This study compared the effects of contingent and noncontingent vicarious reinforcement (VR) on group verbal conditioning by direct reinforcement (DR). The results indicated that noncontingent VR impedes learning. In addition, this experiment compared group and individual verbal conditioning and found that they were not significantly different in their effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BanduraA.Vicarious processes: A case of no-trial learning. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965. Pp%. 1–55.
2.
FlandersJ. P.A review of research on imitative behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69, 316–337.
3.
GoldmanM. A.Comparison of group and individual performance where subjects have varying tendencies to solve problems. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1966, 73, 604–607.
4.
HastorfA.The “reinforcement” of individual actions in a group situation. In KrasnerL.UllmannL. (Eds.), Research in behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1965. Pp%. 268–284.
5.
KanferF. H.Vicarious human reinforcements: A glimpse into the black box. In KrasnerL.UllmannL. (Eds.), Research in behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1965. Pp%. 244–267.
6.
KanferF. H.MarstonA. R.Human reinforcement: Vicarious and direct. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 65, 292–296.
7.
MatarazzoJ. D.SaslowF.PareisE. N.Verbal conditioning of two response classes: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 61, 190–206.
8.
PhillipsR. E.Comparison of direct and vicarious reinforcement and an investigation of methodological variables. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 78, 666–669.
9.
SiegelS.Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.
