Experimenter Effects In The Verbal Conditioning Of Adolescents' Responsestoward Drugs

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content EXPERIMENTER EFFECTS IN THE VERBAL CONDITIONING
OF ADOLESCENTS' RESPONSES
TOWARD DRUGS
by
Donald Clive Fisher
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
(Education)
June 1971
72-3772
FISHER, Donald Clive, 1935-
EXPERIMENTER EFFECTS IN THE VERBAL CONDITIONING
OF ADOLESCENTS' RESPONSES TOWARD DRUGS.
University of Southern California,
Ph.D., 1971
Education, psychology
University Microfilms, A XEROX C om pany, Ann Arbor, Michigan
© COPYRIGHT BY
Donald Clive Pisher
1971
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFLIMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED
UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
TH E GRADUATE SCHOO L
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CA LIFO RN IA 3 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
J?ooa^lm Clire_F^lKr
under the direction of h.Ast.... Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Gradu
ate School, in partial fulfillment of require
ments of the degree of
D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
Date J m e„ 1 9 7 l
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairman
PLEASE NOTE:
Some Pages have i n d i s t i n c t
p r i n t . Filmed as received.
UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS
To
M Y FAMILY
whose love I share and whose
patience and encouragement
have made this research
possible.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The investigator wishes to recognize and indicate
his profound gratitude to the following individuals for
their roles in this research endeavor: for encouragement
in the early stages, Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Dr. Logan J,
Pox,* for research design suggestions, Dr. Steve Brown,
I
I John Martois, Gene Pederson, Dr. Prank Smith, Dr. Malcolm
Williamson; for auditing tapes, Joe Fisher and Doug Hender
son? for typing in the early stages, Janet Crow, Joann
i
I Davis, Nan Fisher and George Morrice; for service in the
! experimental stages, Janet Crow, Rick Duvall, Nan Fisher,
: Nancy Ruis and the Redondo Beach Police Department; for
I arrangements, Hugh Choate and Pat Wickwire of the South Bay
Union High School District and Robert Carne of the Redondo
Union High School; for providing early response to the
elicitors, high school girls of the El Segundo United
Methodist Church and residents of Trailback Lodge, Danny,
! Tammy and Kimmy Fisher and their.friends; for their par-
| ticipation as subjects, students of Redondo Union High
j
! School and their teachers who encouraged them; for their
i
j contribution of pictures as elicitors, Janet Peace and
I Mary Vogt; for his invaluable critiques and suggestions,
| Dr. Myron T. Denbo who graciously accepted the chairmanship
|of my committee in the late stages; for their service on
the dissertation committee, Dr. William Ofman and Dr. J.
i
I
I
IWesley Robb and finally for their unceasing elicitation of
I
|dissertation-related responses, my wife, Nanette, and my
i
|children, Danny, Tammy and Kimmy.
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....... ....................... iii
LIST OF TABLES...........................................vii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION .................................. 1
Statement of the Problem................... 2
Hypotheses ....... ................... 2
Delimitations .............................. 3
Limitations................................ 4
Assumptions ....................... 4
Definition of T e r m s ....................... 4
Organization of the Study ................. 5
II. SURVEY OP THE LITERATURE
Social Variables of the Psychological
Experiment with Special Reference to
E Effects . .............. 6
Selected Features of Verbal Conditioning
Research 10 j
Generalization ............................ 12
The Awareness I s s u e 13 i
Reinforcement Variables................ 15;
Response Categories ..................... 17!
Procedures and Apparatus ................. 19!
Design Features ....................... 20
Subjects . ............................. 211
Instrumentation ....................... 23;
The Problem of Adolescent Drug Abuse .... 24!
I
I
III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES................... 29;
I
Subjects .................. 291
Sociocultural Questionnaire............ 29j
Groups.................................... 33
Setting and Procedures ................... 33
Semantic Differential ................... 39
Design............ 43
Statistical Model .............. 43
Chapter Page
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................. 45
i
Postexperimental Audit of the Interviews . 50 j
Discussion . 51 j
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 62 j
Summary............................. 62
Conclusions......................... 65
Recommendations...... ... ............. 65
BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................... 67
APPENDIXES......................................... 81
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Comparison of Responses Elicited and Rein
forcements by Experimenters ..........
Vli
Page
52
CHAPTER I
| INTRODUCTION
Four features characterize the nature and purpose
of this study. The first consideration is the special in
fluence an experimenter has on his subjects. One wonders
whether Es portraying controversial and yet widely differ
ing roles would have a different impact on Ss than an E of
a less controversial and more unassuming role. Two such
current controversial roles are those of police officer and
"hippie," A housewife may have a far less provocative im-
jpact on Ss,
i
A great deal of attention has been given to the
iprocess of verbal conditioning in recent years. It would
be of value to know if one's verbal responses could be
jaltered on a theme of strong commitment in an interview of
|
jshort length. The more important question is whether this
i
i
presumed change would transfer to an external measure.
A means of measuring concepts, distinguishing them
from each other, and determining how they may change as a
consequence of different stimuli has been developed by Os
good , Suci and Tannenbaum (1957). This study is an addi-
tional attempt to use a variation of their semantic
differential as a measuring instrument.
i
The problem of adolescent drug abuse has become a
jserious social concern and at the same time is felt to be
jan issue of intense emotional involvement on the part of
|
jthe adolescents themselves. The choice of such a theme for
jthe response category has the dual value of emotional in
tensity and social relevance.
Statement of the Problem
i
| This investigation was an attempt to explore the
jeffects of E influence on the verbal conditioning of elic-
I
jited responses of adolescents toward the controversial and
emotionally loaded concept of drugs. The problem of E ef-
fects was examined by having three Es, each portraying a
[different role. These roles were "police officer,"
"hippie," and the neutral role of "woman." The Es elicited
responses from adolescents with drug-related pictures in an
i
!
[interview of about fifteen minutes duration. Avoidance
|
responses were reinforced by reflection or paraphrase of
the response. Approach and neutral responses were ignored.
i
jThe Ss were drawn from the student body of the Redondo
junion High School, Redondo Beach, California.
I
Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were submittedt
1 Research;
Ss in groups (police officer), E2 (woman), and
E3 (hippie) will obtain lower scores on evaluative scales
i
:of drug-related concepts: amphetamines, drugs, heroin, and
marijuana/ than Ss in C (control) group.
I
| Ss in E3 will obtain lower scores on evaluative
1
scales of drug-related concepts than subjects in and E2.
| Ss in E2 will obtain lower scores on evaluative
scales of drug-related concepts than subjects in E^.
Null;
Ss in groups E^, E2 and E3 will obtain scores no
different than those in group C on potency and activity
scales of drug-related concepts.
Ss in groups E^, E2 and E3 will not obtain differ-
I
jent scores on the concepts: beer, medicine, pictures, and
ivaccinations, than those in C.
j. — __ _
f
Ss in groups E^, E2 and E3 will not obtain differ
ent scores on concepts: me and most people, than Ss in
jgroup C.
i Ss in groups E^, E2 and E3 will not obtain differ-
jent scores on concepts: hippies, housewives r police, 2Uid
j teachers, than Ss in group C.
j
| Delimitations
| This study dealt with students at one high school
i
in a middle class Southern California beach community.
j
| The interviews were of less than fifteen minutes
| duration.
The interviewers we< e inexperienced.
4
Limitations
| The validity and reliability of the semantic differ-
j
ential as adapted for this study has not been established.
I
i
There is no basis to expect avoidance responses on
the semantic differential scales will transfer to avoidance
responses in other areas.
| Assumptions
I
j It was assumed that the pattern of emission of
verbal avoidance responses in the interview was transferred
to the emission of written avoidance responses on the seman
tic differential.
I
! it was assumed that the combination of pictorial
elicitors, reinforcement of avoidance responses and the
participation of a personal interviewer was responsible for
Conditioning.
It was understood that the semantic differential
was a valid and reliable measure of attitudes related to
!
[the fourteen concepts which constitute it.
■ It was assumed that interviewers were able to dif
ferentiate and identify avoidance responses and to rein
force them when appropriate.
i
I
Definition of Terms
i
| Experimenter effects. First, this term refers to
5
the total contribution of the E to the experimental situa
tion. For the purposes of this study, the term E effects
pertains to those personal influences, obvious and subtle,
that significantly alter a subject's responses to the E.
In this case, differences in responses on the semantic
differential will be deemed effects of E.
Verbal conditioning. This is the alteration of one
person's verbal behavior through the direct manipulation of
another person.
Drug avoidance response. This is a word, sentence,
utterance, or sound, interpreted by the interviewer to be
opposed to the misuse of drugs.
Reinforcement. This is considered to be any event
that increases the likelihood of a given response recurring.
Reflection. This is an intervention on the part
of the E in which he restates, paraphrases, or mirrors back
a given response.
Organization of the Study
This chapter has described the nature and purpose
of the study, the statement of the problem, hypotheses,
delimitations and limitations, assumptions and definitions
of terms. The following chapters will discuss a review of
relevant literature, methods and procedures, and summary,
conclusions and recommendations.
| CHAPTER II
i
i SURVEY OP THE LITERATURE
This chapter will report recent relevant research
in the problems of experimenter effects v verbal condition
ing, acquisition of drug abuse and a particular means of
instrumentation. The problem of experimenter (E) effects
will be considered first. The verbal conditioning section
will, follow. This section will present several related
issues. These include the consideration of the questions
of generalization, awareness, reinforcement variables,
!
|response, categories, procedures and apparatus, design
|features and subjects. The next section will deal with the
|problem of adolescent drug abuse with special attention
j
|given to the acquisition phase. The final section of this
j
chapter will discuss the matter of instrumentation. In-
eluded in this section will be material pertaining to the
isemantic differential.
i
j
Social Variables of the Psychological Experiment
| with Special Reference to E Effects
Orne (1962) has cogently described the psycholog
ical laboratory as a social relationship carrying a number
of person-related overtones. Particularly, there are
certain "demand characteristics" in the research setting
I i
;that are socially but inadvertently induced. These include
|the expectations that both E and S bring into the experi
mental event. Their presuppositions plus various environ-
i
jmental cues interplay with the intent of the research ef
fort in such a way as to result in contaminated research.
E impact will be considered specifically.
Rosenthal (1966) has generated considerable inter
est in the effects of the E's expectancies. His studies
show that what the E expects to occur indeed will occur.
Heller and Marlatt (1969) report studies where E disagree
ment affected different outcomes. In a provocative study
jof awareness in verbal conditioning, Sheehan (1969) found
i
I that Es expecting awareness obtained it and those not ex-
i
pecting it did not attain it.
Intriguing research has been conducted, by Rqsen-
!feld and Baer (1969, 1970) on the interactions between the
i
I experimenter and subject. In one study a naive E was con
ditioned by an informed S. In a subsequent study, the E
jwas unwittingly conditioned by a tape recorder.
i
I
E sex differences have been found to have signifi-
i
cant effects in certain experimental situations. For ex
ample, Stewart and Resnick (1970) found that Ss with high
scores on the psychopathic deviate scale of the Minnesota
jMultiphasic Personality Inventory condition more readily
if the E is of the opposite sex.
Personality factors have been explored by Weight
(1969) and Etaugh (1969). Weight investigated the impact
I of the internal-external locus of control dimension as a
:variable in the verbal behavior of both Ss and experiment
ers . He found that internal Es are generally more effec-
i
itive than externals in eliciting positive self-reference
statements from their Ss. Elicitation of negative self
references was not effected by E's locus of control.
Etaugh examined the effects of the E's level of
I neuroticism, degree of extraversion, and amount of experi-
j :
jence. She found that Ss of high neurotic Es perform poor-
|
j ly. On the other, hand, female Ss of low neurotic Es per
form well. There was a positive correlation between the
experimenter's degree of extraversion and the subject's
performance. However, experienced Es were no more effec
tive than naive Es in obtaining results.
Whereas Etaugh found no difference between experi
enced and naive Es, Denner (1970) obtained superior results
j from "crafty" Es than from normals. The difference though
i is not in the level of training but in the type.of train- i
| ing.
The effects of E status has been the concern of
| several investigators. Katkin, Risk and Spielberger (1966)
j
devised a study to determine the effects of E status and
| ’ I
| subject awareness on verbal conditioning. In the high j
j I
I status situation, Ss were interviewed by a member of the
:university faculty in an office with his name prominently j
t
displayed with "Ph.D." appended. The high status E wore a
black business suit, with a vest. He greeted each subject
formally and explained that the experiment was part of his
|research program. A male undergraduate was.selected to act
|as E in the low status condition. He tested.his Ss in a
i
drab, unfurnished, experimental room. He dressed informal-
ly and appeared generally unkept. He introduced himself by
|
|his first name and explained that he was doing the experi
ment as part of a course assignment. Although both Es ob-
I
tained awareness, the differences between their results
Iwere insignificant. However, of the aware Ss, the low-
istatus E was able to obtain more performance increments
them the high status E.
A single E wearing different modes of dress was
utilized in an E status experiment carried out by Critch-
low, Herrup and Dabbs (1968). In the high status condition
E wore dark slacks, tie and sport.coat. He explained to Ss
that he taught in the graduate department at Yale. When
he was a low status E he wore khakis and an open collar
shirt and told Ss that he was a student at a nearby culinary
{arts institute. The task was to see which condition would
I
be most effective in inducing conformity. The high status
Icondition was significantly more effective in obtaining con-
Iforraity.
Several studies on experimenter status have been
reviewed by Rosenthal (1966). Generally they used as Es
|individuals who were of the same general vocational-
|occupational category. For example, students and profes-
'sors in universities or enlisted men and officers in the
! military have been compared for differing conditioning ef
fects. However little attention has been given to Es of
radically different roles. One could match a military of
ficer with a college professor for instance and look for
altogether different outcomes than would be obtained in
[comparing professor/student or officer/soldier Es. Roles
i
iand life styles seem to elicit particular kinds of reac-
|tions from particular population segments. In the youth
i
subculture one would expect the Ss to react differently to
j
I a young bearded, long-haired male with a guitar than to a
uniformed police officer. An attractive but business-like
housewife would be expected to elicit a different set of
jresponses.
Selected Features of Verbal Condition-
ing Research
Research in verbal conditioning has been conducted
I
|in several areas. The theoretical question of whether the
i
|conditioning process falls in the operant or respondent
j category has been explored by Abell (1969), Hersen (1970), j
i |
Staats (1968), and Das (1969). De Nike and Leibovitz
(1969) and Ault and Vogler (1969) have asked the question
1 !
in somewhat different terms. Are the Ss responding to dis-i
I 1 i
; i
criminative or reinforcing stimuli? The current thinking !
seems to be that the conditioning effects are not inclu-
|sively the result of operant reinforcers.
