Implicit Epistemological Bias and the Problem of Awareness in Verbal Conditioning

A Reply to Greenspoon

Bibliographic Data

ID13652563
AuthorsCharles D Spielberger (Duke University, corresponding author), L Douglas De Nike (Duke University)
Year1963
Volume12
Issue1
Pages103-106
Publication date1963-02-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePsychological Reports (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0033-2941 • E-ISSN: 1558-691X
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.2466/pr0.1963.12.1.103
OpenAlexW2023505755
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited10

We are grateful for che opportunity to detail more fully our verbal-conditioning findings (Spielberger & DeNike, 1962) in response to Greenspoon's ( 1963) discussion of our paper. In order to respond to the points Greenspoon has raised, especially those pertaining to extinction, awareness, and the reinforcing properties of Mmm-hmm, it will be necessary to refer to data other than chat presented in the paper reviewed by him. We shall also endeavor to clarify our position regarding some theoretical and epistemological issues in verbal operant conditioning of which, in our opinion, those who investigate this phenomenon are not always aware. Greenspoon's four major points will be considered in the same order in which he has raised them. The in~oduction of a rest period.-With reference to his first point, Greenspoon appears to imply that our introduction of a rest period and additional instructions between the operant trials and the conditioning trials may have inhibited conditioning. We fail to see, within the theoretical framework of the descriptive behaviorism (Skinner, 1957) which Greenspoon espouses, why the introduction of a rest would be expected to inhibit acquisition. Nor are there clear empirical grounds on the basis of which chis might have been expected. An explanation of G7eenspoonJs extinction findings.-Since we hold that an understanding of acquisition in verbal conditioning must precede any meaningful explanation of extinction, we attempted in our experiment only to replicate Greenspoon's acquisition findings and refrained from speculating abouc his extinction results. We regard the latcer, however, as most probably determined by Ss whose performance gains during acquisition were mediated by correct or correlated hypotheses, and who stopped giving plural nouns when their hypotheses were disconfirmed during extinction by E's failure to reward these. Although we have not used extinction trials, we have observed that even a few instances of accidental nonreinforcement during acquisition may suffice to disconfirm Ss' hypotheses. For example, in another study one of our Ss who was reinforced for giving plural nouns showed an increase in the rate of emission of plurals over the first three blocks of 100 words, followed by a decline in the final two word blocks. This S reported the correct contingency in the postconditioning interview, but stated that she became confused when E said Mmm-hmm after two words that could have been either singular or plural [rows (rose) and sheep]. Subsequent to the disconfirmation of her hypothesis, this S stated that she used . . any word I could think of and waited for another due. Another S in the same experiment reported that she originally believed that the Mmmhmm came after collection words such as cities and formulas; she said she aban'Now at Vanderbilt University

Cognitive psychology · Conditioning · Statistics · Autism Spectrum Disorder Research · Behavioral and Psychological Studies · Child and Animal Learning Development · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub