EFFECTS OF IBAZ8S At® BSFEOOF OH DXQXT-31MBGL

TASK FEfiFCRHAKC2 OF IKSTITUTXOHALIZSD

A ® iO»-X®fIfOTIO&SJLK® C1IHJ1II

AFFSOfEDi

£ fas! U 7^ crr^J^

tjoar FrQtmm&T '

EFFECTS OF PRAISE A ® BEFROOP OK DIGIT-SYMBOL

TASK PEHFORMANCE OP INSTITUTIONALIZED

AND N0N«»IKSTITUTI0NALIZED CHILDREN

mm is

Presented to the Grata*te Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

mstm or SCIENCE

%

David Earl Groom, B. S»

Denton, Texas

August, 1968

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pag®

LIST OP TABLES . lv

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS •

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . 1

Statement of the Problem Hypotheses Belated Studies Definition of Terms Limitations of the Study

II. METHOD 23

Subjects Experimental Design Tmk Procedure

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 33

Results • Discussion

IV. SUMMARY» CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . .^2

Sumsiary Conclusions Becommendatlons

APPENDIX A * M

APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .^9

BIBLIOGRAPHY . 53

111

f tarn fiAW JU A U* JLJm JB/wJOSSI

Table Page

1, Means and Standard Deviations of Total Responses 3%

II. Sttwaary of the Nature of Belnforoeaent X Type of Home Analysis of variance . . . . . 3^

III. law Scores and Mean* of the Praised Dependent Children 49

IT, Baw Scores and Moans of the Reproved Dependent Children . 50

V, law Scores and Mean* of the Pzmleed Horn®! Children 51

VI» Raw Scores and Means of the Beproved Nonsal Children 52

1 v

LIST OF IIXOSTBATXOKS

Figure Bag®

1, Bittern of Mean Scores for Nature of H®lnforoem«nt by Type ©f HOB® 3?

CBAPTSa I

IJSTS0D0CII08

A large portion of tli® psyohologioal research has, for

inn/ yaars# dealt with the role of reinforcement in perform-

ance arid learning, numerous experimental articles have b««n

written dealing with «uoh sublets ac motivation, implioit or

explicit lerela of aspiration, of foots of «uoo««s and failure,

effeots of praise and raparoof» ato. In spit* of the apparent

dissimilarity in subject natter, much of the reaearoh has

been oonoeraed with the aame basic question» which conditions

of reinforoement will alioit desired results most effectively

fro* a pacified groups or individuals?

Purthansor#, thaoriata and rasaarohara have concentrated

not only on tha affaota of rainforoara tut alto on tha payoho*

logical determinants involved in processes of behavioral

ohange, Ona of tha first reinforcement theorists was Thorndlke*

Hia original "law of effect" baaioally etated that whan a sat~

lsfylng state of affairs (£•£»• a positive reinforcement or

reward} followad soma response, a bond between tha stimulus

and tha response « i formed and baoau® strengthened aa tha

oonneotion waa reourrlngly rewarded. Tha mixta of this oon-

naotion mm possible with noxious or annoying stimuli. later,

after txtenslv® research with human learning, Tfcorndlke mod-

ified his theory to include only tha positiva aapaota of rein-

forcement <lfc, p* 119) •

1

Thorndike*s basio "law of #ff«®iw haul been the mbjaat

of rnah wmtmvwmyt nonetheless* it Ims parasatad educational

and. ohild «arearlng philosophies in foroe today* This influenoe

by Thorndike mis pointed out by Tolaan (!%•# p. 125) when ht

stated that the psychology ©f ehlld learning* as well as ani~

m l learning* 1* a astter of agreeing or disagreeing with

fhorndike* w©r trying In ®in©r w&ys t© improve upon hia«"

Kor© recently* studios ©o»©eraing the effects of verbal

reinforcement have b«©©»® increasingly popular. Host of

these studies (to bo oitod In another seotion of this paper)

have found praise to bo aost influential in promoting favor-

able perforsanoe and learning, However. Hotter (15* P* 213)

suggetted. that personalities and soolal laming played tre-

mendous rolas in determining tba effectiveness of one for* of

rainforeanant o m another• Hence, a ohild who oftan received

praisa expected to succeed* so suocess and pmis® did not

necessarily alata hi* or proacte greater efforts* Critieisa*

however* wis aoMwtet anxietyi-parevoklng to the usually sue*

cessful ohild and ha strove mm hard®* to succeed and reoap*

tare his foraer position. Conversely* tha ohild who exper-

ionoad a groat doal of failura or oritlolsn* and who expected

to fail* was not necessarily aoved to ineraaso his afforta

•when reproved* Whan praised or when given tha Ida* of succeed-

ing* however* such a ohild often pat forth the extra effort

to eontinue reoeiving praise*

Statement of the Problem

The problem of the present study m s to Investigate the

effeots of verbal praise and reproof on digit-syabol task

performances of two groups of children* The experimental

group was oomposed of children living in a oounty hone for

dependent and neglected children in a large, southwestern

city. The oontrol group of ohlldren MM from a similar

socioeconomic tsielcground* The members of the oontrol group,

however* although living In the ©as© local© as the exper-

imental group* resided in private homes with their own families*

Hypotheses

The following tare© hypotheses were tested in the pre*

sent stodyi

Hypothesis --There would be no significant dlfferenoes

between mean digit-symbol scores of those children in the

experimental group and those in the oontrol group*

Hypothesis £*—Children in both groups who were praised

verbally during the task would have significantly higher aean

digit-symbol scores than those children of both groups who

were verbally reproved during the task.

Hypothesis 2*—there would be a significant interaction

effect between the nature of the relnforoeaent and the type

of hows on digit-symbol performance* Specifically* depend-

ent children* when praised* should have significantly higher

SWA dlglt~syabol soores than praised children in the control

group* furthermore, children living with their faallles

should have significantly higher mean digit-symbol soores

when reproved than reproved ohlldren In the experimental

group. Praised ohlldren from both group*. In accordance with

Hypothesis 2, should have significantly higher mean digit*

sysbol scores than reproved ohlldren.

Belated Studies

A review of the literature revealed, as noted above,

studies under several different headings* all tesloally

related to the saa* subject* For the purposes of the present

study, related data will be presented in three sections*

<a) studies related to the effects of praise and reproofi

(b) data related to levels of aspiration and success and

failure} and (c) data related to variables which contribute

to group or individual differences in performance.

Studies Belated to the Effects Z s H E W a a s Z

Cne of the earliest formal studies concerning the effect#

of praise and reproof was conducted by ailchrlst <8)« Inter*

ested in the unconscious praising or reproving of students

by teachers, Gilchrist set out to experimentally quantify his

suspicions and thus bring to the attention of his colleagues

a situation he felt most of the* Ignored* In his experiment*

Cllehrlst administered the Courtis gmllah Teat jVB to a group

of fifty oollege students? this group was then randomly split

into two separate groups for a second administration of the

same! test. Safer® the second trial. Group A was raporoved

for poor performance and Group B was praised. The result,

a seventy-nine par cent increase in performance for the

praised students (as opposed to "no change" under the reproof

oondltlon), mo Interpreted lay Gilchrist as due solely to the

different environments of the students prior to the second

trial*

Gates and Blssland (?), using two unrelated tasks,

attempted to verify the findings of Gllohrlst. Eaoh of

seventy-four college students was given two trials eaoh on

«otoy Cofffidfr| lQfi (Thyae Hol«> 22S* ***1 the Color Raalng

Test, The tests |were administered Individually, The first

subject was praised, the second reproved, and the third

received no reinforcements then the same cycle began again.

The findings, however, were not as spectacular as those

reported by Gilchrist, but again, praise was found to be

superior to reproof In Improving performance. Gate® and

Rlssland also reported, again In contrast to Gllohrlst, that

reproof also improved performance, as did (but to a lesser

degree) no reinforcement at all* On the basis of the evidence !

