Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
An Examination Of Positive And Negative Reinforcement In Classical And Operant Conditioning Paradigms In The Primary Psychopath
(USC Thesis Other)
An Examination Of Positive And Negative Reinforcement In Classical And Operant Conditioning Paradigms In The Primary Psychopath
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
EXAMINATION OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT IN CLASSICAL AND OPERANT CONDITIONING PARADIGMS IN THE PRIMARY PSYCHOPATH by Richard Ernest Steele A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Psychology) August 1970 71-7743 STEELE, Richard Ernest, 1939- AN EXAMINATION OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT IN CLASSICAL AND OPERANT CONDITIONING PARADIGMS IN THE PRIMARY PSYCHOPATH. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1970 Psychology, clinical University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan copyright by RICHARD ERNEST STEELE 1971 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED UNIVERSITY O F SO U T H E R N CALIFORNIA TH E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L U N IV E R S IT Y PA RK LO S A N G E L E S , C A L IF O R N IA 8 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by RICHARD ERNEST STEELE..................... under the direction of h..is.. Dissertation C om mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The G radu ate School, in partial fulfillment of require ments of the detjree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y Dtan D a te AugUSt.1970 DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The assistance of many people has been indispensable to this dissertation. I would like to express my appre ciation to Robert Stewart for help in equipment construc tion, programming and data analysis, to Steven Levine for helping me run subjects, to Roger Girard for data analysis and to my wife, Mary, for typing the dissertation and for her never ending support. Further thanks are due to the staff of the Reception and Guidance Center, California Institute for Men, Chino, California and in particular to Ephraim Rivlin, Senior Psychologist, Leisla M. Howell, Staff Psychologist, and W. D. Achuff, Deputy Superintendent. The members of my Guidance and Dissertation Commit tee have been of help and support. They are Dr. Newton Metfessel, Dr. Donald Lewis, Dr. Milton Wolpin, and Dr. Steven Frankel. Finally I would like to express special appreciation to Dr. Albert Marston, the Chairman of my Dissertation Committee. His support, suggestions and guidance during our two years of collaboration have exerted an invaluable influence on this dissertation. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................... ii LIST OF T A B L E S ......................................... iv LIST OF FIGURES......................................... vi Chapter I. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION ...................... 1 II. CURRENT RESEARCH: THE PROBLEM .............. 5 III. THE RESEARCH DESIGN: METHOD ................ 13 A. Definition of the Psychopathic Subject. . 13 B. Definition of the Normal Subject .... 14 C. Apparatus.................................. 14 D. Procedure.................................. 17 E. Statement of the Hypothesis.............. 24 IV. RESULTS......................................... 28 V. DISCUSSION.................................... 33 REFERENCES.............................................. 42 APPENDIX A .............................................. 48 APPENDIX .............................................. 68 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Comparisons of Psychopathic and Normal Subjects......................................... 49 2. Black and White Reproductions of Color Transparencies used as Positively Reinforcing Stimuli ........................... 51 3. Analysis of Variance for Basal Level of Conductance During Negative Reinforcement (Shock) Classical Paradigm ..................... 52 3A. Cell Means for Basal Level of Conductance During Negative Reinforcement ................ 53 4. Analysis of Variance for Anticipation To Negative Reinforcement (Shock) Classical Paradigm .............................. 54 4A. Cell Means for Anticipation to Negative Reinforcement..................................... 55 5. Analysis of Variance for Response to Negative Reinforcement (Shock) Classical Paradigm .............................. 56 5A. Cell Means for Response to Negative Reinforcement..................................... 57 6. Analysis of Variance for Basal Level of Conductance During Positive Reinforcement (Pictures) Classical Paradigm ................ 58 6A. Cell Means for Basal Level of Conductance During Positive Reinforcement ................ 59 7. Analysis of Variance for Anticipation to Positive Reinforcement (Pictures) Classical Paradigm .............................. 60 7A. Cell Means for Anticipation to Positive Reinforcement............................. 61 iv Table Page 8. Analysis of Variance for Response to Positive Reinforcement (Pictures) Classical Paradigm ........................... 62 8A. Cell Means for Response to Positive Reinforcement ................................ 63 9. Analysis of Variance for Operant Line Drawing Task.............................. 64 9A. Cell Means for Operant Line Drawing Task . . . 65 10. Cell Arrangement and Subject Assignment . . . 66 11. Psychopaths Versus Normals Under Conditions of Negative Reinforcement when Negative Precedes Positive and Psychopaths Versus Normals Under Conditions of Positive Reinforcement when Negative Precedes Positive .................. 67 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Basal Conductance During Negatively Reinforced (Shock) Trials ..................... 69 2. Mean Anticipatory Response to Negative Reinforcement (Shock) ......................... 71 3. Mean Response to Negative Reinforcement (Shock)......................................... 73 4. Basal Conductance During Positively Reinforced (Picture) Trials .................. 75 5. Mean Anticipatory Response to Positive Reinforcement (Pictures) ..................... 77 6. Mean Response to Positive Reinforcement (Pictures) ..................................... 79 7. Trial Block Means for Positively Reinforced Subjects (Operant Task) ....................... 81 8. Trial Block Means for Negatively Reinforced Subjects (Operant Task) ....................... 83 9. Trial Block Means with Positively and Negatively Reinforced Subjects .............. 85 10. Mean Basal Conductance for Psychopaths and Normals Combined by Order of Conditions . . . 87 11. Mean Psychopathic Profile Minnesota Multi- phasic Personality Inventory ................ 89 12. Mean Normal Profile Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory ......................... 91 vi CHAPTER I HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION Social scientists have long been aware of the pres ence of the "psychopathic" individual within the framework of society as a whole. One of the earliest cases described was presented by the French psychiatrist Pinel who labeled the disease "manie sans delire" (Kavka, 1949). Pinel's article at the turn of the 19th century provoked much interest in this particular disorder, and the English psy chiatrist J. C. Pritchard introduced the phrase "moral insanity" in his 1835 article. Following the work of Pritchard, Gouster, drawing upon Lombroso1s concept of the born criminal, presented a picture of the symptom complex associated with moral insanity. In the early nineteen hundreds the term psychopathic inferior replaced that of moral imbecile and interest focused upon the disorder it self rather than the theological implications of "moral insanity" (McCord and McCord, 1956). In the early decades of the twentieth century two forces made their impact upon the study of the psychopath. The first was psychoanalysis and the second neurology. 1 2 Psychoanalysis focused upon the relation of various hypo thetical subsystems within the personality and generally concluded that psychopaths were individuals who were able to isolate the demands of the super ego while they per formed otherwise guilt laden and impulsive acts. A love less environment and a poorly resolved Oedipus complex were seen also as factors (Fenichel, 1945). As the relation ships among various disease states, brain damage, and psy chological symptoms began to emerge, biologically oriented psychiatrists began to press for a neurological explanation of psychopathy. However, little information was forth coming, except for the discovery of low correlations be tween certain organic states and psychopathic symptoms. Such studies have been frequently criticized on methodolo gical grounds (McCord and McCord, 1956). It was at this point that researchers began to limit and sharpen their diagnostic labels. In 1941 Hervey Cleckly published his now classic book, The Mask of Sanity, which contained an excellent clinical description of the psychopathic personality. Cleckly emphasized traits of guiltlessness, incapacity for object love, emotional shal lowness, egocentricity, purposelessness, impulsivity, in ability to learn from experience, and the charm with which psychopaths often hide their asocial nature. Lindner (1944), working within a prison setting and concerned primarily with treatment considerations, produced a good deal of case study material seemingly congruent with Cleckly's observations. Following World War II research shifted away from diagnostic considerations and attempts to justify the existence of the category and moved toward etiological and treatment considerations. This movement, in the light of research to be discussed in the next section of this paper, was probably premature. In 1951 the editors of the British Journal of Delinquency commented, "It is no longer possible to maintain without fear of brisk contradiction that the concept of psychopathy is a psychiatric fiction covering inadequacies in clinical classification ..." and yet, " . . . fifty years of sporadic investigation of the sub ject have resulted in little more than a profusion of contending generalizations . . . our understanding of psychopathy is still rudimentary, our researches wretchedly inadequate." (Editors, Brit. Jour. Deling., 1951). Cleckly's statement that psychopaths are unable to profit from previous experience seems to identify the characteristic of the disorder most amenable to experimental evaluation and most American research has dealt with this