言語条件づけの2つの型の区別 “概念”条件づけと“連合”条件づけ

吉田 甫

doi:10.4992/jjpsy.44.241

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN TWO TYPES OF VERBAL CONDITIONING

“CONCEPT” CONDITIONING AND “ASSOCIATION” CONDITIONING

HAJIME YOSHIDA

Author information

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

1973 Volume 44 Issue 5 Pages 241-249

DOI https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.44.241

Details

Published: 1973 Received: July 20, 1973 Available on J-STAGE: July 16, 2010 Accepted: - Advance online publication: - Revised: -
Correction information
Date of correction: July 16, 2010 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : Although the notion of contingency between response and reinforcement in verbal conditioning well fits in with the Taffel type task in which the subject makes the prescribed response on each trial, it does not fit in with the Greenspoon type task in which the subject emits different response on each trial. In this latter type, it is perhaps the case that some subjects learn only the contingency between response and reinforcement, while other subjects acquire the common concept among the responses. Then, if the concept is acquired in this task according to the operant conditioning paradigm, we may call this as “concept” conditioning. The purpose of the present experiment is to differentiate in the Taffel type situation the subjects who acquire the awareness of concept (a kind of part of speech) from those who are only aware of the contingency, and to examine their performance. The second purpose is to test the effect of the number of subterms and their relatedness level on conditioning.
The subjects were 150 high school students. In preliminary examination, five or three words which are mutually related and five or three unrelated words were chosen as the subterms of four parts of speech (noun, verb, adjective and foreign word). A 2×2 factorial design was used, incorporating the number of subterms and the level of their relatedness. The 21st-80th trials were conditioning trials, while the 1st-20th trials were operant trials. Each time the subject used a part of speech which was of the highest operant level in operant conditioning phase, that response was reinforced by the experimenter with a mild affirmatory word (“good”). The last 40 trials were extinction trials. After completion of conditioning trials, each subject was interviewed and was classified into unaware subject (No awareness group), subject who was aware of the contingency only (Association group), or subject who acquired the concept (Concept group).
The main results were as follows:
1. Successful conditioning occurred only in Concept group.
2. Both No awareness and Association groups did not show a significant increment of performance from operant trials to acquisition trials.
3. There was no relationship between the number of subjects who acquired the number of subterms or the level of their relatedness.
It appears that successful conditioning in Concept type task depends primarily upon the conditioning of concept rather than the mere awareness of the contingency between response and reinforcement. It is also suggested that the Taffel type conditioning is characterized as “association” conditioning and the so-called Greenspoon type conditioning contains both concept conditioning and association conditioning.
Right : The present study tried to distinguish 2 groups of aware Ss in verbal conditioning: those who acquired the concept of the item to be conditioned and those who were only aware of the contingency between the item to be conditioned and the reinforcement. Through interview, the Ss were classified into unware Ss (No awareness group), Ss who were aware of the contingency only (Association group) and Ss who acquired the concept (Concept group). The main results were as follows: (a) Successful conditioning occurred only in Concept group. (b) Both No awareness and Association groups did not show a significant increment of performance on acquisition trials. (c) There was no relationship between the acquisition of concept and the number of subterms or the level of their relatedness. The relevance of the present dichotomy to Greenspoon and Taffel type paradigms was discussed.

Abstract

The present study tried to distinguish 2 groups of aware Ss in verbal conditioning: those who acquired the concept of the item to be conditioned and those who were only aware of the contingency between the item to be conditioned and the reinforcement. Through interview, the Ss were classified into unware Ss (No awareness group), Ss who were aware of the contingency only (Association group) and Ss who acquired the concept (Concept group). The main results were as follows: (a) Successful conditioning occurred only in Concept group. (b) Both No awareness and Association groups did not show a significant increment of performance on acquisition trials. (c) There was no relationship between the acquisition of concept and the number of subterms or the level of their relatedness. The relevance of the present dichotomy to Greenspoon and Taffel type paradigms was discussed.

Corresponding author

Correction information

Register with J-STAGE for free!