Gates and Rlssland concluded (a) that it was better to aak®

some comment about the score than none at all, (b) that it

m s a little better to make a positive statement rather than

a negative one, and (o) that relatively poor individuals were

sore likely to be unfavorable affected by discouragement than

were the relatively proficient individuals.

In an experiment by Hurlook (11), four equated groups of

grade school children practiced addition under four different

Incentive conditions, A control group worked in a separate

room after the first testing session, while the other three

groups worked together in the same rooa. For fire days, one

group was praised dally in front of the olass while another

group was reproved daily} the third group was ignored.

Hurlock's data demonstrated the overall significant benefit of

praise, and the fact that reproof loses some of its impact if

prolonged• On further analysis utilizing previously obtained

XQ scores, Hurlock found that while her Intellectually average

and below-average groups improved their performance with praise,

the above-average group benefited more when reproved.

Wood (23) investigated the effeots of praise and reproof

on a learning task involving nonsense syllables• Three

groups of college students were matched for Bex, intelligence,

and ohronologioal age. Each student was given two trials to

memorize a list of syllables, with praise, reproof, and neutral

reinforcements given between trials* In this study, reproof

was more beneficial to performance than praise, with neutral

instructions being least beneficial,

Brenner (3) designed an experiment to determine the

effects of immediate and delayed praise and reproof, using

six groups of third grade children. Shown a list of words

for four minutes, the children were allowed two additional

minutes to write down all they could remember. The immediate

praise and reproof groups were reinforced immediately after

the trial, while the delayed praise and reproof group* were

reinforced the next day. A control group for each condition

received no reinforcement* After eight dally repetitions of

the procedure, the pralssd and rsproved groups showed Initial

gain in performance followed by a deollne. This decline

appeared first with groups under delayed reinforcement and

then in the immediate reinforcement groupsj the oontrol groups

showed a deollne in performance, with no gain at all*

?orlano and Axelrod (5) used three groups of fifth grade

school children with the Cancellation

Test. After a two-alnute performance p@rlo4, two of the

groups received grades of either "good" or "bad*, with the

control group receiving no grade* At the end of three two-

minute trials* reproof wm found t© have a greater effect on

improving performance than either the praise or the neutral

condition.

Thompson and Hunnlcutt (21), also using a cancellation

task with fifth grade school children, found praise and

reproof both to be slgnlfioantly mm beneficial in Improving

work output than neutral reinforcement) there was, however,

no overall difference between the effectiveness of the pralss

and the reproof conditions.

The effect of verbal discouragement on Intelligence test

performance was Investigated by Gordon and Durea (9). They

first administered rom.X of the 1937 revision of the Stanford-

SlSi Isltmmff. two group® of third grade school

8

childreni then, at a later date, both group® were retested

with Pora M. one group under conditions ©f dlscouragajsest

and the other group under noraal teating conditions* findings

indicated that discouraged ohlldran vara significantly

affeoted during tha second tasting in a downward direction,

SuiaaariElng tha above stadias related to tha effects of

praise and reproof* it has beam deixmstrated that, in general,

the aost popular oeneept of reinforceaent has bean supportedi

tha superiority of positive relnforoeoent over other

form available.

The najorlty of tha studies cited (f$ 8, 9* 11) support

such a ooncluslon while two studies <3, 21} found variations

in the effeets or no dlffaranoas between praise aM reproof

eoMltiors®. Heproo? as an effeotive means of altaring buimv*

lor In a favorable manner was also reported in two of the

studies (5, 23).

Since the present study was eoneemed not only with the

nature of relnforoeaent, but also with certain soolal and

envlrotinental aspects of behavior awl. change# studies related

to levels of aspiration and to suooass and failure were con-

sidered significant. As will be seen, social background has

considerable influence on level of aspiration, as does real

or peroelved success or failure, Sence, any factors which

«ay be Interpreted by an individual as positive or negative

relnforeeaent oay affect his performance.

Data Belated to Levels of Aspiration and Success a3Tfailure

One source of such emotional difficulty in the child of

the middle grades is the setting of standards of achievement

which are beyond his competency to attain. Some of these

are set by the parents or teacheis, while the child sets others*

Whether or not he sets goals below his capacity, or whether

his expectancy of performance is too high for his ability,

will depend upon many factors. In general* success has been

shown to raise the level of aspiration* while failure tends

to lower the ohlld's ability to produce (13, p. 333).

Fundamentally* all aspiration level studies and exper-

iments are based on a combination of factors basic to all

people. These factors are the results of economic, social,

and psychological conditions with which one is surrounded and

which create for the individual a frame of reference for goals

to which he learns to aspire.

Atkinson Cl) differentiated between achievement motiva-

tion and achievement anxiety, le stated that although both

are anxiety producing from the competitive standpoint and

both operate in the same person* some people work to achieve

success* and the desire for success is greater than the fear

of failurei however* these people usually have a great

respect for the possibility of failure* which they recognize

exists. On the other hand, there are those who work to avoid

failure* followed by a desire for greater success and

10

recognition* The former description characterizes aohleveaent

motivation, while the latter 1® descriptive of achievement

anxiety,

A study by Prank (6) agreed basically with the conclusions

of a later study by the Lewlnian group (13, p. 33k)• That ls»

variations In level of aspiration behavior nay be due to three

factors: specifically, (a) the need to seek sucoessi (b) the

need to avoid failurei and (o) the need to keep in touch with

reality. The last factor ms called the "cognitive factor of

probability judgement" by Lewin et al.

In a study conducted by Sullivan (20) to determine the

Interfering effects of previous failure, two series of eight

nonsense syllables each were administered to fifteen- and

sixteen-year-old subjects, When success Instructions were

given between series, there km a decrease in the time taken

to learn the second series. Failure instructions, however,

resulted in increased time requirements for learning the

second series. Success instructions were thus significantly

aore effective for altering learning tlae favorably than

were failure Instructions.

Sears {19) designed a card sorting task to create a

competitive feeling among the twenty college students used

as subjects. Half of the subjects were allowed to succeed

while the other half were forced to experience failure.

Before and after the card sorting, a series of nonsense

syllables was learned to measure the interfering effects of

11

the success and failure experiences, It was reported that

students succeeding on the card sorting task require! signif-

icantly less time to learn the syllables than these who had

failed at the task*

Davids and Vhita {*) investigated the effects of success,

failure, and social facilitation on tha Isvel of aspiration

of enotlonally disturbed and normal children* They designed

a cancellation experiment which provided m m m r m of perform-

ance, level of aspiration, and lateneiea of response in stating

level of aspiration. Primarily, they found tha following!

1. The initial lerel of aspiration* without experience

in the experimental situation, was higher in the disturbed

group, awl there was no difference in the initial response

latencies of the two groups,

2. Both groups improved on the second task but the

mmm! group scores w»r® significantly higher,

3. Prior to the failure trial, the two groups did not

differ significantly in response latencies, whereas after

the failure, the disturbed subjects were significantly slower

in stating their levels of aspiration,

*>. Within the disturbed group, a significant correlation

was found between the children's levels of aspiration and

their relative standings on general ©actional adjustment as

on experienced clinical evaluations. It was oonoluded that

subjects who were Judged to be relatively better adjusted

tended to show higher levels of aspiration in this expert~

mental situation.

12

In suwaary, It has been suggested and demonstrated that

suooess facilitates perforaanoe while failure lower* produc-

tivity <4, 13, 19, 20). The results of one study W sug-

gested that emotional disturbances Inorease sensitivity to

failure, resulting in lowered levels of aspiration and deoreased

perforaanoe. Other studies (fc, 19) suggested that feelings of

failure nay also interfere with the performance of separate

and unrelated tasks,

Data Related to Variably Which Contribute .f», Group <ay XMliMual Dlffigenoes In Ptrfori&aoe

The observations sade by Hotter (15. p. 213). eited

earlier, pointed up the iwportanee of the sooial, and often

IntroJeoted, expectancies pertaining to a child*s suooesses

or failures In various capacities* That is, the children

wh© haw experienced frequent success expected to succeed,

whereas frequent failures often led to continuing expecta-

tions of failure, XeQfcndless (6, p» 5 W stated, .the

aohleveaumt aotlve should be highest In the middle class,

lowest in the lower-lower class, and perhaps about the ease

for the upper-lower and the upper classes,n and school

learning anxiety should be highest for the middle-class

children# due to an interaction between their actives, paren-

tal lore or psychologically oriented punishment or control

techniques, and self-punlshaent for failure to do well: and

lowest for lower-lower-class youngsters. Upper-lower- and

upper-class children should be aligned somewhere in between."

13

Thus* lower-class children ar® not well aotlvated to

suooeed nor especially anxious about their failures* The

development of suoh attitudes Is mm readily understood

when considering what Blair and Burton (2, p. 123) sxpressedt

"The lower class ehlld learns in the very early grades that

It Is not only his parents and their friends who do not

expect him to *go far* In school* His teaoher shares the

same belief*" Suoh beliefs and expeotatlons, however, are

not Halted to the school situation but often begin mob

earlier and are generalised to most faeets of the child's

life* When the ohlld has not been able to for» uaisy of the

parental ties or psychological controls such as those swm-

tloned by KoCtndless <6, p# 5 3)# the effects nay be grossly

magnified.

soste studies closely related to the development of

negative attitudes toward achievement and expectations, suoh

as aental set, the operating fraae of reference, and severity

of esaotlonal ptroblexas, if any, have been cited earlier 6,

13).

A review of the lit@ra.tur® showed that tm®h research has

been oarried on with suoh variables as social class, age,

intelligence, and degree and nature of reinforcement. The

results, however, have often been conflicting.

For example, the study conduoted by Hurlook (11), cited

earlier, found that while average and Inferior lntelligenoe

groups improved their perforxaance when praised, the above

Ik

average group benefited sore when reproved. A later study,

however, oondueted toy Kennedy, Turner, and Lindner (12),

found reproof to have a varying bat strongly inhibiting effect

on the perforaanoe of intellectually «mig« high school

students, for the intellectually above-average students

there mm no significant difference between the effects of

praise and reproof.

A later experiaent, designed by Willeutt and Kennedy (22),

separated ninety upper-lower and lower-middle olass fourth**

grade children, aged nine to 11 years, into three IQ groups,

71-90, 91-110* and 111-130* IQ scores were deterained

adainistration of either the Weohsler Intelligence Soale for

SftU&Mtt or Scale, Porn L-M.

%teh of the three IQ groups was then subdivided. into three

incentive groups: praise, reproof, and neutral reinforoeaent.

The task involved rapid identification of diesiailar patterns

when presented four at a tine* reinforoeaent was delivered

between trials. The results indicated that the children*

regardless of intellectual level, all responded to praise

with an inorease in perforaanoe. However, the variability of

subject response to reproof, found in the Kennedy, Turner,

and tindner study (12), ms also evident in this study.

Thus, in both studies (12, 22}, reproof introduoed a break-

down in response stability.

Zigler and Xanaesr (24) designed an experiment in which

two types of verbal reinforcers were administered to middle-

IS

and lower-class children bottwmm trials of a •lapis perform-

ance task. All aubjaats wars itaaltS m chronological aft and

thi ralaforoars asptoaslssd pnlit, such as "good" and *fiaa,"

and oorractnsas, m m m "right" or "oorraot." A significant

interaction m e found batwaan typa of ralnforoar And toelo*

soonoadc olass. Specifically, pralsa rslnforcara wore nor*

aff active than tha oorraot ralaforosrs with lowsr-claas

children, while oorraot ralnforoaasnt worlcod aora favorably

with tha aiddla-alass ohildrsn. Disregarding poaBible racial

diffsranoas (aost lower-class ohlldran wart Segross)» Zigler

mod Xftnsav staggestud that lowar-olass ohlldran are &«vel©pa®*i»

tally retarded in relation to alddle~olass children t this Inter*

pratatlon mm fe&saft on tha assuaptlon that oorraot rattsforoer®

are mom abstract and sow directed to tha perforaanoa than

to the perfowwr, to that responsiveness to than requires

greater naturlty,

Tha aaturlty hypothesis advanced by Zlgler and Kanter |t%)

*M not supported In a later study % Rosenhan and Greetwald

(18) • Results of a aaoond experlnent in tha sane study (18),

however, suggested that. In growing older, ohlldran bee©»a

mora ssnsitlve to a wider mug© of reinf oraara» particularly

tha nor® abstract* at tha saoa tias, thara appears to be no

significant decline In tha responsiveness to concrete rein-

forcers •

Rosenhan and Cfcraatmald (18) also ooatrolled socio-

economic stasis to distinguish Its affaots from thosa of race

16

and sex, Three group* were formed on the basis of the fathers'

occupations, each group composed of equal lumbers of boys

and girlsj lower-daes whits, lower-class Kegro, and middle-

class whit#. It m i fou»& that there were m significant sex

or race differences in responsiveness to the two classes of

reinforcement.

One very pertinent study by Patterson (1?) used popula~

tlons eirallar to those of the present stody to wmmire gains

In penoml and soolal adjustment over a tlx month period for

both groups. The assumption of the study was that Institutions

ear, be ©or® than Just earetafcers of children and that real

gains? mn be noted if the children receive a dynamic program

of ear#, supervision* and control, The experimental group

(dependent children) In fattewon1® study made significant

gains over the oontrol group (children living in their own

tones) in all areas measured: California Achievement .Test.

scores, mental health test seores* attitudes assured by the

& iBsiisE m&*

In summary, anteh of the literature suggested significant

variables in regard to the effeots of praise and reproof to

be intelligence <11, 12, 22), socioeconomic olass (2, 15,

16, 18, 22, 24), and age (18, 24), Emotional and other

psychological faotors ii&ir® also been found to fee significantly

related to responsiveness (4, 6, 13). such faotors as raoe

snd seat have been found to be nonsignificant when considered

as separate entities (18). Pstterson (1?) demonstrated with

1?

his study that effeotive programs mm be iaplenented In

Institution* with significant results in adjustnent patterns

of Xower sooioeoonos&o level ohiidren#

The present study was designed to determine whether lower

sooioeoonoaio class ohildren, who have experienced domestic

and aaotional upheaval severe enough to Imm been identified*

react differently to f « M praise or reproof than do ohlXdren

of the nsi social class who H I or ©ay not have axperltnosiS

similar disturbances+

forssulatlons of the three hypotheses for the present

study war® based upon several asmagytloiia* Tin® assumptions

raXatad to Sypotheais 1 oonoeraed the selection of subjects

for Inclusion in the studys spcclfloaXXy, it was asstused that

there wouM be m significant diffaranoas between mmn digit*

syabol sooras of the two types of hoaas if aXX subjects ware

siailar in cultural nsd sooioeoonoaio backgrounds*

Hypothesis 1 urns based on tfee assumption that praise

would be the mm favorable torn of rmlntormmmt for child-

ren from both type# of hoses* Thus* it was assume that

praised children from both groups would wort harder for eon-

tinned • praise than reproved children «on3A for efforts whieh were

less XikeXy to be praised in the future sinoa they ware not

prevlousXy*

The interaction effeot included in Hypothesis 3 was based

on the assumption that dependent children, due partlaXXy1 to

their disrupted family background® and emotional needs* would

18

be slgnlfloantly mm rmmptlr® to praiae as a favorable form

of reinforeenent than would children living: in their oim

hemes. It m a further aaeuned that dependant children would

reaot significantly acre unfavorably, or bo aore easily 4i«*

eo«mg®4, when reproved than would ohildren In the control

group* Following these assumptions# a descending i@tl« of

responaivttieaa to verbal ralnforcaaaat night be suggested as

followsi praiaed dependent ohildren, praised normal ohildren,

reproved noraal ohildren, and reproved dependent children*

Definition of Tens*

Sgperlawntal ffiffil.—This term refered to children from

the lower soeioeoonoalo levels, as described % Bolllngshead

and Bedliok (10) In olaas ? of the *ia4« of sooial position*"

They had boon placed in * county children's home for various

raaaona and had been in the bona for at least two weeks

before being tented for tills these children are also.

referred to in this piper as "dependent" or "institutionalised" /

ohlldran.

Control «roug»»*fhl8 tar* also refared to lower aoelo*

aoonomie level ©hildren, as described by Bolllngshead and

Bedllok (10) in olaas ¥ of tha "Index of aooial position#«

These children war® oontaotad through thair attendance of

weekly recreation nights sponsored for lower aooioaoonoaio

level children by a large Southern Baptist Church* Thaaa

19

children mm referrei to In this paper as "normal" or "non~

institutionalised" children.

"Inaw a£ sootal saaiSlffi."—'»1» two wan used by

Holllngshead and Hedlick (10) to describe families according

to social strata. Class V of this index inoluded families

In whioh ths parents had lass than a grade~school education,

worked in seal-skilled or unskilled positions, m& lived In

deprived sections of large cities#

DlflAt>sy»bol ta®1s.~«»Thls term referred to a tMk which

required the subject to reoognlise speolflc diglt»#y»b©l «#»-

binatlons as they appeared In a key, awl to supply the proper

symbols for their respective digits as they appeared in the

boxes below the leey#

Limitations of the Study

1, This study was limited to two groups of ohildren, one

living in a county home for at least two weeks, Hie second

group of children lived in their own hoses and attended a

weekly recreation night sponsored by a Baptist Church*

2* This study was liaited to children who live in the

area of the suae large southwestern city and who attend

elementary grades in the same public school system,

3. This study was Halted to children between the ages

of nine to thirteen years. Inclusive#

U. This study was United to ohildren whose families

were of the lower socioeconomic level, a® described by

Holllngshead's "index of social position,M olass V#

CHAPTEB BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Atkinson, J. V.t "Motivational Determinants of Bisk* faking Behavior,». 1 X 7 1

(November, 195?)# 359-372.

2. Blair, Arthur W. and W. I. Burton, Growth apd Development of the Preadolescent. New Xotic7Appleton*Century-Crofts, Inc., 1951*

3. Brenner, B«, "Bffeot of Immediate and Delayed Praise and Beproof Upon learning and Recall," Teaohers College Co^trlbatlon Education, VII (December, I f W .

Davids, Am and A, A. White, "Effects of Success, Failure, and Social Paollitation on Level of Aspiration in Emotionally Disturbed and Normal Children," Journal of Personality, XXVI <March, 1958), 77-93.

5. Forlano, George and Hyman G# Axelrod, "The Bffeot of Bepeated Praise or Haae on the Performance of Introverts and Extroverts," Journal of Educational Psychology. XXVIII (Pebruary, 1937). 923lo3.

Prank, Jerome D., "Some Psychological Determinants of Level of Aspiration," , XLVII (April, 1935). 2 Level of Aspiration,n American Journal of Psyoholoi

7. Gates, Georglna S. and Louise Rlssiand, 11 The Effect of Encouragement and of Discouragement Upon Performance," Journal of Educational P^ych^l^gy, XIV (January, X923T» 21~26#

8. Gilohrlst, Edward P., "The Extent to Which Praise and Beproof Affect a Pupil*s Work," School and Society. IV (November, 1916), 8?2-8?k.

9. Gordon, L. V, and M. A* Durea, "The Effect of Discour-agement on the Bevlsed Stanford-Binet Scale," Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology. LXXIII (Deceaber, 19*^7. 201^207.

10. Holllngshead, A. and F. C. Redllck, "Social Stratification and Psychiatric Disorders," American Sociological Review. XVIII (April, 1953)• 163-169«

20

21

2.1* Rurlock, Elizabeth 1., "An Evaluation of Certain Incentives Osed In School Work." Journal of Sduoatlonal Psychology. XVI (March, 192$), lb5:tW*

12. Kennedy, Wallace A., A. J, Turner, and E. Lindner, "Effectiveness of Praise and Blaae as a Function of

Uuguit^l^ll) Pfj|!f|fX — ^ t 9 T 9klll<>> x v

13. Lewin, K., T, Dembo, L. Festlnger, and P, Sears, "levels of Asp edited

l6»

14. Jfarr, Kelvin 1. and William A. Billix, 3: Qgy. Mew Xork

A. Billix, Systems §g& Theories , McGraw-Hill Book Company,

15. KoCandless, Boyd 1., Children and Adolescents. Hew York, Holt, Rlnehart, and Winston, Inc., 1961•

M eA., . 1967.

17* Patterson, Nelton D,, "A Comparison of Change® In Several Psychological Measure® for Lower Soelo-Economic Children, Living In a Children's Hoae and Living in Their O m loses»H unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, North Texas State University, 1967.

13, Rosenhan, David and Jean Greenwald, "The Effects of Age, Sex, and Socioeconomic Class on Responsiveness to Two Classes of Verbal Reinforcement." Journal of Personality. XXXIII (Maroh, 1965), 108II5T: '

19. Sears, Robert R., "Initiation of the Repression Sequence % Experienced Failure, •* Journal of Experimental Psychology. XX (June, 193?)7570-5^0.

20. Sullivan, Bdward B., "Attitude in Relation to Learning,R

X30CVI (January, 1927),

21. Thoapson, George G. and Clarenoe W. Honnloutt, "The Effect of Repeated Praise and Hame on the Work Achievement of * Introverts» and •Extroverts,*" Journal of Educational .Psychology, XXXV (May, 1 9 W , 25?-266»

22

22. Willoutt, Henmn C, and Wallace C. Kennedy, "Relation of Intelligence to Effectiveness of Praiae and Reproof as Reinforoers for Fourth-Graders," Perceptual and Motor Skills. XVII (December, 1963)• 695-6^7.

23, Wood, Theodore V., "The Effmt of Approbation and Reproof on the Mastery of Nonsense Syllables," Journal of Applied Psychology. XVIII (October, 193^) •

2*>. Zigler, Blward and Paul Kanzer, "The Effectiveness of Two Kinds of Verbal Reinforoers on the Perfor&ance of Hiddle~ and Lower-dmas Children," Journal gf Personality« XXX (June, 1962), 157-163*

CHAPTSg II

mmm

Subjects

fh® experimental group mm composed of nineteen wmlm

and eleven female® (M • $0} from the lower i©

level as desorlbed bgr i@ili»®tii®#d*« olass v of the "index

of sooial position* (1)* The subjects ranged ia chronological

age froa nine years ©tie month (9-1) to thirteen year® t m

months (13-10)t HAS ohroaologloal Ago was 12-6* Measurable

XQfs for the experimental group ranged from 7^ to 10? # with

<1 MAS 1Q of 85,07. IQ scores were obtained from either the

results on the California Test gf Mental Haturltef CSteort Form)

or from soores on the i960 Revision of tho 8tiyfoapd*MaMit

Inflllwmo a2ti£. £aa £=!• *"• o M M w n in the «P«rt-

mental group had been placed ia a eowaty Home for Dependent

Children by the courts duo to suoh reasons as neglect or

abandonment by parents, truancy, etc. Patterson (2) compre-

hensively -described the setting of the home, its pr&gmm

and goals, in his study. Basically, the home provided a

relatively stable environment whore personal and sooial

adjmatffiouts, or the likelihood of suoh adjustments, were

neatly enhaneed. Periodic sooiometrie and mental health

studies were made to w»siire th# gains rnde by aaeh child in

various areas* Attendance at school and study hall periods

23

2k

was required, and various duties, such as cleaning tablet or

sweeping, were assigned to the children on a weekly "basis.

The children also had dally recreational periods and, on

weekends, were often allowed to visit their families or to

tale part in home-sponsored activities such as raovleg, horse-

back riding, and tours. Group therapy and personal counseling

sessions were also available to the children, The average

length of time spent by a child at the home may vary from

nine to fifteen month®$ some children may* however, stay

several yean,

•She children used at subjects In the experimental group

for the present study were quite similar to those in Batter-

son's study (2)i Indeed, some of the children aay have served

in both studies. There were no serious delinquency problems

Included In the sample*

The control group wai alio composed of lower socio-

economic level children, as above. The children attended a

recreation period sponsored weekly by a large Southern Baptist

Church in the city where the Home for Dependent Children was

located. This sample Included fourteen males and sixteen

females (N « 30). The subject® ranged In chronological age

from nine years one month (9-1) to thirteen years three months

(13-3)J aean chronological age was 12-?. Measurable IQ*s for

the control group ranged from ?3 to 110, with a mean XQ of

87«31. IQ scores were obtained from school records of results

on the California Test for Mental Maturity (Short Form).

25

These ohildren were etseistlslly liie the dependent ohildren

except that they lived In their own homes with their partet«

or other relatives. The term %oraal children" « u applied

only to the physical home settings of the oontrol group and

did not imply any mental, moral, or emotional differences

whioh suggest mutually exclusive groupe. The ohildren in the

oontrol group attended the sane public sohool system as that

of the experimental group* Any problem of delinquency in

the oontrol group were not evident during the selection and

testing periods.

Due to the randomisation prooess, to be explained later

in this ohapter, there were no efforts to actively oontrol

racial# sex, or ethnic differences in either group for the

purpose of the present study. Subjects of both groups were

selected on the basis of availability, according to age, in

each of the two populations used.

Experimental Design

The basic design employed in the present study was a

2 X 2 factorial analysis of variance for equal n*s. The

two major dimensions and the conditions of each were as

follows I

Type of home—dependent, normal.

Nature of reinf orcement-»»prmise, reproof.

Assignment of subjects to dimension 1 (type of home),

as explained above, was made on the observable differences

in the physioal residents of the subjects. Assignment of

26

subjects fro® the two groups to the conditions of dimension 2

(nature of reinforcement) was accomplished in a random manner.

Specifically, before any data had been gathered, thirty slips

of paper were put Into each of two containers? one container

held slips with numbers running consecutively from 1 to 30,

while the other held slips with reinforcement conditions

{fifteen slips of each condition)• One slip from each

container was drawn, thus assigning each number a condition

of reinforcement. later, during the collection of data, a

numbered slip was drawn as each child came to be tested, and

the child was administered the condition of reinforcement

which corresponded to the number. As a result of the assign-

ment process, four groups of equal n*s {n ® 15. N «• 60) were

identified as followst

Group 1—dependent, praise#

Group 2—dependent, reproof •

Group normal, praise#

Group 4—normal, reproof.*

All children in the above four groups were tested indi-

vidually, The individual criterion score for each child was

composed of the mean of the total responses from the child

for the ten one-minute trials.

Task

In reviewing the literature, several criteria for the

selection of an appropriate task Instrument were noted.

2?

Perhaps the most applicable suggestions, considering the

purpose of the present study and the nature of the groups,

were wide by Rotter (3)i

1. The task should be novel. Subjects should not be

able to guess how others have scored nor should they have

previously formed attitudes about their abilities with the

specific task.

2. The task should be interesting enough to maintain

attention over several trials,

3. The task should be adaptable. It should not be so

easy or so difficult that the subject feels himself at on©

extreme or the other in his performance of the task.

There should be a ainlaua of learning from one trial

to the next so that the subject does not rely on increasing

ability to any great extent for higher scores,

Hany of the tasks noted in experiments related to the

present study, such as arithmetic tests, dart-throwing, and.

some visual discrimination tasks, fulfill some of Hotter1 s

suggested criteria. However, very often they have the dis-

advantage of being disproportionately familiar to some sub-

jects, difficult to manipulate, or Ina&aptable to children

with poor scholastic backgrounds. A variation of the Weohsler-

Bellevue Digit-Symbol subtest was noted In a study by Sarason,

Handler, and Cralghlll (k). This task appeared to meet

Rotter's criteria and had the advantages of being inexpensive,

easy to administer, ami easy to score. Therefore, a modified

28

version of the subtest was adopted for the present study,

using symbol# similar to those found in the Wechaler Mult

Intelligence goale (6). The adult-type symbols were used

sine# they appear to be more like familiar letters than

several of the symbols found in the same subtest of the

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (7).

two forms of the task were constructed to further inhibit

rapid learning of digit-symbol combinations and to help

maintain interest. Tasks' were presented to the subjects on

8|m X 5|w sheets of mimeograph paper (specimen copies are

presented in Appendix A}* Forms were alternated throughout

the ten trials• Bach sheet contained, in addition to the

key which was centered at the top* ninety»four boxes arranged

in four rows# The first four boxes in the first row were

sample boxes, followed by fifteen trial boxesi the remaining

three rows contained twenty-five boxes each. In the key,

nine boxes were numbered consecutively from one through nine

and presented separately, each with its own symbol in the

lower half of the box. All other boxes in each row were

Joined and contained only a number in the upper half of the

box. All numbers were taken from a list of random numbers

(5, pp. 400-&01) with all zeros excluded.

The object of the task was to match with each number

the appropriate symbol a® presented in the key at the top of

each page and write that symbol in the space provided under

the number* Performance on the task was determined by the

29

mean number of total responses per page In the ten one-minute

trials,

Procedure

Children from both groups were called t© the testing

situations in approximately the same way: after noting the

children available who set the required age standards {nine

through thirteen years)# each child was contacted individually

and asked to spend ten or fifteen minutes taking a short test

for the experimenter. Questions often encountered concerning

the nature or purpose of the test were answered only % telling

the child that it was a test made by the experimenter for a

school grade and that it had to be given several times to see

if it was any good. This explanation usually satisfied the

child's curiosity immediately.

During the actual testing situation, the subject wasz

seated in front of the experimenter and Instructed how to

perform the task. All subjects were presented the task

Individually, Standard instructions given were as follows

Here is the test. (Setting the stacked trial sheets in view.) there are ten sheets and you will have one minute to work on each sheet. It is not really a test because you do not have to stake any certain score and you cannot fall it. It is not difficult and you do not have to be good with numbers. Now listen carefully while I tell you how to do it. Here are two pencils to use. (Pointing to the key.) Look at these boxes. lou see that they have a number on the top and a mark under it. (Pointing to the samples.) Mow look down here. See? There are numbers but no marks. What you want to do is put the proper mark under each number, just like It Is up here* (Pointing

30

to sample 1.) Her© Is a five, so you want to put In this mark. Now, you do the next three and then unit until I tell you to start, (Pause for the completion of samples.) Now wait* Do you understated what t® do? When I tell you to start, "begin here and. do as many "boxes as you can without skipping any* When you get to the end of one row go right ©n to the next. Go as fast as you can and do not worry about sals takes. Heady? Begin.

After the completion of the first one-minute trial, the

subject's sheet was taken from him and, depending on the

reinforcement condition assigned, one of the following state-

ments was made,

1, For praises

Let me see how you have done. Oh, that lc good, You have really done a fine Job. It is one of the best I have seen* Do as well on the next, Seady? Start*

2. For reproof>

Let ae see how you have done. This ie not very good* It is really poor* It is probably the worst I have seen. Do another mad, see if you do as badly. Seady? Start*

After the initial statements, reinforcement was admin-

istered with similarly worded statements only after every

third trial. Between other trials, minor forms of reinforce-

ment were used. That is, a praise oondition statement was,

"Good. Go on to another. Heady? Start." likewise, minor

statements for the reproof conditions were, "Veil* Go ©a

to another* Heady? Start."

During performance of the tenth trial, subjects under

the reproof condition were allowed to continue the task for

31

an extra twenty seconds , although the pro-pay a core was notad

at tha and of tha regular one-ainute time period. AMI increased

time period was used to allow the ©Mid to complete boxes wall

beyond his past perforaance, The child was then praised for

hi® performance on the last sheet and told that it was among

the best papers received.

