- Email: [email protected]
Effects of indirect reinforcement on performance of kindergarten children
Journal of School Psychology 1971 • Vol. 9, No. 3
EFFECTS OF INDIRECT REINFORCEMENT ON PERFORMANCE OF KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN ELLIOT
A. W E I N E R
and
BARBARA
J. W E I N E R
Oklahoma State University DON
M. H A R T S O U G H Purdue University
Summary: This study investigated the parameters of the social reinforcement labeled "indirect reinforcement" and examined its presence and effect in a natural school setting. It was hypothesized that direct reinforcement to one child in a dyad or to two children in a small group of four would have an indirect reinforcing effect on the remaining children. That is to say that when positive reinforcement was given directly, the observing Ss received negative reinforcement indirectly. When Ss from similar treatment conditions were combined from the pairs and small groups, the treatment effects were statistically significant, with those under indirect negative reinforcement showing the greatest increase in performance. Possible uses for the indirect reinforcement phenomenon in school classrooms were discussed. The purpose of this program of research was to investigate the parameters of the social reinforcement labeled "indirect reinforcement" and to examine its presence and effect in a natural school setting. Original work in this area grew out of an examination of research in vicarious learning (Weiner & Hartsough, 1967). Much work in the area of imitation and vicarious reinforcement has been conducted with children (Flanders, 1968). A recent series of studies (Bandura & Kupers, 1964; Mischel & Liebert, 1966; Ross, 1966; Hartup & Coates, 1967) has assessed the degree to which observing children imitate (adopt) a model's criterion of self-administered reward. During training the observers (Os) watched while models (Ms) praised their own performance and took a reward following scores above an arbitrary criterion. Self-castigation plus not taking a reward followed scores below the criterion. The authors reported that these reinforcement procedures produced the predicted imitation. Bandura & Kupers (1964) maintained that self-reinforcing responses are probably directly conditioned to some degree through differential reinforcements administered initially by external agents. They viewed this learning process as consisting of the agent adopting a criterion of what is a good performance and consistently rewarding the S for matching that adopted criterion level. When the S is subsequently given full control over the self-administration of reinforcers, " h e is likely to utilize the rewards in a contingent manner, with achieved performance levels serving as the primary discriminative stimuli" [Bandura & Kupers, 1964, p. 3]. Journal of S c h o o l Psychology, V o l u m e 9, 1 9 7 1
284
Effects of Indirect Reinforcement on Kindergarten Children
285
Charlesworth & Hartup (1967) examined social reinforcement in a nursery school setting. They found a high positive correlation between "giving reinforcement to others" and "getting reinforcement from others" [p. 999]. Hartup & Coates (1967) found a similar relationship between the type of model a child would choose to imitate and his past reinforcement history. Therefore, it appears that even children as young as age three to four are highly aware of their social environment and the reinforcement patterns within it. Weiner & Hartsough (1967), in a departure from previous reinforcement designs, proposed a type of reinforcement which they labeled "indirect reinforcement." Their work with college students supported the view that an S observing another S receive reinforcement for a task they have both just independently completed is, himself, receiving a type of reinforcement. The authors proposed that indirect reinforcement involved more social interaction and competition than mere imitation of behavior. Following the general paradigm employed by Weiner & Hartsough (1967), the present study examined a natural kindergarten setting and evaluated the effects of indirect reinforcement within small groups of children. It was hypothesized that direct reinforcement to some children in a small group would have an indirect reinforcing effect on the remaining children. It was further hypothesized that in a situation where each child had minimal information about the other children's performance levels, the nature of the reinforcement given indirectly would take the effects of that opposite to the direct reinforcement. The following treatment conditions were proposed: (a) neutral, (b) direct positive reinforcement, (c) direct negative reinforcement, (d) indirect positive reinforcement, and (e) indirect negative reinforcement. In an attempt to examine as natural a school setting as possible, the task used involved the teacher in a teaching situation and a subsequent performance task by the children. It was hypothesized, in consideration of the results reported by Weiner & Hartsough (1967), that there would be no significant increase in performance by the children under the neutral, direct positive, or indirect positive reinforcement conditions. Further, a significant reinforcement effect was hypothesized for direct negative and indirect negative reinforcement conditions. In order to examine the effects of indirect reinforcement in a dyadic situation similar to that used by Weiner & Hartsough (1967) with college students, this program was divided into two parts, one using pairs of children and one involving small groups of four children each. This subdivision allowed for the comparison of hypothesized treatment effects between different size pupil groups. METHOD
Subjects. The Ss were 64 children enrolled in kindergarten classes in a relatively small midwestern city. All of the children had the same teacher and assistant teacher but met at different times during the d a y - 8 : 0 0 A.M. (Class J o u r n a l o f S c h o o l PsYeholowy, Volume 9, 1 9 7 1
286
E. A. Weiner, B. J. Weiner, and D. M. Hartsough
A), 10:30 A.M. (Class B), and 1:30 P.M. (Class C). Class A was arbitrarily assigned to the Pairs condition (N = 24); the other two classes were assigned to the Small Groups condition (N = 40). Children in Classes B and C were randomly assigned by sex to the five treatment conditions. Class A pupils were assigned by sex to the following treatment conditions: neutral, direct positive, indirect negative. These conditions were used in the Pairs since limiting the number of treatments allowed for the cell size similar to that in the Small Groups. Further, indirect negative reinforcement was of main concern in this study. Where there were more children in a class than needed, selection was made on the basis of regular attendance (the data were to be gathered over a two-day period and second day attendance was necessary). The age range and mean age for each grouping were as foUows: Pairs: Five years, five months to six years, five months (X = five years, ten months); Small Groups: Five years, four months to six years, 11 months (,X = five years, ten months). There were 13 boys and 11 girls in the Pairs condition and 22 boys and 18 girls in the Small Groups condition. Performance task. In order to investigate differential reinforcement effects, it was necessary to have a task both interesting to children and well within their abilities. The task used here involved the copying of three geometric designs: cross, circle, and horizontal line. F o r t y 1/2" by l" vertical rectangles were presented on a sheet of paper. The top half of each rectangle contained one of the geometric shapes; the b o t t o m half was empty. The task involved copying the design into the lower half of the rectangle. These designs were selected from the Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration (Beery, 1967). The reported age norms for accurate reproduction of the designs are: Cross: Beery n o r m s - f e m a l e 3:8, male 4:1; Gesell norms ( 1 9 5 6 ) - 4 : 0 ; Circle: Beery norms, Gesell norms, Binet norms (Terman & Merrill, 1 9 6 0 ) - 3 : 0 ; and Horizontal line: Beery n o r m s - 3 : 0 . Procedure. The study was conducted in a room generally used as the school library. It was a familiar place to the children who were accustomed to being there in small groups as part of the kindergarten program. Four tables were placed in a square with a space between adjoining tables. The regular teacher was the main E and the only one in the room with the children at any time. A tape recording of the teacher's instructions and reinforcement technique was made and checked by the authors for consistency of presentation across groups and pairs. Day One. In Class A, the predetermined pairs of children were taken, two per session, from their regular room to the testing room by an assistant. The teacher (E) met the children at the door and had them sit in opposing seats, depending on the earlier random assignment of children to conditions and seats. This treatment category and seating information was given to the E immediately before the children came into the room. In Classes B and C, the children came in randomly assigned groups of four and were seated in pre-determined seats. E then passed out a sheet containing the performance task to each child. Holding a copy of the task up for the children to see, she instructed them in completing the rectangles with the designs. She cautioned them against talking or asking questions once they started. After answering any questions, J o u r n a l of School Psychology, V o l u m e 9, 1 9 7 1
Effects of Indirect Reinforcement on Kindergarten Children
287
avoiding wherever possible direct conversation with any particular child, she told them to begin filling in the boxes. The children worked for one minute and were told to stop and rest. After a 30-second rest period during which E collected sheet number one and passed out sheet number two, the children began again. This pattern was continued for six work trials with a rest period after each trial. In the Small Groups, the teacher presented the direct reinforcement to two randomly pro-selected Ss during the third rest period. In the Pairs condition, only one S received direct reinforcement. The direct reinforcement was administered as follows. While collecting the sheets from work trial three, the teacher briefly examined two (or one in the Pairs) papers without comment. To the remaining Ss (two in Small Groups, one in Pairs) she presented the following direct reinforcement or control condition: 1. N e u t r a l - n o direct comment; same for all Ss in group. 2. Direct positive-a comment telling the child that he was doing a good job and that he had filled in a lot of boxes. 3. Direct negative-a comment telling the child that he was not doing a very good job and had not filled in many boxes. In the Small Groups condition, eight Ss received each of the reinforcement conditions. In the Pairs condition, direct reinforcement was positive or the treatment was neutral. Following the reinforcement, the children worked for three additional one-minute trials. After a group had completed the test trials, they were taken back to the kindergarten classroom, given a quiet play activity, and segregated from the naive children by the assistant teacher.
Day Two. The groups and pairs were again brought to the testing room as on the previous day. E had the children take their same seats and told them that they were going to do the same thing they had done the day before: The children then worked on the performance task for three one-minute trials with two 30-second rest periods. No comment was made to any child during the testing or rest periods. Statistical analysis. A 5 X 2 X 3 repeated measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences among treatment means in the Small Groups condition. A 3 X 2 X 3 repeated measures analysis of variance was computed for the data in the Pairs condition. There were repeated measures on days and trials while Ss were nested under each of the treatment conditions. In addition, 5 X 2 X 3 and 3 X 2 X 3 analyses of covariance were computed to adjust for any possible differences among the base rates of the groups (Winer, 1962). Considering the nature of the grouping conditions, 3 X 2 X 3 analyses of variance and covariance were computed for all Ss in the neutral, direct positive, and indirect negative reinforcement conditions. This procedure combined all Ss under the same treatment conditions for both Small Groups and Pairs. The independent variables in this study were the five reinforcement conditions and the two days. The dependent variable was the number of rectangles filled in correctly by each child per work trial. Day One and Day Two performances were used to examine the effects of the reinforcements over a 24-hour period. J o u r n a l o f S c h o o l Psychology, Volume 9, 1 9 7 1
288
E. A. Weiner, B. J. Weiner, and D. M. Hartsough RESULTS
An examination of the analyses of variance and covariance for both the Small Groups and Pairs conditions showed a significant main effect over days, with all groups increasing in performance from Day One to Day Two (p < .01; Table 1). There were no interaction effects between treatment groups and days. When the data from the similar treatments in Pairs and Small Groups were combined, the analysis of covariance did lead to the rejection of the hypothesis o f no difference across treatments (p < . 0 5 ; Table 1). The Newman-Keuls test computed for the treatment means showed indirect negative effects significantly different from direct positive reinforcement effects and neutral (p < .05). Direct positive reinforcement effects were not significantly different from those under the neutral condition. Figure 1 shows that Ss under indirect negative reinforcement increased to a higher level of performance following reinforcement than did those Ss under the other treatment conditions. The mean performance levels and the standard deviations for each treatment group across days are presented in Table 2. DISCUSSION When data from Ss under indirect negative, direct positive, and neutral conditions were grouped, the reinforcement was statistically significant (p < .05 ; Table 1). These results suggest that the number of Ss in each cell of the separate conditions may have been too small and subsequent variance too great for the treatment effects to appear statistically significant in the Table 1 Summary of Analyses for Combined Data Source
df
MS
F
Between Subjects: A (treatment) Subjects within Group Within Subjects: B (days) A×B B X Subjects within Group C (trials) A XC C × Subjects within Group BXC A× B× C BC X Subjects within Group
2 45
346.847 178.658
1.950
1 2 45 2 4 90 2 4 90
217.013 3.723 11.612 4.941 2.686 4.999 4.504 4.821 4.375
18.689"* .321
Between Subjects A (adjusted) Subjects within A (adjusted)
2 44
179.736 56.475
3.183"
*p < .05 ** p < .01 J o u r n a l of S c h o o l Psychology, V o l u m e 9, 1 9 7 1
.988 .537 1.030 1.102
/
L/
Effects of Indirect Reinforcement on Kindergarten Children
289
separate conditions. It is interesting to note that the same type of drop-off performance of Ss under indirect negative reinforcement reported by Weiner & Hartsough (1967) was present in the Pairs condition across Day One and again on Day Two. In the Small Groups condition, Ss under indirect negative reinforcement, although dropping in performance across Day One, showed a
35
IREINFORCEMENT
34 (/} bJ
cr 33
i INDIRECT /'---.-__NEGATIVE
o
32 u. .o 31 ne hi 30 Z
POSITIVE
29
24 HOUR BREAK NEU TRA L
28
I i
BASE RATE
[
I
I
i
i
i
I
4
5
6
7
8
9
TRIALS
Figure 1. Average Performance for Combined Subject Groups.
Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Treatment Groups Base Rate
Day One
Day Two
Pairs
X
SD
X
SD
X
SD
Neutral Direct Positive Indirect Negative
28.19 28.81 29.69
3.25 6.00 4.31
28.75 28.79 33.08
3.10 6.09 4.47
30.83 31.70 34.12
4.88 6.15 5.42
Groups Neutral Direct Positive Direct Negative Indirect Positive Indirect Negative
29.31 29.31 29.94 30.69 29.88
6.80 3.87 6.87 6.87 2.37
29.62 30.33 31.25 30.92 33.08
6.44 4.95 6.57 6.44 3.91
31.71 31.59 34.29 32.58 34.62
7.77 6.06 6.95 4.94 3.94
Combined Neutral Direct Positive Indirect Negative
28.75 29.06 29.81
5.02 4.93 3.34
29.18 29.56 33.08
4.77 5.52 4.19
31.27 31.64 34.37
6.32 6.10 4.68
Journal of S c h o o l Psychology, V o l u m e 9, 1 9 7 1
290
E. A. Weiner, B. J. Weiner, and D. M. Hartsough
steady increase in performance on Day Two. An attempt to explain this pattern may be made by examining the social structure present in both conditions. In the Small Groups it is likely that observing two other children receive reinforcement may have had a stronger emotional effect and more competitive overtones than in the Pairs condition. Therefore, the drive to gain positive reinforcement by a higher performance level may have been related to the number of children already receiving the direct reinforcement. To what point of group size one can carry this view is a difficult question but an empirical one. The results of this study support possible answers for questions raised by Weiner & Hartsough (1967). One answer is with regard to the generalizability of the indirect reinforcement effect from dyads to larger groups. A possible direction from the results obtained in this study is an examination of larger groups, even entire classes, under different reinforcement paradigms. Support is also provided for the view that children are aware enough of their social environment to be affected by a lack of direct reinforcement in a dyadic or small group situation. This has particular input on the question of using direct negative reinforcement in the classroom. A careful and systematic use of select positive reinforcement may have an even greater motivating effect for some children than direct negative reinforcement, while possibly affecting a larger number of children. Further, this may well be accomplished in this paradigm without creating a questionable atmosphere for the child's personality development and possible withdrawal from competition in failure situations. The concept of maintaining performance versus motivating an increase in performance has a role in the discussion of the results of this study. It should also be noted that changes by the children in this study were in regard to a performance task, not one involving a specific type of academic learning. Direct positive and indirect positive reinforcement effects here were similar to those reported by Weiner & Hartsough (1967): Ss under these conditions tended to maintain their pre-reinforcement performance levels aside from the overall practice effects over trials and from Day One to Day Two. It appears, then, that positive reinforcement in situations similar to the one in this study can be used for maintaining a level of performance, while some form of negative reinforcement may contribute to performance increase. Weiner & Hartsough (I 967) raised the question of the over time effects of the different reinforcement types. The present brief examination of this issue showed that all children increased in performance from Day One to Day Two, but also that Ss under indirect negative reinforcement increased above their already higher level (Figure 1). Therefore a view of indirect reinforcement effects as lasting for at least a period of 24 hours is supported. The authors view the sequential use of indirect negative reinforcement to increase low performance and direct positive reinforcement to maintain performance levels as an important consideration for use in school situations. REFERENCES
Bandura, A., & Kupers, C. J. Transmission of patterns of self-reinforcement through modeling. Journal o f Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 69, 1-9. Journal of School Psychology, V o l u m e 9, 1971
Effects of Indirect R e i n f o r c e m e n t on Kindergarten Children
291
Beery, K. E. Developmental test o f visual motor integration. Manual. Chicago: Follett, 1967. Charlesworth, R., & Hartup, W. W. Positive social reinforcement in the nursery school peer group. Child Development, 1967, 38, 993-1002. Flanders, J. P. A review of research on imitative behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69, 316-337. Gesell, A. Gesell developmental schedules. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1940. ( 1956 revision) Hartup, W. W., & Coates, B. Imitation of a peer as a function of reinforcement from the peer group and rewardingness of the model. Child Development, 1967, 38, 1003-1015. Mischel, W., & Liebert, R. M. Effects of discrepancies between observed and reward criteria on their acquisition and transmission. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 45-53. Ross, D. Relationship between dependency, intentional learning, and incidental learning in preschool children. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 374-381. Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. Stanford-Binet intelligence scale (Third ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1960. Weiner, E. A., & Hartsough, D. M. Differential effects of direct and indirect reinforcement in human motivation. Paper delivered to Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May 1967. Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Elliot A. Weiner Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Barbara J. Weiner Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Don M. Hartsough Associate Professor Department of Psychology Purdue University Lafayette, Indiana 47907 Received: August 22, 1970