aspect of the psychopathic character. This position was reified recently by the American Psychiatric Association which substitutes the term antisocial reaction for Psycho pathic Personality and defines it as follows: This term refers to chronically antisocial individuals 4 who are always in trouble, profiting neither from experience nor punishment, and maintaining no real loyalties to any person, group, or code. They are frequently callous and hedonistic, showing marked emotional immaturity, with lack of sense of responsi bility, lack of judgment, and an ability to ration alize their behavior so that it appears warranted, reasonable and justified (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: Mental Disorder, APA, 1965). Despite the authoritative tone of the preceding statement current research indicates that the psychopath's ability to learn from experience must still be considered an unre solved problem. Critical to the question of learning ability is the separation of seemingly psychopathic sub jects into what have been called "primary" vs. "secondary" psychopathic categories (Karpman, 1961, and Arieti, 1963). This problem is considered at greater length in the design chapter. CHAPTER II CURRENT RESEARCH: THE PROBLEM Much of current literature deals with the condi- tionability of the psychopath, his autonomic responsivity, or both. Lykken's (1957) initial study in this area opened new avenies for experimental evaluation of the psychopathic personality. He found primary psychopathic deviants in distinguishable from neurotic psychopathic deviants but both groups could be distinguished from ncn-incarcerated normals at the .05 level of significance with respect to Galvanic Skin Response (reactivity and conditioning). Similar results were obtained for avoidance learning. Although this study may be criticized on methodological grounds, Lykken's findings generated a great deal of fur ther work. It is unfortunate that Lykken did not include a group of controls taken from the same incarcerated pool of subjects. Fox and Lippert (1963), working with what can only be presumed to be a relatively heterogeneous group of "sociopathic delinquents," found basal skin conductance to be the same for controls and delinquents; however, de 5 linquents were found to have a significantly lower degree of spontaneous activity than controls. In England, similar results were obtained indicating that a mixed group of de linquents had less autcnomic reactivity under stress than controls (Laywck, 1968). In a later study Lippert extended his earlier work (Fox and Lippert, 1963) and found that the rate of spontaneous GSR emissions is significantly lower for sociopaths than fcr non-sociopathic controls. Under conditions of shock threat stress, sociopathic Ss did not emit spontaneous resistance decrements as an anticipatory response to shock, and sociopathic Ss returned more rapidly and to a lower level of spontaneous GSR. emission once the experimental task was finished than did non-sociopathic controls. Interestingly, however, the magnitude of GSR elicited by photic and aural stimulation did not differ for the two groups indicating that the autcnomic responsivity of the sociopath is not generally deficient, but rather that for some undetermined reason shock or punishment does not have the same cognitive significance for the sociopath as it does for the normal (Lippert and Senter, 1966) . In one of several studies of the psychopathic individual, Hare (1968) found that psychopaths had higher thresholds for shock than controls. On the other hand, a number of re searchers (Eysenck, 1964; McCord and McCord, 1964, and Schachter and Latane, 1964) have considered the psychopath to be autonomically "labile" rather than hyporesponsive. Such a position seems more closely tied tc the more general personality theories advanced by these authors than to laboratory findings. Eysenck (1964) perceives the psycho path as a neurotic extrovert, a stance dictated by his theoretical position and somewhat at variance with the pre ponderance of evidence regarding the psychopaths seeming lack of autonomic responsivity. Similarly, McCord and McCord (1964) appear to view the psychopath as an individu al bound to his environment both externally and internally and unable to contend, with changes in internal drive or external cues. Such a position seems to result more from a general theory dealing with the effect of the breakdown of the socialization process upon the child rather than from experimental evidence. Other studies by Hare (1965a, 1965b) indicate that the psychopath shows less evidence of conditioning to shock in a classical paradigm than do nor mals. Bennett (1965) evaluated GSR response in psychopaths and normals during stress. The stress in this study was the viewing of a film used by Lazarus (1963) depicting the initiation rites of the Arunta tribe of Central Australia. Psychopaths subjectively reported feelings similar to non psychopaths and showed similar skin conductance scores. A post hoc nonparametric analysis of data indicated a trend toward higher skin conductance among the psychopathic groups. Such findings suggest that the psychopath may under certain conditions show higher arousal than the normal. Bennett concluded that psychopaths are net as different in terms of emotional reactivity as other re searchers have suggested. In the face of such contradic tory evidence a theory of arousal deficit as an etiological factor in psychopathic behavior seems premature. In a verbal learning study Bryan and Kapche (1967) found psychopaths to perform as well as normals in rewarded verbal learning. Verbal reinforcement was delivered by graduate students and ex-convicts. Neither experimenter nor role playing effects were significant. The conclusion was drawn that psychopaths are influenced by positive social approval. In a similar verbal operant conditioning study using inmate peers and adult professionals as experimenters providing verbal reinforcement, psychopaths were found to condition more readily to guilt than to hostile content (Persons, 1968). Psychopaths emitted significantly more hostile verbs when reinforced by an adult experimenter than by an inmate. However, this study failed to take into account awareness and it is quite possible that the inmate rewarded Ss failed to become aware of the reinforcement con tingencies. Blaylock (1960) in a study of verbal condition ing performance of psychopaths and controls using both verbal reward and punishment found no significant differ ences between psychopaths and controls. All groups showed significant conditioning to both positive and negative reward. Unfortunately no attempt was made to separate the 9 experimental subjects into primary and secondary categories. Since the psychopaths showed elevation on the Pt scale of the MMPI and since only one other scale was considered for assignment to groups (Pd) this lack of separation may have been crucial. Personally administered social, (i.e., verbal) punishment was found to have an effect on psycho paths in a study by Hetherington and Klinger (1964) . One study which seems to contradict the findings of the re searchers mentioned above was done by Johns and Quay (1962) using neurotic and psychopathic military offenders as sub jects. Separation of primary and secondary psychopaths seems adequate and there was a significant difference be tween groups. Psychopaths did not show verbal conditioning and neurotics did when compared with controls; however, like Persons (1968), the experimenters failed to structure their study to allow for the separation of differences due to reinforcement from differences arising from varying degrees of awareness of reinforcement contingencies. In a study of partial reinforcement primary psycho paths were compared with neurotic psychopaths with signif icant results (Painting, 1962). Primary psychopaths became rigid and stereotyped in their behavior when faced with partial reinforcement. Painting feels that the psychopath may be superior to normals in a "gambling" set where posi tive reinforcement is available. The psychopath is seen as profiting from immediate reinforcement. However, with a 10 remote stimulus response correlation the performance of the psychopath deteriorates. Some support for this hypothesis was found by Stein (1968) who in comparing delinquents and non-delinquents found that the non-delinquent group achieved a significantly greater extent of Future Time Perspective than delinquents. Other writers, notably McCord and McCord (1964) have commented on the psychopath's seeming lack of future time perspective or goal directed behavior. It is not clear, however, whether this is an outcome of the psychopath's inability to delay gratifica tion or of a causal factor. One final study worthy of note at this point is that of Miller (1967) who rather exhaus tively evaluated eye-blink conditioning in the psychopath. Miller found that the primary psychopath does not have a learning deficit with respect to eye-blink conditioning. Further, the primary psychopath does not have a steeper generalization gradient. The psychopath does differ from neurotics, however, in that neurotics produced higher habituation scores than psychopaths. One of the methodologically strongest studies on instrumental learning in psychopaths indicates that psycho paths are no different from controls in an instrumental line drawing task where verbal feedback or results plus mild electric shock served as reinforcement conditions (Persons and Bruning, 1966) . In fact, the psychopathic group conditioned more rapidly and showed less performance 11 decrement during extinction than normal college students from Ohio University. Secondary psychopaths were excluded from the experimental group. Summary: At this point mixed findings suggest that further work is necessary to clarify the question of arousal prior to shock in the psychopathic S. When stimuli other than shock are presented (e.g., a flashing light, a buzzer or tone, or a puff of air), the magnitude of GSR elicited frequently does not differ from that elicited from normal subjects. Examination of spontaneous GSR emission has yielded contradictory findings. In some studies psycho paths seem to have a lower level of spontaneous GSR than normals, in others, they do not. However, studies using photic and aural stimuli may have been measuring orienting to novel stimuli rather than anticipatory arousal predi cated on the expectation of stress. Operant verbal conditioning has been most frequently used to examine the hypothesis that the psychopath is un able to profit from prior experience. Conclusions are equivocal. Methodological problems have contributed to the lack of clarity of results leaving two somewhat opposed positions. Some theorists feel that the psychopath shows a deficit in his ability to perform in an operant task when provided with verbal reinforcement while others find the psychopath performing at the same level as neurotic or normal controls. 