I
Some investigators have included verbal condition
ing as a treatment technique in conjunction with other pro
cedures. Schmidt (1964), for example, treated a phobic
patient, using verbal conditioning combined with practical
training* The combination seemed to be more effective than
either approach used singly. Modeling has been paired with
verbal conditioning by Goodkin (1969), Sundel (1968) and
jWilson and Walters (1966). Sundel was unable to obtain
i
|significant differences between modeling only and modeling
|plus verbal conditioning groups. But Goodkin and Wilson
land Walters found the combination to accelerate performance.
i
Campbell (1968) compared the effects of role playing and
I
I verbal conditioning in humor preference. She was unable
| to obtain significant differences between the two ap
proaches. In this instance a combined approach was not
i attempted.
i
I Several successful review articles have been pub-
i
I
|lished on recent developments in verbal conditioning.
|Davison (1969) described verbal conditioning techniques
(applied to institutional settings. Psychotherapy and verb-
I
al conditioning were examined by Salzinger (1969) , Meltz-
off and Kornreich (1970) and Krasner (1965). Heller and
Marlatt (1969) explored some problems in extrapolation. j
I j
Das (1969) was concerned with a variety of problems asso- j
ciated with verbal conditioning research. Holz and Azrin
i(1966) described in detail many of the associated method-
i
ological problems.
i
j Generalization
|
j A critical issue in verbal conditioning research is
jthe problem of generalization. Although predicted changes
!
in verbal behavior readily occur, the attempts to transfer
Jsuch changes into nonverbal components has been only par- ;
jtially successful. Neither Lapuc and Harmatz (1970) nor
jBrodsky (1967) were able to obtain generalization from
verbal to nonverbal behavior. Ullmann, Krasner and Edinger
; (1964) conditioned patients in a word association task but
were unable to generalize this to a stick-figure task.
Sundel (1968) with near mute schizophrenics and Nordmark
:(1968) in examining locus of control were unable to obtain
> generalization. King (1968) was unable to obtain generali
zation on such measures as the IPAT, Q Sort, and the seman-
|tic differential.
!
| Others have had varying degrees of success at at
tempting to get their Ss to generalize. Gruber (1970)
i
!found that his Ss were more likely to generalize if they
I were unaware or only partially aware. Schmidt (1964)
i
j found that her patient would generalize when verbal
conditioning was combined with another form of treatment.
Vogel-Sprott (1964) conditioned Ss to incorrectly'estimate
circles on cards and then to transfer the distortion to the
psychomotor response of actually drawing a circle. Wandzek
(1969) was able to condition selections on an interest
I
|scale in the fine and applied arts but not in the physical,
i
i
jbiological or social sciences. Verbal conditioning re-
I suited in a decrease on the dependency scale of the MMPI
i
|(Orlando, 1968). In another study the Welsh R scales were
iaffected but not the Welsh A scales (Ullmann, Forsman, et
|al., 1965).
i
Lapuc and Harmatz (1970) administered the semantic
! differential in an effort to see if it measured change in
verbal conditioning. They found that verbal conditioning
did generalize to the semantic differential on several con
cepts and scales. Among the concepts were Myself, My Ideal
Self, Myself as Others See Me, the Good Me, the Bad Me,
ithe Therapist, the Other Patients on My Ward, the Hospital
:Staff and My Home. Their demonstration that the semantic
■ differential responses can be influenced by the verbal
| conditioning technique provides legitimacy to the use of
i
! the instrument in verbal conditioning research.
i
l
i The Awareness Issue
Verbal conditioning research can never completely
avoid the theoretical issue of awareness. Claims and
counterclaims as to whether one can learn without realizing
! i
what is happening or is merely making hypotheses abound in
i |
the literature. The cognitive position is that the individ-
t
jual is an aware problem solver and not a helpless puppet at
i
jthe mercy of whoever is pulling the strings. The descrip
tive behaviorism position is that awareness is unimportant,
inessential and irrelevant to the learning process. The
issue has large implications for the broader theory of the
nature of man. It matters whether man is an active, prob
lem solving individual or a reacting organism.
i
| The cognitive position has gained support from many
jdirections. Craine (1968) found that awareness was sig
nificantly related to performance in the conditioning of
'psychopaths. Doctor (1969) conditioned elementary school
i
children but only aware Ss performed in the predicted direc
tion. When high levels of highly valued incentives were
combined with awareness, Simpkins (1968) obtained condi
tioning. And among Page's (1970) findings was that con
tingency awareness and demand awareness all correlated with
(experimental performance. The Ss in the De Nike and
jlieibovitz (1969) study showed performance increments when
jaware but not when unaware. Upper (1969) obtained condi
tioning from reactive schizophrenics but only if they were
iaware. Steger's (1969) study also supported the cognitive
position. In a lengthy review article, Spielberger and
De Nike (1966) examined the issues related to the debate
between the descriptive behaviorists and the cognitivists.
i
In so doing they argued for the cognitive position.
Other researchers have obtained results that seri-
jously question the cognitive position. Mandel and Good-
]stein (1969) found awareness neither necessary nor suffi-
;cient for the attainment of performance gains. Others have
I
[had mixed results or failed to obtain results that clearly
supported the cognitive position. (See Baron, 1969; Rosen-
|feld and Baer, 1969; and Riddle, 1968.) Dixon and Moulton
|(1970) argue for a position that includes both cognitive
|and noncognitive aspects.
i
Some other facets related to awareness merit brief
mention. In Gruber's (1970) research awareness seemed to
I
interfere with generalization. Miller and Rumans (1970)
noted that obviousness of reinforcement when they were led
to expect it but not otherwise. Schizophrenics given
:awareness instructions conditioned more readily than Ss not
i
receiving instructions (Furkas, 1969). Cognitive awareness
'has been associated with the orienting reflex as measured
by the GSR in research by Aronson (1968). And Doctor (1968)
in contrast to Sheehan (above) found that E expectancy was
|not significantly related to awareness.
j
[Reinforcement Variables
! There has been a wide assortment of reinforcements
presented, in verbal conditioning studies. Verbal
{interventions include "umhmram," "that's good," and "right, I
|
‘ wrong, correct and incorrect" (Ullmann, Forsraan, Kenny,
Mclnnis, Unikel and Zeisset, 1965; Ascough and Sipprelle,
i
!l968; and Ault and Vogler, 1969). Abell (1969) found eval-
juative words to be reinforcing and Hainey (1969) discovered
the use of values as reinforcers. Page (1970) was able to
make the word "reinforcement" reinforcing. Ayllon and
Haughton (1964) obtained results with both attention and
cigarettes. Simpkins (1968) paid his subjects with money.
Doctor intervened with combinations of "right," "wrong" and
expressed neutrality (1969). Miller (1968) praised his Ss
I
|for appropriate verbal responses.
! Reflection is of special interest because of its
j
widespread use as an interview technique and because of its
simplicity of expression. Merbaum (1963), Merbaum and
Southwell (1965) and Adams and Frye (1964) investigated the
I
[effectiveness of the use of reflection in comparison with
|other interventions such as interpretation. The results
|were mixed. But Hekmat (1968) compared both techniques and
!found reflection to be the more fruitful of the two.
iMeltzoff and Kornreich (1970) reported a study contrasting
i
j the difference in conditioning between reflection of con-
i
|tent and reflection of feeling. The content reflection
j
;group showed the superior performance.
i
| Krasner (1965) described a study in which the E was
instructed as to which verbal behaviors to reinforce but
17
iwas allowed to determine his own manner of reinforcement.
I It would seem that a situation in which the E is given some
I
|direction in reinforcing technique, such as reflection of
|content, but considerable latitude in implementing it,
|would be a natural, easy and effective approach.
| Holz and Azrin (1966) in reviewing the effects of
schedules of reinforcement on verbal conditioning suggest
that the schedules seem to operate similarly for verbal as
well as motor responses. A study of Phelan, Tang, and
Hekmat (1967) largely supported this position. Hekmat
(1968) later found that continuous reinforcement and par
tial reinforcement showed more resistance to extinction.
i
I
|Ince (1968) conducted a rather elaborate study using vari-
j
ous variable interval schedules of reinforcement. However,
I schedules of reinforcement are of less relevance in short
|interview situations. In such studies only a continuous re
inforcement schedule seems appropriate.
The timing of reinforcement has been examined by
Walker, Taylor and McDaniel (1968). They found that im-
|mediacy of reinforcement was essential to conditioning.
i '
1
|Response Categories
Many different types of responses have been elic
ited in verbal conditioning studies. Insko and Nelson
(1969) sought to influence attitudes. Humor preference
was manipulated in a verbal conditioning setting by
Campbell (1968). Ullmann, Forsman, et al. (1965), elicited !
plural nouns. Interest selections were conditioned by
! i
Wandzek (1969). Mussen (1969) attempted to obtain reflec-
; j
tion of feeling as a response. Positive and negative self
i
reports were the responses sought by Braden (1969) and King
1(1968). Self esteem was elicited by Riddle (1968) and
.Weight (1969). Ince (1968) and Lapuc and Harmatz (1970)
also sought to obtain positive self references.
The verbal conditioning paradigm has been used in
i
hospital settings where the experimenters attempted to re-
i
I
jduce the amount of sick talk or crazy talk emitted by a
patient (Ullmann, Forsman, et al., 1965; Ayllon and
I
Haughton, 1964). Dependence and independence responses of
patients in a veterans' hospital were conditioned by Orlando
(1968).
Ascough and Sipprelle (1968) influenced autonomic
responses. Word associations were conditioned by Ullmann, j
; |
Krasner and Edinger (1964) and word production by Goodkin j
(1969). Vogel-Sprott (1964) was able to condition both j
estimation of circles on cards and the drawing of a circle.
Some of the work was replicated by Weber and De Nike (1968).
| There is little attention in the literature given
jto controversial areas in which there is intense emotional
commitment. A S would not be expected to offer substantial
resistance to the emission of plural nouns. Resistance may
j
be expected when the response in question matters.
Procedures and Apparatus
Krasner (1965) and Hekmat (1968) have critiqued j
i
; !
the two most common procedures in verbal conditioning ex-
i periment. The one, free operant task, takes the form of
j an interview or story telling situation. A broad behav-
i
: ioral repertoir is available to the S. It is presented in
| a disguished form but with some face validity to it. Typi-
j
cally, the S is expected to tell a story and the E will
intervene with an nummhmmmmM at each emission of a plural
noun. The S is supposed to increase his emission of plural
nouns without realizing it.
i
The other approach, the Taffel-type task, has much
i
|more limited response possibilities. In this situation,
j
:the respondent is presented a card with six pronouns. The
is is asked to make up a sentence using one of the pronouns.
i
He is then reinforced in some way for his choice of pro
nouns .
The first task would be inappropriate in a setting
I
where the objective is to obtain a response that is not
readily emitted. The second approach is even more re-
i stricted in that the possibilities are limited to sentence
;structure. Thus if the specific class of responses lies
i
|in another domain, another approach must be designed.
Wilson and Walters (1966) presented several sue-
: [
|cessive showings of colored slide projections as elicitors.
I To elicit self-affect responses Hekmat (1968) presented Ss
with selected pictures from magazines. If one is seeking
jspecific responses not readily emitted in' an S’s normal
!conversation, this has advantages. The E can subtly but
|
effectively narrow the range of possible responses by pre
senting specific relevant stimuli.
I
I Design Features
i
i Verbal conditioning researchers have utilized a
variety of designs in conducting their experiments. De
signs have been altered to take into account different
settings, time limits, Es, Ss, physical-logistic character
istics, length of session, number of sessions, complexity
I of task, degree of threat, insertion of some inter-trial
activity, employment of a yoked control and other factors.
j
!Insko and Nelson (1969) sought to determine whether verbal
! conditioning was effective in nonlaboratory settings as
|in the laboratory. They concluded that either setting was
equally effective. Scott (1968) was interested in what
i
j difference task difficulty would make. Panzarella (1969) j
iplaced a "plant" in his verbal conditioning group. Denner
i
I
j (1970) asked whether a visual barrier between E and S would
| affect conditioning. Resnick (1965) added threatening con-
| ditionings to this study. Baron (1969) disrupted his pro-
I
I ceedings with some inter-trial activity. Length of experi-
| mental time has ranged from single sessions of twenty
! minutes (Ullmann, Forsman, et al., 1965) to sixteen
I
21
'sessions of one hour each (Orlando, 1968). Bucher and
Lovaas (1970) argue for a single subject design. Harmatz
and Lapuc (1968) presented a rather complicated yoked con-
!trol design which has some advantages in obtaining preci-
j
jsion research.
i
l
I
i
|Subjects
i
| As is the case generally in psychological research,
Ss for verbal conditioning studies have been largely
drawn from institutions or university psychology classes.
j
|Patient populations have included schizophrenics (Purkas,
i
|1969; Lapuc and Harmatz, 1970; Sundel, 1968; Ullmann,
jForsman, et al., 1965; Ullmann, Krasner and Edinger, 1964;
Upper, 1969; and Wilson and Walter, 1966), an aphasic
i
! (Goodkin, 1969), retardates (Brodsky, 1967), psychotics
:(Ayllon and Haughton, 1964; Isaacs, Thomas and Goldiamond,
1965; Miller, 1968), Veterans Administration patients
|(Orlando, 1968), alcoholics (Vogel-Sprott, 1964) and psy-
chopaths (Stewart and Resnick, 1970; and Craine, 1968).
I Criminals have been treated by Scott (1968) and delinquents
i
|by Vogel-Sprott (1964). Doctor (1969) obtained children
!
I for his Ss.
j
i Some researchers have been concerned with subject
variables. The relevance of the subject's locus of control
I has been examined by Nordmark (1968), Weight (1969), and
;Baron (1969). Page (1970) was interested in his subject's
| psychological background. Level of anxiety occupied the !
; i
attention of Resnick (1965). Sex differences interested j
: !
; Weight (1969) , Furkas (1969) and Stewart and Resnick (1970).*
I Scott (1968) in his study of criminals paired psychopaths
] against nonpsychopaths. Braden (1969) explored level of
]
| self esteem and Simpkins (1968) studied the level of matur-
! ity. Denner (1970) wondered if informed Ss would perform
i
better than uninformed Ss. Upper (1969) differentiated
between process and reactive schizophrenics.
Ss in all categories conditioned. However, there
|were occasional differences in the way they conditioned.
!For example, under certain circumstances with psychopathic
I criminals, negative verbal reinforcement was more effec-
i tive than positive. Nonpsychopathic criminals seemed to
j respond better to positive reinforcement (Scott, 1968).
|Immature Ss were oblivious to verbal incentives whereas
mature Ss conditioned readily. Money was effective regard-j
i
I less of level of maturity (Simpkins, 1968). Braden (1969)
:found low self-esteemers to condition more readily than
high self-esteemers. Orlando's (1968) best Ss were non-
|organic middleagers up to 50 years of age institutionalized
i
i up to 33 months.
j
Hekmat (1968) worked with high school students.
j
This population has received scant attention. Current
|social problems would indicate that it ought now to begin
attaining it.
Instrumentation
Fox (1967) made a comprehensive list and critique
of efforts to measure attitudes. These included the
i
jLikert-type scale, the Minnesota Teacher Attitudes Inven
tory > Gutman's "scalogram analysis,” Lazarsfeld's "latent
structure analysis," and the California Psychological In
ventory. The works of several others were examined but
the contribution of Osgood, Suci, and Tannebaum (1957) in
producing the "semantic differential" was the most appeal-
!
jing. The rationale for the Osgood measure began with the
t
idea that a person's behavior in a given situation hinges
1
|on the meaning or significance of that situation. Then
|Osgood provided an operational definition of meaning, a
theoretical formulation in terms of learning theory and a
|measure for meaning or attitudes based on a new scaling
I technique. On his scales Osgood found three factors which
he named evaluative, potency and activity. He used bi-
jpolar adjectives, i.e., good-bad, sweet-sour, etc., on a
iseven point scale to determine the location of meaning a
concept had for a person. This enabled him to compare the
j
meanings one placed on different concepts and to compare
the meanings to the same concept as perceived by different
|people. Shaw and Wright (1967) reported acceptable reu
sability and validity factors of the semantic differential.
i
Kerlinger (1965) described and explained uses of
the semantic differential including several suggestive
| points, many of which were considered for the present
i ;
study. Miller (1971) cast some doubts on the validity of
any factors other than the evaluative in scale research.
