Contiguity and reinforcement factors in multiple-choice verbal learning: Parametric influences

for each daily session as weil. Sex was counterbalanced between groups, but Ss were otherwise assigned randomly to groups. PROCEDURE The SS were seated individually in a sm all sound-attenuated room across a table from E and were presented a booklet of higher than the chance level assumed by five pages of multiple-choice items (one set Thorndike, but only slightly so. Using the of items per page and one page per trial I ). empirical baseline, he concluded that Each item in the set consisted of one 2 verbal punishment was only weakly German word paired with five English words, lettered A through E. S was e ff e c ti ve; averaging across Ss, one occurrence of wrong reduced the incidence instructed to choose one of the Engiish of inconect responses on the following words for each item (by stating the Engiish word orally and underlining it). All words trial by about II %. Thus, Tilton's study provides evidence were selected randomly from dictionaries for the effectiveness of verbal punishment and were balanced for number of letters in multiple-choice learning, but his results and first grammatical usage given in the are still in conflict with most of the recent d i ctionary. All Engiish words were results on punishment. His results show balanced for first letter, and all German verbal punishment to be only weakly words began with the letter "F." No effective in suppressing responses, whereas Engiish word was the translation of any strong effects of at least one aversive German word. A key by which E stimulus (electric shock) have been determined rights and wrongs was repeatedly demonstrated with both animals constructed by selecting English alternatives randomly, with an equal and humans (e.g., Azrin & Holz, 1966). Thorndike's conc1usions were dicta ted number from each position, A through E. by his theoretical baseline, but Tilton's Four random orders of the items within conclusions did not markedly differ from each set (Le., for each trial) were used; them. The generality of their conclusions, these sets were presented in 1-2-34-1 order however, may be questioned because of for a total of five trials. their use of extreme values for two The Ss were equally divided into four parameters. Both used a large number of groups that differed in number of items items (Thorndike, 200; Tilton, 50 (15 or 50) and intertrial interval (massed: nonsense-syllable items) and long intertrial five trials run in immediate succession; intervals (lTI), with I day of uncontrolled spaced: five trials run one per day for 5 activity between each presentation of the days). Thus, the four groups were: 15 set of items. The effects of se lee ted values items-massed (l5-M), 15 items-spaced of these parameters are examined in this (15-S), 50 items-spaced (50-S), and 50 experiment. items-massed (50-M). Spaced trials were Other studies of multiple-choice learning run daily, Monday through Friday. As (Buchwald, 1959, 1962; Buss et al, 1956, reported by Thorndike, running Ss daily 1959; Spence, 1964, 1966) have compared required some minor rescheduling of groups told right after conect choices and sessions; that is, a few ITIs were greater or nothing after incorrect choices with groups less than 24 h, but the differences did not that were told only wrong after incorrect exceed 2 h. The particular parametric choices and with other groups told both values were chosen to cover a broad range righ t and wrong after correct and incorrect of values less extreme than those used by choices, respectively. Buchwald (1969) Thorndike and Tilton. Each of the four groups was equally compared the effects of right, wrong, and nothing in Ss that were told all three. No subdivided into two subgroups on the basis research has been done to establish the of feedback. Half of the Ss were told right comparability of these various within- and or wrong according to the key (R-W); the between-S comparisons. The present study other half (controls) received no feedback follows Thorndike and Tilton in comparing (NF). E said both right and wrong in a the effects of right and wrong for Ss that neutral conversational tone. Since wh at are told beth with Ss that are given no was said to each S in the R-W groups feedback. depended on S's choices, the proportions SUBJECTS of rights and wrongs on each trial varied. Forty-eight undergraduates enrolled in On Trial 1, the proportion approximated introductory psychology at the University chance, i.e., one-fifth right and four-fifths üf Tennessee, who reportedly did not wTOng. "know" German, served as Ss. All Ss All groups were given the following fulfilled a course requirement. Ss in groups instructions: "BefoTe you is a set of run on more than 1 day were paid $1.00 German and English words. Choose (he Contiguity and reinforcement factors in multiple-choice verballearning: Parametrie influences BENJAMIN B. LAHEY and WILL/AM S. VERPLANCK, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn. 37919 A multiple-choice learning ~ask was used in four combinations of long-short ITis and large-small number of items. 111 each graup, half of the Ss were told right or wrang after each choice and half lVere given no feedback. All four groups showed similar results: Choic'e without feedback was sufficieIlt to praduce an increase in repetition of choices. Repetition after both right and IVrong was 10IVer thall in the 110 feedback cOlldition. Repetition after right was higher thall after wrong, which was at the chance level. confirming Thorndike 's flnding. A signif7cant effect of ITI (. UU 1) and number of items (.05) was found in the no feedback groups, but no significant effects were foulld on repetition after right or wrong. In Thorndike's most frequently cited study of "multiple-choice learning" (1934. pp. 278ff). Ss were presented with aseries 01' lIlultip1e-choice items each consisting of one Spanish and five Engiish words. They were instructed to choose the conect translation of the Spanish word from the English choices and were told righ t or wrong after each choice. Thorndike evaluated the effects of right and wrong in this experiment against the prob ability of choosing a given alternative by chance (I (number of alternatives). This value (p = 0.20) was taken as a theoretical baseline: He assumed that the frequency of repetition of a choice on the next trial in the absence of right or wrong would be equal to chance. A measure of repetition was calculated by dividing the number of alternatives that were chosen for the first time on Trials 2,3, or 4 by the number of those alternatives that were chosen again on at least the succeeding trial. Finding that the frequency of repetition of choices that were followed by wrong was approximately equal to chance. Thorndike concluded that punishment had no effect on the strength of the choice responses. Tilton questioned Thorndike's assumed baseline. To establish an empirical baseline, he ran a group of Ss in which E said neither right nor wrong after S's choices. He found (...truncated)