12 In conclusion, although the bulk of previous work shows the psychopath less subject to fear arousal than the normal, this issue has not been satisfactorily resolved. Further, it is not possible to conclude at this point whether the psychopath is able to profit from prior experi ence or is responsive to positive and negative reinforce ment in the same manner as normals when placed in an instru mental learning situation. This dissertation is an attempt to draw together some of the seemingly relevant approaches to the study of psychopathy utilizing classical and operant techniques and positive and negative reinforcement on the same subject population in comparison with controls drawn from the same institution. CHAPTER III THE RESEARCH DESIGN: METHOD Subjects A. Definition of the Psychopathic Subject. For the purposes of the present study the psychopath is defined as an individual who, when tested with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, exhibits the following profile: Pd and Ma scales greater than T-score 70; no other scales greater than T-score 70; L Less than T-score 60; Ma 15 or more T-scores greater than Sc; and, Pd 7 or more T-scores greater than Mf. This profile coding seems to most closely approximate the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic Manual definition of the diagnostic category sociopathic personality disturbance, antisocial reaction. Individuals with this profile coding have been shown to have the following cardinal features: "Immature, hostile, rebellious. Poorly socialized, poor morals, poor standards. Impulsive, restless, low frustration tolerance. Superficially friendly . . . but self-centered, grandiose, haughty and hostile. Lack respect for authority. No af fection for adults but like children." (Gilberstadt and 13 14 Duker (1965) suggest that a simple scale four elevation probably represents a passive-aggressive personality, not a psychopath (see Figure 11). B. Definition of the Normal Subject. Normals are defined as individuals whose MMPI scores are indicative of an absence of overt pathology, with all scales having T-scores less than 70 with scales Pd and Ma less than T-score 60 (see Figure 12). All subjects were drawn from the population of the Reception and Guidance Center, California Institute for Men, Chino, California, a maximum security evaluation center. Incarceration time at the center ranged from 14 to 39 days for the subjects chosen. Testing was carried out over a 5-week period from March 16, 1970 to April 13, 1970. The Ss used were 16 males who met the above criterion for normalcy and 16 males who met the criterion for the diagnosis of psychopathic deviancy. Characteris tics of the two subject groups are presented in Table 1. C. Apparatus. A Stolting Dermograph single channel GSR recorder with event marker was used to measure skin resistance. This was measured by passing a constant current of 46 micro amperes through 99.9% pure silver electrodes attached to the fingerprint area of the first and third fingers of the left hand. Burdick electrode paste was employed between 15 the electrode and the skin surface and the electrode was held in place with several wrappings of adhesive tape. The electrodes were 2.4 cm. by 2.4 cm. in size and curved to fit the finger tip. Current density was 8 microamperes per centimeter squared as suggested by Venables and Martin (1967) . Shock was generated by a constant current smooth wave direct current shock source designed and built by Robert A. Stewart of Analytic Behavioral Systems. This shock source is adjustable to deliver from 0.2 to 9 milli- amperes of current through a constantly variable range with no more than a 2% error at any setting. Timing is constantly adjustable from 0.1 to 2.5 seconds plus or minus 1/1000 second at any setting. Shock duration of 0.5 seconds was used throughout the study. The timing circuit was calibrated using a standard electric timer. Voltage varied as a function of subject resistance and current level; the shock source is capable of a maximum voltage output of 27 0 volts direct current. Shock was delivered through two coin silver electrodes 18 mm. in diameter taped to the fingerprint area of the first and third fingers of the right hand. Burdick electrode paste was employed. Both the dermograph and shock source were checked periodi cally throughout the study and were not found to vary. Stimulus numbers from one to twenty were projected using a Kodak Carousel 800 slide projector on a beaded 16 screen placed 7 ft. in front of the projector lens and approximately 8 ft. in front of the subject. The area con taining the projected image was approximately 22" wide and 15" high. The numbers themselves were approximately 11" high and 2" in line width. The Weston value of the pro jected number image was 5 and the ambient light value was 0.2. Photographs of four nude Las Vegas showgirls used in the experiment were similar in projection area and their Weston light rating was 6.5 (see Table 2). Numbers were projected for 5 seconds each using the built-in timing circuit of the Kodak projector. Pictures were projected for 60 seconds each and timed with a hand-held stopwatch. Shock was administered at the instant the number sixteen left the screen. This was accomplished by using the current generated by the slide changing mechanism of the projector to operate a relay which in turn triggered the shock source. It was only necessary for the experimenter to throw a silent switch to arm the shock circuit at any time during the pre sentation of the number sixteen in order to achieve accu rate, consistent, and reliable shock delivery. The apparatus used in the operant portion of the study was similar to that described by Becker, Mussina, and Persons for line drawing tasks (1963). It consisted of a 24-1/2" x 17-1/2" x 3/4" board on which had been mounted a 21" x 15" x 3/16" sheet of glass which served as the drawing surface. A metal 14" x 24" carpenter's square was mounted 17 1/4" above the glass sheet in such a manner that it covered the left and bottom edges of the glass. The edge of the square which the subject used as a guide for his pen was filed smooth. Paper was fed under the metal rule and across the glass sheet from left to right. Paper used was Smart and Final Iris white butcher's wrap cut to 5" widths. The pen used by the subjects was a BIC #AF-49 Accountant Fine Point. It proved reliable. The blindfold used by the subjects was an Occidental Manufacturing Company Slumber Shade and was effective for its purpose. D. Procedure. As each S was selected for the study he was randomly assigned a number from 1 to 16, such that psychopaths numbered from 1 to 16 and normals numbered from 1 to 16 (Dixon and Massey, 1957). Each number corresponded to a given set of conditions. These conditions were Classical and Operant, Shock and Pictures within Classical, and Posi tive or Negative Reward within Operant. Conditions were counterbalanced to control for order effects. Ss numbered 1 through 8 received classical first. Of these, 1 through 4 received shock first and 5 through 8 received pictures first, Ss 1, 2, 5 and 6 received positive reward in operant, while Ss 3, 4, 7 and 8 received negative reward in operant. Ss numbered 9 through 16 received operant first. Of these, Ss 9, 10, 13 and 14 received positive reward, while Ss 11, 18 12, 15 and 16 received negative reward. Within the clas sical paradigm, 3s 9 through 12 received shock first and Ss 13 through 16 received pictures first. This assignment procedure was used for both Pds and Ns (see Table 10). An attempt was made to run an egual number of psychopaths and normals at each time period during the day; however, psychopaths and normals were not always run on the same day due to the varying number of psychopath and normal admis sions to the prison during any given week. Conditions of temperature and humidity were held consistent throughout the study by air-conditioning. The room in which testing occurred measured ten feet in width and thirteen feet in length. The walls and ceiling were painted a uniform beige and the room was empty save for the experimental equipment mentioned. The door was located behind the seated subject and the wall behind the subject was transparent glass from the ceiling to a point approximately four feet from the floor. Ss washed their hands prior to the beginning of the experimental session since they came from different areas and activities within the prison. After each S had washed his hands and was seated in the experimental room he was asked whether or not he was taking medication. None were. The equipment had been allowed to warm up for at least twenty minutes prior to the beginning of the day's run. Ss were initially seated in a straight-backed armchair across 19 the desk from the experimenter. The Dermograph, projector and shock source were on the desk and a chair was positioned beside the desk for the classical portion of the study. Behind the subject were located the projector screen and the line drawing table. The general introduction was then read to the subject: As you may know, there is some evidence that the way a person's nervous system works changes when his surroun ding environment is reduced in size and variety. We are trying to examine some of these changes which result from putting a person in a dull environment like a prison. We are also trying to find out aboue the way the nervous system changes with respect to different kinds of things presented in a dull environment. We will present you with different kinds of stimuli and look at the way your nervous system reacts to them as well as measuring the resting level of activity in your nervous system. We will also ask you to perform a task which is designed to measure the part of your nervous system involved in motor skills. At the end of the study you will be paid one pack of cigarettes for your participation. Further, a note of your cooperation will be made in your record. We hope our findings will be of value for military design, for example, the in side of a submarine, and also for the design of future prisons. During one part of the study you will be asked to draw some lines while blindfolded. During another part you will receive mild electric shock while watching numbers projected on the screen and during the third part you will be asked to look at some slides of nude Las Vegas showgirls and asked to daydream about them. You may be wondering why you were chosen. It has nothing to do with you personally. Since we cannot use every man, we have picked men to represent themselves and thirty others on factors such as age and length of incarceration and so on. So, you stand for yourself and thirty others. Our findings have nothing to do with any evaluation you may have during your stay at the re ception and guidance center. Now I would like to ask you some general questions. Data sheets were filled out at this point on each subject, questions were answered by paraphrasing the above instruc- 20 tions when possible or were delayed until the end of the experiment. At this point, depending upon assignment to conditions, S was seated either at the line drawing table or beside the desk facing the screen. The classical para digm (shock) will be described first. The S was seated and instructed that during this por tion of the study he would receive mild electric shock. The electrodes were attached and the subject was asked to sit quietly for a few minutes. When the electrodes were attached the subject was reassured that no shock would be administered through the left hand recording electrodes. During the last half of this five-minute interval shocks were administered to determine the level of intensity to be used during the shock portion of the study. Intensity was increased until the S indicated that he would not tolerate any further increase. The specific shock work up instructions were as follows: Now we are going to set the shock level we will use later in the experiment. The length of these shocks will be the same as the shocks used later in the experi ment. I'm going to give you a series of shocks of gradually increasing strength. The first one will be so low you won't even feel it. I want you to report three times. First, when you first feel the shock. Second, when the shock becomes mildly unpleasant. And third, when you prefer I don't increase the shock any further. Keep in mind that the third shock strength will become less unpleasant as you get used to it later in the experiment. Now I'm going to begin the series of shocks. Remember to tell me when you first feel the shock, when it first becomes unpleasant and when you want me to stop. This third strength is the strength we will use later in the experiment. 21 Shock was started at 0.2 milliamperes and increased in 0.2 milliampere steps until the S indicated he wished E to stop. S was allowed to sit quietly until he returned to base level and was then told: On this screen you will see a series of numbers running from 1 to 20. I want you to watch the numbers closely. No shocks will be given until later. (The series was presented once.) The same series will be presented several more times, but, from now on you will receive a shock every time number sixteen goes off the screen. The shock will be the same as the one you said earlier was your maximum. Please try to remain still at all times without moving. The series was then presented seven more times following which the room lights were turned on, S was told he might stretch or move slightly if he wished, and E made a great show of turning off the shock source and informing S that there would be no more shock during the balance of the study. The shock workup was always performed immediately prior to the shock portion of the study. At this point E either proceeded to the picture portion of the study or the operant task depending upon Ss individual sequence of con ditions . During the picture presentation S was seated facing the screen and told that during this part of the study he would be asked to sit quietly for a few minutes with the electrodes attached. He was reassured several times that no shock was ever delivered through the left hand recording electrodes and that no shock would be given during this portion of the study. During the last half of this five- 22 minute interval S was shown slides of the four girls on a hand viewer and asked to pick the one he would most like to watch later in the experiment. Instructions are as follows: "Now I'm going to show you pictures of four different Las Vegas showgirls. I want you to choose .the one you would like most to look at later in the experiment." S was then asked to sit quietly for a few minutes and then the fol lowing instructions were given: On this screen you will see a series of numbers running from 1 to 20. I want you to watch the numbers closely, no pictures will be shown until later on. (The series was presented once.) The same series will be presented several more times, but from now on you will see the picture of your choice every time the number 9 goes off the screen, in place of number 10. The picture will show for 60 seconds each time. I want you to day dream to yourself about contact with this girl while you watch her on the screen. The series was then presented seven more times following which the room lights were turned on and S was told he might stretch and move around slightly if he wished. At this point the E either proceeded to the shock portion of the study or the operant task depending upon the subject's individual sequence of conditions. At the beginning of the operant task S was seated before the line drawing apparatus and given the following instructions: What I want you to do is to draw 3" straight lines horizontally while blindfolded like this (E demonstra ted by drawing a straight line with his finger in the air). When you have finished your line leave your hand at the point where you stopped. I shall return your hand to the starting point (the angle of the 23 square). Also keep your arm and hand off the table while drawing the line. You are to have only the point of your pen touching the paper. S was then blindfolded, given the pen, the apparatus ad justed and the point of the pen placed against the left hand stop. S drew 60 lines during 60 consecutive trials. Responses were recorded to the nearest 1/4". Any response between 2-3/.41 ' and 3-1/4" was considered correct. No feed back was given during the first ten trials. On trial 11 S was told either "too long," "too short" or "correct" plus one of two reinforcers, "good" if correct (group 1) or "bad" if incorrect (group 2). This procedure was fol lowed for all remaining 49 trials. All Ss received reinforcement appropriate to their group, following establishment of base line performance. It has been previously demonstrated that improvement in this type of task is not a function of practice independent of reinforcement or knowledge of results (Persons, 1966). Delay of reinforcement and inter-trial interval have not been found to be significant variables in this type of task (Bilodeau and Bilodeau, 1958; Bilodeau and Ryan, 1960, and Persons, 1966). The instructions described above are simi lar to those found in Greenspoon and Foreman (1956) , with appropriate modification for two separate reinforcement contingencies. The words "fine" or "good" were used as reassurance during the study but only between the presentation of each 24 series in the classical portion and not at all during the operant portion. Communication during the experiment proper was discouraged. Total time for each subject was approximately one and one-half hours. E. Statement of the Hypothesis. Classical Paradigm. Six possible comparisons exist between psychopaths and normals within the classical paradigm. These are basal level of arousal, psychopath versus normal under positive and negative conditions of reinforcement, anti cipatory responses prior to the onset of reinforcement under both conditions and response to such reinforcers. If the position taken by Eysenck (1963), Lykken (1965), McCord and McCord (1964), and Schachter and Latane (1964) is correct, one would expect psychopaths to have a higher basal level of arousal than normals (higher resting level of skin conductance). Similarly, on the basis of the writings of Eysenck, McCord and McCord, and Schachter and Latane, one would expect higher anticipation and re sponse scores from psychopaths than from normal controls. These authors see the psychopath as more autonomically labile than normal subjects. However, other researchers have found the psychopath to be lower than normals both in resting level of arousal and in responsiveness to cues associated with impending reinforcement (Hare, 1968; 25 Lippert and Senter, 1966; and Tong, 1959). Since such divergent positions exist within the body of literature related to psychopathy it is extremely difficult to present hypotheses with any degree of certainty. Therefore, the hypotheses are presented in terms of the various possible outcomes with respect to current theory and literature. 1. If the psychopaths evidence less arousal than normals either in base level or in anticipation of or response to reinforcement then support is lent to Hare's position that the psychopath is autonomically hyporeactive. 