!
j The problem of circularity was examined by Farr (1971). j
I He asked whether personality differences affect responses
i
i
I in unexpected ways.
Dinero (1971) explored the differences between con
notation and denotation in semantic responses. He was com
fortable with the connotative aspect but troubled with the
I denotative factor.
i
| The Problem of Adolescent Drug Abuse
| Among current social problems of a highly contro
versial nature, adolescent drug abuse is eminent. Rasor
I(1968) indicated that the drug must be available, individ
uals must be susceptible, and there must be social con
flicts in the group of potential abusers. He pointed to
Chein's study of adolescent addicts in New York City. It
| was found that young abusers came from the most economical-
|ly and socially deprived areas of the city, those portions
|having the greatest congestion and the greatest amount of
i
i family disorganization. Such areas also had the largest
j
jproportion of minority group members. Rasor pointed out
! though that even in these environments not all adolescents
i experiment with drugs and not all of those who do experi-
i
| raent become dependent on them. He argued that an
i individual abuser is predisposed, and the drugs satisfy a
fundamental need and offer a type of satisfaction.
Rasor cited a study of young patients in the Lex-
: ington Hospital that indicated some possible predependency
i conditions. A common pattern of disturbances included a
i
| set of characteristics consisting of dysphoria, sexual
|
identification problems, and difficulties in relating to
| other persons. They seemed to differ from control Ss in
I
|severity of personality deviation.
! Markham C1968) noted that most investigators con-
Isider drug abusers to be unable to tolerate much frustra
tion and unable to postpone gratification for rational
i
planning. He then described an attempt (not his own) to
i explain the problem of addiction maintenance in terms of
■ conditioning theory.
Akers, Burgess and Johnson (1968) presented a
theory pertaining to the acquisition of drug use. Differ
ing somewhat from Rasor (1968) they too pointed to environ
mental influences. Drug approach environments as described
I by Akers et al., would include excessive deprivation of a
i
variety of reinforcers, conditioned and unconditioned,
I social and nonsocial. Individuals within the environment
| sure not likely to have the behavioral repertoirs needed to
i
j obtain normal appropriate reinforcement. Behavior conform-
i
Iing to the larger society has not been and is not being
j
j adequately reinforced. Deviant behavior does earn
! reinforcement. They stated:
I
When appropriate or conforming behavior is not rein
forced in these areas , this non-reinforcement generates
behavioral deficits, i.e., some acts necessary for ap
proval and status in the larger society may never
develop. . . . A cycle develops? absence of reinforce
ment leads to the failure to acquire appropriate re
sponses which leads to aversive stimulation and less
reinforcement, and so on. (p. 461)
The prevalence of physicians as drug users stems
| from a different set of preconditions. He has professional
knowledge of and easy access to drugs. He typically is
predisposed to turn to drugs as a relief from some aversive
stimuli in his environment, such as fatigue, insomnia pain
jor personal problems. But the crucial factor in initial
i
drug use is the condition which establishes drug use as
ipleasant, euphoric, and positively reinforcing. According
;to Akers, et al.:
The conditioned and unconditioned reinforcing effects
of the drug itself combined with social reinforcement,
then, are the variables determining the acquisition of
opiate directed behavior. (p. 463)
This implies then that positively reinforcing
avoidance responses toward drugs may facilitate drug
avoidance behavior. One means of examining this possibil
ity would be through a verbal conditioning treatment.
This study examined E effects as determined by
i
diverse and controversial roles as well as a neutral role.
I The process of verbal conditioning was selected as the
i
|general interview procedure. Although conditioning has
!generally been obtained in verbal conditioning studies, the
27 j
j response categories have, as a rule, not included contro- j
versial responses in which there is some strong emotional !
overtone. However, changes in verbal output as such were j
I
Jnot measured in this study. Further, although changes in
verbal output are ordinarily obtainable, transfer of verb
alization into some nonverbal category has not been as
easily gained. The generalization results have been mixed
and not at all uniform. Nevertheless, there is some rea
sonableness to the position that verbal behavior changes
are considerably more impressive if they can transfer over
to some nonverbal behavior; Therefore the attempt was
made to measure the interview experience through a nonverb
al instrument.
I
The problem of awareness--though important— has not
|been treated in this study because it seemed that the added
jlogistic considerations would detract from the basic intent
i
I of the study.
The reinforcement variables selected for this study
iwere that of informal reflection. This seemed to be a
j
proven and natural procedure for Es.
| The response category was an avoidance response
toward drugs on the part of the S. In that most of the
drug-related elicitors pertained to heroin, it was expected
i
|that this would be a more easily attainable response.
Other drug categories, though included in the hypotheses,
were not directly treated.
The use of relevant pictorial elicitors was deter- i
I
mined because of the possibilities of narrowing response j
categories to those preferred for the study.
: j
The design of this study was limited by several un
avoidable environmental factors. These included availabil
ity of Ss, Es, apparatus, rooms, etc. Length of experiment-
i
Ial session was1 shorter than others recorded, primarily be-
Icause of logistic considerations.
!
| Ss were selected from a suburban regional high
|
school. This population seemed relevant to the general
| thrust of the study and was one largely neglected in verbal
conditioning research.
The instrumentation was determined from a review of
the literature. The semantic differential offered the
greatest possibilities for flexibility as well as validity
and reliability.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES
i Subjects
i
| Students of Redondo Union High School served as Ss.
i
[
I Authorization and permission was granted by school author-
i
jities and parents. The original number of Ss totaled 79.
i
Eight were dropped because of instrumentation errors and
|three to provide equal Ns.
j
The writer had previously spoken to several classes
|at the high school, inviting students to serve as subjects.
The students were asked to help the writer "finish" his
jlong years of formal schooling. They were told to expect
Jto give some emotional reactions to a number of pictures.
They would also help validate a new technique in determin
ing word meanings. The time lapse between classroom ap
pearances and actual interviews was about one month.
Sociocultural Questionnaire
To provide additional information regarding the Ss'
i
|background, a questionnaire was presented. The 17 items
|on the form included questions of sex, age, family size,
irace, religion, politics, education, income, living arrange-
f
jments, occupation, parent's marital status and goals.
29
! I
! 30,i
i !
The sociocultural questionnaire, presented follow- i
! i
ing the semantic differential, provided the following in-
i i
: I
; formation about the population: One third (33%) of the Ss
were male. Nearly half (49.0%) were 17 years of age. The
i
|same percentages (25.5%) were between the ages of 14 and
;16 as between the ages of 18 and 19. There were very few
Ss from one child families (2.5%). But 70.1 percent of
the Ss belonged to families with two to four brothers and
sisters. The rest came from larger families.
| The largest number of students (85.5%) listed
!themselves as Caucasians. No Negroes were listed. Marital
[Stability was suggested by the large numbers (73,7%) who
I
! indicated, that-their parents had been married but once.
iThe parents of the others had been separated, divorced, j
■ | widowed or remarried.
In religious background, Protestants were listed
most frequently (38.7%) but Roman Catholics were indicated
l
more than a fourth of the time (26.2%). A small segment
I
; (5%) mentioned having Jewish upbringings. The remainder
indicated no particular religious heritage. Some respon
dents (13.9%) considered themselves to be very religious.
Most (65.7%) indicated moderate religious inclinations.
| The others were either not at all religious or even anti-
j
! religious.
j
Democrats were preferred politically (38.7%) as
the Republicans were chosen less than half as often (16.2%).
|Some (17.5%) were independents but those remaining had no
political affiliation preferences. But on the liberal/
; conservative dichotomy there were definite preferences.
More than half considered themselves liberals. Those de-
i
scribing themselves as being very liberal (20.7%) added to
;the somewhat liberals (32.4%), leaving the moderates with
j about a third (33.7%), the somewhat conservatives less
(9.0%), and the very conservatives with even less (3.8%).
Educational level responses indicated a small num
ber of fathers (3.8%) whose scholastic attainments did not
|go beyond the eighth grade. Nearly a third (29.8%) grad-
i
luated from high school and nearly as many again (27.2%) at-
i
| tended some college. In addition to the college graduates
I(15.5%), there were identical percentages (7.7%) who had
i
: done some graduate work, or earned a Master's degree, a
Ph.D. or its equivalent. Some mothers (6.2%) did not go
beyond the eighth grade in school. Most (51.2%) graduated
; from high school and exactly one fourth (25.0%) attended
; some college. Some (7.5%) earned college degrees and a
few (2.5%) attended some graduate school. In addition some
: (7.5%) attained Master's degrees.
Among themselves, only a small number (9.0%)
i
! planned to limit their schooling to high school graduation,
(Nearly a third (29.8%) planned to attend some college and
( more than a third (37.6%) intended to graduate from col-
I lege. One (1.2%) thought he would attend some graduate
I school, but more foresaw a Master's degree (11.6%) or a
j j
'doctorate (10.3%) in their future.
j i
Family income figures indicated that very few
! s
j (2.7%) families were receiving less than $5,000.00 per year.
i
A large number (15.2%) earned between $5,000.00 and
$10,000.00 annually. Nearly a third (29.1%) reported earn
ings between $10,000.00 and $15,000.00 each year. Nearly
half (45.8%) indicated family incomes between $15,000.00
and $25,000.00. The remainder (6.9%) claimed family earn
ings ranging between $25,000.00 and $50,000.00.
Nearly all (93.5%) indicated that they were living
with their families. The others were either living alone
i
jor sharing an apartment with someone.
Among the fathers' occupations reported, more
j (24.3%) were designated business managers or executives
than any other single category. The second area receiving j
' l
notable responses was that of technician or craftsman I
: j
| (20.5%). All others were assorted or unlisted. |
r
More than half (52.6%) rated their mothers' occupa
tion as housewife. The others, none rating higher than
i
9.2% (white-collar, clerical or sales) were varied and as-
I sorted. !
I
The Ss themselves were only slightly more specific
i
;about their own occupational choices. Some (11.5%) had
!plans toward teaching. Nearly as many (10.2%) planned to
i
I be housewives. The remainder were scattered with much
I lower percentages except for "other" which most (58.9%)
chose as their occupational goal.
Groups
Ss were randomly placed in one of three experiment-
i
|al groups or the control group. The experimental group Ss
i
|participated in the interviews whereas the control group
Ss did not. The experimental groups were further differ
entiated according to the role assumed by the group E. The
group with the "Police Officer" was designated E^. The
|group with the “Woman" was designated Ej. The group with
the "Hippie" was designated E3. The symbol C was used for
| i
|the control group.
Setting and Procedures
The school provided a vacated classroom to serve as
ia reception and instruction facility. Three other class
rooms were provided as they became available. They were
used for treatment proceedings. Though they varied from
day to day they were each of the same sort.
Treatment procedures took place in the daytime,
j
;during regular school hours, during the third week of
|February, 1971. The total amount of time involving any
|one S was not expected to exceed thirty-five minutes. As
many as six Ss were treated each hour, three during the
i
first half and three during the second half. The actual
length of interview time was less than fifteen minutes.
Ss entered the reception room where they were pre
sented with instructions. Experimental Ss were then di
rected to treatment rooms where the Es presented elicitors, i
' i
reinforced avoidance responses and directed them back to
the reception room. Ss were then presented with posttest,
questionnaire and the request not to discuss the experi-
Iment.
The Interview consisted of two phases. The first
j
part of the interview consisted of the presentation of five
i
neutral pictures. All responses to these pictures were
;reinforced. The purpose was to get the S accustomed to
j
expecting reinforcements for his responses. This phase was
designated the training period.
Following the training period, twenty drug-related
pictures were presented to the S. Only avoidance responses
were reinforced during this phase. This was labeled the
acquisition period.
The following statement was made to each set of
subjects:
I'm doing a study on the impression that pictures
make on people. And I'm also experimenting with a new
type of questionnaire. In order for this research to
be valid it will be necessary for me and my associates
to have your 100% cooperation. The interviewer will
first show you a series of pictures. Some of these j
are from national magazines and you may have seen them, j
Others are from less well known magazines. Some are
j
from a medical text.
i 35
i
Now the interviewer will be showing you one pic
ture at a time. As soon as you're shown the picture
I want you to make a feeling type of response. If it !
pleases you, say so; if it doesn't, say so, but don't
attempt to explain why. What we want are your emotion
al reactions; your feelings, but this time, not your
ideas. So, look at the picture and make an instant
i feeling reaction. The interviewer may or may not say
I
| something but he is primarily interested in getting
i
! your feelings recorded. When you're finished, please
return to this room for the other part of the study.
Do you have any questions? Thank you.
I Questions, if any, were then answered.
| At the conclusion of this statement, the three E Ss
i
were sent to their interviewers. The C Ss were asked to
! remain. The latter were presented the semantic differential
with the sociocultural questionnaire and dismissed.
Twenty-five pictures, mostly from national maga-
zines but some from a medical text, served as stimulus ma
terials. The pictures were placed in transparent plastic
;8-1/2 x 11" folders. These folders were placed in a large
I three-ring binder. A description of each picture and its
isource is given in the appendix.
Five of the pictures were determined to be of a
|neutral nature and were used in the pretraining period.
|
iThe other twenty pictures were determined to be drug-
!
I oriented. Many of these were pictures of heroin addicts
injecting themselves with heroin, the dead bodies of ad-
jdiets and organs of addicts that had been removed for
investigative purposes.
The pictures were arranged in such a way that those
arbitrarily deemed most repugnant were presented in the
latter stages of the interview. The volumes were inter
changed randomly among the Es in that there were some vari
ations among the pictures.
Three types of responses were available to the Ss.
These types were approach, neutral and avoidance. An ap
proach response included any statement, comment or verbal
reaction that indicated a favorable attitude toward drugs.
An avoidance response was indicated by any statement, com
ment or verbal reaction that the interviewer deemed an un
favorable attitude toward drugs. The neutral response,
then, was any statement, comment or verbalization that was
clearly neither favorable nor unfavorable toward drugs.
Examples of response class categories are as
follows:
Stimulus: Somewhat vague portrayal of person in
jecting self with hypodermic needle.
Approach: "Hoping or Waiting"
Avoidance: "Si ckening"
Neutral: "Looks like he's injecting himself.”
Stimulus: Section of lung of narcotic addict.
Approach: "Just a one sided view of what can
happen."
Avoidance: "Ugh"
Neutral: "Neat"
| Reinforcement variables included the response class j
reinforced, the manner of reinforcement, the schedule of !
!reinforcement and the sources of reinforcement. i
!
When the S emitted avoidance verbalization toward j
i
the stimulus materials he was reinforced. Neutral and ap
proach verbalizations were ignored.
j
j The manner of reinforcement was reflection or para-
i
phrase of the avoidance response by the interviewer. An
example of this type of reinforcement to the response
"sickening" would be "This picture seems to make you ill."
| Because of the limited number of possible events,
i
I
the continuous reinforcement schedule was selected.
i
j There were three experimenter roles involved in
[this investigation. These were "hippie," "police officer,"
!
i
1 and "woman." The E selected to act the role of hippie was
I a male musician in his early twenties with hair down to his
! i
shoulders. He dressed in such a way that the term "hippie";
would be easily attributable to him. Although a Green j
j Beret veteran of the Viet Nam war, he now held many of the j
j dissident views of his contemporaries. He was currently j
! |
|receiving unemployment compensation although he was engaged j
las a musician several nights a week. He was paid for his
|participation in this study.
