suggests that the methodological deficiencies of thelatter studies make the interpretation of their results highly equivocal.Furthermore, the currently available body of research suggests thatchanges in approval-contingent performance resulting from the deprivationand satiation of social reinforcement cannot be attributed to changes ingeneral sensory deprivation, general drive level, or cue properties ofapproval comments. Eibenberger concludes that the vithLalding and pre-sentation of approval alters the motivation for obtaining it.

The recent work of Baron and his associates (Baron, Heekenmueller& Shultz, 1971; Baron, Jackson & Fish, 1972) has examined the long- andshort-term determinants of social reinforcer effectiveness. Studied

38

.within the context of race differences, their research suggests a Com-

plex interaction of reinforcement history (attributable to race) and

availability of praise in explaining the efficacy of social reinforce-

ment. They have proposed that short term variations in the availability

of a social stimulus depend upon the experimenter's ability to elicit

an above-threshold level of attention from subjects. Data suggest that

a black experimenter is better able than a white experimenter to accom-

plish this function. The introduction of a black reinforcing agent in

an unfamiliar setting apparently constitutes a sufficiently unique

situation so as to arouse level of attention. These findings (as dis-

cussed in earlier sections of this report) thus introduce an additional

set of variables to be considered in further investigations of the

deprivation-satiation function of social approval.

cmcLusIass

1. Previous research on social reinfvnicement has primarily

utilized verbal praise as the reinforcer. Additional reinforcers

studied under the rubric of social incentive systems have modified some

behaviors, but do not yield generalized dimensions for the delineation

a social reinforcement concept. As a preliminary definition, we

7onsider a reinforcing stimulus to be social if its reward value is

related to another individual or group interacting with the reinforced

aub,lect.

2. Results on behavior-change effects of social reinforcers are

highly equivocal.. Comparison o of social and nonsocial reinforcement

effects have shown divergent results across studies. The superiority

if a particular class of reinforcers depends on the behavioral criterion

(e.g., performance speed, accuracy, or persistence), the nature of the

task (e.g., concept formatior, learning tasks, intelligence testing,

imititive responses), and individual differences in age, sex, and socio-

econcn.tc status. Same evidence favors the combination of social and

nonsocial reinforcers in an operant behavior-change system.

3. Characteristics of the subject affect his responsiveness to

social reinforcement.

(a) Significant social reinforcement effects have been found

in clinically deviant populations. However, in the Tew

research paradigms offering comparisons to "normal" sub-

jects, no differential effects were found.

(b) Contrary to expectation, subjects low in perceived simi-

larity to parents are more responsive to social

39

reinforcement than parental-similar subjects. This effectmay be duet however, to the novelty of social reinfOrce-sent, if in fact it is less prevalent in the home of lov-similarity subjects.

(c) No conclusions tan be reasonably drawn at this time con-cerning socioeconomic status as a moderating variable.In examinations of social reinforcement effects on lower-and middle-class children, 3 studies showed no differen-tial effects, 3 studies reported greater response tosocial reinforcement in the middle-class group, and 1study showed that middle-class subjects also responded ata higher level to tangible incentives.

(d) Though evidence is meager, older persons seem to respondmore to social reinforcement than do younger people.Studies documenting age relationships have, however, beenrestricted to samples of children and elderly adults.

(e) Effects of sex and race appear dependent on subject-reinforcing agent interactions. Even then whether homo-geneous or heterogeneous pairs facilitate social rein-forcement is situationally relative. At least one studreports greater effects with same-sex pairs. With regardto the reinforcing agent, social reinforcement effectstend to diminish when the agent is changed. Additionally,one's social peers tend to be effective reinforcingagents.

(r) Attempts to relate social reinforcement effects to per-sonality differences have generated little knowledge.The only variable demonstrating a fairly direct effect isthat of affective state, where depressed states inhibitsocial reinforcement effectiveness. This variable, ofcourse, may also be situationally, as well as personally,determined. Theorists have suggested other possiblerelations to social motivation and locus of control.

4. A variety of behaviors have been found amenable to change withsocial reinforcement. These behaviors include various forms of verbalbehavior, attitudes, clinical phobias, group participation, cohesive-ness, and leadership behaviors, and, though less clearly, classroombehaviors. An interesting finding from the classroom research showedthe effectiveness of making individual reinforcement contingent upongroup performance. Of further interest to our particular research arefindings that social reinforcement increased: (a) altrusitic behavior,and (b) basic combat training performance in the Army.

40

5. Several dynamics of the reinforcement process play an important

role in determining its effectiveness. Partial reinforcement has been

found more effective than continuous reinforcement for both social and

nonsocial incentives;' results arc mixed, however, concerning the rela-

tive efficacy of partial reinforcement schedules. Vicarious

social reinforcement also affects behavior, although effects vary with

characteristics of the model. Motivation theory and research also egg-

gests that reinforcement effects require awareness of behavior-reward

contingencies, the availability of positively valued rewards, and feed-

bank. The reinforcement value of feedback appears to depend on its

dual functions of providing information (knowledge of results) and

social approval. Understanding the process dynamics of social rein-

forcement has been furthered by concepts from cognitive consistency and

expectancy theories of human motivation. Motivational aspects of in-

centives that may be responsible for their effects include their magni-

tude, contrast, stability, and mediating effects on goals and intentions.