Journal of S c h o o l P s y e h o l o ~ , V o l u m e 9, 1 9 7 1
EFFECTS OF INDIRECT REINFORCEMENT ON PERFORMANCE OF KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN ELLIOT
A. W E I N E R
and
BARBARA
J. W E I N E R
Oklahoma State University DON
M. H A R T S O U G H Purdue University
Summary: This study investigated the parameters of the social reinforcement labeled "indirect reinforcement" and examined its presence and effect in a natural school setting. It was hypothesized that direct reinforcement to one child in a dyad or to two children in a small group of four would have an indirect reinforcing effect on the remaining children. That is to say that when positive reinforcement was given directly, the observing Ss received negative reinforcement indirectly. When Ss from similar treatment conditions were combined from the pairs and small groups, the treatment effects were statistically significant, with those under indirect negative reinforcement showing the greatest increase in performance. Possible uses for the indirect reinforcement phenomenon in school classrooms were discussed. The purpose of this program of research was to investigate the parameters of the social reinforcement labeled "indirect reinforcement" and to examine its presence and effect in a natural school setting. Original work in this area grew out of an examination of research in vicarious learning (Weiner & Hartsough, 1967). Much work in the area of imitation and vicarious reinforcement has been conducted with children (Flanders, 1968). A recent series of studies (Bandura & Kupers, 1964; Mischel & Liebert, 1966; Ross, 1966; Hartup & Coates, 1967) has assessed the degree to which observing children imitate (adopt) a model's criterion of self-administered reward. During training the observers (Os) watched while models (Ms) praised their own performance and took a reward following scores above an arbitrary criterion. Self-castigation plus not taking a reward followed scores below the criterion. The authors reported that these reinforcement procedures produced the predicted imitation. Bandura & Kupers (1964) maintained that self-reinforcing responses are probably directly conditioned to some degree through differential reinforcements administered initially by external agents. They viewed this learning process as consisting of the agent adopting a criterion of what is a good performance and consistently rewarding the S for matching that adopted criterion level. When the S is subsequently given full control over the self-administration of reinforcers, " h e is likely to utilize the rewards in a contingent manner, with achieved performance levels serving as the primary discriminative stimuli" [Bandura & Kupers, 1964, p. 3]. Journal of S c h o o l Psychology, V o l u m e 9, 1 9 7 1
284
Effects of Indirect Reinforcement on Kindergarten Children
285
Charlesworth & Hartup (1967) examined social reinforcement in a nursery school setting. They found a high positive correlation between "giving reinforcement to others" and "getting reinforcement from others" [p. 999]. Hartup & Coates (1967) found a similar relationship between the type of model a child would choose to imitate and his past reinforcement history. Therefore, it appears that even children as young as age three to four are highly aware of their social environment and the reinforcement patterns within it. Weiner & Hartsough (1967), in a departure from previous reinforcement designs, proposed a type of reinforcement which they labeled "indirect reinforcement." Their work with college students supported the view that an S observing another S receive reinforcement for a task they have both just independently completed is, himself, receiving a type of reinforcement. The authors proposed that indirect reinforcement involved more social interaction and competition than mere imitation of behavior. Following the general paradigm employed by Weiner & Hartsough (1967), the present study examined a natural kindergarten setting and evaluated the effects of indirect reinforcement within small groups of children. It was hypothesized that direct reinforcement to some children in a small group would have an indirect reinforcing effect on the remaining children. It was further hypothesized that in a situation where each child had minimal information about the other children's performance levels, the nature of the reinforcement given indirectly would take the effects of that opposite to the direct reinforcement. The following treatment conditions were proposed: (a) neutral, (b) direct positive reinforcement, (c) direct negative reinforcement, (d) indirect positive reinforcement, and (e) indirect negative reinforcement. In an attempt to examine as natural a school setting as possible, the task used involved the teacher in a teaching situation and a subsequent performance task by the children. It was hypothesized, in consideration of the results reported by Weiner & Hartsough (1967), that there would be no significant increase in performance by the children under the neutral, direct positive, or indirect positive reinforcement conditions. Further, a significant reinforcement effect was hypothesized for direct negative and indirect negative reinforcement conditions. In order to examine the effects of indirect reinforcement in a dyadic situation similar to that used by Weiner & Hartsough (1967) with college students, this program was divided into two parts, one using pairs of children and one involving small groups of four children each. This subdivision allowed for the comparison of hypothesized treatment effects between different size pupil groups. METHOD