There were two "women." The one originally j
I
selected, an attractive unassuming woman in her early
thirties, was ill the first day of the experiment. However,
38 I
; i
j
the investigator’s wife, who is strikingly similar to the j
other woman in manner, appearance, and demeaner, served
]
in her stead. The original woman worked the remainder of
the experiment. Fortunately, to minimize confounding
factors, very few Ss were available for treatment the
first day. Later, in analyzing the tapes of the interviews
it was also noted that their interview manners were quite
I similar. In reviewing the responses of their Ss on the
|
jsemantic differential it was noted that there was very
little difference between the two. Neither woman was di-
j rectly paid for her services.
There were also two "police officers." They were
both employed law enforcement officers of the Redondo
Beach Police Department. Both were dressed in full uni
form including holster and gun. One served the first day
only. In that he interviewed only two Ss, these two were
dropped from the final analysis to avoid any possibility j
of contamination. They were paid for their services by j
i
i
the police department. j
Prior to the experiment, large numbers of responses
from adolescents had been obtained through systematic pre-
; sentation of the elicitors. These responses were recorded
j
on audio tape. A 3 x 5 card was then prepared for each
elicitor. The responses were then transcribed from the
I |
I audio tape to the appropriate 3 x 5 card. This made it
I possible for each pictorial elicitor to correspond to the
j
39
!
|several responses directly evoked by it. The writer arbi
trarily determined those responses he considered to be !
| I
avoidance, neutral or approach. i
In the first phase of the training session, the Es
[
|were presented the elicitors with the related responses.
t
j
|They were instructed to select the avoidance responses from
\
I the others. When to the investigator's satisfaction they
had accomplished this skill they were introduced to the
second phase. This consisted of learning the manner of re
inforcement, i.e., reflection or paraphrase of the Ss
avoidance response. The training session terminated when,
|to the researcher's satisfaction, the Es understood what
'was expected of them and demonstrated the ability to fulfill
i
their requirements. The training sessions lasted for ap
proximately one hour.
Semantic Differential
The semantic differential was adapted to measure
; attitudes toward drugs. This measure consisted of eight
scales and fourteen concepts. The scales were subgrouped
into three dimensions.
Four evaluative scales were selected. These
I scales all had factor loadings of at least .82 and minimum
dimension loadings of 2.38. The qualifying scales were
jnice-awful, beautiful-ugly, clean-dirty, and pieasant-
junpleasant. Two potency scales were chosen. They had
;....... 40
j
'factor loadings of .62 and minimum criterion loadings of
: i .
I i
1.76. These scales were strong-weak, and large-small. Two!
; i
activity scales were included. These had factor loadings
■
above .52 and dimension loadings above 1.50. These load-
i
jings were found in Osgood, Suci and Tannebaum (1967). The
evaluative scales were used as the primary means for mea
suring conditioning.
The scales consist of seven intervals. They were
numbered 3-2-1-0-1-2-3. The bi-polar adjec
tives were placed at either end of the scale. When a S
judged the concept and circled the number 3, he indicated
that that concept was very close to that adjective nearest
|the number. Selection of the number 2 indicated that it
|was close, but not as close. Selection of the number 1
j
indicated that the S felt the concept was slightly more
toward one end of the scale than the other. When 0 was
chosen, it was assumed that there was no difference between
the two dimensions or the scale was not relevant to the
concept.
For analysis of the data, each interval on the
| scale was given a value ranging from 1 to 7. The middle
I
ior neutral number was given a value of 4. Low values were
jgiven awful, ugly, dirty, unpleasant, weak, small, slow and
jdull. Conversely, high values were placed on nice, beauti-
jful, clean, pleasant, strong, large, fast and sharp. j
| Two sets of scales were presented on each page.
On the top half, scales were presented in the following j
| (
iorder: nice-awful, ugly-beautiful, dirty-clean,-pleasant-
i i
Iunpleasant, strong-weak, small-large, fast-slow, dull- j
|
! sharp. In the lower half of the page, the order was
changed as follows: slow-fast, sharp-dull, unpleasant-
pleasant, clean-dirty, weak-strong, small-large, awful-nice,
beautiful-ugly.
Fourteen concepts were included in the semantic
differential. Four of these had the primary purpose of
being used as measurements of conditioning. These were am
phetamines, drugs, heroin and marijuana. Another four were
used to determine whether the Ss made certain discrimina
tions. These were beer, medicine, pictures and vaccina
tions. Two were designated as personality variables.
These concepts were me and most people. Role variables
; • I
were included as concepts. These were hippies, housewife, j
! ]
'police and teachers. j
j Four concepts were chosen as dependent variables. j
| "Heroin" was selected because of the severity of the prob-
i
jlems associated with its use and because many of the stimu-
i
jlus materials portrayed heroin use. "Amphetamines" were in-
|eluded as a concept because it is commonly used by adoles-
icents and is considered quite dangerous. "Marijuana" was j
included because it is commonly considered a drug, is widely
used and is illegal. The term "drugs" is used in more than
one sense, having both legitimate and illegitimate connota-
:tions.
j
The concept "beer" was included to answer the ques-
!tion of whether or not a Ss attitude toward a particular
j
|form of alcohol would be related toward his attitude toward
i
!drugs. In informal presentations of the stimulus material,
reactions ranged from interest to repugnance. The question
i
was raised as to whether one’s feelings toward pictures
would be affected by these particular pictures. Thus “pic
tures ” was included as a concept. Some of the pictures
!contained scenes which could be construed as being medical
I
in nature. The question was whether the concept "medicine"
|would be affected by these pictures. There were several
|scenes of needle injections. This led to the question of
whether "vaccinations" would be affected as a concept.
The question was raised as to whether one's outlook
toward himself or others would be related to the interview
experience. The concepts of "me" and "most people" were
used in this regard.
| I
Two of the role concepts were directly related to
|the roles of the interviewers. These two: "hippies" and
"police," were included to detect any change that Ss might
ihave following their interview experience. The concept
'"teachers" was included because of the educational nature
jof the setting. The concept "housewife" was included to
i
determine if any possible transfer from the female
; interviewer might affect this category.
Design !
i
i Campbell and Stanley (1963) indicated that the post-!
I test only control group design has the fewest number of li-
i abilities except for the Solomon Four Group design. And
|they questioned whether the extra amount of benefit from
I the Solomon design warrants the extra involvement. There-
I
fore, the posttest only control group design was used for
this study. Following randomization, the Ss were divided
into four groups, three of which were treatment groups.
Each group contained seventeen Ss. Its form was as follows:
j
R X1 °1
R X2 02
R x3 °3
R 04 ]
R a Randomization |
I
X = Treatment
0 = Outcome Measure (Semantic
Differential)
Statistical Model
j
The analysis of variance was used to measure all |
| !
!fourteen concepts by the evaluative, potency, and activity j
factors for each of the four groups (Edwards, 1968). This
i - • '1
|data was programmed by Dixon's BIMED series. In addition,
j a multivariate analysis was conducted for each concept for
44
each scale by group. This was programmed by Dixon's BIMED
Program X Series Supplement. (1970). Tukey's test for sig
nificance was used (Kirk, 1968).
r
i
CHAPTER IV
i
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
It was hypothesized that Ss in groups E^ (police
officer), E2 (woman), and E^ (hippie) would obtain lower
scores on the evaluative scales for drug-related concepts
than group C (controls). Analyses of variance were per
formed and no significant effects were found for "ampheta
mines'1 (F = 0.0886, df = 3/64), "drugs" (F = 0.9789, df =
3/64), "heroin" (F = 1.1686, df = 3/64), or "marijuana"
(F = 0.7840, df = 3/64), The research hypotheses in each
I
i
|instance were therefore rejected.
| It was further hypothesized that the E groups would
I
differ significantly among themselves on the evaluative
iscales of drug-related concepts. It was anticipated that
| the hippie (E3) would be the most effective E and that the
;police officer (E^) would be least effective. However, the
I above analyses of variance provided no significant effects
;and therefore the research hypotheses were rejected.
j
i Null hypotheses were presented regarding differ-
i
I ences between the E groups and the C group for drug-related
.concepts on the potency and activity scales. Analyses of
! variance were performed and no significant effects on the
45
I potency factor were found for "amphetamines" (F = 1.4119,
df = 3/64), "drugs" (F - 0.6020, df = 3/64), "heroin" (F = :
1.8149, df - 3/64), or "marijuana" (F = 1.2997, df = 3/64). j
On the activity dimension analyses of variance were i
!
performed and no significant effects were found for "amphet
amines" (F = 0.6294, df = 3/64), "drugs" (F = 0.2937, df =
3/64), or "marijuana" (F - 0.5205, df => 3/64).
"Heroin" did obtain significance (F = 3.5923, df =
3/64, p < .05) on the activity factor. Tukey's test (Kirk,
1968) was administered to determine which groups were
responsible for the difference. It was found that the
significant effects (q =4.38, df = 4/64, p < .05) were be
tween groups E2 and E^. "Heroin" was more active for the
i
Ss of the woman than for those of the hippie. However,
iin that the significant difference for the concept "heroin"
(
i
jdid not involve the C group, the differences were other j
|than those hypothesized.
i
Multivariate analyses of variance (Dixon, 1970)
| were undertaken for all concepts on all scales. Signifi
cance was not obtained for "amphetamines" (F = 1.0023,
|df = 24/166), "drugs" (F - 1.5098, df » 24/166), "heroin"
i
| (F » 1.5538, df - 24/166), or "marijuana" (F = 0.7432,
i
df = 24/166).
Among the concepts included to detect possible
extraneous generalization effects was "beer." The null
hypothesis was presented that there would be no difference
between the three E scores and the C scores. Analyses of
variance were performed and no significant effects were j
found on the evaluative dimension (F = 0.3797, df = * 3/64) |
I
I
or the activity factor (F = 1.1135, df = 3/64). On the J
potency scales significance was obtained (F = 3.3671, df =
3/64, p < .05). Again Tukey's test was used to find which
groups produced the difference. The significant effects
; (g = 4.34, df = 4/64, p < .05) were located between groups
i
and Ej. "Beer” was more potent for the woman's Ss than
for the police officer's Ss.
Although "beer" was significantly less potent for
Ss in E^ than E2, the C group was unaffected. There were
no significant differences between the C group and any of
the others on any of the scales or factors. This was re
examined by means of the multivariate analysis of variance
(F = 0.9939, df = 24/166) with no significant effects.
The next concept considered in this cluster was
"medicine." From analyses of variance no significant ef
fects were found on the evaluative (F = 1.9154, df = 3/64),
i
potency (F = 1.9520, df * 3/64) or activity factors (F =
0.0956, df » 3/64), The multivariate analysis of variance
was also not significant (F = 1.2482, df = 24/166). j
It was predicted that the concept "pictures" would !
be unaffected by this conditioning experiment. Upon anal
yses of variance no significant effects were obtained on
jthe evaluative (F « 2.4728, df = = 3/64), potency (F « 1.9520,
df = 3/64), or activity dimensions (F » 0.9924, df » 3/64).j
;Significance was not found on the multivariate analysis of j
variance (F * 1.0846, df » 24/166).
The fourth concept included among these was "vac
cinations.'' By means of analysis of variance no signifi
cant effects were found on the evaluative (F ** 0.1507, df
j
= 3/64), potency (F = 1.7752, df = 3/64), or activity
scales (F « 1.2425, df = * 3/64). On the multivariate anal
ysis no significance was found (F = 1.5077, df = 24/166).
Two personality concepts were tested. The first
!
Iwas "me." Scores from analysis of variance were: evalua
tive (F = 0.2719, df » 3/64), potency (F = 1.7558, df =
i
I 3/64), and activity (F = 0.2973, df « 3/64) with no signif
icant effects. The multivariate analysis also lacked sig
nificance (F = 1.0761, df - 3/64).
The second personality variable considered was
"most people.” On the analysis of variance the following
results were obtained: evaluative scales (F = 0.3833,
;df = 3/64), potency factor (F = 1.0460, df = 3/64), and
activity (F = 0.5299, df = 3/64). There were no signifi
cant effects. On the multivariate analysis (F = 0*7126,
df *> 24/166), again there were no significant effects.
i
I Four role concepts were tested. Two of these were
j
jdirectly, related to the. roles, of two of the Es, One was
"hippie." The results for this concept on the evaluative
j
I scales (F « 4.4589, df = 3/64, p < .05) were significant.
Following the analysis of variance, Tukey's test was admin
istered to identify the particular groups responsible for
I the difference. It was found that E, responses were more
!
i favorable to the concept "hippiee" than C responses (q =
5.15, df = 4/64,, p < .05). On the potency scales (F =
1.8320, df = 3/64) there was no significance. On the
activity factor (F = 2.9758, df = 3/64, p < .05) there were
i
significant effects. Tukey's test failed to isolate any
groups other than to be separately involved in obtaining
this significance. In other words, those Ss in scored
the concept "hippies” to be more active than did those Ss
! in the other three groups as a combined whole. The multi
variate analysis (F - 1,2008, df = 24/166) was not signif-
i
i
I icant.
i
A second role variable tested though not directly
I related to an £ role was that of "housewife.” On the eval-
I uative scales (F - 1.2466, df = 3/64), the potency dimen-
| sion (F = 0.1757, df = 3/64), and the activity domain (F =
i
| 0.2427, df = 3/64) no significance was obtained. The
! multivariate analysis also failed to show significance
i
| (F = 1.0073, df = 24/166).
!
| The other concept directly related to an E role
| was that of "police." The following results were obtained:
| evaluative (F =* 1.3645, df = 3/64), potency (F = 1.3645,
I df = 3/64), and activity (F = 0.2110, df * » 3/64) , There
I were no significant effects. The multivariate analysis
! failed to obtain significance as well CP = 0.9149, df = !
! ' ;
24/166). I
The final role concept was that of "teachers.”
i
|This concept was scored as follows: evaluative (P = 1.4057,
jdf « 3/64), potency (F » 0.4726, df = 3/64), and activity
I
| (F = 0.5412, df = 3/64). These scores along with the
multivariate analysis (F = 1.0197, df « 24/166) indicated
no significance.
The null hypotheses presented were accepted for
each concept except "hippies.” The null hypothesis on the
i
!evaluative scales for the concept "hippies" was rejected
for the C group did significantly differ from group E^.
The null hypothesis was accepted for the potency factor.
:The null hypothesis on the activity dimension was at least
I
partially rejected because the C group combined with the
| other E groups was significantly different from the E3
Igroup on the term "hippies."
Postexperimental Audit of the Interviews
! i
Each interview was recorded with no audio tape. i
I This made it possible to compare the conditioning procedures
i
i i
iof the different Es. An assistant with training in behav-
I
i
jior modification techniques sampled randomly the interviews
of thirty Ss. The hippie, police and woman Es were each
!analyzed. This individual noted the following categories:
i reinforced avoidance responses, unreinforced avoidance
I i
51 i
i :
responses, reinforced neutral or approach responses and
total reinforcements. Table 1 represents a compilation of
mean averages for each E. :
; i
The police officer reinforced an average of 7.8,
ithe woman 7.1, and the hippie 8.0 avoidance responses.
Avoidance responses went unreinforced an average of 0.2
!
times for both the police officer and the woman and 0.5
I
|times for the hippie. Inappropriately reinforced neutral
or avoidance responses occurred an average of 0.2 for the
police officer, 0.1 for the woman and 1.5 times for the
i
|hippie. The police officer granted an average of 8.0, the
jwoman 7.2 and the hippie 9.5 total reinforcements. The
jhippie, then, was the most generous with his reinforcements j
1 [
;
and the woman least. The hippie was also much more prone
to grant reinforcements for neutral or approach responses
them the other Es.
Restated in percentage terms, it was found that the !
|
police officer correctly reinforced avoidance responses 98 j
percent, the woman 97 percent, and the hippie 93 percent
of the time. The hippie inappropriately reinforced neutral
'or approach responses 13 percent of the time. The other Es
did so less them one percent of the time.
Discussion
i
The purpose of this section is. to attempt to explain1
land interpret the results of this investigation. First, it
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF RESPONSES ELICITED AND REINFORCEMENTS
BY EXPERIMENTERS
Experimenter
Response
Avoidance Responses
Elicited
Neutral/Approach Responses
Elicited
Possibilities
Rein
forced
Unrein
forced
’Total
Rein
forced
Unrein
forced
Total
Police 20 7.83 0.16 7.99 0.16 11.85 12.01
Officer
(Ex)
98% 2% 100% 1% 99% 100%
Woman 20 7.14 0.21 7.35 0.07 12.58 12.65
(E2>
97% 3% 100% 1% 99% 100%
Hippie
(E3)
20 8.00 0.54 8.54 1.54 9.92 11.46
93% 7% 100% 13% 87% 100%
i
must be remembered that conditioning as it is measured in
the usual verbal conditioning experiment was not the pro
cedure or objective of this study. Changes in verbal re
sponse patterns occurring in the interview were not anal
yzed. Because of the brevity of the interview and the
nature of the elicitors this was not possible in this
I study. Rather, an external instrument was used to measure
;conditioning. This requires the process of generalization
!to take place. In the investigator's view to obtain gen-
i eralization is an outcome of greater value even though it
!
is more difficult to obtain.
The drug-related concepts will be considered first.
i
;In pilot testing conducted among those who use drugs and
advocate drug use, "heroin” was rated near the center of
| the scales in the evaluative domain. However, in this in
vestigation, it was found that the C group entered the
testing situation with an already strongly anti-heroin
bias. Thus the end objective of influencing Ss against
heroin use had already been attained prior to treatment,
i The best that any of the Es could do in such circumstances
!was to strengthen already well entrenched positions. How-
!
ever, there were significant differences on the activity
: domain between groups and E2* This is difficult to
| account for. The Ss in the "hippie" led group saw heroin
i as a passive concept in comparison to the "woman" led
i
| group. This suggests the possibility that some incidental
conditioning may take place in regards to an emotionally
charged concept if certain facets of that concept are not
predetermined. Whether heroin is fast or slow probably
i
does not matter much. Perhaps, heroin, as associated with
ja hippie is a slowing down of the personality. With an
i
jattractive woman maybe heroin is associated with a hasten
ing of life. This outcome does deserve some consideration
however, as heroin was the primary focus of attention.
There were significant differences between Es in verbal
conditioning of the concept.
It was not known whether a specific drug avoidance
jinterview technique using heroin-related pictures as elic-
jitors would transfer to smother known dangerous drug. The
i
|concept "amphetamines" was used to answer this question.
i
Amphetamine-related pictures were not included among the
|elicitors except for one scene that may have been asso-
i |
iciated with amphetamines. It would seem reasonable to sug-
i
1
gest that the concept "amphetamines" did not condition be-
j
cause the elicitors were not directly related to the con-
Icept.
j The situation for "marijuana" is similar to that of
!"amphetamines." "Marijusma" was never explicitly presented
i
I
| among the elicitors. For there to have been an effect
:would have necessitated transfer.
It was thought that "drugs," being less specific
!
i and more inclusive than the terms "amphetamines" and
S 55
i
j"marijuana," might generalize from the more particular
heroin-related elicitors. Such was not the case.
Either preestablished positions were too firmly
i
set for conditioning to take place or the conditions for
I transfer were not present.
| It was not known whether drug avoidance condition-
i ing would transfer attitudes toward other forms of intoxi
cating behavior such as alcohol drinking. "Beer" was
selected as the concept to determine if there was some re
lationship between drug avoidance conditioning and one's
I attitude toward alcohol. There was no effect on the con-
I
|cept "beer" except on the potency dimension between groups
i
; E1 and E2. The woman's Ss rated beer more powerful. If
"common knowledge” is true, that police officers tend to
i
consider beer to be light and weak and that women generally
| think of it as being heavy and strong, then perhaps there
is some carry over of these social variables from the
; treatment to the testing situation. If this possibility is
I accepted then incidental E effects may have indeed oc-
; curred.
Because so many of the pictorial elicitors had
| medical overtones (pictures of injections, organs of the
i ^
body, et al.), it was suggested that one's attitudes toward
medicine might be influenced. It did not happen. The con-
! cept "vaccinations" was included because of the many pic-
j
j tures of needle injections but again conditioning did not
56
occur.
A number of casual observers considered many of the
pictures quite offensive. To determine whether one's at
titude toward "pictures" would be affected by them the con-;
|
icept was included in the semantic differential. The Ss !
I !
were not affected by these particular pictures enough to
alter their responses to the concept.
There was no effect on the personality variables
i "me1 ' and "most people." It had been conjectured that if an
S identified himself or others with drug taking behavior
that his responses to these concepts might be affected by
the treatment proceedings.
E influence was strikingly affirmed on the concept I
"hippie." Those Ss who had been interviewed by the hippie,
gave much more favorable responses to the concept "hippie"
than did the controls. The E3 group also saw hippies as
much more active than did the others. How did the hippie !
gain his popularity or at least popularity for his role? j
In investigating the treatment procedures on audio tapes
after the experiment, it was found that he was more gener- j
j
ous with reinforcements than were the other Es. It may be j
; . |
i
I that his drug-avoidance reinforcing behavior was pleasinglyJ
unexpected by the Ss. In other ways he may have estab-
i
lished himself and those whose style of life he represents i
as being more favorable and faster acting than ordinarily j
I i
i
[expected. At any rate, exposure to this particular hippie j
! 57 |
type influenced the responses on the semantic differential, j
The police officer did not fare as well. His Ss
viewed the concept "police" neither more nor less favorable j
than did the others. It may be that he more neatly fit the j
stereotype of a police officer and hence expectations were
not altered.
Two other roles, only indirectly related, were
tested. The woman E was not presented as anything other
than an E. She was dressed in customary fashion and ap
peared to be what she was? an attractive woman in her early
thirties. The term "housewife" did not then directly re
late to her but was included to see if there might be some
generalization to the concept. There was not.
Because it was a school setting the concept
"teacher" was presented. The concept was not affected by
the conditioning proceedings.
In sum, one could tentatively say that possibly
E influence had some effect on the activity scales of the
concept "heroin." E effects were demonstrated on the
concept "hippie," on the evaluative and activity scales.
There were possible E effects on the potency dimension of
I the concept "beer."
In part, this investigation was a response to the
questions presented by Orne (1962) and Rosenthal (1966).
What kind of influence does the E have on the outcome of
! his task? The roles or stereotyped life styles of Es have
i 58]
i i
I
'have not received much consideration. In this study one E !
1 ]
was apparently able to improve the regard his Ss had for
his role while attempting to condition their responses i
; j
|toward drugs. E role variations may have been responsible j
jfor the other significant findings as well. The woman and
;the hippie obtained significant differences on the activity
I
ifactor of "heroin.” Possibly the association of the con-
t
|cept with the particular E role is involved. And the con-
i
j cept "beer" brought significant differences between the
i
|woman E and the police officer E. Again it is possible
ithat associations with the roles of the Es contributed to
I
i
the difference.
i
Verbal conditioning, as an interview procedure,
iapparently was not effective in this investigation. Al-
; though the responses of the S to the E in the interview
as such were not measured, the important transfer of oral
responses to written responses was tested. Some investiga-
!tors (King, 1968; Lapus and Harmatz, 1970) had been able
! to obtain generalization on some concepts to such instru
ments as the semantic differential. It is doubtful if the
j responses on the semantic differential in this case were a
I result of the technique of verbal conditioning.
i
| The manner of reinforcement, reflection of re-
| sponse, apparently was not adequate to obtain the results
! desired in this study. Although Hekmat (1968) with a
similar population had been successful in using this type
r
of reinforcement there were important differences between
the studies. He had double the number of response (and re
inforcement) possibilities, he sought a noncontroversial,
nonthreatening response , and he did not attempt to obtain j
' i
generalization. Further, he employed a skillful, experi- j
i
|enced practitioner as E, himself. Bearing this in mind it
I
!would be premature to discount reflection of response as
an effective reinforcer.
[ The apparatus used, heroin-related pictures, as
Ielicitors was determined on the basis of Hekraat's (1968)
|experiment and the special objectives and limitations of
I this study. Although Hekmat presented his Ss with double
J
the number (50) of pictures as elicitors, time and other j
limitations prevented the presentation of this large a
number for this experiment. It was conjectured, though,
that the particular pictures selected for this study would
effectively narrow the response possibilities and enable
conditioning to take place. Perhaps if the number of such
elicitors had been' expanded to increase the number of re-
I sponse and reinforcement possibilities the outcome of this
; experiment would have been different.
As has been suggested, one design feature that
i
| seriously hampered this investigation was length of inter-
| view time. Although Ullmann, Forsman, et al. (1965), suc-
| cessfully conducted interviews of twenty minutes duration,
j
j most verbal conditioning experiments have required a great
ideal more time.
There was not much evidence reported in the litera- i
i
ture that indicated the use of high school students as Ss. j
; |
iThis has probably been a problem of convenience (or incon-
venience) rather than the suitability of such a population
as a source for Ss. On the basis of this investigation, one
i
might suggest that objectives to this population are prob-
jably school-related (arrangements, et al.) rather than
Js tudent-re lated.
The semantic differential (Osgood, Suci and Tannen-
baum, 1957) was used in this study because of its history
and flexibility. It was readily adapted to this investiga
tion. It is suggested that further analysis of the data
obtained on the semantic differential in this study would
be useful. For example, information pertaining to the
differences of meaning of the particular concepts used on
i
i
this occasion would be of interest. The Ss rated "heroin" !
4 i
j
in an entirely different manner than they did "marijuana." j
; i
"Teachers" were different from "police." "Hippies" were j
different from either of them. Further, an examination of
■ i
the data from the sociocultural questionnaire in conjunction
with the semantic differential responses might yield useful
information. It would be of interest, for example, to know j
l !
if the males responded differently from the females. Such
possibilities as these invite further investigation and
I _ !
analysis of the data obtained.
6i;
The response category chosen for this study was
emission of drug-avoidance verbalizations in the interview. |
Akers, Burgess and Johnson (1968) point to the importance j
of appropriate reinforcement in determining approach-
avoidance decisions regarding drugs. It was hoped that this
investigation would contribute to the understanding of
, their theory. The theory awaits further investigations.
The primary hypotheses-related findings of this
t
istudy pertained to the problem of E effects. The process
i
of verbal conditioning was not effective in producing the
desired outcomes. However, certain variations in tech-
i
jnique and circumstance may have altered the results. The
semantic differential was a useful external measure although
perhaps the requirement for generalization in this instance
was premature. The response class of drug-avoidance emis
sions was relevant but difficult to obtain in the antici
pated manner.
I
CHAPTER V !
; i
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS j
Summary
i This investigation examined experimenter effects
I in verbal conditioning. E effects were explored by includ-
I
i
|ing Es portraying three different roles. Two of these
j
roles were controversial and expected to evoke strong
j ' r
Iresponses among this, population. These two were "hippie"
i
land "police officer." The third role was considered to be
inoncontroversial and neutral. This role was portrayed by
ian attractive woman in her early thirties with an unassum-
■ i
ling manner.
The technique of verbal conditioning was selected
for the treatment process. In this instance the Es
I elicited responses from Ss with drug-related pictures, |
I I
Drug avoidance responses were reinforced by reflection or j
Iparaphrase of the response.
The hypotheses submitted first pertained to avoid-
;ance responses of drug-related concepts on the evaluative
!
I scales of the semantic differential. These concepts were
!"amphetamines," "drugs," "heroin," and "marijuana." It
i |
Iwas hypothesized that the three E groups would obtain lower j
! 631
scores on the evaluative scales. E differences were
hypothesized in that it was predicted that the hippie would
be the most effective E and the police officer would fee the
least effective.
| Four concepts were presented to check for extrane
ous generalization effects. These concepts were "beer,"
"medicine," "pictures," and "vaccinations." It was pre
dicted that E groups would obtain no different scores than
those in the C group.
j The null hypothesis was presented for the person-
i
jality variables of "me" and "most people." Also, the null
j
hypothesis was presented for the role concepts of
"hippies," "police," "teachers," and "housewives,"
Though one need not expect transfer from verbal
behavior to written behavior, it was assumed that such
transfer would occur. It was further assumed that if con
ditioning took place it would be the result of E effects,
|the pictorial elicitors and verbal reinforcements in com-
i
bination. Further, it was assumed that the semantic dif
ferential was an appropriate instrument to use for the
istudy. Finally, it was assumed that the Es would be able
|to identify and reinforce drug avoidance.responses.
I The Ss for this investigation were provided by the
|Redondo Union High School of .-the South Bay Union High
School District, The final total amounted to sixty-eight.
They had been approached by the investigator about a month
64
I |
! ■ i
|prior to the treatment to request their participation in j
; !
the experiment. A sociocultural questionnaire was pre-
' I
■ sented to them which provided data pertaining to Ss' sex r j
|age, family size, race, religion, politics, education, in
come, living arrangements, occupation, parents' marital
status and goals. The Ss were randomly divided into four
groups of seventeen each. One group served as controls and
only received the semantic differential and the sociocul
tural questionnaire. The other three groups served as the
| treatment groups with one for each E. The Es were de-
!scribed and the nature of their training for this task was
[
I explained.
| Significance was obtained in four instances. It
i was found that the Ss treated by the hippie responded to
i
; the concept "hippies" significantly more favorably than did
the controls. Further, those same Ss (group E^J rated the
I terra "hippies" as significantly more active than did the
i
|other groups in combination. This supports the notion
| that E effects do occur but not necessarily in the expected
i direction.
i
i
The hippie's Ss scored "heroin" as significantly
i
slower on the activity domain than did the Ss of the woman.
i
| In that heroin was the primary pictorial elicitor it was
suggested that perhaps some incidental conditioning may
have taken place even with an intensely emotionally felt
■word if certain facets of that concept are not preset. The|
: i
police officer's Ss considered "beer" to be significantly
lighter and weaker than did the woman's Ss. Sociocultural j
I associations were suggested as possible variables involved
with this outcome.
i
The research hypotheses were all rejected. The Ss
jin the E groups did not condition to any of the drug-
j
related concepts. All null hypotheses, except those re-
ferred to above, were accepted. The four concepts presented
ito check for extraneous generalization did not obtain sig
nificance. The personality variables were not affected by
the experiment. In addition, all role variables, except
i
"hippies," failed to obtain significant differences.