2. If the psychopaths evidence higher basal levels of arousal and/or increased anticipatory arousal and responsiveness then support is provided for the notion that the psychopath is more autonomically labile than the normal. These two general hypotheses generate the following more specific hypotheses: a) If base rates of arousal are significantly different for the two groups under either conditions of positive or negative reinforcement or both it may be con cluded that the two groups vary with respect to chronic levels of autonomic tension. b) If anticipation scores are significantly different for the two groups it may be concluded that the two groups vary in the degree to which they experience shifts in autonomic arousal prior to reinforcement. c) If response scores are significantly dif- 26 ferent for the two groups they may be assumed to vary in autonomic responsiveness to reinforcement. d) If differences exist with respect to one condition of reinforcement but not to the other in basal arousal, anticipation, or responsiveness it is suggested that the autonomic difference between groups is more easily elicited by some reinforcements than by others. The re inforcers were not equated in terms of their arousal prop erties . Unfortunately, the simplest hypothesis relating level of autonomic arousal to the psychopath's apparent lack of impulse control and acting out behavior (that the psychopath is autonomically hyperaroused and hyperactive) is contrary to the empirical evidence obtained by Hare, Lippert and Senter, Lykken, and Tong. However, in the interest of parsimony this is essentially the hypothesis under test. Operant Paradigm. In the operant portion of this study, if the psycho pathic Ss are not significantly different from normals then it may be concluded that the psychopath can profit from prior experience and feedback in the same fashion as the normal with respect to this type of task. These findings would be contrary to the expectations of theorists such as Johns and Quay, and McCord and McCord. If, however, the psychopath evidences poorer performance on this task, then 27 support is lent to the notion that the psychopath does not profit from experience, contrary to the expectations drawn from Blaylock and Persons. If significant differences exist with respect to the efficacy of positive versus nega tive verbal reinforcement for the psychopath, in comparison with normal controls, this will suggest the need for selec tive modification of current treatment paradigms. CHAPTER IV RESULTS Under shock stress a base rate was obtained for each trial by taking the resistance score at the midpoint of the interval in which "13" appeared on the screen; taking the reciprocal of this number (law of initial values transforma tion) ; and then taking the square root of this reciprocal to normalize the data (Lacey and Siegel, 194 9; Schlosberg and Stanley, 1953; and Woodworth and Schlosberg, 1965). During the shock trials the psychopaths showed significantly higher basal conductance than did normals, F(l/28) = 6.886, p<.025. The analysis of variance for basal conductance under shock, is presented in Table 3. After finding the basal score for each trial a score was computed for the point of shock onset by taking the square root of the reci procal of resistance at that point. A difference score was then computed between basal conductance and conductance at the point of shock onset. This difference was recorded as anticipation response. The normal group showed less anti cipatory arousal than the psychopathic group, although the 28 29 difference was not significant, F(l/28) = 3.109 (Table 4). A response to shock score was computed by calculating the resistance value at the high point of the interval follow ing shock presentation, and then taking the square root of the reciprocal. A difference score was then computed between the anticipation score and the response score. Normals and psychopaths did not differ in responsiveness to shock. This analysis of variance is presented in Table 5. The results for negative (shock) trials are displayed graphically in Figures 1, 2, and 3. During the positively reinforced trials (pictures) basal conductance was computed in the same fashion as for shock trials with the exception that the midpoint of pic ture interval seven was used for the computation. The psy chopathic group showed higher levels of arousal than the normal group, but not significantly so, F(l/28) = 3.66 (Table 6). The order effect, F(l/28) = 7.59, p<.025, and its interaction with diagnosis, F(l/28) = 4 .66, p<.05, were both significant. The order by trials interaction for all subjects was significant, F(6/168) = 2.57, p<.025. There was a decrease in the effect of order over trials, with trials 5, 6, and 7 showing less of a difference. Basal arousal during pictures and shock was higher for the psychopaths under the "shock-picture" order than under "picture-shock" implying that once aroused the psychopath tends to remain at a relatively high level of arousal (see 30 Figure 10). When shock was first the psychopaths were higher than normals in basal arousal during both pictures (t=2.74, p<.02) and shock (t=2.87, p<.02) while when pictures were first there was no apparent difference between psychopaths and normals (see Table 11). Subjects responded in two characteristically dif ferent ways to the presentation of the pictures. Some sub jects showed increases in conductance which continued for the entire presentation and others showed an orienting response to the new stimulus immediately followed by a decline in conductance. Consequently if the slope of con ductance was in a positive direction (indicating increased arousal) the highest point during the first thirty seconds of presentation was the point taken for computation. On the other hand, if the slope of conductance was negative (decreased arousal) the lowest point during the first thirty seconds of picture presentation was taken for com putation. Calculations were performed as previously de scribed by taking the square root of the reciprocal of resistance. Difference scores were calculated between the response value and the anticipation value. Psychopaths were found to be significantly more responsive to the pic tures than normal Ss, F(l/28) = 5.359, p<.05. A signifi cant Trials interaction, F(6/168) = p<.05, existed for all Ss. This was a result of decreased conductance for both groups during trials 3, 4, and 5 following which con 31 ductance rose to its original level (Table 8). Results obtained during the positively reinforced trials are displayed graphically in Figures 4, 5, and 6. In the operant paradigm the number of correct re sponses in each block of ten trials was calculated and an analysis of variance was performed comparing psychopaths and normals under conditions of positive and negative re inforcement. No difference in reinforcement effect was found. A significant trials effect, F(5/30) = 38.7795, p < .01, indicated that the subjects learned to perform the task; however, they did not learn differentially (see Tables 9 and Figures 7, 8, and 9). Post hoc comparisons were made between groups using t-tests for number of days incarcerated at the Chino Re ception Center, age, education, amount of time incarcerated following the Ss most recent arrest prior to transfer to Chino, total previous time incarcerated, shock level, and Shipley-Hartford I.Q. Chi Squares were computed for racial background and picture preference. Of these, the psycho paths spent significantly more time incarcerated prior to transfer to Chino, t = 2.553, 30 df., p<.02, and signifi cantly more time incarcerated in general, t = 2.608, 30 df., p <.02. The Chi Square corrected for continuity for pic ture choice yielded a value of 3.175 with 1 degree of free dom, .10>p>.05 (psychopaths preferred picture #2 more often than normals). No other comparisons approached sig- nificance (see Table 1) . In a subsequent study picture choice data was ob tained from nine more psychopaths and nine more normals selected by the same criteria and drawn from the same institution. This data was combined with the original data yielding a difference significant at the .05 level, indicating the psychopaths differ significantly in picture preference (Steele and Levine, 1970, unpublished data). CHAPTER V DISCUSSION The results obtained provide partial support for the position that the psychopath evidences higher levels of autonomic arousal than the normal. The hypothesis that the psychopath has a higher chronic level of autonomic tension (Hypothesis a) was supported in part; however, some modifi cation of the position stated must be included since basal conductance was significantly higher for all psychopaths under conditions of shock stress and those psychopaths who received shock prior to pictures in the picture condition. This suggests that under painful stimulus conditions the psychopath tends to show higher chronic arousal although his arousal level may not be significantly different from the normals when less powerful treatments are employed. The implication is that when under stress the psycho path is more likely to engage in operations designed to reduce his arousal level than the normal provided equal be havioral inhibitions are present for both types. Psycho- 33 34 pathic acting out behavior may be in part conceptualized as a result of higher drive states under stress than those evidenced by normal individuals. The fact that the psycho path, once aroused, tends to maintain his arousal even through stress is no longer present suggests a somewhat inflexible hyperactive autonomic nervous system. As was noted in the previous chapter the psychopaths who received shock first were significantly more aroused during positive and negative reinforcement than normals who received shock first. Apparently, the experience provided by the picture portion of the task reduced the reaction of the psychopaths to shock. It is not possible to determine if this is a function of time in the experiment, the parti cular nature of the pictures, or the interaction with the experimenter. It seems reasonable to conclude that psycho paths are definitely more sensitive to negative reinforce ment than normals but this sensitivity is modifiable. Anticipation scores were found to be higher for the psychopaths prior to shock than for the normals, but not significantly so. It can not at this point be concluded that the two groups vary in the degree to which they ex perience shifts in autonomic arousal prior to reinforcement. Psychopaths were shown to have spent significantly more time incarcerated than normals. It is possible that they are better habituated to a prison setting than normals who are relatively more anxious in the setting provided by the 35 Chino Reception Center. It is suggested that a lack of ex perience with the prison setting may have raised the level of arousal and reactivity of the normal to a level similar to that of the psychopath. Since relatively small samples were used in this study, due to the difficulty encountered in attempting to obtain normals and psychopaths who met the appropriate criteria, it seems probable that this differ ence might reach significance with a larger sample. Since psychopaths were not significantly different with respect to responsiveness to both positive and negative reinforcement independent of order Hypothesis c is not con firmed. However, the hypothesis (d) that the autonomic difference between groups is more easily elicited by some reinforcers than others is confirmed by the significant differences between groups with respect to positive rein forcement. This suggests that it takes relatively less stimulation to evoke arousal in the psychopath than the normal since the psychopaths