6. The effectiveness of social reinforcement may be related to

previous deprivation. Hoverer, the deprivation-satiation function has

also been found to depend on whether reinforcement is direct or vicar-

ious, differential reinforcement histories (and environments) across

races and social classes, and general attention level of the subject.

7. Generally speaking, then, while social reinforcement offers a

potential path to behavior modification, its predicted effects are

presently intertwined with a vast number of "moderating variables."

;situational constraints derive from a complex interaction of subject

snd reinforcing agent characteristics, behaviors being reinforced, and

the dynamics of the reinforcement process. In reviewing research ia

this area, two basic problem areas may be noted. First, considerations

of methodological rigor J.n specific studies have prevented ua from

drawing firm conclusions abrfirt particular relationships and effects.

;econd, and more importantly, the literature lacks a sound theoretical

base for predicting effects of social reinforcement, directing research,

Ind integrating its results into a comprehensive body of scientific

knowledge from which practical applications can be successfully derived.

Puture research should aystematically investigate determinants of the

value of social incentives and the processes through which they can be

Ipplied to changing human behavior in social and learning settings.

REFERENCES

Adam, E,E. Jr, An analysis of changes in performance quality with

operant conditioning procedures. JoUrnal of Awned, Psycho_logy,1972, 56, 480-496.

Agree, S., Leitenberg, H. and Barlow, D. U. Social reinforcement in

the modification of agoraphobia. Archives of General Psychiatry,

1968, 19, 423-427.

Allen, S. A., Spear, P. S. and Lucke, J. R. Effects of social rein-

forcement on learning and retention in children. Develormentai

Psychology, 1971, 5(1), 73-80.

Altman, K. 1. and Linton, T. E. Operant conditioning in the classroom

setting: A review of the research. The Journal of Educational

Research, 66, 6, 1971.

Nnderson, K. A. 'Experimenter reinforcement and modeling effects on a

verbal operant in an interview setting. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation. Washington State University, 1970.

knderson, R. C., Kulhavy, R. W. and Andre, T. Feedback procedmre in

programmed instruction. Experimental Publication System, October,

1970, 8, 303-304.

:trvey, R. D. and Dunnette, M. D. Task performance as a function of

perceived effort-performance and performance-reward contingencies.

Office of Naval Research Technical Report, 1970.

Wit, R. L. and Vogler, R. E. Discriminative and reinforcing functions

of four verbal stimuli. Psychological Reports, 1969, 24, 555-562.

,sabad, E. Y. A cognitive analysis of the "social deprivation-satiation

effect." Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Duke University,

1971.

akel, J. M. Children's imitative responses as a function of socio-.

economic class, incentive-oriented set and reinforcement. Unpub-

lished doctoral dissertation. University of Arizona, 1973.

Baldwin, T. L. An exploratory investigation of incentive contrast.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Wisconsin,

1968.

Barnlart, J. E. The acquisition of cue properties by social and non -

social events. Child Development, 1968, 39(4), 1237-1245.

43

Baron, R. X. The SRS model as a predictor of Negro responsiveness toreinfOrceaent. Journal gg: Social Issues, 1970, 26(2), 61-81.

Barron, R. M., Heckemmueller J. and Schultz, S. Differences in condi-tion-ability as a function of race of :ubject and prior availabil-ity of a social reinibraer, Journa1A: Personality, 1971, 39(1),94-111.

Baron, R. Me, Jackson, J. and Fish, B. Lang- and ehart-tomadetmwmin-ants of social reinforcer effectiveness. journal of personalityand Social Payohology 1972, 24, 1221314

Berm, R. X., Robinson, K. L. and Lawrence, S. The effectiveness ofsocial reinforcement as a !Unction of Obanges in rate of reinfOrce-ment. Journal of Experimental. Social Psycholow, 1968, 44 123-142.

Barton, K. Block manipulation by children as a function of socialreinforcement, anxiety, arousal and ability pattern. ChildDevelopment, 1971, 42(3), 817-826.

Bergen, A., *Mania, D. L. and Melchertt P. A. Effects of social andtoken reinforcement on MISC Block Design perfamance. Perceptualand Motor skills, 1971, 32(3), 871480.

Berger, C. R. The effects of influence feedback and, need influence anthe relationship between incentive magnitude and attitude cheese.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan `State University, 1968.

Berger, S. M. and Ellsoury, S. W. The effect of expressive verbal rein-forcements an incidental learning by models and Observers.American Journal of Perdhology, 1969, 82(3), 333-341.

Birney, S. D. Effects of verbal, feedback an concept specific-anxiety.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Colorado State University, 1970.

Blain, M. J. and Ramirez, M. Increasing sociometric rank, roaningsa-flees, and discriminability of childreWs names through reinfarcementand interaction, Child Develareu#, 1968, 39(2), 949-955.

Blank, H. D. and Mange, R. H. Effects of awareness of alternative in-centive magnitude and shifts in magnitude on card sorting.Psychological, Reports, 1970, 27, 119-125.

Block, M. The operant conditioning of verbal behavior examined via thesemantic differential. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. NewYork University, 1967.

Boulay, M. Verbal reinforcement and Rorschach productivity. Journalof Clinical Psychology, 1969, 25(3), 310.

Eourdon, R. D. Effects of reinforcement versus nomreinfnrcement on theacquisition of a modeled verbal operant. Unpublished doctoraldissertation. The Florida State University, 1968.

Bowersock, R. B. Effects of verbal, vicarious, and monetary reinforce-ment on the verbally stated interests of three rehabilitationclients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Florida StateUniversity, 1970.

Braun, S. H.. .Effects of sehedules of direct or vicarious reinforcement

and discriminative modeling cues on behavior in extinction. Un-pliaisbed doctoral ditsertatica. University of Missouri at

Columbia, 1970

Breitmeyer, R. G. An incentive motivation approach to partial reinforce-

ment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1969, (29 7-fl), 2628.

Britt, D. Effects of probability of reinforcement and social stimulusconsistency on imitation. Journal of Personality and SocialPsycholcv, 1971, 18, 189-200.

Brown, R. A. Interaction effects of social and tangible reinforcement.Journal of Exerimental Child Psychology, 1971, 12(3), 289-303.

Buckwald, A. M. Effects of "right" and "wrong" on subsequent behavior:A new interpretation. Psychological Review, 1969, 76, 132.11+3.

Bullard, P. D. The effects cf verbal reinforcement on "hypnotic"behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University ofWashington, 1971.

Bows, C. J. Effects of teacher reinforcement on classroom behaviors andattitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University ofColorado, 1970.

'arpenter, P. and Carom, R. Green stamp therapy: Modification of de-linquent behavior through food trading stamps. Proceedings of theAnnual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1966,

(3), 5a1-532.

Cernlus, V. Effects of two different types of reinforcers on conceptual

thinking among lower class boys: A developmental study. Proceed-ings of the 76th Annual Convention of the AmericaxiPsidholiii7JAssociation, 196B, 3, 17-18,

Charlesworth R. and Hartup, W. W. Positive social reinforcement inthe nursery school peer group, Child Development, 1967, 38(4),993-1002.

Cherrington, D. J., Reitz, H. J. and Scott, W. E. Effects of contingentand noncontingent reward on the relationship between satisfactionand task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55,531 -531.

Cherie, J. A. Effects of imitation of different reinforcement coMbina-tions to a model. journal of Experimental Child Zwhology, 1971,12(2), 258 -2t9.

Cialdini, R. B. and intko, C. A. Attitudinal verbal reinfOrcement as afunction of informational consistenty: A further test of the two-factor theory. Journal of Personality, and Social Psychs ez,

1919, 12, 342-350.

Cialdini, R. B. The effects of attitudinal verbal reinforcement uponthe attitudes of the verbal reinforcer. Unpublished doctoraldissertation. University of North Carolina at Chapel Bill, 1970.

Clark, M. D. The effects of counselor supervisors' verbal reinforce-ments upon counselor trainee's verbal behavior. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. Arizona State University, 1969.

Clark, C. A. and Walberg, H. J. The influence of massive rewards onreading achievement in potential urban school dropouts. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 1968, 5(3), 305-310.

Cohen, 0. L. and Jaffe, C. L. The effects of varying the number ofconditioned leaders on group problem-solving. Parchonomic Science,1970, 21, 95-96.

Conger, J. C. The modification of therapist behavior by client use ofsocial reinforcement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Illinois, 1968.

Conger, J. C. The treatment of Encopresis by the management of socialconsequences. Behavior Therapy, 1970, 1, 386-390.

Cock, H. Verbal satiation of a positive and negative verbal reinforcerin children. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,1968, 7, 1082.10P7.

Cook, H. Effectiveness of a verbal reinforcer subsequent to satiationin preschool children. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 19(6), 327-329.

46

Costello, H. J. Social reinforcers as functions of social competenceand reinforcement conditions. Unpublished doctoral. dissertation.Illinois Institute of Technalo4f, 1967.

Orowley, J. J. The effects of varied types and schedulem of socialreinforcement persistence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Tem:le 'Oliversity, 1968.

Cummings, L. L., Schwab, P. P. and Rosen, M. Performance and knowledgeof results as determinants of goal setting. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 1971, 55, 526-530.

D'Ambrosio, J. A. The effects of differential reinfcrcers and socialclass of performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. IndianaUniversity, 1969.

Datel, W. E. and Legters, L. J. The psychology of the army recruit.Paper read at the American Medical Association Convention, Chicago,1970.

Davison, D. C. Some demographic and attitudinal concomitants of theperceived reward value of classroom reinforcement: An applicationof NevcaMb's balance theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Illinois, 1967.

Deci, E. L. Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic moti-vation. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholw, 1971, 18,105-115.

Deci, E. L. Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement and inequity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 22, 113-120.

ielahanty, D. Three aspects of nonverbal communication in the interview.Personnel Journal, September, 1970, 49(9), 757-759.

Di JrAmes, D. D. The effect of three classes of reinforcement in verbaloperant conditioning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Southern California, 1970.

Aist:tn R. Trained clients as reinforcers of counselor behavior.Journql of Consultin% and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 37(3),

351=37.

Eaglin, R. 1, . An experimental study of the effect of positive, nega-tive and no verbal reinforcers on assigned leaders in eight-memberdecision-making groups. December, 1970.

Eisenberger, R. Is there .a deprivation-satiation function for socialapproval? Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 74, 255-275

47

Elliott, T. N. The effect of stealing behavior of reinforced statementsof honesty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University ofMississippi, 1971.

Endu 1. T. Social drive or arousal: A test of two theories of socialisolation. Journal of Experimental Child Psydholoa, 1968, 6,ca-74.

Evans, J. R. Relationships of psychological differentiation, emotionaldistance from reinforcing agent, emotional arousal, and responsive-ness to social, reinforcement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.George Peabody College for Teachers, 1969.

Ferreira, J. R., Promoting attentive behavior through application ofpositive reinforcement procedures. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion. Stanford University, 1969.

Field, T. W., Simpkins, W. S., BrAnle, R. K. and Rich, P. Identifyingpattern of teacher behavior from student evaluations. Journal ofApplied 1971, 55, 466-469.

Fielding, V. J. Effects of social reinforcement on children's rate ofverbalization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University ofMissouri, 1968.

Finch, A. J. Direct and vicarious delivery of social and monetaryreinforcers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University ofAlabama, 1970.

Fitz, R. J. The differential effects of praise and censure on seriallearning as dependent on locus of control and field dependency.unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Catholic University ofAmerica, 1970.

Flanders, J. P. and Thistlethvaite, D. L. Effects of vicarious rein-forcement, verbalizations, and task difficulty upon imitation.Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the American Psycho-logical Association, 19b0.

Flynn, J. T. and Morgan, J. H. A methodological study of the effective-ness of programmed instruction through analysis of learned charac-teristics. Proceedin of the lith Annual Convention of the AmericanPsychologic asocia on, 1 f, 259-

F(frness, O. R. Behavioristic approach to classroom management andmotivation. Psychology in Schools, 1970, 7, 356-363.

48

Fox, S. F. Social reinforcement effects as a function of utility and

expectancy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Wayne Stateniversity,

Frases L. T. Effects of incentive variables and type of adjunct ques-

tion upon text learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971,

t:2(5), 371-375.

Freidman, P. and Bowers, N. D. Student imitation of a rewardingteacher's verbal style as a function of sex and grade level.Journal of Educational Psycholosy, 1971, 2(6), 487-491.

Fry, C. L., Hopkins, O. R. and Hoge, P. Triads in minimal social

situations. Journal of Social Psychology, 1970, 80, 37-42.

Fujitani, . Subcultural differences in instrumental preference forreinforcers. Enpublished doctoral dissertation. University ofUtai., 19(9.

Galbraith, .1. and Cummings, L. L. An empirical investigation of themotivational determinants of task performance: Interactive effectsbetween instrumentality - valence and motivation-ability. 2E6E1ertional Behavior and Humnn Performance, 1967, 2, 237-257.

general Electric Personnel Research Bulletin. Hourly employees improve

outputs with increased responsibility. Number 10, January, 1971.

H. M. Effects of vicarious verbal stimuli on conditioning ofhostile and neutral verbs. The Journal of paycholoei, 19("9,

245-252.

ioldsmith, A. F. The effects of verbal incentive, race and sex ofexaminer on diglt-symbol performance of Negro males and femals.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The City University of New

York, 1969.

loldsteiL, M. K. Behavior rate change in marriages: Training wivts tomodify husbands' behavior. Unpublished doctoral Aissertation*Cornell 'Iniversity, 1971.

kAsciewski, F. W. The effect of expectancy reinforcement on arithmeticachievement, self-concept, and peer-group status of elementaryschool children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Kent StateUniversity, 1970.

GouauX, C. and Gouaux, S. M. The influence of induced status on theeffectiveness of social and nonsocial reinforcers in an instru-mental learning task. Paychonomic Science, 1971,.22, 341-343.

49

Gourley, !!. H. The effects of individual Counseling, group guidance,a:1,1 verbal reinforcement a: the academic progress of underachievers.Ynl,ublished doctoral dissertation. ITniversity of North Carolina

/. (trII.el H111, 141)l,

J. D. rind Lyle, 0. Effects of inoentives upon retarded andnormal readers on a visual-associate learning task. Journal ofEverimental Child Psychology, 1971, 11(2), 274-280.

(Amen, rnstrumentallty theory of work motivation: Some experimentalresults and suggentea modifications. Junal of Applied Psychology,

19 ' 9, 53(e), 1-25.

GrautArd, 1teachiAnnual

. ;?se of indigenous grouping as the reinforcing agent inng disturbed delinquents to learn. Proceedings of the 76th

Convention of the American ol cal AssociatiOn 196b

L3), Ell 3-ol

Griffitt, W. and luay, P. Inject" evaluation and conditioned affect.Journal (JflAurimental Research in J....21'erstalit, 1969, 4, 1.8.

Guilford, J. C. Jroup trentmeut versus individual initiative in thecessation of smoking. Journal of Applied psychology, 1972, 56,

Hata, R. A. The rational zero point on incentive-object preferencescales: A develtdomental study. Developmental Psychology, 1971,

,)(.3)537.

Mar, R. A., Feldstein, J. H. and Witryol, *. L. A developmental study

of children's incentive-object preferences. Developmental psychol-

2a, 1970, 3, 275.

Hall. R. V., Panyan, M. Hobo%teachers in reinforcementtrol. :ournal of Applied

D. and Broden, M. Instructing beginningprocedures which tuprove classroom con-Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1(4), 315-322.

Hamilton, D. L., Thompson, J. J. and White, A. M. Role awareness and

-Inentionsin observational learning. Journal of ersonality andPsyctiology, 1970, 16(4), ('9 -694.

P,I.Loc.:1, J. C., Niland, M. and Zani, L. Model reinforcement ingroup counseling with elementary school children. Personality

and guidance Journal, I 9(9, 47(8), 741-744.

W. G. The application of contingency management techniquesn,- teaching of Loachers. Paper presented at the Midwestern

'Elycholir!al Association Convention, Cleveland, 1972.