1
Conclusions
1. Verbal conditioning, using inexperienced Es of
varying roles, heroin-related pictures as elicitors, and
reflection of response as reinforcement, was not sufficient
|for the obtainment of avoidance responses of drug-related
concepts by adolescents on the evaluative scales of the
semantic differential.
2. Some E effects, primarily related to E role, did
bccur as measured by the semantic differential.
Recommendations
| 1. It is suggested that subsequent investigation
using verbal conditioning as a procedure and avoidance of
66
drugs as a response and drug-related pictures as elicitors
extend the duration of the conditioning session to at least
one hour.
2. It is suggested that such a study as recom
mended above not attempt to obtain generalization to an
external measure but follow the more common technique of
I analyzing change in verbal responses emitted during the
conditioning session.
3. It is suggested that effects of E role or life-
istyle be further investigated in verbal conditioning
studies using less controversial response categories.
4. It is suggested that the adaptation of the
semantic differential as used in this investigation be
further refined with norm3 obtained for use in drug avoid
ance behavior research.
5. It is suggested that in replication, the
sociocultural variables be included in the hypotheses and
made an integral part of the investigation.
bibliography
67
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abell, A. T. Words functioning simultaneously as operant
and respondent reinforcers: Preliminary study. Psy
chological Reports, 1969, 24, 123-133.
Aronson, E. The orienting reflex as a mediator of learning
and awareness in verbal conditioning. Unpublished dis
sertation, Northwestern University, 1968.
Ascough, J. C., & Sipprelle, 0. N. Operant verbal condi
tioning of autonomic responses. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 1968, 6, 363-370.
Ault, R. L., & Vogler, R. E. Discriminative and reinforc
ing functions of four verbal stimuli. Psychological
Reports, 1969, 24, 555-562.
Ayllon, T., & Houghton, E. Modification of symptomatic
verbal behavior of mental patients. Behaviour Research
| and Therapy, 1964, 2, 87-97.
Baron, R. A. The effects of intertrial activity and locus
of control orientation on verbal operant conditioning.
Psychonomic Science, 1969, 15, 69-71.
Braden, E. D. Verbal conditioning of positive and negative
I self-report in high and low self-esteem subjects.
Unpublished dissertation, Ohio State University, 1969.
Breer, P. E., & Locke, E. A. Task experiences as a source
of attitudes. Homewood, 111;: The Dorsey tress, l9S6r.
Brodsky, G. The relation between verbal and nonverbal
behavior change. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1967,
5, 183—191.
Bucher, B., & Lovaas, 0. I. Operant procedures in behavior
modification with children. In D. J. Levis (Ed.),
Learning approaches to therapeutic behavior change.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1^7 0.
Campbell, D, T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and' guasi-
experimental designs for researcH. Chicago: Rand
McNally & Company, 1363.
68
69
Campbell, P. A. The effects of role playing and verbal
conditioning in humor preference. Unpublished disserta
tion, University of Illinois, 1968.
|Chomsky, N. Review of Skinner's verbal behavior. In J. P.
De Cecco (Ed.), The psychology of language, thought,
and instruction: Readings. New York: Holt, Rinehart
| & Winston, Inc., 1967.
I
!Cohen, Bertram D., Kalish, Harry I., Thurston, John R., &
j Cohen, Edwin. Experimental manipulation of verbal
behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954, 47,
Craine, W. H. Verbal conditioning of affective responses
in the psychopath. Unpublished dissertation, Southern
Illinois University, 1968.
Critchlow, Keith, F., Herrup, Robert, & Dabbs, James M.,
Jr. Experimental influence in a conformity situation.
Psychological Reports, 1968, 23, 408-410.
Das, J. P. Verbal conditioning and behavior. London:
j Pergamon Press, 1969.
|Davison, G. C. Appraisal of behavior modification tech-
! nigues with adults in institutional settings. In C. M.
Franks (Ed.), Behavior therapy: Appraisal and status.
I New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.
De Cecco, J. P. The psychology of language, thought, and
instruction: Reacn-ngsTI Hew Vork: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, Inc., Id67.
De Nike, L. D., & Leibovitz, M. Accurate anticipation of
reinforcement in verbal conditioning. Journal of Per
sonality , 1969, 37, 150-170.
i
Denner, B. Etiquette of verbal conditioning. Journal of
; Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 344(l), ^0-85.
I
jDinero, T. E. Semantic differential responses: Reflec-
I tions of connotation or denotation. Paper presented at
j the symposium, "Problems in Semantic Differential
Measurement," American Educational Research Association,
New York, 1971.
!Dixon, P. W., & Oakes, W. F. Effect of intertrial activity
! on the relationship between awareness and verbal operant
! conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
69(2), 152-159.------------- *------------*-----
Dixon, T. R. ’ A complex reinforcement contingency: The
control of awareness in verbal conditioning.' Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1966, 5, 514-si*5.
I Dixon, T. R., & Moulton, A. E. Affects of questioning
I unaware problem solvers in a "verbal conditioning" task.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 83(3), 431-
4 3 4 #
1
i
Dixon, W. J. (Ed.). B1MED program X series supplement.
Berkeley: University of California, 15^6.
Doctor, R. M. Awareness and the effects of 3 combinations
of reinforcements on verbal conditioning of children.
Child Development, 1969, 40, 529-538.
Doctor, R. M. Bias effects and awareness in studies of
verbal conditioning. Unpublished dissertation, Univer-
; sity of Illinois, 1968.
|Doherty, M. A., & Walker, R. E. The relationship of per-
j sonality characteristics, awareness, and attitude in a
verbal conditioning situation. Journal of Personality,
j 1966, 34(4), 504-515.
i
Dulaney, D. E., Jr. The place of hypotheses and inten
tions: An analysis of verbal control in verbal condi
tioning. In C. W. Eriksen (Ed.), Behavior and Aware
ness . Durham: Duke University Press, 19(52.
Edwards, A. L. Experimental design in psychological
research. New York: Holt, kinehart& Winston, Inc.,
1950.
jElls, E. M. Effects of operant level, interview with
experimenter, and awareness upon a conditioning of
chronic schizophrenics. Journal of Abnormal Personal
ity, 1967, 72(3), 205-2121
Etaugh, D. F. Experimenter and subject variables in verbal
conditioning. Psychological Reports, 1969, 25, 575-580.
Farr, S. D. Semantic differential responses: measures of
concept or individual differences? Paper presented at
| the symposium, "Problems in Semantic Differential
Measurement," American Educational Research Association,
New York City, February, 1971.
iFishbein, M. Readings in attitude theory and measurement.
| New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1567. |
Fox, L. J. A study of relationships between grades and
measures of scholastic aptitude, creativity and atti
tudes in junior college students. (Doctoral disserta
tion, University of Southern California) Ann Arbor, j
Mich,: University Microfilms, 1967, No, 68-5862,
|Franks, C, M, Behavior therapy: Appraisal and status.
New York: McGraw-Hill, l9e>9.
|
jFurkas, E. Verbal conditioning in schizophrenics as a
function of rated social behavior and awareness facili-
j tating instructions. Unpublished dissertation, Univer-
| sity of Minnesota, 1969.
!
Glatt, M. M. Psychological and social aspects of drug
I dependence in adolescence. In C. W, M. Wilson (Ed.),
The pharmacological and epidemiological aspects of
adolescent drug dependence: Proceedings or the Society
of Addiction, London, 1 and 2 September 1966. London:
j Pergamon tress, I9bt.
i
Goodkin, R. Changes in word production, sentence produc
tion and relevance in an aphasic through verbal condi-
I tioning. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1969, 7,
| 93-99.
;Greenspoon, J. The reinforcing effects of two spoken
sounds on the frequency of two responses. American
Journal of Psychology, 1955, 68, 409-416,
Greenwald, A. C., Brock, T. C., & Ostrom, T. M. (Eds.).
Psychological foundations of attitudes. New York and
London: Academic Press, 1468.
Gruber, R. P. Discrimination, generalization, and aware
ness in verbal operant conditioning. The Journal of
Psychology, 1970, 75, 263-270. |
Guilford, J. P. Fundamental statistics in psychology and
| education. New Vork: McGraw-rtill, 1956.
jHarmatz, M. G., & Lapuc, P. S. A technique for employing a
yoked control in free operant verbal conditioning
! experiments. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1968, 6,
483.
f
I
Heap, R. F., & Sipprelle, C. N. Extinction as a function
of insight. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Prac
tice, 1966, 3T217 B1-8T. ------------------
72
j
| Hekmat, H. The effects of two types of experimenter inter
vention and schedules of reinforcement of verbal operant
conditioning of effective self-references. Unpublished
dissertation, University of Southern California, 1968.
i
I Heller, K., & Marlatt, G. A. Verbal conditioning, behavior
therapy, and behavior change: Some problems in extra
polation. In C. M. Franks (Ed.), Behavior therapy:
Appraisal and status. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.
j Hersen, M. Controlling verbal behavior via classical and
i operant conditioning. The Journal of General Psychology,
j 1970, 38, 3-22.
Hiney, W. F., Jr. The use of values as reinforcers in
verbal operant conditioning paradigms. Unpublished
dissertation. University of Georgia, 1969.
Holz, W. C., & Azrin, N. H. Conditioning human behavior.
In W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of
research and application. New York: Appleton-Century-
j Crofts, 196?.
Honig, W. K. (Ed.). Operant behavior: Areas of research
and application. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
1^66 •
[Isaacs, W., Thomas, J., & Goldiamond, I. Application of
operant conditioning to reinstate verbal behavior in
psychotics. In L. P. Ullmann and L. Krasner (Eds.),
Case studies in behavior modification. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1965,
I Ince, L. P. Modification of verbal behavior through vari-
; able interval reinforcement in a quasi-therapy situa*
j tion. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1968, 6, 439-445.
IInsko, C. A., & Nelson, W. H. Verbal reinforcement of
attitude in laboratory and non-laboratory context.
| Journal of Personality, 1969, 37, 25-40.
IKatkin, E. S., Risk, R. T», & Spielberger, C. D. The
' effects of experimenter status and subject awareness on
verbal conditioning. Journal of Experimental Research
in Personality, 1966, 1, 153-160.
Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral research. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, & rfxnston, Inc., 1965.
Kerr, N., Meyer son, L., & Michael, J, A procedure for
shaping vocalizations in a mute child. In L. P. Ullmann
& L. Krasner (Eds.), Case studies in behavior modifi
cation. New Yorks Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.
King, C. R., Jr. Verbal conditioning and transfer effects
in an interview setting. Unpublished dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1968.
King, S. H. Youth in rebellion: An historical perspec
tive. Drug Dependence, July, 1969, 1(1), 5-9.
Kirk, Roger. Experimental design: Procedures for the
behavioral sciences. feelmont, Calif.: Brooks-Cole
Publishing Company, 1968.
Klein, B., & Wiener, M. Awareness in the "learning without
awareness" paradigm. Journal of Experimental Research
in Personality, 1966, 1, 145-152.
Krasner, L. The therapist as a social reinforcement
machine. In H. H. Strupp & L. Luborsky (Eds.), Research
in Psychotherapy. Washington, D.C.s American Psycho
logical Association, 1962, 2, 61-94.
Krasner, L. Token economy as an illustration of operant
conditioning procedures with the aged, with youth, and
with society. In D. J. Levis (Ed.), Learning approaches
to therapeutic behavior change. Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Company, 1970.
Krasner, L. Verbal conditioning and psychotherapy. In
L. Krasner & L. P. Ullmann (Eds.), Research in behavior
modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
TttT.-----
Krasner, L. Verbal operant conditioning and awareness.
In K. Salzinger & S. Salzinger (Eds.), Research in
verbal behavior and some neuro-physiological implica
tions. toew Vork and Londons Acad emic Press, 1967.
Krasner, L., & Ullmann, L, P. Research in behavior modifi
cations New developments and implications. New Yorks
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 19<>5.
Lapuc, P. S., & Harmatz, M. G. Verbal conditioning and
therapeutic change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1970, 35(1)" 7CPT8':
74
Laungani, D. Verbal conditioning and previously learned j
habits. The Journal of General Psychology, 1970, 83,
35*42.
! :
Levin, S. M. The effects of awareness on verbal condi
tioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1961, 61, j
5 7*59.
|Levin, S. M. The effects of awareness on verbal condi-
j tioning. Unpublished dissertation, Duke University,
I 1959.
Levis, D. J. (Ed.). Learning approaches to therapeutic
behavior change. Chicago: Aldihe Publishing Company,
1970.
Linken, A. The psycho*social aspects of student drug
taking. In C. W. M. Wilson (Ed.), The pharmacological
and epidemiological aspects of adolescent drug depen-~
dence; Proceedings of the f>ociety for the Study oT~
Addiction, London, 1 and 2 September 1966. London:
Pergamon Press, 1968.
Mandel, S. L., & Goodstein, L, D. Awareness and intertrial
activity in verbal conditioning. Psychological Reports,
1969, 25, 455-460.
j
Meltzoff, J., & Kornreich, M. Research in Psychotherapy.
New York: Atherton Press, Inc., l976.
J
i
jMiller, A. W., Jr. Taffel and Greenspoon: Comparative
effects of obviousness of reinforcement and response
i structure. The Journal of General Psychology, 1970,
83, 43-51.
I Miller, J. K. The convergent and discriminant validity of
semantic differential factor structures. Paper pre
sented at the symposium, "Problems in Semantic Differ*
j ential Measurement," American Educational Research
Association, February, 1971.
I Miller, P. M. The establishment of social reinforcement
| as an effective modifier of verbal behavior in chronic
| psychiatric patients. Unpublished dissertation, Univer*
j sity of South Carolina, 1968.
jMussen, M. A limited application of verbal conditioning
techniques to counselor preparation. Unpublished dis
sertation, University of Tennessee, 1969.
Nordraark, T. P., Jr. Effects of internal-external locus of
control and differential reinforcement value on the j
acquisition and generalization of a conditioned verbal j
response. Unpublished dissertation, University of Northj
Dakota, 1968.
I
: j
Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw- i
Hill, 1967.
Orlando, N. E. Verbal conditioning of dependence-
independence in domiciled veterans. Unpublished disser
tation, University of Southern California, 1968.
i
iOrne, M. T. On the social psychology of the psychological
experiment; With particular reference to demand charac-
j teristics and their implications. American Psycholo
gist, 1962, 17, 776-783.
|Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The
measurement of meaning. Chicago; University o£
Illinois IPress, 1$57.
Page, M. M. Demand awareness, subject sophistication and
the effectiveness of a verbal "reinforcement." Journal
of Personality, 1970, 38, 287-301.
Panzarella, J. P. Transfer of verbal operant conditioning
established in a quasi-therapy situation. Unpublished
dissertation, Washington State University, 1969.
Rasor, R. W. Narcotic addiction in young people in the
United States. In C. W. M. Wilson (Ed.), The pharma
cological and epidemiological aspects of adolescent drug
dependence: Proceedings of the Society for the Study
of Addiction, London, 1 and 2 September 1966. London:
Pergamon Press, 1968.
Resnick, J. H. Reversals in the superiority of performance
of high and low-anxious subjects in verbal conditioning.
Journal of Personality, 1965, 33, 218-232.
Rickard, H. C., & Dinoff, M. A follow-up note on "verbal
manipulation in a psychotherapeutic relationship." In
L. P. Ullmann & L. Krasner (Eds.), Case studies in
behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart&
Winston, Inc., 1££5.
Riddle, D. I. The effects of verbal conditioning of self
esteem. Unpublished dissertation, Duke University,
I 1968.