in general became more aroused by the pictures while the normals generally showed declin ing arousal. The fact that the two groups did not vary in response to shock is probably a function of the strength of the treatment. Nowhere has it been suggested that the psychopath has a higher ceiling in terms of arousal than the normal and it is likely that shock elicited maximal responses for both groups. Results in the operant portion of the study confirmed 36 the hypothesis that psychopaths are not significantly dif ferent from normals in their ability to learn in the type of task utilized given the sensitivity of the experimenter. The significant Trials interaction, F(5/30) = 38.7795, p <.01, suggests that learning did in fact take place for both groups, however, neither group was superior, nor did the groups differ in response to positive and negative re inforcement. This suggests that although psychopaths show generally more autonomic arousal and more autonomic lability as a group in comparison to normals there is no resulting deficit in operant learning ability with respect to a simple line drawing task. This does not necessarily imply, however, that the psychopath functions at the same level as the normal during more complex perceptual learning tasks, particularly when these tasks are accompanied by stress. At this point it seems relevant to relate the find ings of this study to previous work and theory. Of parti cular interest are those studies which have produced find ings contradictory to the present one. Generally, the findings presented above tend to support the work of Lindner (1942), Eysenck (1963), McCord and McCord (1964), and Schachter and Latane (1964). These authors have per ceived the psychopath as more autonomically labile, more aroused or both. Of special importance is the work of Hare who seems to be the principal spokesman for the view that the psychopath is both autonomically less aroused and less 37 labile than the normal. In one study Hare (1965a) used elevation on scale 4 of the MMPI to justify the diagnosis of psychopathic deviancy and examined response to shock using a method similar to the one utilized in the present study. He found that as shock approached, Ss high on scale 4 began to react more slowly than normals and their re actions were not as great. However, if one accepts the actuarial diagnostic tables published by Gilberstadt and Duker (1965) then it becomes apparent that Hare was in fact comparing passive aggressives (the diagnosis associated with scale 4 elevation), not psychopaths, with controls. In another study Hare (1965c) compared temporal gradient of fear arousal in psychopaths and non-incarcerated students from an adult education center. It is doubtful that students provide an adequate control group for incar cerated prisoners no matter what their diagnosis. Also in this study the diagnosis of psychopathy was based upon a . checklist derived from Cleckly. Using Cleckly's criteria the present author was unable to separate psychopaths from "normal" controls drawn from the same prison population. Unfortunately, Hare's (1965c) study is not replicable, since Hare failed to specify the duration of the shock used in the study, referring to it only as "a brief electric Shock" (p. 443). The mean shock level was 3.7 milliamperes for Group C (controls). Using a .5 second shock, the pres ent study produced means of 1.6 milliamperes for psycho 38 paths and 1.8 milliamperes for normal controls. One can only speculate as to what this difference implies. Un fortunately, Hare failed to mention the use or non use of electrode paste with the shock electrodes and the use of paste materially effects shock levels obtainable. Despite these problems, Hare concludes that . . . the present results suggest that relatively little fear is elicited in psychopathic persons in the interval prior to anticipated punishment. This is consistent with the hypothesis that psychopaths can be characterized by a steeper than normal gradient of fear arousal and response inhibition. Presumably, cues as sociated with future punishment are incapable of gen erating sufficient fear in the psychopath for immediate behavior to be inhibited. The psychopath's impulsivity and his repeated failure to inhibit antisocial behavior and hence to avoid punishment might be understood in these terms (p. 445). In his most recent study (1968) , Hare administered auditory stimuli and an arithmetic solving task while moni toring various autonomic measures. Again, Cleckly's cri teria were used to separate subjects into primary psycho paths, secondary psychopaths and non psychopathic controls. The composition of the control group seems suspect since it was composed of all available prisoners who "had relatively few psychopathic features." (p. 5). In a sense Hare com pared psychopaths to anyone else within the prison popula tion. The present author found a relatively small propor tion of "normals" within the prison in which he worked. This finding was born out in discussion with the Senior prison psychologist at the institution (Ephraim Rivlin, Senior Psychologist, Reception and Guidance Center, Cali fornia Institute for Men, Chino, California, Personal communication). Since this institution receives all con victed felons within a large geographical area - the 'Southern" counties of California - it seems likely that its population is fairly representative of felonious criminals. The majority of the ncn-psychopathic prisoners were diag- nosable as schizophrenics, passive aggressives or mixed neurotic and psychotic reactions. It seems probable that Hare's control group contained a fairly mixed assortment of extremely disturbed individuals. The existing theory which most adequately explains the results obtained in the present study is that formula ted by Schachter and Latane in their 1964 article. They suggest that the psychopath responds to most events with a strong, autonomic reaction. They further speculate that the psychopath is unable to differentiate times of change from relatively stabile periods because of his heightened arousal. Considering the high basal levels of conductance evidenced by the psychopaths in the present study this po sition seems a reasonable one. It seems quite possible that on the basis of internal cues the psychopath is unable to separate changes in arousal from his already heightened basal level. One might speculate that the psychopath's seeming lack of anxiety is a result of his chronically high level of arcusal which dees not permit him to recog 40 nize changes in internal feeling tone in such a way that these changes may be used as cues fcr behavioral change. iTiis is similar to Eysenck's (1964) position that psycho paths may be considered neurotic extroverts and as such have a labile autonomic nervous system and show prolonged and heightened reactions to stress. The significantly greater reaction to pictures evidenced by the psychopaths in this study in comparison with controls seems to substan tiate Eysenck's position with respect to lability and the fact the psychopaths once aroused tended to remain aroused longer than the normals provides support for his second point. This theory has the additional advantage of being the most parsimonious explanation of the psychopath's im pulsive behavior. The data and theory presented above must be con sidered only a partial explanation of the psychopath's anti social behavior. It fails to account for environmental social learning experiences of a cognitive sort. It seems quite possible for individuals with a hyperactive and labile autonomic nervous system to find socially acceptable life styles. The professional athlete might be the result of this type of adaptation or compromise between autonomic balance and social demand. Such a position is speculative in the extreme. It is advanced to indicate the need for further research on the relationship existing between the psychopath's abnormal autonomic nervous system and social 41 learning variables. It seems obvious at this point that a complete and comprehensive theory of psychopathy must in clude at least these two factors and perhaps others. Further substantiation of the psychopath's difference with respect to anticipation prior to noxious stimulation is needed. It seems likely that this issue may be clari fied by the use of larger samples drawn from populations which have been incarcerated for a sufficient length of time to adapt to their environment. Also, a question exists in terms of the type of stimulation or stress neces sary to elicit the psychopath's increased responsiveness and arousal. Perhaps a meaningful paradigm might include the presentation of shocks of low intensity but long dura tion rather than brief high intensity shocks. Finally, it will be necessary to explore the question, at what levels of stress and task complexity does the psychopath's hyper active autonomic nervous system interact with problem solving ability, and does this interaction produce in creased or decreased performance. It is apparent that a need for methodological clar ity and more careful subject selection exists within the area of research on the psychopathic character. Unless this need is met in future research designs the issue of autonomic arousal in the psychopath will remain a complex and confusing one. It is hoped that the present study will help to clarify some of the issues involved. REFERENCES REFERENCES American Psychiatric association, Diagnostic and Statis tical Manual: Mental Disorders, 1965. Arieti, S. Psychopathic personality: Some views on its psychopathology and psychodynamics. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 1963, £, 301-302. Becker, P. W., Mussina, C. W., and Persons, R. W. Inter trial interval delay of knowledge of results, and motor performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1963, 11_, 559-563. Bennett, Lawrence A., Sociopathy and Stress. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Colleges, Clare mont, California, 1955. Bilodeau, E. A., and Bilodeau, I. M. Variation of temporal intervals among critical events in five studies of knowledge of results. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 55y 603-(>12. Bilodeau, E. A., and Ryan, F. J. A test for interaction of delay of knowledge of results and two types of interpolated activity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1960, 59^, 414-419. Blaylock, J. J. Verbal conditioning performance of psycho paths and non psychopaths under verbal reward and punishment. Dissertation Abstracts, 1960, 2JL, 1628. Bryan, James H., and Kapche, Robert. Psychopathy and Verbal Conditioning, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1967, 72^(1) , 71-73. Chambers, Carl E. Reintegration of the criminal psycho path: Process and outcomes, Dissertation Abstracts, 1968, 2EI(9-A) , 3775. Cleckly, H. The Mask of Sanity. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1950. 43 44 Craddick, Ray A. Selection of psychopathic from non psy chopathic prisoners within a Canadian prison. Psychological Reports, 1962, 3 j0, (2) 495-499. Dahlstrom, W. G., and Welsh, G. S. An MMPI Handbook. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962. Dixon, Wilfred J. and Massey, Frank J. Jr. Introduction to Statistical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957. Editors, British Journal of Delinquency, 2(77), 1951. Edwards, A. L. Experimental Design in Psychological Research. New York: Reinhart, 1960. Eysenck, H. J.(Ed.) Experiments with Drugs. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1963. Eysenck, H. J. Crime and Personality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964. Fenechel, Otto. The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis. New York: Norton, 1945. Fox, Robert and Lippert, Walter. Spontaneous GSR and anxiety level in sociopathic delinquents. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1963, 2J7 (4) , 368. Gilberstadt, H., and Duker, J. A. A Handbook of Clinical and Actuarial MMPI Interpretation. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1965. Greenspoon, J., and Foreman, S. Effect of delay of knowl edge of results on learning a motor task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1956, 5_1, 226-228. Hare, Robert D. Detection threshold for electrick shock in psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 73/ 268-272. Hare, Robert D. Acquisition and generalization of a con ditioned fear response in psychopathic and non psychopathic criminals. Journal of Psychology, 1965, 59(2) , 367-370 (a). Hare, Robert D. A conflict and learning theory analysis of psychopathic behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1965, 2^12-19 (b). 45 Hare, Robert D. Temporal gradient of fear arousal in psy chopaths. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1965, 70. 442-445 (c). Hare, Robert D. Psychopathy, autonomic functioning and the orienting response. Journal of Abnormal Psychology: Monograph Supplement, 1968, 73, No. 3, Part 2. Hetherington, E. M., and Klinger, E. Psychopathy and punishment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycho- logy, 1964, 69_, 113-115. Johns, John H., and Quay, Herbert C. The effect of social reward on verbal conditioning in psychopathic and neurotic military offenders. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1962, 26_(3) , 217-270"; Kaplan, S. D. Psychophysiology of criminals. Proceedings of the 74th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1966, 211-212. Karpman, B. The Structure of Neurosis: With special dif ferentials between neurosis, psychosis, homosexuali ty, alcoholism, psychopathy, and criminality. Archives of Criminal Psychodynamics, 1961, £, 599- 646. Kavka, Jerome. Pinel's conception of the psychopathic state: An historical critique Bulletin of the History of Medicine^ T^T9~T~2T^, 461-468. Lacey, 0., and Siegel, P. An analysis of the unit of measurement of the galvanic skin response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1949, 39^, 122-127. Lazarus, R. S. A Laboratory Approach to the dynamics of psychological stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1963, 192-213"; ~ ~ Lindner, Robert M. Experimental Studies in Constitutional Psychopathic Inferiority. Part I: Systemic patterns. Journal of Criminal Psychopathology, 1942, 4, 252-276. Lindner, Robert. Rebel Without a Cause. New York: Grune and Stratton"; 1944. Lippert, Walter W., and Senter, R. J. Electrodermal responses in the sociopath. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 4(1), 25-26. 46 Lykken, David T. A Study of Anxiety in the Sociopathic Personality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Micro films, 1955, No. 55-944. Lykken, David T. A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1957, 55, 6-10. McCord, William and McCord, Joan. The Psychopath: An Essay on the Criminal Mind, New York: Van Nostrand, 1964. McCord, William and McCord, Joan. Psychopathy and Delin quency . New York: Grune and Stratton, 19 56. Miller, John G. Eyeblink conditioning of primary and neurotic psychopaths. Dissertation Abstracts, 1967, 27 (o-B) , 3314-3315. Miller, A., Stewart, R., Steele, R. E., Watson and Neuheuser. Body Perception Test as a Diagnostic Index. Study presented Western Psychological Association Convention, 1969. Painting, Donald H. The Performance of psychopathic indi viduals under conditions of positive and negative partial reinforcement. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1961, 62^, 353-355. Persons, Roy W. Verbal operant conditioning of severely antisocial adolescents by delinquent and normal Es. Psychological Reports, 1968, 22^(3, Pt. 1), 745-7T8. Persons, Roy W., and Bruning, James L. Instrumental learning with sociopaths; a test of clinical theory. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1966, 71(3), 165- 168. Rachman, S. Sexual fetishism: an experimental analogue. The Psychological Record, 1966, (3), 16^, 293-296. Schachter, S. and Latane, B. Crime cognition and the auto nomic nervous system. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: 1964. Lincoln": University of Nebraska Press, 1964. Schlosberg, H. and Stanley, W. A simple test of the normality of twenty-four distributions of electrical skin conductance. Science, 1953, 117, 35-37. 47 Stein, Kenneth B., Sarbin, Theodore, and Kulik, James A. Future time perspective: Its relation to the so cialization process and the delinquent role. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 32(3), 257-264. Tong, J. E. Stress reactivity in relation to delinquent and psychopathic behavior. Journal of Mental Science, 1959, 105, 935-956. Venables, P. H., and Martin, Irene. A Manual of Psycho- physiological Methods. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1967. Woodworth, Robert S., and Schlosberg, Harold. Experimental Psychology. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1965. APPENDIX A 49 TABLE 1 COMPARISONS OF PSYCHOPATHIC AND NORMAL SUBJECTS (t tests) Group Variable Psychopaths Normals X SD X SD t Number of Days Incarcerated at Chino Reception Center 24.75 6.987 25.81 7.844 -0.39 Age 27.125 4.807 25.533 4 .287 0.94 Education (Years) 11.625 1.45 11.938 2.135 -0.47 Incarceration Immediately Prior to Transfer to the Chino Reception Center (Months) 5.094 4.327 2.375 1.305 2.55* Total Time Served Prior to Most Recent Offense (Months) 47.31 44.87 13.67 21.38 2.61* Shock Level Milliamperes 1.6375 .887 1.825 1.172 -0.49 Shipley-Hartford IQ 101.75 10.22 95.19 12 .35 1.5 *p < .02 50 (TABLE 1 - CONT'D) COMPARISONS OF PSYCHOPATHS AND NORMAL SUBJECTS (Chi Squares) PICTURE CHOICE Psychopaths 1 "IT ' ■"2 ' ' ... Normals 6 6 3 ...1 1 2 Picture 3 Number 4 Chi Square = 3.175* ETHNIC BACKGROUND Psychopaths 8 3 4 1 Normals 10 3 3 0 Anglo Negro Mexican Oriental Saxon American Chi Square = .50 £ < .10 51 TABLE 2 BLACK AND WHITE REPRODUCTIONS OF COLOR TRANSPARENCIES USED AS POSITIVELY REINFORCING STIMULI 3 4 52 TABLE 3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR BASAL LEVEL OF CONDUCTANCE DURING NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT (SHOCK) CLASSICAL PARADIGM Source df MS F Between Subjects Variation: A (Diagnosis) 1 15.469 6.886* B (Order) 1 1.061 0.422 A X B 1 7.312 3.255 Error Between 28 2.246 Within Subjects Variation: C (Trials) 6 0.0454 0.871 A X C 6 0.0125 0.240 B X C 6 0.0662 1.269 A X B X C 6 0.0265 0.508 Error Within 168 0.0522 *p< .025 53 TABLE 3A CELL MEANS FOR BASAL LEVEL OF CONDUCTANCE DURING NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT Shock- Picture 5.32 5.32 5.35 5.35 5.46 5.53 5.49* Psychopaths Picture- Shock 4.87 4.95 4.97 4.94 4.93 4 .95 4.72 Normals Shock- Picture 4.48 4.49 4.51 4.48 4.52 4.53 4.60 Picture- Shock 4.69 4.70 4.77 4.73 4.78 4.79 4.71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TRIALS Shock- Picture- Picture Shock Psychopaths 5.40 4.90 5.15 Normals 4.51 4.74 4.63 4.96 4.82 4.89 ♦Numbers Presented are MHOS X 10^ 54 TABLE 4 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR ANTICIPATION TO NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT (SHOCK) CLASSICAL PARADIGM Source df MS F Between Subjects Variation: A (Diagnosis) 1 0.6109 3.109 B (Order) 1 0.3666 1.866 A X B 1 0.0617 0.314 Error Between 28 0.1965 Within Subjects Variation: C (Trials) 6 0.0377 1.342 A X C 6 0.0249 0.887 B X C 6 0.0250 0.889 A X B X C 6 0.0260 0.925 Error Within 168 0.0281 55 TABLE 4A CELL MEANS FOR ANTICIPATION TO NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT / Shock- Picture .23 .19 .29 .23 .24 o CM • .25* ±'sycnopatiiB picture- Shock .51 .31 .31 .41 .36 .26 .24 Normals Shock- Picture .16 .21 .19 .22 .10 .14 .09 Picture- Shock .25 .26 .20 .18 .17 .19 .20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TRIALS Shock- Picture- Picture Shock Psychopaths .23 .35 .29 Normals .16 • to .18 .20 00 CM • CM • *Numbers Presented are MHOS X 10^ 56 TABLE 5 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RESPONSE TO NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT (SHOCK) CLASSICAL PARADIGM Source Between Subjects Variation: A (Diagnosis) B (Order) A X B Error Between Within Subjects Variation: C (Trials) A X C B X C A X B X C Error Within df MS F 1 0.1400 1.148 1 0.0081 0.067 1 0.2150 1.762 28 0.1220 6 0.8786 0.658 6 0.0244 1.830 6 0.0204 1.530 6 0.0223 1.670 168 0.0133 57 TABLE 5A CELL MEANS FOR RESPONSE TO NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT S h o c k - P s ” c h o D a t h s P i c t u r e .38 .35 .26 .31 .25 .31 .28 p s i c n o p a t n s p i c t u r e _ S h o c k .17 .22 .22 .20 .20 .30 .33 S h o c k - P i c t u r e .23 .17 .13 .20 .23 .20 .20 N u m id lb P i c t u r e - S h o c k .26 .18 .27 .32 .27 .19 .23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TRIALS Shock- Picture- Picture Shock Psychopaths .31 .23 .27 Normals .19 .24 .22 .25 .24 CM • *Numbers Presented are MHOS X 10^ 58 TABLE 6 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR BASAL LEVEL OF CONDUCTANCE DURING POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT (PICTURES) CLASSICAL PARADIGM Source df MS F Between Subjects