Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 1970 Verbal Operant Conditioning: Response Generalization as a Function of the Need for Social Approval Victor Joseph Heckler Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Heckler, Victor Joseph, "Verbal Operant Conditioning: Response Generalization as a Function of the Need for Social Approval" (1970). Dissertations. 1025. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/1025 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © Victor Joseph Heckler VERBAL OPERANT CONDITIONING: RESPONSE GENERALIZATION AS A FUNCTION OF THE NEED FOR SOCIAL APPROVAL »1 Victor J~ Heckler A D1seertat1on Sttbm1tted to the Faculty ot the Graduate School ot Loyola On1Ters1t7 in Partial Fulfillment ot the Requirements tor the Degree ot Doctor ot Philosophy January 1970 Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank h1s advisor, Dr. Frank J. Kobler, for his guidance and assistance through the preparation and completion of this stud7. Gratitude 1s also expressed to the other members ot his Dissertation Committee, Drs. William A. Hunt and Ronald E. Walker, whose very thoughtful observations contributed much to the adequacy of this work. Many thanks are also due Drs. Patrick R. Laughlin and James B. Erdman for their generous assistance in the choice ot the statistical techniques. The author is also grateful to Dr. V1noent Pisani, Chief Psychologist ot the Chicago Aloohollo Treatment Center, and to Miss Phyllis Sn1der, Executive Director of the Center, tor their examination and approval of the research and tor permitting the use of patients at the Center as ~s tor this study. Numerous other personnel at the Center were very helpful in the scheduling of -Ss and 1n making the author's days and evenings there most pleasant. Mrs. Rosella Klemz 1s thanked tor her patience and cooperativeness in the typing of this report. Finally, the author wishes to express his sincere appreo1at:b to his wife, Mary Anne, for her tolerance and encouragement displayed not only through the preparation or this study but also during the author's entire graduate career. 11 Vita The author was born 1n Chicago, Illinois on August 10, 1942. After graduation trom St. Mel High School 1n 1960 1 he attended Loyola Un1vers1t71 Chicago, and received the degree of Bachelor of So1enee 1n June,1964. Re began h1s graduate studies in the Department ot Psychology of Loyola University 1n September, 1964 and was awarded the Master of Arts degree 1n February, 1967. He took his clerkship at the Veterans Administration Research Hospital and his 1nternsh1p at H1nes Hospital and. the Outpatient Clinic of the Westside Hospital. In March, 1969, he took the pos1t1on of Research Associate at Loyola University, where he is currently employed. 111 Table ot Contents Chapter Page I INTRODUCTION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE • • • • • • • • • • • • S Verbal operant cond1t1on1nga An Introduction • • S Critique I: Is this Operant Cond.1t1on1?Jg? • • • • 1 Verbal Conditioning as Therap7 •••••••••• 11 Critique Ilt Is this Therapy? • • • • • • • • • • l) Generalization Effects • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 15 The Need for Soo1al Approval, Conditioning, and. Defensiveness • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 24 Aloohol1sm, MC SIB, and Verbal Conditloning • • • 31 III DESIGN OF THE STUDY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • )4 Subjects • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • )4 Adm.1n1strat1on of MC SDS • • • • • • • • • • • • • )4 Selection ot Subjects tor Conditioning and Generalicat1on • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • JS Apparataa • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 32 Cond1t1on1ng and General1zat1on Procedures • • • • 4~ IV RESULTS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 49 Dlstr1but1on ot MO SDS 1n an Alcoholic Sample • • 49 Assignment ot Subjects • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 49 ff7pothes1s I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .Sl Hn>othes1s II • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • "Task Categor1zat1on• ot PDT • • • • • • • • • • • gi Rel1ab111t7 ot Soor1ng Em.otlonal Words • • • • • • 62 Hypothesis III • • • • 63 BJ'pothes1s • • • • • • • • • • • • • • IV • • • • • • • • • * • • • • • • • • 6) Awareness • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 68 v DISCUSSION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 69 Distribution ot MC SDS 1n an Aloohol1o Sample • • 69 Hypothesis I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 70 B)'pothes1s II • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 71 "Task Categorization" ot PDT • • • • • • • • • • • 71 HJpothes1s III • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 