Subjects. The Ss were 64 children enrolled in kindergarten classes in a relatively small midwestern city. All of the children had the same teacher and assistant teacher but met at different times during the d a y - 8 : 0 0 A.M. (Class J o u r n a l o f S c h o o l PsYeholowy, Volume 9, 1 9 7 1
286
E. A. Weiner, B. J. Weiner, and D. M. Hartsough
A), 10:30 A.M. (Class B), and 1:30 P.M. (Class C). Class A was arbitrarily assigned to the Pairs condition (N = 24); the other two classes were assigned to the Small Groups condition (N = 40). Children in Classes B and C were randomly assigned by sex to the five treatment conditions. Class A pupils were assigned by sex to the following treatment conditions: neutral, direct positive, indirect negative. These conditions were used in the Pairs since limiting the number of treatments allowed for the cell size similar to that in the Small Groups. Further, indirect negative reinforcement was of main concern in this study. Where there were more children in a class than needed, selection was made on the basis of regular attendance (the data were to be gathered over a two-day period and second day attendance was necessary). The age range and mean age for each grouping were as foUows: Pairs: Five years, five months to six years, five months (X = five years, ten months); Small Groups: Five years, four months to six years, 11 months (,X = five years, ten months). There were 13 boys and 11 girls in the Pairs condition and 22 boys and 18 girls in the Small Groups condition. Performance task. In order to investigate differential reinforcement effects, it was necessary to have a task both interesting to children and well within their abilities. The task used here involved the copying of three geometric designs: cross, circle, and horizontal line. F o r t y 1/2" by l" vertical rectangles were presented on a sheet of paper. The top half of each rectangle contained one of the geometric shapes; the b o t t o m half was empty. The task involved copying the design into the lower half of the rectangle. These designs were selected from the Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration (Beery, 1967). The reported age norms for accurate reproduction of the designs are: Cross: Beery n o r m s - f e m a l e 3:8, male 4:1; Gesell norms ( 1 9 5 6 ) - 4 : 0 ; Circle: Beery norms, Gesell norms, Binet norms (Terman & Merrill, 1 9 6 0 ) - 3 : 0 ; and Horizontal line: Beery n o r m s - 3 : 0 . Procedure. The study was conducted in a room generally used as the school library. It was a familiar place to the children who were accustomed to being there in small groups as part of the kindergarten program. Four tables were placed in a square with a space between adjoining tables. The regular teacher was the main E and the only one in the room with the children at any time. A tape recording of the teacher's instructions and reinforcement technique was made and checked by the authors for consistency of presentation across groups and pairs. Day One. In Class A, the predetermined pairs of children were taken, two per session, from their regular room to the testing room by an assistant. The teacher (E) met the children at the door and had them sit in opposing seats, depending on the earlier random assignment of children to conditions and seats. This treatment category and seating information was given to the E immediately before the children came into the room. In Classes B and C, the children came in randomly assigned groups of four and were seated in pre-determined seats. E then passed out a sheet containing the performance task to each child. Holding a copy of the task up for the children to see, she instructed them in completing the rectangles with the designs. She cautioned them against talking or asking questions once they started. After answering any questions, J o u r n a l of School Psychology, V o l u m e 9, 1 9 7 1
Effects of Indirect Reinforcement on Kindergarten Children
287
avoiding wherever possible direct conversation with any particular child, she told them to begin filling in the boxes. The children worked for one minute and were told to stop and rest. After a 30-second rest period during which E collected sheet number one and passed out sheet number two, the children began again. This pattern was continued for six work trials with a rest period after each trial. In the Small Groups, the teacher presented the direct reinforcement to two randomly pro-selected Ss during the third rest period. In the Pairs condition, only one S received direct reinforcement. The direct reinforcement was administered as follows. While collecting the sheets from work trial three, the teacher briefly examined two (or one in the Pairs) papers without comment. To the remaining Ss (two in Small Groups, one in Pairs) she presented the following direct reinforcement or control condition: 1. N e u t r a l - n o direct comment; same for all Ss in group. 2. Direct positive-a comment telling the child that he was doing a good job and that he had filled in a lot of boxes. 3. Direct negative-a comment telling the child that he was not doing a very good job and had not filled in many boxes. In the Small Groups condition, eight Ss received each of the reinforcement conditions. In the Pairs condition, direct reinforcement was positive or the treatment was neutral. Following the reinforcement, the children worked for three additional one-minute trials. After a group had completed the test trials, they were taken back to the kindergarten classroom, given a quiet play activity, and segregated from the naive children by the assistant teacher.
