Instrumental learning in preschool children as a function of type of task, type of reward, and some organismic variables

A Comparative Study of Instrumental Learning by Preschool Children in Papua New Guinea and Australia

“…E then delivered a set of instructions appropriate to S's task and reward conditions. For example, in the imitative task with nonsocial reward, the procedure followed that reported by Clarke et al (1974) with somewhat simplified instructions which had been protested to fit the English comprehension level of the PNG children. Each child was introduced to the puppet and t : !…”

“…The apparatus, which has been fully described by Clarke et al (1974), permitted the presentation of either imitative or nonimitative tasks and either social or nonsocial rewards. For the imitative task the table used contained two sets of three recessed buttons, separated by a transparent screen, which a female Caucasian E pressed using a black cat glove puppet ("Sooty"): E followed a pre-programmed random sequence displayed on an indicator concealed from S. The indicator also signalled correct responses, so that when social rewards were being used, the E knew when to give reinforcement.…”

“…These skills are likely to be acquired and modified under imitative and nonimitative conditions (on tasks similar to those used by Azrin and Lindsley, 1956;Vogler, 1968;Vogler, Masters and Merrill, 1970), and are likely to result in performance-contingent social and nonsocial rewards being experienced by the child (Azrin and Lindsley, 1956;Stevenson, 1961;Allen, Hart, Buell and Wolf, 1964;Harris, Wolf and Baer, 1964;Vogler et al, 1970). A previous study of instrumental learning by young children (Clarke, Viney, Waterhouse and Lord, 1974) has demonstrated the importance, for the interpretation of results, of collecting data about errors of omission (when appropriate behavior is absent) and commission (when inappropriate behavior is present) as well as data about correct responses. Hence, in the present study a fine-grain analysis again was made of the behavior of the children.…”

“…The decision to compare the instrumental learning of children in Australia (AUST) and Papua New Guinea (PNG) was made primarily in order to test the cross-cultural generality of earlier findings concerning this form of learning. For example, it was expected that the imitative version of the task would be acquired more quickly than the nonimitative version, as it had been in AUST (Clarke et al, 1974), since young PNG children, like AUST children, are known to do much of their learning by imitation (Chowning, 1973). Similarly, PNG children were expected to show greater resistance to extinction after social than nonsocial reward, like AUST children, and also after a combination of social reward and imitative task (Clarke et al, 1974).…”

“…For example, it was expected that the imitative version of the task would be acquired more quickly than the nonimitative version, as it had been in AUST (Clarke et al, 1974), since young PNG children, like AUST children, are known to do much of their learning by imitation (Chowning, 1973). Similarly, PNG children were expected to show greater resistance to extinction after social than nonsocial reward, like AUST children, and also after a combination of social reward and imitative task (Clarke et al, 1974). According to Chowning (1973), PNG children learn mainly through their parents' application of social (verbal) rewards rather than nonsocial (material) rewards, so that any reward effects in extinction might well be more pronounced for those children.…”