72 H1'POthes1s IV • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 72 Awareness • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 74 VI SUMMARY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 75 REFERENCES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 77 APPENDICES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 87 iv List ot Tables Table Page l Analysis ot Variance of MC SDS in Need Levels and Treatment Conditions • • • • • • • • • 50 2 Analysis ot Variance ot PDT scored by C - N + JO 1n Need Levels and Treatment Conditions • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 52 J Analysis ot Variance of PDT scored by C in Need Levels and Treatment Conditions • • • • • • 54 4 Anal7s1s of Variance ot PDT Soored by N 1n Need Levels and Treatment Conditions • • • • • • 56 5 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations between MC SDS and PDT Scored b7 Three Methods in Three Treatment Groups • • • • • • • • • • • • SB 6 Mean PDT Scored by Three Methods in Need Levels Within the Cl Condition • • • • • • • • • 60 7 Anal7s1s ot Var1anoe ot Frequency of Emotional Words During Trials One and Two in Need Levels and Treatment Conditions • • • • • 64 8 Analysis ot Variance ot Frequenc7 of Emotional Words in Need Levels and Treatment Conditions and Sequence of Trials • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 65 v List ot Figures Figure Page 1 Illustration of Treatment Condition x Need Level Interaction of Frequency of Emotional Words During Trials One and Two • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 67 vi - 1 Chapter I INTRODUCTION Verbal operant conditioning is a desor1pt1ve label tor a variety of techniques. Common among them is the attempt ot -E to influence the verbal behavior ot -s through the planned use or social reinforcement. Social reinforcement is usually of a verbal nature, but motor behavior (e.g., a head nod or smile) is also employed. Some researchers (Greenspoon, 1962; Williams, 1964) have drawn into focus d1tterences between the operant cond1t1on1ng ot verbal behavior of humans and the operant oond1t1on1ng ot motor behavior of intrahumans. How­ ever, the resemblance between the two is striking and the label persists. Several authors, most notable among them Krasner (1962), have drawn parallels between verbal operant cond1t1on1ng and psychotherapy. Both processes are viewed within the frame- work or a re1ntoreement theory of learning. They are not unique but are seen as members of a large class of 1nfluenc1.ng processes Others (e.g., Luborsky & Strupp, 1962) have sharply cr1t1c1zed the validity ot the parallels between the two. The debate has been more emotional than rational. What 1s needed 1s more attention to the empirical data. Particularly crucial are data - 2 on the genera.11zat1on of conditioned verbal behavior. The majority of existing studies of generalization etrects have beea geared toward demonstrating these effects and have not taken 1nto account individual differences. Further, relatively few have set out to establish generalization effects which might be considered therapeutic (e.g •• Krumboltz & Thoresen, 1964; Ullmann, Krasner, & Collins, 1961). A goal of this study 1s to demonstrate generalization ettecta which are assumed to be therapeutic and which are a tunot1on ot a relevant personality variable. The personality variable is the need tor social approval as measured by the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MC SDS) (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). High need for approval ~s, as contrasted with lows, have been shown to be more verbally oond1t1ona.ble (e.g., Crowne & Strickland, 1961; Epstein, 1964). They are also more defensive (e.g., Conn & Crowne, 1964; L1ohtenste1n & Bryan, 19651 Tutko, 1962). It 1s the intent ot this study to therapeutically utilize the heightened cond1t1on­ ab111 ty ot high scorers on the MC SDS in order to lower their defensiveness. The measure ot defensiveness is a perceptual detense test adapted from Shannon (1955). Previous studies have shown that perceptual defensiveness (1) can be lowered through the cond1t1on1ng ot emotional words (Ullman, Weiss, & Krasner, 1963) and (2) bears a positive relationship to the MC SDS (Barthel & Crowne, 1962). The purpose of the present study is to provide some empirical evidence upon which the utility of the verbal operant eond1t1on1ng model of therapeutic change ma1 be judged. This model ot therapeutic change, as any other, must demonstrate generalization from one context to another. The present study proposes to do just that. The majority ot studies ot the generalization ot verbal responses which have been operantly conditioned have used tasks which have been emotionally neutral. However, the content ot psychotherapy