Day Two. The groups and pairs were again brought to the testing room as on the previous day. E had the children take their same seats and told them that they were going to do the same thing they had done the day before: The children then worked on the performance task for three one-minute trials with two 30-second rest periods. No comment was made to any child during the testing or rest periods. Statistical analysis. A 5 X 2 X 3 repeated measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences among treatment means in the Small Groups condition. A 3 X 2 X 3 repeated measures analysis of variance was computed for the data in the Pairs condition. There were repeated measures on days and trials while Ss were nested under each of the treatment conditions. In addition, 5 X 2 X 3 and 3 X 2 X 3 analyses of covariance were computed to adjust for any possible differences among the base rates of the groups (Winer, 1962). Considering the nature of the grouping conditions, 3 X 2 X 3 analyses of variance and covariance were computed for all Ss in the neutral, direct positive, and indirect negative reinforcement conditions. This procedure combined all Ss under the same treatment conditions for both Small Groups and Pairs. The independent variables in this study were the five reinforcement conditions and the two days. The dependent variable was the number of rectangles filled in correctly by each child per work trial. Day One and Day Two performances were used to examine the effects of the reinforcements over a 24-hour period. J o u r n a l o f S c h o o l Psychology, Volume 9, 1 9 7 1
288
E. A. Weiner, B. J. Weiner, and D. M. Hartsough RESULTS
An examination of the analyses of variance and covariance for both the Small Groups and Pairs conditions showed a significant main effect over days, with all groups increasing in performance from Day One to Day Two (p < .01; Table 1). There were no interaction effects between treatment groups and days. When the data from the similar treatments in Pairs and Small Groups were combined, the analysis of covariance did lead to the rejection of the hypothesis o f no difference across treatments (p < . 0 5 ; Table 1). The Newman-Keuls test computed for the treatment means showed indirect negative effects significantly different from direct positive reinforcement effects and neutral (p < .05). Direct positive reinforcement effects were not significantly different from those under the neutral condition. Figure 1 shows that Ss under indirect negative reinforcement increased to a higher level of performance following reinforcement than did those Ss under the other treatment conditions. The mean performance levels and the standard deviations for each treatment group across days are presented in Table 2. DISCUSSION When data from Ss under indirect negative, direct positive, and neutral conditions were grouped, the reinforcement was statistically significant (p < .05 ; Table 1). These results suggest that the number of Ss in each cell of the separate conditions may have been too small and subsequent variance too great for the treatment effects to appear statistically significant in the Table 1 Summary of Analyses for Combined Data Source
df
MS
F
Between Subjects: A (treatment) Subjects within Group Within Subjects: B (days) A×B B X Subjects within Group C (trials) A XC C × Subjects within Group BXC A× B× C BC X Subjects within Group
2 45
346.847 178.658
1.950
1 2 45 2 4 90 2 4 90
217.013 3.723 11.612 4.941 2.686 4.999 4.504 4.821 4.375
18.689"* .321
Between Subjects A (adjusted) Subjects within A (adjusted)
2 44
179.736 56.475
3.183"
*p < .05 ** p < .01 J o u r n a l of S c h o o l Psychology, V o l u m e 9, 1 9 7 1
.988 .537 1.030 1.102
/
L/
Effects of Indirect Reinforcement on Kindergarten Children
289
separate conditions. It is interesting to note that the same type of drop-off performance of Ss under indirect negative reinforcement reported by Weiner & Hartsough (1967) was present in the Pairs condition across Day One and again on Day Two. In the Small Groups condition, Ss under indirect negative reinforcement, although dropping in performance across Day One, showed a
35
IREINFORCEMENT
34 (/} bJ
cr 33
i INDIRECT /'---.-__NEGATIVE
o
32 u. .o 31 ne hi 30 Z
POSITIVE
29
24 HOUR BREAK NEU TRA L
28
I i
BASE RATE
[
I
I
i
i
i
I
4
5
6
7
8
9
TRIALS
Figure 1. Average Performance for Combined Subject Groups.
Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Treatment Groups Base Rate
Day One
Day Two
Pairs
X
SD
X
SD
X
SD
Neutral Direct Positive Indirect Negative
28.19 28.81 29.69
3.25 6.00 4.31
28.75 28.79 33.08
3.10 6.09 4.47
30.83 31.70 34.12
4.88 6.15 5.42
Groups Neutral Direct Positive Direct Negative Indirect Positive Indirect Negative
29.31 29.31 29.94 30.69 29.88
6.80 3.87 6.87 6.87 2.37
29.62 30.33 31.25 30.92 33.08
6.44 4.95 6.57 6.44 3.91
31.71 31.59 34.29 32.58 34.62
7.77 6.06 6.95 4.94 3.94
Combined Neutral Direct Positive Indirect Negative
28.75 29.06 29.81
5.02 4.93 3.34
29.18 29.56 33.08
4.77 5.52 4.19
31.27 31.64 34.37
6.32 6.10 4.68
Journal of S c h o o l Psychology, V o l u m e 9, 1 9 7 1
290
E. A. Weiner, B. J. Weiner, and D. M. Hartsough
steady increase in performance on Day Two. An attempt to explain this pattern may be made by examining the social structure present in both conditions. In the Small Groups it is likely that observing two other children receive reinforcement may have had a stronger emotional effect and more competitive overtones than in the Pairs condition. Therefore, the drive to gain positive reinforcement by a higher performance level may have been related to the number of children already receiving the direct reinforcement. To what point of group size one can carry this view is a difficult question but an empirical one. The results of this study support possible answers for questions raised by Weiner & Hartsough (1967). One answer is with regard to the generalizability of the indirect reinforcement effect from dyads to larger groups. A possible direction from the results obtained in this study is an examination of larger groups, even entire classes, under different reinforcement paradigms. Support is also provided for the view that children are aware enough of their social environment to be affected by a lack of direct reinforcement in a dyadic or small group situation. This has particular input on the question of using direct negative reinforcement in the classroom. A careful and systematic use of select positive reinforcement may have an even greater motivating effect for some children than direct negative reinforcement, while possibly affecting a larger number of children. Further, this may well be accomplished in this paradigm without creating a questionable atmosphere for the child's personality development and possible withdrawal from competition in failure situations. The concept of maintaining performance versus motivating an increase in performance has a role in the discussion of the results of this study. It should also be noted that changes by the children in this study were in regard to a performance task, not one involving a specific type of academic learning. Direct positive and indirect positive reinforcement effects here were similar to those reported by Weiner & Hartsough (1967): Ss under these conditions tended to maintain their pre-reinforcement performance levels aside from the overall practice effects over trials and from Day One to Day Two. It appears, then, that positive reinforcement in situations similar to the one in this study can be used for maintaining a level of performance, while some form of negative reinforcement may contribute to performance increase. Weiner & Hartsough (I 967) raised the question of the over time effects of the different reinforcement types. The present brief examination of this issue showed that all children increased in performance from Day One to Day Two, but also that Ss under indirect negative reinforcement increased above their already higher level (Figure 1). Therefore a view of indirect reinforcement effects as lasting for at least a period of 24 hours is supported. The authors view the sequential use of indirect negative reinforcement to increase low performance and direct positive reinforcement to maintain performance levels as an important consideration for use in school situations. REFERENCES
Bandura, A., & Kupers, C. J. Transmission of patterns of self-reinforcement through modeling. Journal o f Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 69, 1-9. Journal of School Psychology, V o l u m e 9, 1971
Effects of Indirect R e i n f o r c e m e n t on Kindergarten Children
291
Beery, K. E. Developmental test o f visual motor integration. Manual. Chicago: Follett, 1967. Charlesworth, R., & Hartup, W. W. Positive social reinforcement in the nursery school peer group. Child Development, 1967, 38, 993-1002. Flanders, J. P. A review of research on imitative behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69, 316-337. Gesell, A. Gesell developmental schedules. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1940. ( 1956 revision) Hartup, W. W., & Coates, B. Imitation of a peer as a function of reinforcement from the peer group and rewardingness of the model. Child Development, 1967, 38, 1003-1015. Mischel, W., & Liebert, R. M. Effects of discrepancies between observed and reward criteria on their acquisition and transmission. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 45-53. Ross, D. Relationship between dependency, intentional learning, and incidental learning in preschool children. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 374-381. Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. Stanford-Binet intelligence scale (Third ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1960. Weiner, E. A., & Hartsough, D. M. Differential effects of direct and indirect reinforcement in human motivation. Paper delivered to Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, May 1967. Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Elliot A. Weiner Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Barbara J. Weiner Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Don M. Hartsough Associate Professor Department of Psychology Purdue University Lafayette, Indiana 47907 Received: August 22, 1970
Journal of S c h o o l P s y e h o l o ~ , V o l u m e 9, 1 9 7 1