76
Rosenfeld, H. M., & Baer, D• M. Unbiased and unnoticed
verbal conditioning: The double agent robot procedure.
Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1970,
14, 99-107.
I Rosenfeld, H. M., & Baer, D. M. Unnoticed verbal condi-
| tioning of an aware experimenter by a more aware sub
ject. Psychological Review,.1969, 76, 425-432.
j Rosenthal, R. Covert communication in the psychological
J experiment. Psychological Bulletin, 1967, 67, 356-357.
Rosenthal, R. Experimenter effects in behavioral research.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.
Salzinger, K. The place of operant conditioning of verbal
behavior in psychotherapy. In C. M. Franks (Ed.),
Behavior therapy: Appraisal and status. New York:
ffcflraw-Hm, 1969. ------------------
Salzinger, K., & Salzinger S. (Eds.). Research in verbal
behavior and some neurophysiological^lmplicationB. riew
| 3fork and London: Academic Press, 1967.
j Sarason, I. G. The human reinforcer in verbal behavior
research. In L. Krasner & L. P. Ullmann (Eds.),
Research in behavior modification: New developments
and their clinical implications. New York: Holt,
hinehart & Winston, 1965, 229-1243.
! Sarason, I. G. Personality: An objective approach. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966.
Sarason, I. G., & Ganzer, V. J. Anxiety, reinforcement and
experimental instructions in a free verbalization situa-
tion. Journal of Abnormal Sociology Psychology, 1962,
65, 300-307.
i Schmideberg, H. Socio-Psychological factors in drug
dependence. In C. W. M. Wilson (Ed.), The pharmaco-
| logical and, epidemiological aspects of adolescent drug
dependence: Proceedings of the Society for the Study
of Addiction, London, 1 and 2 September 19b6. London:
Pergamon tress, 1968.
Schmidt, E. A comparative evaluation of verbal condition
ing and behavior training in an individual case.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1964, 2, 19-26.
Scott, S. M. Effects of positive and negative verbal rein
forcement and task difficulty on the verbal discrimina
tion learning of psychopathis and non-psychopathic
criminals. Unpublished dissertation. Temple University,
1968.
i Shaw, M. E., & Wright, J. M. Scales for the measurement
of attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill, i&6J 7.
Sheehan, P. W. E-Expectancy and the role of awareness in
verbal conditioning. Psychological Reports, 1969, 24,
203-206.
Simpkins, Ruth E. Verbal performance effected by social
maturity and social and material incentives. Unpub
lished dissertation. Temple University, 1968.
Skinner, B. F. A functional analysis of verbal behavior.
In J. P. De Cecco (Ed.), The psychology of language,
thought, and instruction: headings. New York; Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1967.
Skinner, B, F. Science and human behavior. New York:
Macmillan, 1953.
1
1
j Spielberger, C. D. The role of awareness in verbal condi
tioning. In E. F. Eriksen (Ed.), Behavior and aware
ness. Durham: Duke University Press, 196^.
!Spielberger, C. D., & De Nike, L. D. Descriptive behavior
vs. cognitive theory in verbal operant conditioning.
Psychological Review, 1966, 73, 306-326.
!Spielberger, C. D., De Nike, L. D., & Stein, L. S. Anxiety
and verbal conditioning. Journal of Personality.
Sociology. Psychology. 1965, 1, ^29-239.
|Spielberger, C. D., Levin, S. M., & Shepard, M. C. The
i effect of awareness and attitude toward the reinforce
ment on the operant conditioning of verbal behavior.
Journal Personality. 1962, 30, 106-121.
i
| Staats, A. W. Learning, language and Cognition. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, inc., i960.
Staats, A. W. An outline of an integrated learning theory
of attitude formation and function. In M. Fishbein,
Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York:
John Wxiey & Sons, Inc., 1967.
j Staats, A. W, Social behaviorism and human motivation:
Principles of the attitude-reinforcer-discriminative j
system. In A. Greenwald, T* Brock, & T. Ostroro (Eds.), |
Psychological foundations of attitudes. New York and
London: Academic tress, 1^68.
|Staats, A. W., & Staats, C. K. Attitudes established by
f classical conditioning. In M. Fishbein, Readings in
attitude theory and measurement. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 1967.
|Steger, H. G., Jr. The effects of cognitive motivation to
| avoid awareness on measures of performance in verbal
conditioning. Unpublished dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1969.
Stewart, D. J., & Resnick, J. H. Verbal conditioning of
psychopaths as a function of experimenter-subject sex
differences. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1970,
75(1), 90-92.
jSundel, M. Modification of two operants (verbal and non-
i verbal) in near-mute schizophrenics using reinforcement
! and modeling procedures. Unpublished dissertation,
University of Michigan, 1968.
Taffel, C. Anxiety and the conditioning of verbal behav
ior. Journal of Abnormal Sociology Psychology, 1955,
51, 496-501.
Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. The teacher's word book of
30,000 words. New York:. Bureau of Publications,
Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1944.
I
Timmons, E. O. Experiments in conditioning operant verbal
behavior. Unpublished dissertation, University of
Tennessee, 1959.
;Ullmann, L. P., Forsmon, R. G., Kenny, J. W., Mclnnis, T.
L., Jr., Unikel, I. P., & Zeisset, R. M. Selective
reinforcement of schizophrenic interview responses.
I Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1965, 2, 205-212.
jUllmann, L. P., & Krasner, L. (Eds.). Case studies in
behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, Inc., 1965.
Ullmann, L. P., Krasner, L., & Edlnger, R. L. Verbal con- |
ditioning of common associations in long-term schizo- |
phrenic patients. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
1964, 2, 15-18.
jUpper, D. Verbal conditioning and desocialization in |
process and reactive schizophrenics. Unpublished dis
sertation, Case Western Reserve University, 1969.
iVerplanck, W. S. The control of the content of conversa
tion: Reinforcement of statements of opinion. Journal
of Abnormal Sociology Psychology, 1955, 51, 668-67(5.
Vestre, N. D. The relationship between verbal condition-
ability and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule.
Paper presented to American Psychological Association,
New York, 1961.
Vestre, N. D. Relative effects of phenothiazines and
phenobarbital in verbal conditioning of schizophrenia.
: Psychological Reports, 1965, 17, 289-290.
j
Vogel-Sprott, M. D. Response generalization under verbal
conditioning in alcoholics, delinquents and students.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1964, 2, 135-141.
I Walker, T. S., Taylor, R. E., & McDaniel, M. Delayed
"Good" and "mmra-hram" reinforcers in verbal conditioning
and awareness. Psychological Reports, 1968, 23, 411-
416.
Wandzek, R. P. Effects of positive verbal reinforcements
on interest selections. Psychological Reports, 1969, I
24, 407-412. |
Weber, H. N., & De Nike, L. D. Awareness, verbal condi
tioning and psychophysical misjudgements. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 1968, 6, 205-209.
jWeight, D. G. The internal-external locus of control
dimension as a variable in the verbal behavior of sub
jects and experimenters. Unpublished dissertation,
i University of Washington, 1969.
i
j i
j Whitehead, P. C. The incidence of drug use among Halifax |
adolescents. The British Journal of Addiction, 1970, !
65(2), 159-1651 I
|Williams, J. H. Conditioning of verbalization: A review.
Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 62, 383-393.
80
Wilson, C. W. M. The patterns of drug abuse: The clinicalj
and social pharmacology of drugs of dependence. In
C. W. M. Wilson (Ed.), The pharmacological and epi
demiological aspects of adolescent drug dependence:
Proceedings of the Society for the'Study of Addiction,
London,^ 1 and 2 September 1366. London: Pergamon
Press, 1968.
Wilson, C. W. M. (Ed.). The pharmacological and epi
demiological aspects of*"adolescent drug dependence:
Proceedings"'of the Society for the Study of Addiction,
London, 1 and 2 September1^66. London: Pergamon
Press, 1968.
Wilson, F. S., & Walters, R. H. Modification of speed
output of near-mute schizophrenics through social-
learning procedures. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
1966, 4, 59-67.
Wong, R., Harrison, J., & Stopper, H. Intertrial activity,
awareness, and verbal conditioning of children.
Psychonomic Science, 1966, 6(2), 55-56.
Yates, A. J. Behavior therapy. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1376.
Zimbardo, P., & Ebbesen,. E. B. Influencing attitudes and
methodology, theory and applications. Massachusetts
Addison-Wesley Publishing company, 1969.
appendixes
81
REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL
631 Vincent Park
Redondo Beach
January, 1971
j
I Dear Parents:
The South Bay Union High School District has engaged
Donald C. Fisher, a doctoral candidate at the University of
Southern California, to undertake a much needed study on
the relationship of social problems and learning processes.
Several students of the Redondo Union High School have been
nominated by their counselors to serve in this important
project. Your son/daughter is among
these. He/she will spend about an hour o£ time during one
regular school day with Mr. Fisher and his staff.
We feel that this study will contribute to our understand
ing of why we think the way we do, and it may well give us
significant clues on how our thoughts influence our ac
tions.
Your written permission is required for participation in
the research project. If ypu wish your son or daughter to
|take part in the experience, please sign in the space
ibelow.
| Sincerely yours,
Charles Morris,
Principal
YES, I give my permission for __ to
participate in this research study.
i Signature of parent or guardian
|
i
|
| Please have your son or daughter return this form to his
counselor within two days. Thank you.
82
83
INSTRUCTIONS: (To be read silently while examiner reads
aloud.)
! This is a test to measure the meaning of words. The
I same words may often mean different things to different
I people. Mark each item according to what it means to you.
|On each page you will find 2 words or groups of words, one
at the top and one in the middle of the page. Beneath each
of them is a set of scales. Here is how you are to use
these scales:
If you feel that what you are judging is very close to
one end of the scale you should circle the number as
follows:
NICE (D 2 1 0 1 2 3 AWFUL
NICE 3 2 1 0 1 2 © AWFUL
If you feel that the word or words are quite close to
one or the other end of the scale, (but not very close),
you should circle the number as follows:
| DIRTY 3 © 1 0 1 2 3 CLEAN
J DIRTY 3 2 1 0 1 @ 3 CLEAN
1 If what you are judging seems only slightly related to
|one or the other end of the scale, you should circle the
jnumber as follows:
SMALL 3 2 © 0 1 2 3 LARGE
SMALL 3 2 1 0 (l) 2 3 LARGE
i
| If you feel that what you are judging is as close to
;one end of the scale as the other, or that the scale has
|nothing to do with what you are judging, then circle the
|number in the middle space.
j FAST 3 3 1 ( 5) 1 2 3 SLOW
!IMPORTANT
I
I
j1. Be sure to check every scale for every word. Do not
omit any.
I
2. Never circle more than one number on a line.
3. Each item should be judged separately. Sometimes you
| may feel as though you have had the same item before on
! the test. This will not be the case, so do not look
back and forth through the items. Do not try to
remember how you checked similar items earlier in the j
test. !
Do not spend too much time on any item. It is your
first impressions, the immediate feelings about the !
items that we want. On the other hand, please do not j
be careless because we want your true impressions.
I
M E
NICE 3 2 0 2 3 AWFUL
UGLY 3 2 0 2 3 BEAUTIFUL
DIRTY 3 2 0 2 3 CLEAN
PLEASANT 3 2 0 2 3 UNPLEASANT
STRONG 3 2 0 2 3 WEAK
SMALL 3 2 0 2 3 LARGE
FAST 3 2 0 2 3 SLOW
DULL 3 2 0 2 3 SHARP
MEDICINE
SLOW 3 2 0 2 3 FAST
SHARP 3 2 0 2 3 DULL
UNPLEASANT 3 2 0 2 3 PLEASANT
CLEAN 3 2 0 2 3 DIRTY
WEAK 3 2 0 2 3 STRONG
SMALL 3 2 0 2 3 LARGE
AWFUL 3 2 0 2 3 NICE
BEAUTIFUL 3 2 0 2 3 UGLY
AMPHETAM
NICE 3 2 0 2 3 AWFUL
UGLY 3 2 0 2 3 BEAUTIFUL
DIRTY 3 2 0 2 3 CLEAN
PLEASANT 3 2 0 2 3 UNPLEASANT
STRONG 3 2 0 2 3 WEAK
SMALL 3 2 0 2 3 LARGE
FAST 3 2 0 2 3 SLOW
DULL 3 2 0 2 3 SHARP
N E S
BEER
SLOW 3 2 0 2 3 FAST
SHARP 3 2 0 2 3 DULL
UNPLEASANT
i
3 2 0 2 3 PLEASANT
CLEAN 3 2 0 2 3 DIRTY
WEAK 3 2 0 2 3 STRONG
SMALL 3 2 0 2 3 LARGE
| AWFUL 3 2 0 2 3 NICE
BEAUTIFUL 3 2 0 2 3 UGLY
MOST PEOPLE
NICE 3 2 0 2 3 AWFUL
UGLY 3 2 0 2 3 BEAUTIFUL
DIRTY 3 2 0 2 3 CLEAN
PLEASANT 3 2 0 2 3 UNPLEASANT
STRONG 3 2 0 2 3 WEAK
SMALL 3 2 0 2 3 LARGE
FAST 3 2 0 2 3 SLOW
DULL 3 2 0 2 3 SHARP
I
PICTURES
SLOW 3 2 0 2 3 FAST
SHARP 3 2 0 2 3 DULL
UNPLEASANT 3 2 0 2 3 PLEASANT
CLEAN 3 2 0 2 3 DIRTY
WEAK 3 2 0 2 3 STRONG
SMALL 3 2 0 2 3 LARGE
AWFUL 3 2 0 2 3 NICE
BEAUTIFUL 3 2 0 2 3 UGLY
I
1
I
i
DRUGS
NICE 3 2 0 2 3 AWFUL
UGLY 3 2 0 2 3 BEAUTIFUL
DIRTY 3 2 0 2 3 CLEAN
PLEASANT 3 2 0 2 3 UNPLEASANT
STRONG 3 2 0 2 3 WEAK
SMALL 3 2 0 2 3 LARGE
PAST 3 2 0 2 3 SLOW
DULL 3 2 0 2 3 SHARP
HIPPIES
SLOW 3 2 0 2 3 FAST
SHARP 3 2 0 2 3 DULL
UNPLEASANT 3 2 0 2 3 PLEASANT
CLEAN 3 2 0 2 3 DIRTY
WEAK 3 2 0 2 3 STRONG
SMALL 3 2 0 2 3 LARGE
AWFUL 3 2 0 2 3 NICE
BEAUTIFUL 3 2 0 2 3 UGLY
I
89
POLICE
NICE 3 2 0 2 3 AWFUL
UGLY 3 2 0 2 3 BEAUTIFUL
DIRTY 3 2 0 2 3 CLEAN
PLEASANT 3 2 0 2 3 UNPLEASANT
STRONG 3 2 0 2 3 WEAK
SMALL 3 2 0 2 3 LARGE
FAST 3 2 0 2 3 SLOW
DULL 3 2 0 2 3 SHARP
i
I
TEACHERS
SLOW 3 2 0 2 3 FAST
SHARP 3 2 0 2 3 DULL
UNPLEASANT 3 2 0 2 3 PLEASANT
CLEAN 3 2 0 2 3 DIRTY
WEAK 3 2 0 2 3 STRONG
SMALL 3 2 0 2 3 LARGE
AWFUL 3 2 0 2 3 NICE
BEAUTIFUL 3 2 0 2 3 UGLY
NICE 3 2 0 2 3 AWFUL
UGLY 3 2 0 2 3 BEAUTIFUL
DIRTY 3 2 0 2 3 CLEAN
PLEASANT 3 2 0 2 3 UNPLEASANT
STRONG 3 2 0 2 3 WEAK
SMALL 3 2 0 2 3 LARGE
PAST 3 2 0 2 3 SLOW
DULL 3 2 0 2 3 SHARP
MARIJUANA
SLOW 3 2 0 2 3 FAST
SHARP 3 2 0 2 3 DULL
UNPLEASANT 3 2 0 2 3 PLEASANT
CLEAN 3 2 0 2 3 DIRTY
WEAK 3 2 0 2 3 STRONG
SMALL 3 2 0 2 3 LARGE
AWFUL 3 2 0 2 3 NICE
BEAUTIFUL 3 2 0 2 3 UGLY
VACCINATIONS
NICE 3 2 0 2 3 AWFUL
UGLY 3 2 0 2 3 BEAUTIFUL
DIRTY 3 2 0 2 3 CLEAN
PLEASANT 3 2 0 2 3 UNPLEASANT
STRONG 3 2 0 2 3 WEAK
SMALL 3 2 0 2 3 LARGE
FAST 3 2 0 2 3 SLOW
DULL 3 2 0 2 3 SHARP
HOUSEWIFE
SLOW 3 2 1 0 2 3 FAST
SHARP 3 2 1 0 2 3 DULL
UNPLEASANT 3 2 1 0 2 3 PLEASANT
CLEAN 3 2 1 0 2 3 DIRTY
WEAK 3 2 I 0 2 3 STRONG
SMALL 3 2 1 0 2 3 LARGE
AWFUL 3 2 1 0 2 3 NICE
BEAUTIFUL 3 2 1 0 2 3 UGLY
I
92
QUESTIO NN AI RE
1. What is your sex?
male female
2. What is your age?
under 13 ____13 14 15 16 17 18
19 over 19
3, How many brothers and sisters do you have?
none; I was an only child one two three
four five six or more
4, To what racial group do you belong?