Each subject was asked not discuss the test in any way

with the other children until all testing had been completed

"in a couple of waaks," At that time, the child was told,

it would be all right to talk about the test with anyone.

There was no evidence that any of the subjects mentioned the

nature of the task to any other children.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGBAPHI

Rollingshead, A. and F* C. Bedlick, "Social Stratification and Psychiatric Disorders," American Sooiologloal

XVIII (Ap?IX i X933) #

2# Patterson, Nelton D., "A Comparison of Changes in Several Psychological Measures for Lower Socio-Economie Children, Living in a Children's Home and Living In Their Own Hones," unpublished doctoral dissertation. School of Education, North Texas State University, 196? •

3. Hotter, J» B., "Levels of Aspiration as a Method of Studying Personality; II, Development and Evaluation of a Controlled Method." Journal of Experimental Psychology. XXXI (November, 19^2), 410^21.

Sarason, 8. B., 0, T. Handler, and P, G. Cralghill, "The Effect of Differential Instructions on Anxiety and

— 2 2 2 4 8 1

5. Soott, William A# and Klchael Wertheiser, Introduction to Bayohologlcal Research, Hew York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., ly62*

6, Weehsler, Bavid, Mechsler Mult Intelligence Scale* Record Form, New York, The Psychological Corporation, 1955,

195?:

32

CH4*V8ft III

RESULTS AMD DISCUSSION

Results

The present chapter will present the results, an analysis

of those results* end e discussion of the findings* Analysis

of variance « u the major statistical operation utilised In

the present study end the .05 level of significance m i

utilized. For the purposes of the present study* treatment

effects were Measured in terns of the difference* in the mean

performance scores for the four sub-groups. Sub-group means

and standard deflations were calculated for the average number

of responses over ten one~minute trials.

the means and standard deviations of criterion scores "

made by the four treatment groups are shown In Tfcble I. Trial

scores and means for eaoh Individual for all trials are pre-

sented In Appendix B.

It will be recalled that the three working hypotheses

presented In Chapter I Included specific predictions concern*

lng the magnitudes of the means shown In Table I, Saoh of

the three hypotheses will be repeated In the present chapter

and be accompanied by the presentation of the appropriate

test of statistical significance.

33

3**

TABLE I

MEANS AW STANDARD DSV1ATI0NS OF TOTAL BESP0NSE8 FOE THE TBSATMEHT CONDITIONS

Nature of Reinforcement

Type of Hone

Nature of Reinforcement Noraal Dependent

H SB K SD

Praise

Reproof

28.10

31*49

4.79

3.^9

3©. 84

28.?8

7.84

0.9^

As all of til# working hypotheses were tested statistically

by the analysis of marlance technique for equal n*s» the

suwary table of the analysis precedes discussions of the

Individual hypotheses. Table II, presented below, Is the

suBoaary of the results ©f the analysis of variance. As each

hypothesis Is presented and discussed, references will be

®ade to data In both tables I and IX,

TABLE II

StmXABX TABLE Of TEE Mftffit W BBIUFOHCBMENT X TXPE OF HOME ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Source of Variation df SQS 03T Squares

Mean Square Ratio

nature of Beinforceaent 1 32,63 3MJ-- a.00

Type of Home 1 .04 .04 <1.00

Within Cells 56 2986.21 56 .32

Nature of Reinforcement X Type of Home 82.91 1.55

Total 59 3101,79

35

it was stated in Hypothesis 1 of the study that there

would be m signlficant differences between mean performance

scores (bmii tot«a responses) of those children in th« experi-

aental group and those In the control group* Hypothesis 1,

then# stated that the sain effect mean scores for type of

hoae would not be significantly different. Inspection of

fable II show that Eypothesis 1 wm supported; the F-ratio

for the type of ho®# sain effects wm statistically non-

significant |f was less than 1.00). Averaged man soores

found in W e I demonstrate the nonsignificant differences

for type of home (I ** 29*80 vs. 29*81 for nor&al a M dependent»

respectively)• On the basis of these results, Hypothesis 1

was accepted*

Hypothesis 2 stated that children in both groups who were

praised verbally during the task would hare signlfieantly

higher mean performance scores than those children froa both

groups who were verbally reproved during the task. Table II

shows that the P-ratio for the nature of reinforcement jaain

effects was statistically nonsignificant (F was less than

1.00). Averaged mean scores found in Table I for nature of

reinforcement were 29.^7 vs. 50.14 for praise and reproof*

respectively.

Inspection of 'Cable I reveals that the direction of the

differences between mean scores for the two levels of reinforce,

sa&nt was not consistent as m s hypothesized. That is, instead

of praise being more effective in increasing performance

36

with tooth the dependent and the normal children, mean scores

varied between the groups with praise Beans being higher for

dependent children and reproof neans higher for noraal child*

ren. On the basis of the statistical data. Hypothesis 2 was

rejected.

Hypothesis 3 of the study stated that there would be a

significant Interaction between the nature of reinforcement

and the type of home. Specifically, It was hypothesized

that dependent children who were praised during the task

would have significantly higher mean performance scores

than praised children in the control group. It was further

stated that children living with their own families, the

control group, would have significantly higher aean perform*

anoe scores when reproved than would reproved children In

the experimental group. In keeping with Hypothesis 2, the

differences would be in favor of praise reinforcement. Thus,

praised children of both groups would have significantly

higher xtean total responses than would children in the control

group who were reproved.

Inspection of table IX reveals that in the samples, there

was some inconsistency in means for the nature of the rein-

foroement over the type of homei the F-ratlo,,however, was

not significant at 1.55. Mean performance scores presented

in Table I show that the direction but not the size of the

differences was as hypothesized.

37

t*Q>

30-

20*

10-

0-

Normal Dependent

Praise Reproof

Pig* 1—Battern of isean scores for nature of reinforce-ment by type of home.

Figure 1 above shows the relationship among the means

for the treatment conditions. Hypothesis 3 m e rejected on

the batle of nonsignificant etatletloal support*

Discussion

fiesults obtained In the present study were- not unexpected

by the experimenter after he had become more familiar with the

setting and goals of the Home for dependent Children. The

study by Patterson (1, p. 81), cited earlier In this paper,

found that planned programs In such area® as educational

achievement, mental health, and attitudes could produce sift

nlfleant results with Institutionalized children when oompar~

lag groups similar to those used In the present study. Thus*

results obtained agreed more closely with Patterson's goals

than with the working hypotheses found in this study.

38

Of the three hypotheses offered la the present study,

only on®, Hypothesis 1, mm aooepted mid two were rejected

due to nonsignificant statistical support* support of

Hypothesis 1 suggested that there were a® significant cultural

or socioeconomic blare# present In the selection of subject#

for the study. Acceptance of Hypothesis 1 was necessary

since the absence of such blase® was basic to the purpose

and design of the study.

In the rejection of Hypothesis 2, It was suggested that

ohlldren In the experimental group reacted to verbal reinforcement

in a maimer quite similar to the ohlldren In the control group*

Comparing averaged mean verbal treatment scores, discussed

above, revealed a slight difference in favor of reproof,

although the difference may have been due to chance,

The difference in favor of reproof as a form of reinforcement

is also presented In Table X, where the normal group mean was

31. &9 as opposed to the dependent group mean of 28.78*

Praise as a relnforoer of performance favored the dependent

group (M • 30,8* vs. 28.10). However* no results were

significant at the .05 level required for the acceptance of

Hypothesis 3*

Several factors might be suggested to explain the findings

of the present study. Two major areas to be considered

include (a) assumptions concerning the experimental procedures

used, and (b) assumptions concerning the nature of the groups

In the study, especially those related to the experimental

39

The finding of no significant differences between the

praise and reproof conditions, which led to the rejection of

Hypothesis 2, necessitated consideration of factors related

to procedural assumptions such as reinforcement and the tine

required to complete the ten one-minute trial®# That is,

some of the children in the study may not have perceived the

reinforcement statements as forms of praise or reproof.

