Verbal Conditioning, Acceptance of Self and Acceptance of others

Abstract

The experiment concerned the hypotheses that the frequency of self-accepting responses to questionnaire items can be increased by standard verbal conditioning techniques and that this increase generalizes to similar but novel questionnaire items as well as to items indicative of more positive attitudes toward others. Two comparable forms (Forms A and B) of a scale of self-acceptance and acceptance-of-others were used. Form A of the scale, consisting of 18 self-acceptance items and 14 acceptance-of-others items, was administered to 400 R.C.A.F. personnel. The 60 lowest scorers on the self-acceptance items were selected and randomly divided into experimental and control groups. Each member of the experimental group was conditioned to a pre-determined criterion on the 18 self-acceptance items of Form A of the scale. Members of the control group received the same treatment except that reinforcement of responses was withheld. Immediately after the conditioning procedure, each S completed 50 questionnaire items drawn from Forms A and B of the scale. The results are interpreted as demonstrating that attitudes which are theoretically relevant to social interaction can be modified by means of verbal conditioning techniques.

Self-acceptance, acceptance-of-others, and verbal conditioning with mental hospital patients.

“…Until clinically relevant phenomena can be conditioned and shown to generalize reliably to other behaviour, verbal conditioning will have no significance cither for clinical practice or as a device for studying psychotherapy and other social interaction processes. The present study is essentially an attempt to replicate with hospital patients an investigation reported by Coons and McEachern (1967) using Air Force personnel. As in our earlier study with normals, attitudes towards self and others were chosen as variables which are worthy of investigation since the importance of self-acceptance and acceptance-ofothers has figured prominently in the personality theories of a number of writers (Fromm, 1941;Homey, 1937;Snygg & Combs, 1949;Rogers, 1951Rogers, ,1961.…”