Variation: A (Diagnosis) 1 11.75 3.66 B (Order) 1 24.35 7.59* A X B 1 14.94 4.66** Error Between 28 3.21 Within Subjects Variation: C (Trials) 6 0.1249 1.84 A X C 6 0.0431 0.64 B X C 6 0.1745 2.57* A X B X C 6 0.0056 0.08 Error Within 168 0.0679 *p <.025 **p < .05 59 TABLE 6A CELL MEANS FOR BASAL LEVEL OF CONDUCTANCE DURING POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT Psychopaths Shock- Picture 5.64 5.55 5.68 5.66 5.48 5.45 5.44* Picture- Shock 4.30 4.31 4.42 4.40 4.35 4.46 4.42 Normals Shock- Picture 4.70 4.67 4.66 4.79 4.43 4.35 4.47 Picture- Shock 4.43 4.41 4.39 4.49 4.40 4.43 4.52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TRIALS Shock- Picture- Picture Shock Psychopaths 5.56 4.38 4.97 Normals 4.58 4.44 4.51 5.07 4.41 4.74 *Numbers Presented are MHOS X 10^ 60 TABLE 7 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR ANTICIPATION TO POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT (PICTURES) CLASSICAL PARADIGM Source df MS F Between Subjects Variation: A (Diagnosis) 1 0.000162 0.019 B (Order) 1 0.005914 0.692 A X B 1 0.003512 0.411 Error Between 28 0.008548 Within Subjects Variation: C (Trials) 6 0.00679 0.975 A X C 6 0.00566 0.812 B X C 6 0.00460 0.660 A X B X C 6 0.00273 0.392 Error Within 168 0.00696 61 TABLE 7A CELL MEANS FOR ANTICIPATION TO POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT Shock- r_^rhnno1.h_ Picture .00 .02 .03 -.04 .05 -.03 .02* rsychopaths PictUre- Shock .04 .03 .00 -.01 .03 -.02 -.00 Shock- Picture .00 .04 -.01 -.03 .00 .00 -.00 Nuiuialti Picture- Shock .01 .03 .02 .06 .01 .01 .01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TRIALS Shock- Picture- Picture Shock Psychopaths .01 .01 .01 Normals .00 .02 .01 .00 .01 .01 ♦Numbers Presented are MHOS X 10^ 62 TABLE 8 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR RESPONSE TO POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT (PICTURES) CLASSICAL PARADIGM Source df MS F Between Subjects Variation: A (Diagnosis) 1 0.4300 5.359* B (Order) 1 0 .2300 0.287 A X B 1 0.0878 1.094 Error Between 28 0.0803 Within Subjects Variation: C (Trials) 6 0.0614 2.402* A X C 6 0.0129 0.507 B X C 6 0.0203 0.797 A X B X C 6 0.0235 0.920 Error Within 168 0.0255 *p < .05 63 TABLE 8A CELL MEANS FOR RESPONSE TO POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT Psychopaths Shock- Picture .15 .22 -.03 -.02 .16 .15 .15* Picture- Shock .49 .05 .06 .05 .07 .01 .06 Normals Shock- Picture .05 .02 -.05 -.08 -.04 -.03 -.01 Picture- Shock .06 .08 .01 -.09 -.04 -.00 .01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TRIALS Shock- Picture- Picture Shock Psychopaths .11 .05 .08 Normals -.02 .00 -.01 .05 .03 .04 *Numbers Presented are MHOS X 10^ 64 TABLE 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR OPERANT LINE DRAWING TASK Source df MS F Between Subjects Variation: A (Diagnosis) 1 16.333300 1.9049 B (Reinforcement) 1 14.083330 1.6425 A X B 1 4.083339 0.4762 Error Between 28 8.574395 Within Subjects Variation: C (Trials) 5 133 .270700 38.7795* A X C 5 1.370654 0.3988 B X C 5 7.295556 2.1229 A X B X C 5 2.495831 0.7262 Error Within 140 3 .436625 *p< .01 65 TABLE 9A CELL MEANS FOR OPERANT LINE DRAWING TASK Positive ^ Reinforcement Psychopaths ------ Reinforcement 1.25 3.75 5.25 6.75 6.63 7.50 2.75 6.13 6.25 6.63 7.25 7.13 Normals Positive Reinforcement 2.13 4.63 7.25 6.88 7.50 8.00 Negative Reinforcement 2.13 6.50 6.50 8.13 7.88 6.75 3 4 TRIALS Positive Negative Reinforcement Reinforcement Psychopaths 5.19 6 .02 5.60 Normals 6.06 6.31 6.19 5.62 6.17 5.90 66 TABLE 10 CELL ARRANGEMENT AND SUBJECT ASSIGNMENT GROUP 16 Psychopathic Ss Classa Ss .cal First 1 - 8 Operant First Ss # 9 - 16 Shock First Pictures First Shock First Pictures First Ss # 1-4 Ss # 5-8 Ss # 9-12 Ss # 13-16 Ss T,2 Pos. Op. Ss 1,4 Neg. Op. Ss ^,6 Pos. Op. Ss 7,8 Neg. Op. Ss 9,10 Pos. Op. Ss Tl,12 Neg. Op. Ss T3 ,14 Pos. Op. Ss 1F,16 Neg. Op. 16 Normal Ss Classical First Operant First Ss # 1 - 8 Ss # 9 - 16 Shock Pictures Shock Pictures First First First First Ss 1 1-4 Ss # 5-8 Ss # 9-12 Ss # 13-16 Ss Ss Ss Ss Ss Ss Ss Ss 1,2 3,4 5,6 7,8 S’ ,10 11,12 13,14 15,16 Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Op. Op. Op. Op. Op . Op. Op. Op. 67 TABLE 11 PSYCHOPATHS VERSUS NORMALS UNDER CONDITIONS OF NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT WHEN NEGATIVE PRECEDES POSITIVE GROUP Psychopaths Normals X SD X SD t 540 59.5 452 55.2 2.87* *p < .02 PSYCHOPATHS VERSUS NORMALS UNDER CONDITIONS OF POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT WHEN NEGATIVE PRECEDES POSITIVE GROUP Psychopaths Normals X SD X SD t 556 55.7 458 76.4 2.74* *p < .02 APPENDIX B FIGURE 1 BASAL CONDUCTANCE DURING NEGATIVELY REINFORCED (SHOCK) TRIALS .005300 .005200 O .005100 a H .005000 w u I .004900 U B § .004800 U O .004700 E" O o « .004600 w § g .004500 w .004400 .004300 PSYCHOPATHS ■A----------A ----------A NORMALS FIGURE 2 MEAN ANTICIPATORY RESPONSE TO NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT (SHOCK) .0 0 0 5 0 0 -i w O .000450 ,000400 “ S H .000350 W U | .000300 - u B § .000250 - u f r . o E h O O O S .000200 ~ ,000150 W OS < B .000100 - w .000050 - .000000 PSYCHOPATHS NORMALS FIGURE 3 MEAN RESPONSE TO NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT (SHOCK) SQUARE ROOT OF CONDUCTANCE IN MHOS .000400-1 .000350 .000300 .000250 .000200 .000150 .000100 .000050 .000000 T 3 T - 4 1 ---- 5 TRIALS -o PSYCHOPATHS NORMALS T 6 T 7 T 8 FIGURE 4 BASAL CONDUCTANCE DURING POSITIVELY REINFORCED (PICTURE) TRIALS .005300 - i .005200- w 8 .005100- sa H .005000- W u .004900- O .004800- b ° .004700- E h o § r, .004600- 5 O .004500- .004400 - .004300 PSYCHOPATHS NORMALS FIGURE 5 MEAN ANTICIPATORY RESPONSE TO POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT (PICTURES) SQUARE ROOT OF CONDUCTANCE IN MHOS .000250 i .000200 - .000150 - .000100 - .000050 - .000000 - -.000050 - -.000100 8 ^ “1 ----------r PSYCHOPATHS NORMALS 1 ------------ 1 ---------- 1 -----------1 ----- - j 00 5 6 7 8 TRIALS FIGURE 6 MEAN RESPONSE TO POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT (PICTURES) SQUARE ROOT OF CONDUCTANCE IN MHOS .003200-, .000150- .000100“ . 000050- .000000- -.000050*- -.000100- -.000150- -.000200 “i ------------1 --- 4 5 TRIALS PSYCHOPATHS NORMALS 81 FIGURE 7 TRIAL BLOCK MEANS FOR POSITIVELY REINFORCED SUBJECTS (OPERANT TASK) TRIAL BLOCKS NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES PER TRIAL BLOCK O ' - 38 83 FIGURE 8 TRIAL BLOCK MEANS FOR NEGATIVELY REINFORCED SUBJECTS (OPERANT TASK) TRIAL BLOCKS NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES PER TRIAL BLOCK I —1 I — 4 ^ Ul 0 > C O O _i_______i _______i ______ i _______i _______i _______i -------1 ------ 1 -------1 cn PQ 85 FIGURE 9 TRIAL BLOCK MEANS WITH POSITIVELY AND NEGATIVELY REINFORCED SUBJECTS COMBINED (OPERANT TASK) TRIAL BLOCKS NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES PER TRIAL BLOCK M ty <Jo £ » m C T > ~ rJ C P ' £ > _i I I I 1 t 1 X -L_ 98 10-. 87 FIGURE 10 MEAN BASAL CONDUCTANCE FOR PSYCHOPATHS AND NORMALS COMBINED BY ORDER OF CONDITIONS SQUARE ROOT OF CONDUCTANCE IN MHOS O 88 .005600 - .005500 - .005400 - .005300 - .005 200 - .005.100 - .00 5000 - . 00^ 9i . l o - .004800 - . 00-'’700 - .00*600 .004500 - .004000 .004300 .004200 .004100 - .00*000 Sho k PSYCHOPATHS - A NORMALS Schock Schock Pictures Shock Pictures Pictures 1st. Condition of the Experiment 2nd. Condition of the Experiment 89 FIGURE 11 MEAN PSYCHOPATHIC PROFILE MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY (n = 16) TorTc 90 o -Si rr -5 c +. K CD -P t IK r t ' 1 -D "Hs + . :"K r —i “L r O FIGURE 12 MEAN NORMAL PROFILE MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY (n = 16) TorTc 92 -Si Ma + Sc + IK Pt-l ]K -Pa Mf -Hy -D Hs+ . 5K -K
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Weight Reduction As A Function Of The Timing Of Reinforcement In A Covertaversive Conditioning Paradigm
PDF
Modification Of Low Self-Confidence In Elementary-School Children By Reinforcement And Modeling
PDF
The Development And Evaluation Of Three Therapeutic Group Interventions For Widows
PDF
Death Anxiety In Leukemic Children
PDF
The Relationship Of Father-Absence, Socio-Economic Status, And Other Variables To Creative Abilities In Fifth-Grade Boys
PDF
Attention, retention, and incentive processes in observational learning
PDF
Reversal And Nonreversal Shift Performance Of Retardates Under Various Motivational And Stimulus Conditions
PDF
The effects of physical proximity and body boundary size on the self-disclosure interview
PDF
The Effects Of Diphenylhydantoin On The Galvanic Skin Responses Of Psychopathic And Normal Prisoners
PDF
Prognostic Expectancy Effects In The Desensitization Of Anxiety Over Invasion Of Body Buffer Zones
PDF
Positive And Negative Verbal Reinforcement In The Conditioning Of The Verbal Behavior Of Adolescent Underachieving Delinquents With Dependent, Neutral, And Aggressive Stimuli
PDF
A Multiple Investigation Of Child-Rearing Attitudes
PDF
The Effects Of Self Vs. Ideological Advocacy On The Self-Esteem And Endorsement Of Black Power Ideology Of Black College Students
PDF
Strategies Of Marital Communication
PDF
Behavioral Seriousness And Impulse-Control Balance In Delinquency
PDF
Looking Back After Coming Down: Conformity And Commitment In Campus Protest
PDF
The Effects Of Anxiety And Threat On Self-Disclosure
PDF
Self-Sacrifice, Cooperation, And Aggression In Women Of Varying Sex-Role Orientations
PDF
The Relationship Of Teacher Empathy And Student Personality To Academic Achievement And Course Evaluation
PDF
A Comparison Of The Values Of High And Low Creative Seventh Grade Students In Selected Junior High Schools In The Los Angeles District
Asset Metadata
Creator
Steele, Richard Ernest
(author)
Core Title
An Examination Of Positive And Negative Reinforcement In Classical And Operant Conditioning Paradigms In The Primary Psychopath
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Psychology
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,Psychology, clinical
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Marston, Albert R. (
committee chair
), Frankel, Andrew Steven (
committee member
), Metfessel, Newton S. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-451239
Unique identifier
UC11362355
Identifier
7107743.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-451239 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
7107743
Dmrecord
451239
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Steele, Richard Ernest
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA