THE EFFECTS OF VICARIOUS REINFORCEMENT ON MODELING BY SCHIZOPHRENIC HOSPITAL PATIENTS

MICHAEL J. KEYES

Central Islip Psychiatric Center

JULIA R. VANE

Hofstra University

PROBLEM Many of the variables important in modeling by normal Ss have been in-

vestigated extensively(a* 5 * 11), but much less is known about modeling with schizo- phrenics, despite the importance that the understanding of such learning would have in the planning of rehabilitation programs(*- 4 ) . Studies by Bishop and Beck- man“) and Kanfer and Marston(12) show that schizophrenics are less likely to imi- tate the behavior of a model than are normal Ss under the same experimental conditions. Whether this indicates that schizophrenic Ss and normal Ss respond to different variables in the modeling situation is not known. Because vicarious reinforcement, or reinforcement administered to the model rather than to the S , has been shown to enhance imitative behavior in normal Ss@- *, la, 15), the present study was designed to investigate the effects of vicarious reinforcement on the imitative behavior of schizophrenic hospital patients.

METHOD The Ss were 160 adult male chronic schizophrenic patients a t a large psy-

chiatric hospital. All of the Ss were free of diagnosed alcoholism, drug abuse, and organic damage.

The patients were told by an attendant that thc psychologist ( E ) had some cake that he would give to patients who asked him for it. They were advised by the attendant to go in and ask. The experiment was conducted in the half-hour prior to meal time. Each S entcrcd individually and then exited by another door into another room, so that no feedback information was givcn to entering patients. Each S saw thc model, who was a patient, ask the E for a piccc of cakc, which was in view on a nearby table. The procedure followed by the modcl in all cases was to shake hands with the E and say, “Hcllo, sir. I’m John Jones. May I have a piecc of cake, please?” There were four dependent variables: the handshake, thc use of the words “sir” and “plcase” and the use by the S of his name.

I n ordcr to determine to what degrec the patients would be inclined to cmit spontaneously any of the four dependent measure behaviors, 40 paticnts were given the instructions by the ward attendant and camc in to ask thc E for cake, but no model was present. The results showed that only 7 of the 40 paticnts per- formed any of thc behaviors, and no patient pcrformcd morc than onc of the four behaviors. Since it was determined that the probability of including thcsc be- haviors in a situation without a model was less than 5%, each of thcsc behaviors performed by the S was recorded as modeling. Each S was able to carn a maximum score of 4 by emitting all four dependent variable behaviors.

Three treatment groups of 40 Ss each were exposcd to one of three conditions: 1. Positive vicarious rcinforccment: The E responded to thc model’s request

for cake by saying, “Yes, of course you may have some” and handed him a slice of cake.

2. Negative vicarious reinforcement: The E’ responded to the model’s request by saying, “NO, you can’t. There isn’t enough for everyone.”

3. No vicarious rcinforccment: The E responded to the model by saying, “Just a moment” and then turning to the S and asking, “What can I do for you?”

A simple analysis of variance was used to evaluate the main cffect of the three levels of vicarious reinforcement. A t-test for independent groups with hctcro-

4 14 MICHAEL J. KEYES AND JULIA R. VANE

geneous variances(14’ was used to compare the scores of the Ss in the cvntrof group, who saw no model, with the scores of the 8s in the treatment groups.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION An analysis of variance indicated that the vicarious reinforcement had no

significant effect on the tendency of the Xs to imitate the behaviors of the model ( F = .0185; df = 2, 17; p > .1). Because effects of the different types of vicarious reinforcement were not significant, the three vicarious-reinforcement treatment conditions were pooled for comparison with the scores of Ss in the control condition. A &test indicated that the Ss who were exposed to a model, without regard to type of vicarious reinforcement, emitted significantly more of the dependent measure behaviors than did the Ss who saw no model (t = 2.52, df = 158, p < .02).

In brief, these schizophrenic Ss did imitate the actions of the model, but they did so regardless of the consequences to the model. The Ss were just as likely to imitate the model who was refused or ignored as the model who was rewarded. This finding is not what would be expected on the basis of the body of knowledge on vicarious reinforcement, but it may be in keeping with existing knowledge of schizophrenic processes, which suggests that schizophrenics do not always attend to relevant details‘’. 9 , 10). If lack of attentiveness to detail were a factor in the failure of the Ss to respond to vicarious reinforcement, the same factor might account for the generally low rate of modeling that occurred in all treatment con- ditions (X = .3917 on a scale of 4). Of the 120 patients in the treatment conditions, only 6 shook hands, 5 said “sir,” 14 said “please,” and 23 introduced themselves.

An implication of this study seems to be that schizophrenics may not learn readily from observing a model and that methods of rehabilitation might be oriented in terms of direct rather than indirect teaching and direct rather than indirect reinforcement. Direct reinforcement has been shown to have value to modify the behavior of schizophrenic patients, but it has yet to be demonstrated that vicarious or indirect methods will be as useful with schizophrenics as they are with normal populations.