Furthermore, it is possible that the length of each trial,

and of the entire task, in time may have Interfered, with

whatever effects were produced by the reinforcement statements.

Thus, assumptions concerning the content of the reinforcement

statements and the ability to maintain interest In the tas3t»

a»y have been erroneous,

While the design did not include intra-group comparisons

due to the number of subjects tm& to the working hypotheses,

qualitative test performance and attitude difference® were

noted in children who were relatively new at the Home for

Dependent Children* Compared with children who had participated

in various programs over a period of time, the newer children

were less cooperative and scored lower on the digit-symbol

task# Formulation of the working hypotheses for the present

study mm based on the assumption that most of the children

would react as the newer children did. In Patterson's study

(1, p» 81), it was suggested that while institutional care

for children should not be a substitute for the home, such

care,, if necessary, can provide beneficial returns to the

%0

children and to society. In view of the rejection of Hypothesis

3, It may he assumed that the children in the experimental

group mre beneficially influenced fey the programs and oar®

found in the particular county hone used in the present study*

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Patterson, Helton D,, MA Comparison of Changes in Several Psyohologicsal Measure® for Lower Soolo-Iconoatc Children* Living in a Children** Home and Living in Their Own Homes," unpublished dootoral dissertation* School of Mucation, North Texas State University, 196?.

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Suaaary

The major purpose of the present study was to determine

whether two group# of lower socioeconomics class children

reacted differently to verbal praise and reproof In the

performance of a digit-symbol task. In order to investigate

the problem* an experimental group, composed of lower-class

children who were wards of the courts and who lived in a

hose for dependent and. neglected children# was compared with

a control group from the same socioeconomic class but whose

members lived in their own homes with their families. Members

of the control group were selected from a population of

children who attended a weekly recreation night sponsored for

lower socioeconomic group children by a large Southern Baptist

church. Members of both groups attended the same public

school system in a large southwestern city where they lived.

Groups were designated according to the type of home as

either "dependent* or "noraal" and children within both groups

were assigned randomly to either a praise or reproof condition.

Ten one-minute trials using a digit-symbol task were administered

with appropriate forms of reinforcement inserted between

trials*

43

The following three hypotheses were tasted In the present

study*

Hypothesis 1,—fhere would be no significant differences

between mean digit-symbol score® of those children In the

experimental group and those In the control group#

3%ypo'thesis 2.—Children in both groups who were praised

verbally during the task would have significantly higher mean

digit-symbol scores than those children of both groups who

were verbally reproved during the task*

EVIK? thesis 2«—There would be a significant interaction

effect between the:-nature of the reinforcement and the type

of home on diglt~syabol performance. Specifically, it m s

hypothesized that dependent children would be significantly

more reactive to both praise and reproof than children living

in their own homes. Hypothesis 3» then, stated that the

order of responsiveness* with significant differences between

groups, would be praised dependent children, praised, normal

children, reproved normal children, and reproved dependent

children.

The average number of responses for all groups were

statistically tested using the analysis of variance for equal

n's. Results of the study were the followingt

1, There were no significant differences between the

mean performance scores of the dependent children and the

children lining In their own homes# This would indicate that

there were no cultural or sooioeconoiaic biases present in the

selection of subjects for this study.

2. fhere were no significant main effects for praise

awl reproof.

3. fhe interaction between the type of home and the

nature of the reinforcement was found to be statistically

nonsignificant* Dlreotlonally, however, the mean was higher

for the praise condition in the experimental group, whereas

the reproof mean was higher in the control group.

Conclusions

It was determined, during the course of individual testing

of subjects that although children in the experimental group

had experienced serious domestic and emotional disturbances,

their reactions to verbal praise or reproof were quite similar

to children who apparently had not experienced these

disturbances. Within the experimental group, qualitative

differences in performances and attitudes were observed between

relatively new arrivals at the home and those children who had

participated In various programs designed to promote social*,

lzatlon and other features of development* Such differences

Included lower scores and less cooperation from the newer

children. The present study was not, however, designed to

measure intra-group differences.

1*5

The possibility also existed that the reinforcement state-

ments intended to suggest praise or reproof of the performances,

were not perceived as such by some of the children In the

study, Furthermore, Interest In the task may not have been

maintained In all cases throughout the ten one-minute trials.

It may be that performances of subjects in the experi-

mental group were favorably Influenced by the programs of

the home* and thus, they behaved like children living in their

own homes. If such programs had not existed, performances of

most of the children in the experimental group may have been

more like the performances of the newer arrivals, than like

children living with their own families.

BecoBaaendatlons

Further research concerning the effects of praise and

reproof with children similar to those of the present study

is recommended. Provided the number of available subjects

allowed such a study, the design should include an intra-

group comparison similar to that described above. That is,

children who had been at the county home for a period of

weeks might be compared with children who had been there a

number of months. Further research using a digit-symbol task

might also compare the effect of different time periods

during trialsi such comparisons, for example, between ten

one-minute trials and ten thirty-second trials would possibly

identify fatigue effects, Controlled variations in reinforce-

ment statements should also be included in further research

t*6

In ©rd«r to objectively evaluate effectiveness. Further

research with othtr ammtf homes for dependent and neglected

children would "be desirable, ©specially with those employing

widely differing programs and goals.

APPENDIX A

3ample of Digit-Symbol Task (Form 1)#

I V

E1HS s i s

5 1 e 6 4 2 1 4 8 9 3 6 4 9 2 9 d 5 7

1 4 4 8 6 2 5 7 9 4 / 5 9 9 4 8 * 3 7 4 6 4 8 9 9

5 6 2 d 4 6 6 9 9 8 6 / & 3 5 7 / 2 7 1 3 4 6 6 /

'3 2 8 4 7 3 1 2 2 8 3 3 4 5 8 9 5 9 3 6 9 2 / 4 7

kl

Sample of Digit-Symbol Task (Form 2)*

8

H m ffl 5 7 ]j| £ • l 0 • jJ —

1 I i 5 9 4 7 6 _3 9 7 9 A 5 6 2 3 8 2 2

9 a 5 6 9 6 3 / 4 7 5 5 0>

/ 6 6 / 5 3 6 9 8 5 2 5

/ 6 [8 5 3 9 2 2 6 4 2 2 4 9 9 6 6 2 9 6 3 2 5 4 7

'2 CO 1 1 1 5 6 3 6 4 5 9 6 / 3 9 2 6 2 3 6 6 5 6 3

•Reduced n size#

APPI1DH. B

TABLE I I I

DIGIT-SYMBOL RAW SC0BE3 A® MEAHS FOH THE f H OHE-KIBUTE THIALS OP WM PRAISED DEPENDENT CHILDHEN

j«ot 1 2 4 «>• AO Jin 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean

1 29 28 !

33 42 36 42 38 1*3- 38 41 37.0

2 21 21 31 23 32 24 30 25 30 28 26,5

3 11 13 17 17 19 18 23 22 26 23 18,9

4 1? 17 20 21 | 20 19 20 21 27 24 20.6

5 24 18 20 21 19 24 ! 25 21 21 22 21,5

6 17 20 27 19 32 25 32 32 35 27.3

7 42 33 45 38 46 39 46 45 49 48 43.1

8 26 25 33 33 | 1 44 36 | 44 42 46 44 36,3

9 25 29 32 30 38 30 36 3 6

37 ' 46 33.9

10 32 34 47 43 48 43 53 j 4? 58 59 46,4

11 24 24 32 31 33 34 33 35 37 32 37.5

12 22 24 33 33 31 28 40 j 32 35 33 31.1

13 23 24 35 26 31 28 39 j 25 34 30 2 9 . 5

14 21 22 27 23 27 2 5

29 3 1

30 30 26,5

15 22 21 23 25 I 31 26 33 27

u ™ J

33

L

25 26.6

49

50

TABLE I?