50

hartup, W. W. and Coates, B. Imitation of a peer az a function ofreinforcement rran the leer group and rewarding tens of the model.Child 12(.:IeureL_a 197. 38(4), 1003-1014

Hartap, W. W. , Jiver, J. A. and Charlesworth, H. P..er reinfOrcement

and sociometric status. Child Develoiasent, 11.), 3B(4), 1017-1024.

Haslam, W. B. The effect of apparent reward on behlv.ior eqi certain

problem-solving groups. Unpublishe doctoral dIssertation.Brigham Young Untversit2,, 1970.

Bassett, I. D. P. The effects of type of reinforcer on several lowerclass culturs1 groups. Unpublished doctoral di:;sertation. The

University of New Mexico', 1970.

Heckenmueller, J., Schultz, F. and Barone R. M. Social reinforcerdeprivation effects as fL function of race of subject. Proceedingof the th Annual Convent of ..the American 11:40101pg

Association, 3, 1A-392.

Heilbrun, A. S. Perceived mnternal child-rearing experiences and theeffects of vicarious and direct reinforcement it. males. Child

DeveXoPment, 1970, 41(1), 253-262.

Bekmat, H. and Lee, Y. B. Conditioning of affective self-references ns

a function of semantic meaning of verbal reinforcers. Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 1970, 74:, 427-433.

Hemry, F. M. P. Verbal and nonverbal reinforcement vombinations asrelated to impulsive- reflective style of responiling in primary

grade children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The

University of Texas at Austin, 1969.

Herman, S. H. and Tramontana, J. Instructions and group versus indi-vidual reinforcement in modifying disruptive group behavior.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1971, 4, 313-119.

Hill, K. T. and Dusek, J. B. Children's achievement expectations as afunction of social reinforcement, sex of subject and test anxiety.Child Development, 1969, 40(2), 547-557.

Hill, K. T. and Stevenson, H. W. Effectiveness of scoial and visualreinforcement following social and nonsocial deIrivation. Journalof Experimental Research in Personalitiy, 1970, 4, 100-107.

Hollander, E. K. The effects of various incentives on fifth and sixthgrade inner-city children's performance of an arithmetic task. Un-published doctoral dissertation. The American University, 1968.

51

Hurnbek, F. W. itudies in forced compliance: IX. The effects ofdeception, uommitment and incentive on attitude change produced by11:e, wri!tg yr a colInterattitudinal essay. Journal of Social.ix".1!40-1-og:!', 1,1,4(1. '21, 63-72.

;Well, M..A. Time,off 101 reward for productivity. PersonnelNovember-December, 1971, 48-51.

M. ..trod :stabler, J. R. Probability learning of childrenas nt functIL-1 of method of stimulus presentation, reinforces ententingeniez and incentive level. Journal of Genetic Psychology,19 ..9, 114,

Ingling, O. H. The effects of factors associated with the Taffelpresentation technique in the operant conditioning of verbalbenavior. !qpublished doctoral dissertation. The University ofI-Wt.:heater, la.

lLsko, C. A. and 'ialdini, R. B. A test of three interpretations ofattitudinal 7erbal reinforcement. Journal of Personality andsocial Psych,aogy, 19ti9, 12, 333-3417--

r",. A. and 4elson, W. H. Verbal reinforcement of attitude inlab( ,rat ory atd nuiLlaboratt)ry contexts. Journal of Personality,19..,9, 3/(11), '25-40.

4ablonsky, C. F. tnd ImVries, D. L. Operant conditioning principlesextrapolated to the theory of management. Organizational Behaviorand Human Verformance, 1972, 7, 340-358.

Jqkubowski, :'. A. F.xpectancy and the efforts of consistent and incon-sistent contimgent social reinforcement. Unpubliihed doctoraldiasertation. !Inlversity of Illinois, 1968.

Jones, Q. R. Vernal, conditioning as a function of selected visual andauditory chac.aeteristics of the experimenter. Unpublished doctoraldissertation. Auburn 1Tniversity, 19Q8.

if,t,Ver, F. H. it d

and numberr)f Educatill

KrXer, F. H.,t41 mf,del rei

incle (An mode

Duerfeldt, P. H. Learnctr competence, model competenceobservation trials in vicarious learning. Journallzycholocy, 19.7, 58(01 153-157.

P. H., Martin, 3. and Dorsey, T. E. EffectsLforcement, expectations to perform and task perform-

, observation. Journal of Personality and Social971, 20(2), 2114.7.7..rett-

52

Kaplan, M. F. and olvatitt, F. V. Attitude similarity and direct rein-forcement as determinants ofattraction. Journal of Ex eritlentalResearch in Personality, 1970, 4, 186-189.

Kaplan, M. F. %ad t)lczak, P. V. Attraction toward another as as functiun

of similarity and commonality of attitudes. Tqcholosical Reiortc.

Kaplan, M. G. The effects of social reinforcement and sex of peerreinforcing agent on the performance of boys and girls as a func-tion of pre-training experience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1970.

Kennedy, T. D., Timmons, E. 0. and Nobbin C. D. Nonverbal maintenanceof conditioned verbal behavior following "interpretations,""reflections" and social reinforcers. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 1971, 20, 112-117..

Nesse', P. Control of verbal behavior as a function of social rein-forcement, the subject's conception of the interviewer's valuesrelative to his own, and need for social approval; A psychotherapyanalogue study.. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. TempleUniversity, 1967.

