THE EFFECTS OF VERBAL REINFORCEMENT COMBINATIONS ON THREE-ALTERNATIVE DISCRIMINATION LEARNING AND EXTINCTION IN INFANTS AND THE ANALYSIS OF ERROR FACTORS
1972 Volume 20 Issue 3 Pages 147-154
Details
1972 Volume 20 Issue 3 Pages 147-154
This experiment was designed to examine the effects of verbal reinforcement combinations on three-alternative learning in infants by the analysis of error factors and to compare those with the results in children with those we had already published.
The Ss saw in front of them a series of cards each consisting of three figures arranged horizontally. The shapes of figures were circle, triangle and square at random, each of which was painted randomly red, green or yellow. The Ss were asked to choose a figure in each card which they thought correct and to push the button in front of this figure. One of three colors was designed as correct value randomly for each S. We set 9 trials as one block and the criterion of learning as the state of all correct responses in a block. The Ss were reinforced until reaching the criterion in one of three combinations of verbal reinforcement, that is, RW, RN and NIX. After the acquisition, 10 blocks were continued with out any reinforcement.
The learning process of each S was analyzed into error factors shown in TABLE 1 during 10 blocks of acqisition.
The results were as folows:
1. Numbers of unsuccessful subjects, numbers of blocks to the criterion of learning, and rates of error responses during 10 blocks showed that the verbal reinforcement combination RW was the most effective, and that the verbal reinforcement combination NW was inferior to RW to same degree with RN.
2. The error factor analysis made clear that the alternation with respect to position was the strongest error factor, and that those error factors, that is, the alternation with respect to color, the Lose-stay-win-shift with respect to shape, and the Win-stay-lose-shift with respect to position interfered with the learning in some degree.
These findings in infants showed the same tendency with those in children and the differences between infants and children are quantitatively. The facts form a contrast with the case of two alternative discrimination learning, where findings in infants was rather contrary to those in children.
