Asymmetric attributions for compliance: Reward vs punishment

It was proposed that people attribute an individual's behavior more to internal factors when that individual's actions are influenced by reward than when those actions are influenced by punishment. Previous research has failed to control for the power of reward versus punishment which, in effect, creates a confounding of behavioral base rates (consensus) with the reward-punishment manipulation. The current research created reward and punishment contingencies that were equal in their base rates for producing a compliant response. In Experiment 1, subjects (n = 63) who produced the base-rate data also made attributions regarding a compliant target person. The results supported the reward-punishment attributional asymmetry hypothesis in that the target person was held more responsible for his actions in the reward than in the punishment conditions. A second experiment (n = 72) provided some attributors with information regarding base rates for compliance and measured perceived base rates for compliance. Knowledge of the base rates for compliance eliminated the reward-punishment attributional asymmetry phenomenon. Subjects not provided with such knowledge erroneously assumed different base rates for reward and punishment and maintained the perception of reward-punishment attributional asymmetry. Using subjects' estimates of base rate for compliance as a covariate eliminated the attributional asymmetry effect. It is suggested that erroneous base-rate assumptions mediate the attributional asymmetry phenomenon.     

Direct versus indirect response-reinforcer relationships in teaching autistic children

One possibility suggested by the literature for maximizing the efficiency of behavior modification procedures concerns the relationship between target behaviors and their reinforcers. Therefore, in this experiment three severely autistic children were taught a total of six new target behaviors (in a multiple baseline design) employing two different response-reinforcer relationships: (1) those where the target behaviors were a direct part of the response chain required to procure a reinforcer (e.g., opening the lid of a container to obtain a food reward inside the container); and (2) those where the target behavior was an indirect part of the chain leading to the reinforcer (e.g., the therapist handing the child a food reward after the child had opened the lid of an empty container). In all cases, the results showed rapid acquisition only when the target behavior was a direct part of the chain leading to the reinforcer. The results are discussed in terms of several possible conceptualizations concerning efficient reinforcement contingencies, and in terms of their implications for teaching autistic children.This investigation was supported by U.S. Public Health Service Research Grants MH 28210 and MH 28231, and by U.S. Office of Education Research Grant G007802084 from the Bureau for the Education of the Handicapped. Portions of the results described in this article were discussed in a presentation at the 13th Annual AABT Convention in San Francisco, 1979. The authors are particularly grateful to Andrew Egel, Roberta Elman, Janis Costello, and Karen Britten, for their helpful comments, and to Jody Fisher and Gina Richman, for their assitance in the data collection.     

Visual and auditory selective attention and reflection-impulsivity in normal and learning-disabled boys at two age levels

Selective attention to visual and auditory stimuli and reflection-impulsivity were studied in normal and learning-disabled 8- and 12-year-old boys. Multivariate analyses, followed by univariate and paired-comparison tests, indicated that the normal children increased in selective attention efficiency with age to both visual and auditory stimuli. Learning-disabled children increased in selective attention efficiency with age to auditory, but not to visual, stimuli. Both groups increased with age in reflection as measured by Kagan's Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFF). The 8-year-old learning-disabled children were more impulsive than the 8-year-old normals on MFF error scores, but not on MFF latency scores. No difference occurred between the 12-year-old learning-disabled and normal children on either MFF error or MFF latency scores. Correlations between the selective attention scores and MFF error and latency scores were not significant.This research was supported in part by BEH grant G007507227. The authors are indebted to Eleanor McCandless for her assistance in securing the learning-disabled subjects and to James McLeskey and Michael Popkin for their assistance in collecting and analyzing data.     

An example of cooperating compact data analysis programs

Some user-oriented compact data analysis programs are described. One program is useful for transforming and reformatting data, and the others perform analysis of variance and multiple regression. Along with other programs not described here, these form an adequate statistical package without sacrificing ease of use or computational power.     

Attention to important versus trivial tasks and salience of fatigue-related symptoms for coronary prone individuals

The present study tested the hypothesis that individuals with the Type A coronary prone behavior pattern focus their attention more on important tasks, and less on trivial tasks than do Type B's. The study used a paradigm in which some subjects worked on math problems (important task) and rated intervening mood items (trivial task), whereas others rated mood items they were to memorize (important task) and worked on intervening math problems (trivial task). All subjects were later tested on recall of mood items. Results indicated that Type A's performed better on math problems and recalled more fatigue-related mood items when the task was important than when it was trivial; for Type B subjects, there was no difference in the number of math problems solved correctly or number of mood items recalled between important and trivial task conditions. Moreover, Type A's reported greater fatigue when mood recall was the important task than when math was the important task, whereas fatigue ratings of Type B's did not differ across these conditions. The findings suggest that Type A's suppress their attention to fatigue-related symptoms only when symptoms are not the objects of focus.     

Personality and mood: State-trait relationships

The scores of 33 subjects of the neuroticism scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire correlated more highly with mood levels averaged over the 12 occasions studied than, on average, with mood scores on single occasions, and more highly with mood described in global terms than with scores on each of the original 18 mood scales. Subjects with high neuroticism scores had poorer mood on average and showed greater variation in mood pattern from one occasion to another than did more stable subjects. It is suggested that forms of relatively poor mood may be more varied than forms of good mood, and that, although neuroticism makes a poor mood more likely, the precise composition of this mood on any occasion may be determined by the combination of situation characteristics and person variables. Psychoticism scores correlated significantly, though weakly, with the average scores for some mood scales independently of neuroticism.     

The following schedule of reinforcement as a fundamental determinant of steady state contrast in multiple schedules

Two experiments investigated whether steady-state interactions in multiple schedules depend exclusively on the following schedule of reinforcement. Experiment 1 used a four-component multiple schedule in which two components were associated with the same constant schedule of reinforcement, and where rate of reinforcement was varied in the component that followed one of these. Contrast effects were reliable only in the component that preceded the point of reinforcement variation, although some contrast did occur otherwise. In those instances where contrast other than the following-schedule effect did occur, it was accounted for by the effect of the preceding schedule, an effect for which there were consistent individual differences among subjects, and which varied with component duration. Experiment 2 used a three-component schedule, in which reinforcement rate was varied in the middle component. The results were consistent with Experiment 1, as the following-schedule effect was the only consistent effect that occurred, although an effect of the preceding schedule did occur for some subjects under some conditions, and was especially evident early in training. The conclusion from both experiments is that there is no general effect of relative rate of reinforcement apart from the sum of the effects of the preceding and following schedules, and that the following-schedule effect is the fundamental cause of steady-state interactions.