Caucasian Negro Oriental other
5, What is your parents' marital status?
married once remarried separated
divorced living with someone , widow
widower
6. What is your religious background?
Protestant Roman Catholic Jewish other
7. How religious do you consider yourself to be?
very somewhat slightly not at all
anti
8. What is y>ur political preference?
Republican Democrat Independent other
9. Would you describe your political views?
very liberal very conservative somewhat
liberal somewhat conservative moderate
10. What is your father's level of education?
grade school some graduate school high
school graduate Master1s degree some college
college graduate Ph.D., M.D. or other advanced
degree
I
111. What is your mother's level of education?
grade school high school graduate some
college college graduate some graduate school
Master1s degree Ph.D., ra.D. or other advanced
i
degree
12. What is your educational goal?
grade school high school graduate some
| college college graduate some graduate school
| Master's degree Ph.D., M.D. or other advanced
degree
13. What is the approximate annual income of your family?
less than $5,000 from $5,000-10,000 from
$10,000-15,000 from $15,000-25,000 from
j $25,000-50,000 over $50,000
j
jl4. What are your present living arrangements?
I with my family in a dormitory, shared dwelling
or apartment with others living alone (in room,
apartment or house)
15. What is your father's present occupation?
student Elem./H.S. teacher white-collar,
clerical, sales technician, craftsman, etc.
college professor or instructor business
manager or executive unemployed other
16. What is your mother's present occupation?
student Elem./H.S. teacher housewife
white-collar, clerical or sales technician,
craftsman, etc. college professor or instructor
business manager or executive unemployed
1 other
— — C.V
What is your occupational goal?
Elem./H.S. teacher housewife white-collar/
clerical or sales technician/ craftsman, etc.
college professor or instructor business
manager or executive other
95
STIMULUS MATERIALS
AA Impressionistic pencil drawing of youth's face (Look,
4-7-70, p. 58)
AB Abstraction of hand holding cigarette (UK)
AC Equipment or "works" used by narcotic addict (C. W.
Wilson, Ed., The Pharmacological and Epidemiological
Aspects of Adolescent Drug Abuse, oxford, Pergamon
Press, 1^68)
AD Hypodermic needle injected into arm (Wilson, Fig. 2)
AE Contents of girl's purse including hypodermic needle
(Today's Education, March, 1969 cover)
AF Spoon, candle, cylinder and what appears to be hypo
dermic needle on table (Engage, 10-1-69, p. 13)
AG Youth with hypodermic needle (not obvious) and acces
sories in car (Life, 2-20-70, p. 27)
AH Hand holding spoon over burning candle (Engage, 10-1-
69, p. 21)
AI Hypodermic needle superimposed on face of boy (Time,
3-16-70, cover)
AJ Youth preparing arm for injection (Life, 2-20-70,
p. 26)
AK Young man holding what appears to be hypodermic
needle (Engage, 10-1-69, p. 7)
AL Man injecting hypodermic needle into arm (Time,
3-16-70, p. 17)
AM Somewhat vague portrayal of person injecting self with
hypodermic needle (Engage, 10-1-69, p. 18)
AN Young woman with hypodermic needle in arm (Look,
4-7-70, p. 51)
AO Young man with hypodermic needle injected in hand
lighting a cigarette (Look, 4-7-70, p. 50)
AP Two men and a woman with hypodermic needles (Look,
4-7-70, p. 52)
96
AQ Two young men~one injecting self— the other holding
a stocking tourniquet (Look, 4-7-70, p. 49)
AR Youth injecting needle into arm (Look, 4-7-70, p. 47)
j AS Young woman holding hypodermic needle following a
"fix” (Look, 4-7-70, p. 48)
}
AT Picture of scarred veins on arm of addict (Wilson,
! fig. 9)
|
AU Picture of long dark veins on arm of addict (Wilson,
i fig. 10)
j
AV Picture of scarred veins on wrist of heroin addict
(Wilson, fig. 8)
AW Incised skin showing fresh hemorrhage around injected
vein (Wilson, fig. 7b)
AX High school youth carrying books. "Tracks" exposed
| on arm (Life, 2-20-70, p, 24)
i
AY Young male in apparently unconscious drugged state
with distorted scene of room with people above his
head (Signature,
|AZ Distorted portrayal of two males laying unconscious
in small room (Engage, 12-1-69, back cover)
BA Two males~one with long hair— seemingly troubled
! (Engage, 10-1-69, p. 29)
:BB Apparently nude individual in crowded position with
head in knees and arms around ankles (Engage, 10-1-69,
P. 17)
IBC Male and female on bench with boardwalk in foreground
and buildings in background (Engage, 10-1-69, cover)
|BD Young male killed by heroin overdose (Time, 3-16-70,
| pp. 18-19)
|BE Face of dead addict with excretions from mouth and
| nose (Wilson, fig. 6)
i
BF Arm of addict showing fresh needle puncture (Wilson,
fig. 7a)
BG Addict killed by heroin overdose (Wilson, fig. 3)
(same as BD)
BH Youth sitting in stands at a drag race— hands holding [
the back of his head (Life, 2-20-70, p. 30)
iBl White skeletal view of hand near saucer of pills— on
black (Valuator, Winter, 69-70, p. 40) j
;BJ Words: Drop pills; drop dead in white on black back-
! drop (Valuator, Winter, 69-70, p. 42)
j BK Several containers of prescription type pills on a
! table (Engage, 10-1-69, p. 10)
|BL Lung of dead heroin addict (Wilson, fig. 12)
BM Section showing phlegm and necrosis of skin and sub
cutaneous tissue of dead addict (Wilson, fig. 11)
BN Portrayal of bacteria on mitral valves (Wilson, fig.
11)
|BO Section of liver of narcotic addict (Wilson, fig. 15)
IBP Section of liver of addict showing hepatituB and
organ degeneration (Wilson, fig. 14)
BQ Section of lung of narcotic addict (Wilson, fig. 13)
BR Dead female addict with needle in vein (Wilson,
fig. 4)
IBS Scene of addict's thighs with numerous scars from
injections (Wilson, fig. 5)
I BT Impressionistic photo of boy with head tilted and eyes
closed (Engage, 10-1-67, p. 27)
I
IBU Four boys sniffing glue (not obvious) (Time, 3-16-70,
p. 25)
!BV Young woman injecting herself with male companion
watching (Saturday Review, 11-14-70, p. 19)
I
98
ORDER AND SEQUENCE OF STIMULUS MATERIALS BY VOLUME
PAGE VOLUME I VOLUME II VOLUME III
1 AA AA AA
2 BH BH BH
3 AX AX AX
4 BU BU BU
5 CA CA CA
6 BA BB BC
7 AJ AJ AJ
8 AI AI AI
9 AB AM AY
10 AZ BH BD
11 BK BT AX
12 AG AG AG
13 BU AH AF
14 BD BV AJ
15 AL AL AL
16 AI AG AE
17 AO AS AK
18 AN AO AS
19 AC AU AO
20 AD AT AN
21 AR AN AR
22 BQ
AV BS
23 BP AW BR
24 AQ AR AP
25 BF BM BO
26 BE BL BN
27 AP AQ AL
28 BG BD BD
TABLE 1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; AMPHETAMINES
Source df MS F-Ratio
Evaluative
Between Groups 3 0.2378 0.0886
Within Groups 64 2.6841
Potency
Between Groups 3 2.7978 1.4119
Within Groups 64 1.9816
Activity
Between Groups 3 2.0233 0.6294
Within Groups 64 3.2146
Multivariate Analysis
of Variance 24/166 1.0023
TABLE 2
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCES DRUGS
Source df MS F-Ratio
Evaluative
Between Groups 3 2.6225 0.9789
Within Groups 64 2.6789
Potency
Between Groups 3 1.0245 0.6020
Within Groups 64 1.7017
Activity
Between Groups 3 0.7353 0.2937
Within Groups 64 2.5037
Multivariate Analysis
of Variance 24/166 1.5098
101
TABLE 3
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: HEROIN
Source df MS F-Ratio
Evaluative
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
1.1594
0.9921
1.1686
Potency
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
5.5931
3.0818
1.8149
Activity
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
11.7839
3.2804
3.5923*
Multivariate Analysis
of Variance 24/166 1.5538
*p < .05
TABLE 4
EVALUATIONS OF BETWEEN
DIFFERENCES:
GROUP TEST SCORE
HEROIN
Source
q
Activity
E3 VS E2
4.38*
E1 vs E2
NS
*p < .05 Tiikey HSD
102
TABLE 5
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: MARIJUANA
Source df MS F-Ratio
Evaluative
Between Groups 3 3.2804 0.7840
Within Groups 64 4.1844
Potency
Between Groups 3 3.0853 1.2997
Within Groups 64 2.3739
Activity
Between Groups 3 1.3272 0.5205
Within Groups 64 2.5501
Multivariate Analysis
of Variance 24/166 0.7432
TABLE 6
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: BEER
Source df MS F-Ratio
Evaluative
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
1.0884
2.8664
0.3797
Potency
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
4.8958
1.4540
3.3671*
Activity
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
3.0625
2.7505
1.1135
Multivariate Analysis
of Variance 24/166 0.9939
*p < .05
TABLE 7
EVALUATIONS OF BETWEEN
DIFFERENCES:
GROUP TES1
BEER
' SCORE
Source
'
q
Potency
E1 vs E2
4.34*
*p < .05 Tukey HSD
TABLE 8
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: MEDICINE
Source df MS F-r Ratio
Evaluative
Between Groups 3 2.8827 1.9154
Within Groups 64 1.5050
Potency
Between Groups 3 3.9561 1.9520
Within Groups 64 2.0267
Activity
Between Groups 3 0.2059 0.0956
Within Groups 64 2.1539
Multivariate Analysis
of Variance 24/166 1.2482
TABLE 9
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: PICTURES
Source df MS F-Ratio
Evaluative
Between Groups 3 4.7334 2.4728
Within Groups 64 1.9142
Potency
Between Groups 3 2.7108 1.6588
Within Groups 64 1.6342
Activity
Between Groups 3 1.3664 0.9924
Within Groups 64 1.3768
Multivariate Analysis
of Variance 24/166 1.0846
TABLE 10
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: VACCINATIONS
Source df MS F-Ratio
Evaluative
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
0.3237
2.1477
0.1507
Potency
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
2.5429
1.4324
1.7752
Activity
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
2.6899
2.1650
1.2425
Multivariate Analysis
of Variance 24/166 1.5077
TABLE 11
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: ME
Source df MS F-Ratio
Evaluative
Between Groups 3 0.2059 0.2719
Within Groups 64 0.7571
Potency
Between Groups 3 3.1274 1.7558
Within Groups 64 1.7812
Activity
Between Groups 3 0.3860 0.2973
Within Groups 64 1.2983
Multivariate Analysis
of Variance 24/166 1.0761
TABLE 12
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: MOST PEOPLE
Source df MS F-Ratio
Evaluative
Between Groups 3 0.6378 0.3833
Within Groups 64 1.6639
Potency
Between Groups 3 1.5649 1.0460
Within Groups 64 1.4961
Activity
Between Groups 3 0.7892 0.5299
Within Groups 64 1.4894
Multivariate Analysis
of Variance 24/166 0.7126
109
i
!
j
!
i
t
TABLE 13
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: HIPPIES
Source df MS F-Ratio
Evaluative
Between Groups
| Within Groups
3
64
8.1833
1.8353
4.4589*
Potency
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
2.4154
1.3185
1.8320
Activity
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
5.1667
1.7362
2.9758*
Multivariate Analysis
of Variance 24/166 1.2008
*p < .05
'
TABLE 14
EVALUATIONS OP BETWEEN GROUP TEST SCORE
DIFFERENCES s HIPPIES
Source
q
Evaluative
C vs Eo 5.15*
C VS
E1
NS
Ei
vs
E2
NS
E3
vs
E2
NS
C vs
E2
NS
E3
vs
E1
NS
E3
vs
E2
NS
Activity
E, vs
E1
NS
E3
vs C NS
E3
vs
E2
NS
*p < .05 Tukey HSD
TABLE 15
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: HOUSEWIFE
Source df MS F-Ratio
Evaluative
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
1.8075
1.4499
1.2466
Potency
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
0.3382
1.9251
0.1757
Activity
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
0.6213
2.5597
0.2427
Multivariate Analysis
of Variance 24/166 1.0073
TABLE 16
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: POLICE
Source df MS F-Ratio
Evaluative
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
1.6240
1.6512
0.9835
Potency
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
1.4229
1.0428
1.3645
Activity
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
0.3076
1.4577
0.2110
Multivariate Analysis
of Variance 24/166 0.9149
TABLE 17
ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE; TEACHERS
Source df MS P-Ratio
Evaluative
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
1.0616
0.7552
1.4057
Potency
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
0.7500
1.5869
0.4726
Activity
Between Groups
Within Groups
3
64
1.5429
2.8506
0.5412
Multivariate Analysis
of Variance 24/166 1.0197

Asset Metadata

Creator Fisher, Donald Clive (author)

Core Title Experimenter Effects In The Verbal Conditioning Of Adolescents' Responsestoward Drugs

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Dembo, Myron H. (committee chair), Ofman, William V. (committee member), Robb, J. Wesley (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-539518

Unique identifier UC11362492

Identifier 7203772.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-539518 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7203772

Dmrecord 539518

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Fisher, Donald Clive

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