Kidd, J. E. The influence of selected variables on the reinforcementrates of educators enrolled in a three-week workshop on behaviormodification. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University ofVirginia, 1970.

C. R. Verbal conditioning and transfer effects in an Interviewsetting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University ofVirginia, 1968.

King, M. L. The effectiveness of social reinforcement on a motor per-formance of Negro preschool children as a function of socioeconomiclevel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University ofMississippi, 1970.

Klimoski, R.J., Raben, C.S., Haccoun, R.R., & Gilmore, D. An annLtatedbibliography on social_ reinforcement: Evaluative obstracts of researchsad theory. AYHRL-TR-74-9(iI). Lowry AFB, Colo.: Technical TrainingDivision, Air Force Human Reslurces Laboratory, August 1974.

Knott, P. D. Frustration in relation to primary conditioned incentive

value: Effects in verbal evaluation, selective attention, sizeestimation and reward expectancy. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion. Vanderbilt University, 1967.

Kozma, A. The effects of anxiety, stimulation and isolation on socialreinforcer effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,1969, 8, 1-8.

53

Kuzma, A. Instructional and isolation effects on susceptibility tosocial reinforcement. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science,1971, 3, 388-392.

Krueger, D. Operant group therapy with delinquent boys using therapist'sversus peer's reinforcement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

university of Miami, 1970.

Lwler, E. E., III. Pa and o izational effectiveness: A chol

ical view. New York: McGraw- ill

Lawrence, E. A. The effect of two classes of verbal reinforcement onthe performance of subjects differing in locus of control.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Syracuse UniversitY, 1969.

Lee, G. R. The effects of social reinforcement and aome other experi-mental treatments on the within-interview verbal behavior ofcounselors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of

Minnesota, 1968.

Leech, S. and Witte, K. L. Paired associate learning in elderly adults

as related to pacing and incentive conditions. Developmental

Psychology, 1971, 5(7), 180.

Lehrer, P., Schiff, L. and Kris, A. The use of a credit card in a

token economy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1970, 3,289 -291.

Leoxvtrd, S. and Weitz, J. Task enjoyment and task perseverance inrelation to task success and self-esteem. Journal of AppliedPszcnology, 1971, 55, 414-421.

Lepper, M. R. Anxiety and experimenter valence as determinants ofsocial reinforcer effectiveness. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 1970, 16(4), 704-709.

Leventhal, H. and Fischer, K. What reinforces in a social reinforce-ment situation - words or expressions? Journal of Personality,

and Social Psychology, 1970, 14, 83-94.

Lewis, M. Q. and Baker, R. D. Model reinforcement of verbalizationsversus actions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1971, 18(3),283-284.

Liberman, R. A behavioral approach to group dynamics. 1. Reinforcementrind promoting of cohesiveness in group theraw. Behavior Therapx,

1970, 1, 141-175.

Lidman, R. 1. Contagion of aggression and the number of reinforcements

given by a model to an instigator. INchOttomic Science, 1969, 16,

69-70.

Linford, A. G. and Duthie, J. H. Opontaueous unintentional ccmditioning

of-the experimenter as a reinforcer. Perceptual, and Abate Skills,

1970, 31, 518.

Locke, E. A., Bryan, J. F. and Kendall, L. M. Goals and intentions as

mediators of the effects of monetary incentives on behavior.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, 104-121.

Lott, A. J. and Lott, B. E. Liked and disliked persons as reinforcing

Stimuli. Journal of Persona ity and Social illys12212a, 19690 11,

129-137.

rlatt, G. A. Vicarious and direct reinforcement control of verbalbehavior in an interview setting. Unpublished doctoral disserta-

tion. Indiana University, 1968.

Nhrquis, K. H. Effects of social reinforcement on health reporting in

the household interview. Sociometry, 1970, 33(2), 203-215.

Martens, R. Internal-external control and social reinforcement effects

on motor performance. Research Quarterly, 1971, 42(3), 307-313.

Meddock, T. D., Parsons, J. A. and Hill, K. T. Effects of an adult's

presence and praise on young children's performance. Journal of

Experimental Child Psychology, 1971, 12(2), 197-211.

Milby, J. B., Jr. Modificatiun of extreme social isolation by contin-

gent social reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,

1970, 3, 149-152.

Miller, A. and Hood, R. Awareness, social deprivation, and verbal

operant conditioning for adults. Psychological Reports, 1970,

26, 893-894.

Mitchell, T. R. and Biglan, A. Instrumentality theories: Current uses

in psychology. Psychology Bulletin, 1971, 76, 432-454.

Moffat, C. H. and Motiff, J. P. Effectiveness of,different verbalreinforcement combinations on a discrimination-reversal problem

in children. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 21(6), 251-253.

Moss, R. H. and Bouts, P. S. Differential effects of the social atmos-

pheres of psychiatric wards.Moss, R. H.' Stanford university, School of Medicine.Haute, P. S. Pennsylvania State UniVersity, College of Medicine.

55.

Moyer, P. D. An imrestigation of the effects of leader verbal rein-forceent of understanding responses in groups-of student riurses.unpublished doctoral dissertation., Arizona State University, 1968.

add, S.: A. Group sanction severity as a' nanction of degree of behaviordeviation and relevance of norm. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 1968, es 258-207'

Healey, S. M. Determiningprograms. Journal of

Healey, S. M. and Goodale,benefits and pay. J361.

worker preferences amongPalled Psycho1011y, 1964

J. G. Waiter preferencesournal of ApLaied P

twee benefit7-12.

time-off* 51, 357-

Ord, W. R. Beyond the teaching marine: The neglected area of operantconditioning in the theory and practice of management. Organiza-tional Behavior and RUtheli Performance, 1969, 4, 375-4041.

