Performance on a marble-dropping task by groups of 10 mongoloid Ss was compared under 3 conditions of verbal feedback: negative feedback for errors, positive feedback for correct responses, and a combination of negative and positive feedback for errors and correct responses respectively. Results suggest that Ss with negative feedback outperformed the other groups and that the group with combined feedback outperformed those with only positive feedback. Failure-avoidance was discussed as an important aspect.
References
1.
AtthoweJ.KrasnerL.Preliminary report on the application of contingent reinforcement procedures (token economy) on a “chronic” psychiatric ward. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 73, 37–43.
2.
BuchwaldA. M.Extinction after acquisition under different verbal reinforcement combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 57, 43–48. (a)
3.
BuchwaldA. M.Experimental alterations in the effectiveness of verbal reinforcement combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 57, 351–361. (b)
4.
BuchwaldA. M.Supplementary report: Alteration in the reinforcement value of a positive reinforcer. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1960, 60, 416–418.
5.
BuchwaldA. M.Variations in the apparent effects of “right” and “wrong” on subsequent behavior. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1962, 1, 71–78.
6.
BuchwaldA. M.The effect of some variations in procedure on response repetition following verbal outcomes. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1966, 5, 77–88.
7.
BuchwaldA. M.Effects of immediate vs. delayed outcomes in associative learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1967, 6, 317–320.
8.
GreenC.ZiglerE.Social deprivation and the performance of retarded and normal children on a satiation type task. Child Development, 1962, 33, 499–508.
9.
HarlowH.Learning set and error factor theory. In KochS. (Ed.), Psychology: a study of a science. Vol. 2. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959 Pp. 492–537.
10.
HewettF.MayhewD.RabbE.An experimental reading program for neurologically impaired, mentally retarded and severely disturbed children. Los Angeles, Calif.: Neuropsychiatric Institute, 1965.
11.
JonesL. A.Comparison of the effects of reward and punishment upon the development of self-control. Dissertation Abstracts, 1965, 26, 6849.
12.
MasseyP.InsalacoC.Aversive stimulation applied to discrimination learning in mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1969, 74, 269–272.
13.
PatonR.MoritaS.Token reinforcement in the shaping of children's mealtime behavior. Canadian Psychologist, 1968, 9, 22–27.
14.
TalkingtonL.Response chain learning and retention in mentally retarded under four conditions of reinforcement. Dissertation Abstracts, 1970, in press.
15.
ZiglerE.Mental retardation: Current issues and approaches. In HoffmanM.HoffmanL. (Eds.), Review of child development research. Vol. II. New York: Russell Sage Found., 1966 Pp. 107–168.