SUMMARY Adult male schizophrenic Ss were exposed to a peer model under conditions

of positive vicarious reinforcement, negative vicarious reinforcement, and no vicarious reinforcement. The degree to which the Ss imitated the behaviors of the model was not affected by the vicarious reinforcement, although the Ss did emit significantly more of the dependent measure behaviors than did a group of control Ss who had seen no model. The failure of the Ss to respond to the vicarious rein- forcement was seen in terms of the inability of schizophrenics to attend to relevant detail.

REFERENCES 1. ALUMBAUGH, R. V. and SWENEY, A. B. Application of an information model to schizophrenia:

2. BANDURA, A. Principles of Behavior Modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969. 3. BANDURA, A. (Ed.) Psychological Modekng: Conflicting Theories. New York: Aldine-Atherton,

4. BANDURA, A. Psychotherapy as a learning process. Psychol. Bull., 1961, 68, 143-159. 5. BANDURA, A. and BARAB, P. G. Conditions governing nonreinforced imitation. Devel. Psychol.,

6. BANDURA, A., ROSS, D. and ROSS, S. A. Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning. J .

7. BISHOP, B. R. and ~ E C E M A N , L. Conformity and imitation among hospitalized patients. J .

8. BRAUN, S. Effects of schedultw of direct or Vicarious reinforcement and modeling on behavior

9. BUSS, A. H. and LANQ, P. J. Psychological deficit in schizophrenia: affect, reinforcement, and

relationship of relevancy to irrelevancy.

1971.

1971, 6, 244-255.

abn. SOC. Psychol., 1963 67, 601-607.

clin. Psychol., 1971, 87, 529-532.

in extinction. J . Pers. sac. Psychol., 1972, 22, 356-365.

concept attainment. J . abn. Psychol., 1965, 70, 2-24.

Psychol. Rep., 1973, 32, 519-526.

EFFECTS O F VICARIOUS REINFORCEMENT ON MODELING 415

10. CAMERON, N. Deterioration and regression in schizophrenic thinking. J . abn. SOC. Psychol.,

11. FLANDERS, J. P. A review research on imitative behavior. Psychol. Bull., 1968, 69, 316-337. 12. GILL, W. S. Attitude change and schizophrenia. Psychol. Rec., 196Fj, 16, 289-296. 13. KANFER, F. H. and MARSTON, A. R. Human reinforcement: vicarious and direct. J . exper.

14. MCCALL, R. B. Fundamental Statistics for Psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World,

15. MARLATT, G. A. A comparison of vicarious and direct reinforcement control of verbal behavior

1939, 34, 265-270.

Psychol., 1963, 65, 292-296.

1970.

in an interview setting. J . Pers. soe. Psychol., 1970, 16, 695703.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-ACTUALIZATION AND PSYCHOSOCIAL MATURITY'

PAUL v. OLCZAK~ AND JEFFREY A. GOLDMAN

Hartwick College

PNOMLNM Recently Stagner (I6) has suggested that the concepts of self-actualization

(Maslow) and psychosocial maturity (Erikson) seem rather closely related. Self- actualization (SA) refers to an organism's drive to actualize its potentialities. Self- actualizers are people who are developed or are developing to the full stature of which they are capable. Characteristically, these people have superior perception of reality, increased self-acceptance, increases in spontaneity, detachment, autono- my, and creativity. A self-actualized individual is more autonomous and self- directed. He depends less on other people and is less ambivalent about them(g).

Mas1ow)'O) has stated that in the study of SA people there has been a move toward greater objectivity that has resulted in a standardized test of SA known as the Personal Orientation Inventory (POI) ( I3 , 14). This tcst has been shown to be psychometrically adequate @).

Erikson(4) has postulated that a person goes through eight stages in develop- ment from infancy to old age. The development of these stages depends upon social interactions in which a demand is placed on the individual and thc child reacts to these demands; that is, a crisis ensues. A residual attitude is left with thc indi- vidual, an orientation toward himself and the world after the resolution (no matter how succcssful) of each crisis. The components of an individual's personality thus are determined by thc manner in which each of these successive crises is resolved. Basic Trust develops when the crisis of the first stage is resolved succcssfully, whilc Basic Mistrust develops given an unsuccessful resolution. In actuality, most individuals fall somcwhcre on a continuum between these extremes.

The six continua that represent the personality components thought to de- velop during the six stages from birth through late adolcsccnce and early adulthood are: (a) Basic Trust us. Basic Mistrust; (b) Autonomy us. Shame and Doubt; (c) Initiative us. Guilt; (d) Industry us. Inferiority; (e) Identity us. Role Confusion; and (f) Intimacy us. Isolation. I'sychosocial maturity, then, reflects how success- fully each crisis was resolved. The more successful the resolution, the greater the degree of psychosocial maturity.

'The authors wish to extend a note of thanks to Dr. Wanda Jagocki for her helpful comments while this manuscript was in preparation and to David Kelly for his assistance in the computer center. The present research was supported by a reasearch grant given to the authors by the Board of Trustees of Hartwick College.

*Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Paul v. Olcsak, Psychology Department, Hartwick College, Oneonta, N. Y. 13820.