Positive and negative reinforcement with short- and long-term hospitalized schizophrenics in a probability learning situation.

McInnis, Titus; Ullmann, Leonard P.

doi:10.1037/h0020090

Cited by 18 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Comparing the results of the present experiment with those of Mclnnis and Ullmann (1967) leads to some rather perplexing findings. To make these results concur logically, one would have to conclude that the addition of reward would lead to an actual decrease in frequency of choice for the long-term schizophrenics, while penalty would do so for the short-term schizophrenics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…However, employing a standard probability learning paradigm, Ullmann & Straughan (1959) failed to find differences between the performance of bright normal controls and schizophrenics selected from an intensive treatment ward. In a later experiment Mclnnis & Ullmann (1967) administered a standard, two-choice, probability learning task to long-and short-term schizophrenics. In the positive reinforcement condition the subjectwas given one chip for each correct selection, with live chips exchangeable for one penny.…”

Section: \Nrlli Caralina State Universitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 greater under penalty than under reward for the long-term group. Mclnnis and Ullmann (1967) concluded that although longterm hospitalization leads to a reversal in the effectiveness of positive and negative reinforcement, it also renders the individual less responsive to both kinds of reinforcement. One implication of this interpretation would be that an increase in both amount and frequency of penalty on a probability learning task would differentially facilitate the performance of short-term as compared to long-term schizophrenics.…”

Section: \Nrlli Caralina State Universitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of length of hospitalization, frequency of penalty, and amount of penalty on the probability learning of schizophrenics.

McKinney¹

1973

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Section: \Nrlli Caralina State Universitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: \Nrlli Caralina State Universitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of length of hospitalization, frequency of penalty, and amount of penalty on the probability learning of schizophrenics.

McKinney¹

1973

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…for the poor premorbids. Age of first hospitalization uid length of hospitalization were significantly different (p < .01), as is typically the case for good and bad premorbid schizophrenics (e.g., Mclnnis & Ullmann, 1967).…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 79%

Effect of praise and censure on the performance of schizophrenics.

Irwin¹,

Renner²

1969

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Poor premorbid schizophrenics were shown to be primarily motivated to avoid censure and good premorbids to be relatively more sensitive to praise. It was demonstrated that when censure was used on a task with only two possible responses, poor premorbids perform better than good premorbids. The opposite relationship was demonstrated for the effects of praise, to which the good premorbids were more responsive. On a task with many responses the praise or censure gave little information as to the correct response. On this task, censure was demonstrated to be relatively more disruptive to the poor premorbids than praise, but the opposite to hold for the good premorbids. Comparisons with neutral conditions and normal Ss were also made.Data are not in agreement with regard to the effects of praise and censure on the performance of schizophrenics. In some studies, it was found that schizophrenics performed more poorly under censure than under neutral conditions (Alvarez, 19S7; Dunham, 19S9;Garmezy, 1952;Neiditch, 1963; Webb, 19SS). Other investigators have found, however, that schizophrenics performed better under censure than under neutral conditions (Atkinson & Robinson, 1961;Cavanaugh, 19S8;Cavanaugh, Cohen, & Lang, 1960; Olson, 19S8). In some studies schizophrenics when praised did not show an increment in performance in comparison to their performance under neutral conditions (e.g., Cavanaugh et al., 1960); although in a few studies their performance did improve under praise (e.g., D 'Alessio & Spence, 1963).Review of the literature suggests that the level of premorbid adjustment and the nature of the task can account for the differential performance shown by schizophrenics under praise and censure. Garmezy (1965) postulated that good premorbid schizophrenics are less sensitive to censure than poor premorbid 1 This article is based in part on a PhD dissertation submitted by the first author to the University of Pennsylvania in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree.

show abstract

“…The person designated as schizophrenic is neither passive nor inert. Hospitalized psychiatric patients engage in "impression management" (Braginsky & Braginsky, 1967;Braginsky, Grosse, & Ring, 1966) and, in turn, are affected by their hospital experience (Mclnnis & Ullmann, 1967). In a similar fashion, rather than the designation as schizophrenic being relatively fortuitous, it is possible to hypothesize that nonhospitalized people emit a low base rate of behaviors that might be called schizophrenic.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Manipulation of indications of disturbed thinking in normal subjects.

Levitz¹,

Ullmann²

1969

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A behavioral model of schizophrenia would predict that "normal" people emit indications of disturbed thinking (IDT) and that the rate of emitted IDT will be affected by environmental manipulations. Two 2X2 (presence or absence of reinforcement; use or nonuse of instructions) experiments were conducted with college students. In one, Holtzman inkblots (HIT) served as the pretest-posttest measure and a word association test (WAT) was used for training; in the second, the WAT was the pretest-posttest measure and HIT was used for training. Results indicated that (a) both reinforcement and instructions affected IDT rates on both HIT and WAT during training; (6) training results generalized to the pretest-posttest task; and (c) compared to reinforcement, instruction led to a more rapid but less durable increase in IDT. 1 This study is based on a thesis submitted by the first author, under the direction of the second author, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the master's degree at the University of Illinois. The authors wish to thank J. S. Wiggins for his comments and Meryl Bernstein for her assistance with reliability.2 Requests for reprints should be sent to Leonard S.

show abstract

Positive and negative reinforcement with short- and long-term hospitalized schizophrenics in a probability learning situation.

Cited by 18 publications

References 26 publications

Effects of length of hospitalization, frequency of penalty, and amount of penalty on the probability learning of schizophrenics.

Effects of length of hospitalization, frequency of penalty, and amount of penalty on the probability learning of schizophrenics.

Effect of praise and censure on the performance of schizophrenics.

Manipulation of indications of disturbed thinking in normal subjects.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About