Heckel's argument for aversive conditioning based on mere inspection of (O — E)/E ratios is rejected in favor of evidence for positive conditioning on the basis of the results of recognized tests of significance, as used in the writer's original paper which evoked Heckel's comment. No evidence or argument is found in the Heckel comment that requires any modification of the conclusion as stated in the original paper.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HeckelR. V.Comment on Oakes: “Reinforcement of Bales' categories in group discussion.”Psychol. Rep., 1963, 13, 301–302.
2.
HeckelR. V.WigginsS. L.SalzbergH. C.Conditioning against silences in group therapy. J. clin. Psychol., 1962, 18, 216–217.
3.
OakesW. F.Reinforcement of Bales' categories in group discussion. Psychol. Rep., 1962, 11, 427–435.
4.
OakesW. F.DrogeA. E.AugustB.Reinforcement effects on participation in group discussion. Psychol. Rep., 1960, 7, 503–514.
5.
OakesW. F.DrogeA. E.AugustB.Reinforcement effects on conclusions reached in group discussion. Psychol. Rep., 1961, 9, 27–34.
