Ss were asked to discuss certain characteristics of themselves in a diagnostic interview setting. Experimental Ss were provided sham GSR feedback on the insightfulness of their self-descriptions. The feedback was actually controlled by the interviewer. Experimental Ss were rewarded for positive and punished for negative self-describing. Control Ss received no feedback. Experimental Ss were found to be reliably higher than controls in the proportion of positive self-descriptions during the interview and in favorable self-evaluations on a post-test measure of generalization.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsH. E.FryeR. L.Psychotherapeutic techniques as conditioned reinforcers in a structured interview. Psychol. Rep., 1964, 14, 163–166.
2.
GreenspoonJ.Verbal conditioning and clinical psychology. In BachrachA. J. (Ed.), Experimental foundations of clinical psychology. New York; Basic Books, 1962. Pp. 510–553.
3.
KleinF. L.Conditioning of favorable and unfavorable self-evaluative statements among high-, middle-, and low-anxious female college students. Paper read at the convention of the Amer. Psychol. Assn, September, 1964 in Los Angeles, Calif.
4.
KrasnerL.The therapist as a social reinforcement machine. In StruppH. H.LuborskyL. (Eds.), Research in psychotherapy. Washington, D. C.: Amer. Psychol. Assn, 1962. Pp. 61–94.
5.
NuthmannA. N.Conditioning of a response class on a personality test. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, 54, 19–23.
6.
RogersJ. M.Operant conditioning in a quasi-therapy setting. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1960, 60, 247–252.
7.
SiegelS.Nonparametric statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.