Nord, W. Improving attendance through rewards. Fersonnel Advdnistra-tics, November-December, 1970, 37-41.

Olson, G. K., Bibelheimer, D. J. and Stevenson, H. W. Incentive effectsand social class in c;hildren's probability and discrisdnationlearning. Psychonmaic Science, 1967, 9(3), 459-460.

Ostrom, T. and Goldstein, J. H. Reinforcement and prior information inthe judgment of others' attitudes. Psychonalic Science, 1970,19(6), 319-320.

Paletz, M. D. Prior reinformment history as an explanation for theeffects of sex of subject and experimenter in social reinforcementparadigms. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1970, 11.7, 227-238.

Peel, W. C., Jr.. The effectiveness of social reinforcer. and socisa.punishers 'with primary psychopaths, secondary psychopaths andnormals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Memphis StateUniversity, 1970.

Phillips, J. Performance of father-present and father-absent southernNegro boys on a simple operant task as a function of the race andsex of the experimenter and the type of social reinforcement.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, 1966.

Prestholdt, D. H. The effects of social reinforcement and punishmenton attitudinal operents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Minnesota, 1968.

56

Pritchard, R. D. Equity theory: A review and critique. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 1969, 4, 176-211.

Pritchard, R. D JorgenSou, D. O. and Dunnette, M. D. The effects ofperceptions or equity and inequity on worker performance andsatisfaction. Journal of Applied Ay...811b 1972, 56(1), 75-94,

Randolph, L. C. A study of the effects of praise, criticism and failureon the problem-solving performance of field-dependent and field-independent individuals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. NewYork University, 1971.

Ransom, N. S. Effects of the age of reinforcing agent and sex of rein -forcing agent on social. reinforcement. Unpublished doctoraldissertation. University of Denver, 1969.

Reagor, P. A. Delinquency, socialization and type of social reinforce-ment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign, 1970.

Reitz, W. E. and McDougall, L. Interest items as positive and negativereinforcements: Effects of social desirability and extremity ofendorsement. Psy.chonamic Science, 1969, 17, 97-98.

Richards, R. J. The effects of social deprivation, physiologicalarousal and need for approval upon verbal conditioning with socialand nonsocial reinforcers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Southern Illinois University, 1970.

Robinson, R. W. Attitudinal and behavioral effects of initial attitude,task orientation and presentation of aversive stimuli. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. Temple University, 1969.

Rosenbaum, M. A methodological investigation of social reinforcementstudlea: The effects of fixed-interval and fixed-ratio scheduleson time and rate measures. Unpublished doctrral dissertation.University of Illinois, 1969.

Ryas, T. A. Client perceptionment of counseling goals.Psychological AssociationSeptember 5, 1%G.

of counselor effectiveness and achieve-Paper presented at the American

Annual Convention, New York, New York,

Safer, M. A. and Kornreich, L. B. The interaction of social class andtype of reinforcement in discrimination learning. PsychonomicScience, 111.; 11(6), 206.

57

:;amaan, M. K. The differential effects of reinforment and advice-

giving on information-seeking behavior in counseling. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, 1970*

arbin, T. R. and Allen, V. L, Increasing participation in a natural

group setting: A preliminary report. 11&4mtstl Record, 1968,10 1.7.

;;chilt, A. F. The effect of verbal reinforcement in attending responses

and performance of male student personnel assistants in identifying

the affective status of others. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Arizona State University, 19(.9.

chneider, B. and ro...4n, L. K. Effort as a correlate of organizational

reward system and individual values. Personnel Psychology, Autumn,

1970, 23(3), 313-326.

Zarieber, D. E. and Sloan, S. Incentives: Are they relevant?

(bsolete? Misunderstood? Personnel Adadnistrationly January, 1970,

33(1), 52-57.

coresby, A. L. An experimental comparison of confirmed and discon-

firmed anticipations for verbal reinforcement in group counseling.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, 1969.

coresby, J. E. Imitative learning and reinforcement of decisions in

counseling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Arizona State

University, 1969.

Oimpkins, E. Verbal performance effected by social maturity and

socia_; and material incentives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Temple Univeraity, 1968.

Shealy, A. E. Changes in preference values of tokens as a functicm of

pairing with incentives of different preference values and amount

of pairing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of

south Carolina, 1969.

Sholley B. K. An extension of Festinger's effort justificationhypothesis to positive and negative verbal reinforcement. Unpub-

lished doctoral dissertation. Ohio University, 1969.

iegman, A. W., Blass, T. and Pope, B. Verbal indices of interpersonal

imbalmnce in the interview. Proceeding of the pith Annual Conven-

tion of the American Psychological Assosiation, 1970, 5(2), 525-524

Silverman, 1. W. and Waite, S. U. Test anxiety and the effectiveness

of social and nonsocial reinforcement in children. Child Develop-

ment, 19090 4o(1), 307-314.

58

Solomon, D. and Yaeger, J. Effects of content and intonation on per-

ceptions of verbal reinforcers. Perceptual and Mbtor skills,

1969, 28, 319-327,A

Sorensen, J. A. The effect of reinforcement counseling on dominantbehavior in a group setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

The University or Nebraska, 1968.

Spector, D. E. The influence .of the achievement motive, the affiliationmotive and incentive conditions on roleplaying ability in children.Dissertation Abstracts International Oct., 1970, 70(19), 124.

Speer, D. C. Concurrent schedules of reinforcement, social reinforce-ment and dependent behavior among four year old children. Unpub-

lished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, 1966.

Spence, J. T. and Dunton, M. C. The influence of verbal and nonverbalreinforcement combinations in the discrimination learning of middle-and lower-class preschool children. Child Develoixtent, 1967,

38(4), 1177,1136.

Stabler, J. R. Probability learning in children as a function of age,

magnitude of incentive and percentage of reinforcement. Journal

of Psychology, 19671 67(2), 293-297.

Sterner, R. T. Effects of social rejection and social reinforcementsupon the verbal conditioning of adolescents stratified according

to high and low peer social interest. Unpublished doctoral Ais-

sertation. The University of Wisconsin, 1970.

Sternlight, M. Bialer, I. qrd Deutsch, M. R. Influence of external

incetiLives on motor performance of institutionalized retardates.Journal of Mental DefirieheY Research, 1970, 14(2), 149-154.

Strauss, R. B. The effects of changing a single behavior upon a be-

havior repertory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The

University of Tennessee, 1970.

Sturm, T. E. The systematic use of positive reinforcement in the treat-ment of fUnctionally mentally ill adult outpatients. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, 1969.

Zulan R. M., Jorgensen,Fears as attitudes:forcemeat. Journal

G. T., Stewart, S. T. and McGuirk, F. D.Experimental reduction of fear through rein-

of Abnormal Psycholow, 1971, 78, 272-279.

Swingle, P. G. and Coady, H. V. Cocial class, age and the nature of theincentive in children's lever-pressing perfOrmance. CanadianJournal of Behavioral Science, 1969, 3(2), 148-155.

59

Tlng, K. 2. Inducing achievement behavior through a planned groupcounseling program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Universityof Hawaii, 1970.

Tedischi, J. T. wad Levy, T. M. Task-relevant information, socialreinforcement and race as factors affecting performance. CanadianJournal of Behavioral Science, 1971, 3(2), 148-155.

Tighe, T. J. mud Rogers E. Breaking the cigarette habit: Effect* ofa technique involving threatened loss of mow. Paper presentedat the American Psychological Association, September, 1967.

Tool, D. O., Upshaw, K., Lands, A. and Waldron, N. A. Group counselingwith nonverhaliting elementary students: Differential effects ofPremack and social reinforcement techniques. Journal of Counselingitychology, 1971, 18(5), 437-440.

'remontana, J. The relative effectiveness of social and edible rewardsas .1 function of intellectual level and socioeconomic class.unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Mississippi,1971.

Turner, J. Le, Foe, E. B. and Foe, V. G. Interpersonal reinforcers:Classification, interrelationships and some differential properties.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 19, 168-180.

Ullrich, M. F. The effect of expectancy on vocational counseling.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Southern Illinois University,1969.

Unikel, I. P. and Strain, G. S. Type of reinforcement and generalityin verbal operant conditioning. Psychological. Reports, 1971,28(2), 495-500.

Vroom, V. H. Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.

Wachowiak , D. G. Model-reinforcement counseling with internally andexternally controlled college males. Unpublished doctoraldissertation. southern Illinois University, 1970.

Wandzek, F. P. Effects of positive verbal reinforcements on interestselections. Psychological Reports, 1969, 24(2), 407-412.

darner, R. W., .Jr. Alienated students: Six months after receivingbehavioral group counseling. Journal of Counseling PsTehology,1971, 18, 421)-430.

Ward, W. D., Day, C. R. and Hamlin, R. L. Perceived sinilarity toparents as related to responsivity to social reinforcement.Perceptual and oM 19u9, 29, 951-957.

Weinberg, H. A. The effects of different types of reinforcement intraining a reflective conceptual tempo.' Unpublished doctoral'dissertation. University of Minnesota, 1968.

Weiner, E. A. Comparison of direct and indirect reinforcement on per-formance of kindergarten children. Unpublished doctoral disser-tation. Purdue University, 1970.

Weinstein, L. Magnitude of incentive contrast as a function of amountof verbal reward change. Psychonodic Science, 1970, 21(2), 65-55.

Weinstein, L. and Colucci, IT. M. Increase in incentive amount withverbal reinforcement. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 21(2), 83.84.

Wilder, S. N. The effect of verbal modeling and verbal reinforcementon the frequency of self-referred affect statements. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. Columbil Ifniversity, 1967.

Williams, V. W. Problem-solving persistence as a function of type ofreinforcement and need for approval among college students.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University,1970.

Witryol, S. L., Lowden, L. M., Fagan, J. F. and Bergen, T. C. Verbalversus material, rewards as a function of schedule and set inchildren's discrimination preference choice behaVior. Journ11 ofGenetic Pswcholagy, 1968, 113, 3-25.

Yukl, C., Wexley, K. N. and Seymore, J. D. Effectiveness of pay incen-tives under variable ratio and continuous reinforcement schedules.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 56, 19-23,,

Zdep, S. M. Intra-group reinforcement and its effect on leadershipbehavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1949, 4,284, 298.

Zupnick, S. M. Effects of varying degrees of a peer model's perfbrmanceon extinction of phobic response in an individual in a groupsetting. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American

Psychological Association, 1971179th

6(1), 433-434.

61