DIOIT-SYMBOL RAW SCORES A ® MEANS FOB THE TEN ONE-MINUTE TRIALS OP THE REPROVED DEPENDENT CHILDREN

Sub*""" J«et 1 2 3 4

f r l a l 5 6 7 8 9 10 U m n

1 30 3% 44 44 44 44 49 44 1

51 50 43 .4

2 22 21 23 21 20 18 I 21 23 29 21 21.9

3 24 30 35 34 42 40 51 1 38 ^3 36 37*5

4 13 10 13 13 18 10 1 1 18 15 18 13 14*1

5 11 13 18 15 16 17 I 28 18 22 23 18*1

6 3? 32 41 44 49 55 58 52 53 55 46.6

7 15 16 25 22 29 29 35 33 28 33 27.5

3 25 28 27 30 27 25 33 28 32 33 28*8

9 1 21 21 22 22 33 22 28 25 34 25 25.3

10 20 24 31 24 33 31 37 I 29 36 25 29.0

11 18 2.1 24 18 20 19 22 17 20 25 20 .4

12 32 36 42 39 37 40 42 ^3 42 40 39.3

13 33 37 35 35 37 39 I 38 ' 37 40 37 3 6 . 8 14 31 25 36 25 1 32 34 35 39 37 30 31«4

15 13 9 15 •IS 13 12 _ 8 1 16 15 11.7

51

TABLE ¥

DIGIT-SYMBOL M M SCOBES A ® MBJSJS FOB THE TEN QNE-MINUTB TRIALS OF THE PRAISED NORMAL CHILDREN

!TfIaI Mean

26

52

TABLE VI

DIGIT-SYMBOL MM SCOEES A ® HEANS FOE THE TEU OHE-MIMTE TRIALS OF THE HEPEOV1D FORMAL CHILDBED

Sub-J M L - 1 2 4

friar"""" 5 6 . 7 8 9 10 1 Mean

1 23 23 3^ 40 40 37 30 35 37 % 3 5*1

2 19 23 27 33 28 29 26 3° 30 30 27.5

3 21 26 26 29 33 33 33 30 31 30 29.2

% 25 25 25 29 28 3© 33 33 31 32 29.1

5 1? 22 22 25 27 29 33 30 32 33 27.0

6 31 31 33 30 29 32 31 34 34 31 31.6

7 23 22 25 25 19 31 30 30 34 23 26,2

8 23 30 3k 29 34 3° % 34 33 30 31*3

9 25 22 26 2? 32 30 33 31 I 40 33 29*9

10 23 28 28 If 33 31 3? 35 31 35 30*4

11 23 28 2? 31 33 29 35 | 35 33 3<§ 31.0

12 35 35 3? 39 42 40 37 41 38 38 38.2

13 32 35 36 34 32 32 j 35 40 35 37 34,8

14 33 3 6 40 39 36 3? 37 40 3? 37 37.2

13 27 29 34 30 31 i 38

U-~. 1

34 39 37 30 32,9

ttTtsf TAfim i PTTY &A liMiUUII&iraX

Books

Ktair, Arthur W. and W, 1* Barton, SE2SB «8& Si the Preadolesoent. Hew York, Apju

» 1951. 16

Lewln, K., T. De*bo, L« Festinger, and P. Saara, "Levels of Aspiration,* Personality and J|e Behavior Disorders. edited b| He?, Hunt, Mew York, Bonald Press, 19^.

Marx, Kelvin H. and Williaa A. Hillix, gysteas agd theories in Psychology. lew York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,

KcCandless, Boyd B, * Children and Moleseants, New York, Holt, Binehart, and Winston, Inc., 1961.

, Children! 2nd ad., lew York, Holt, Bine; 1967.

Soott, Williaa A, and Miohael Wertheiaer, Introduction |f leal Besearoh. New York, John Wiley b Sons,

Articles

Atkinson, J, V*. "Motivational Determinants of Etak^faktng Behavior, •* Psychological Be view, LXVI (Hovember, 1957). 339-372.

Brenner, B»a "Effect of limediate and Delayed Praise and Beproof Upon Learning and Becall," Teachers College Contribution to Education. VII (December, " &8331.

Davids, A* and A, A, White, MEffeots of Success, Failure, and Social Facilitation on Level of Aspiration in Emotionally Disturbed and Korssal Children, » Journal of Personality, XXmt (March, 1958). 77-93*

Forlano, George and Byusan G. Axelrod, "The Effect of Bepeated Praise or Blame on the Perforaanoe of Introverts and Extroverts," Journal of Mucational Psychology, XXVIII (February, 1937), 92-100.

5&

Frank, Jerome D,, "Some Psyohologioal Determinants of Level of Aspiration, * J (April, 1935)» « of Aspiration,«^|merioan JoumaX gf Psychology, XLVIX

Gates, Georglna S. and Louise BissXand, "The Effect of Encouragement t M of M s couragement Upon Performance," Journal gf BduoatlonaX Psychology. II? (January, X9t3h

Gilchrist, Mward P., "The Extent to Which Praise and fieproof Affeot a Pupil's Work." School and Society, X? (November. X9X6), m - m .

Gordon, L* V. and K« A* Durea, "The Sffeot of Disoouragement on the Revised Stanford-Blnet Soale," Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetlo Psychology. LXXill (Decemfcer, 1998}v

Holllngshead, A. and 9« C. Bedllok, "Social Stratification a ! S . ? s ? c h l ® J r i ? r ® , * L^ssslsaa lElss* X?III \April $ 1953 * # 1^3^1^9*

Burloolc, Elizabeth B.# "An Evaluation of Certain Incentives Used in Sohool Work," XVI (March, X925). X45 Used in Sehool_Work« * Jourml Si Educational Fey etiology,

Kennedy, Wallace A«, A. J. Turner* and Bon Lindner, "Effective-ness of Praise s M Blase as a Function of Intelligence," Perceptual and Motor Skills. X? (August, 1962), 1$3-1**9#

losenhan, David and Jean Greenwald, "The Effects of Age, Sex, and Socioeconomic Class on Responsiveness to Two Classes of Verbal Helnforoement," Journal of Personality* XXXZIX (Harch, 1965)• X08-X2X. - -

Rotter, J* B,, "Levels of Aspiration as a Method of Studying Personality* XI, Development and Evaluation of a Controlled

fnovmimr^WBf Psychology, XXKI

Sarason, 3. B*» G, T» Handler, and P. G. CralghlXX, "The Sffeot of Differential Instructions on Anxiety and

S g 3 C S ^ '

Sullivan, Edward B., "Attitude in BeXatlon to Learning,* Psychological Monographs, XXXVI {January, 192?), 169-173.

Thompson, George G. and Clarence W. Hunnioutt, "The Effect of Repeated Praise and Blame on the Work Achievement of •Introverts* and * Extroverts»»" Journal of Educational PsTCholoCT. XXXV (May. 19W). ZSlMT.

55

Willcutt, Herman C. and Wallace C. Kennedy, "Relation of Intelligence to Effectiveness of Praise and Reproof as Beinforcers for Fourth-Graders,M Peroeptual and Motor Skills. XI? (December, 1963), 695-69?.

food, fheodore W.« "The Effect of Approbation and Reproof m the Mastery of nonsense syllables,» Journal of Applied - • " [, XVIII (October, 193*0. 6tf-66k.

Zigler, Edward and Paul Kanzer, "The Effectiveness of Two Kindt of Verbal Beinforcers on the Performance of Kiddle, and Lower-class Children," Journal of Personality. XXX (June, 1962), 157-163. ~

Published Test Material#

Wechsler, David, ¥echgler Adult Intelligence Scale1 Beoord Form. Mew York, The Psychological Corporation, 1955•

em Reoord Form. New York. The Psychological Corporation. l§t§.

Unpublished Material

Patterson, Helton D,, "A Comparison of Changes in Several Psyehologlcal Measure# for Lower Socio-lconomic Children, Living in a Children*s Home and Living in Their Own loses* unpublished doctoral dissertation. School of Education, North Texas State University, 196?.