Group Title: effect of expectancy, reinforcement value, and skill vs. chance situations on a simple performance task
Title: The Effect of expectancy, reinforcement value, and skill vs. chance situations on a simple performance task
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00097642/00001
 Material Information
Title: The Effect of expectancy, reinforcement value, and skill vs. chance situations on a simple performance task
Physical Description: ix, 61 leaves. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Sokolof, Marilyn Toby, 1946-
Publication Date: 1972
Copyright Date: 1972
 Subjects
Subject: Human behavior   ( lcsh )
Reinforcement (Psychology)   ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis -- University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 59-60.
Additional Physical Form: Also available on World Wide Web
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00097642
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000577467
oclc - 13982730
notis - ADA5162

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 2 MBs ) ( PDF )


Full Text

















il f t F i I. ': . i ,T I *-.-































1. f I T I, I I- i 'rrIf I-Lr I FI L li
IiI.F I I I-T: r Ii, I' I L -i, 1.1-M CI L"F L I


I l_ C I 1 v .'q li '
"'.











ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


I would like to express my appreciation to all those individuals

who have helped me in my professional development: my teachers, advisors,

supervisors, clients, family and friends. Each in their own way has

contributed something to make this degree possible, and I am deeply

grateful.

I would like to give thanks to Dr. William Wolking for his partici-

pation on both my master's and doctoral committees; to Dr. Vernon Van

De Riet for his friendly encouragement throughout my graduate training;

and to Dr. Madelaine Ramey for helping me understand the meaning of

statistics, as well as for her invaluable advice on this project. My

deepest and warmest appreciation goes to Dr. Audrey Schumacher, who

helped me with my training and my self. To Dr. Jacquelin Goldman,

chairman and friend, goes my warmest gratitude for her guidance,

patience, exasperation, and, most of all, her belief in me.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OF FIGURES vi

ABSTRACT vii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW 1

Introduction 1
Review of the Literature 3
The Problem 11

CHAPTER II: METHOD 13

Subjects 13
Apparatus 13
Procedure 14
Experimental Hypotheses 17

CHAPTER III: RESULTS 18

Main Effects 18
Interaction Effects 21
Sex Differences 33

H i : .TFf I-: Cl j,3=




3-

I i L' : I .'F '':.F T 'L i -.j
'-I1 L 1 L i ii l i''I -
,1-F1 El. 'i "-. : I L L T L -,tI T'; -

i rf l' .[,i I I."'L -' I t L '''i-F I l: '. . '.'. L '' I '.F 1 1': '-

"'F I [Tf l !L: iri' Tr. 1,. .: E,.' .ITi.--1:







TABLE OF CONTENTS


Continued

Page

APPENDIX G: MEAN NUMBER OF CORRECT RESPONSES FOR SITUATION 51
X LOCUS OF CONTROL X ORDER X TRIALS (NESTED
IN CONDITIONS)
APPENDIX H: METHOD AND RESULTS FROM PILOT STUDY: THE 52
EFFECT OF LOCUS OF CONTROL, REINFORCEMENT
VALUE AND REINFORCEMENT CONTINGENCY ON A
SIMPLE LEARNING TASK.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 59

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 61













LIST OF TABLES

umber Page

1 Mean Number of Correct Responses for Reinforcement 19
Value Conditions.

2 Mean Number of Correct Responses for Trials (Nested in 19
Conditions).

3 Mean Number of Correct Responses for Situation X Locus 22
of Control.

4 Mean Number of Correct Responses for Situation X 22
Reinforcement Condition Order.

5 Mean Number of Correct Responses for Situation X 23
Reinforcement Value Conditions.

6 Mean Number of Correct Responses for Order X 23
Reinforcement Value Conditions.

7 Mean Number of Correct Responses for Situation X Trials 27
(Nested in Conditions).

8 Mean Number of Correct Responses for Order X Trials 28
(Nested in Conditions).













LIST OF FIGURES


Number Page

1 Mean Number of Responses for Male, Female, and All 20
Subjects for Trials 1 15.

2 Mean Number of Responses for Situation by Reinforcement 25
Value Conditions Averaged Over Trials.

3 Mean Number of Responses for Order by Reinforcement 26
Value Conditions Averaged Over Trials.

4 Mean Number of Responses for Situation by Trials in 29
Order: Baseline/Low/High.

5 Mean Number of Responses for Situation by Trials in 30
Order: Baseline/High/Low.

6 Mean Number of Responses for Order by Trials in Skill 31
Situation.

7 Mean Number of Responses for Order by Trials in Chance 32
Situation.













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the
Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


THE EFFECT OF EXPECTANCY, REINFORCEMENT VALUE, AND
SKILL VS. CHANCE SITUATIONS ON A SIMPLE PERFORMANCE TASK

By

Marilyn Toby Sokolof

December, 1972


Chairman: Jacquelin Goldman, Ph.D.
Major Department: Psychology

Following Rotter's model, the present study examined the relation-

ship of Expectancy, Reinforcement Value, and Skill vs. Chance Situations

on a simple performance task. Each of the theoretical variables was

defined in operational terms as follows: 1) Expectancy was measured by

the Rotter Locus of Control Scale; 2) Reinforcement Value was defined as

a high number of MSM's (candy) vs. a low number of M&M's awarded; and

3) Skill vs. Chance Situation was defined as whether the candy was given

based on the subjects' correct task performance or not. It was

hypothesized that none of the main variable effects would prove signifi-

cant, but rather that the interaction of variables would account for the

highest scores. Further, it was proposed that this interaction would

support previous findings that congruency between the expectancy of and

the occurrence of reinforcement would result in greatest perfcrmninc

rates.


I i






In Phase I of the study subjects responded on the Locus of Control

Scale. In Phase II, subjects performed three sets of five, thirty-

second trials of a cancellation task. According to their experimental

condition, subjects received reinforcement as follows: Skill groups:

Reinforcement was administered based on the number of correct responses

achieved; Chance groups: Reinforcement was administered based on

previously determined amounts (mean per trial achieved by Skill groups),

regardless of subject's performance. Within each of these groups, each

subject performed in each of the following Reinforcement Value Conditions:

Baseline = no reinforcement; Low = one M&M per 25 correct responses (2

M&M's per trial for Chance groups); High = one M&M per correct response

(approximately 55 per trial for Chance groups). The order of Low and

High Value Conditions was counterbalanced and included in data analyses.

Analysis of the data supported the experimental hypotheses.

Specifically:

1) Significant main effect for Reinforcement Value (Baseline, Low,

and High); however, the major portion of this variance was accounted for

by the difference between reinforcement vs. no reinforcement, not between

High vs. Low Value.

2) Another significant main effect was in the factor Trials (nested

in Reinforcement Value Conditions), indicating a slight practice effect.

3) The congruency principle was supported by the significant

interaction between Skill vs. Chance Situations X Locus of Control.

Internal-Skill subjects achieved the highest scores; External-Chance

and Internal-Skill subjects achieved higher scores than External-Skill

and Internal-Chance subjects, respectively.








4) Additional significant interactions were as follows: Skill vs.

Chance X Order; Skill vs. Chance X Reinforcement Value Condition; Order

X Reinforcement Value Condition; Skill vs. Chance X Trials (nested in

Conditions); Order X Trials (nested in Conditions); Skill vs. Chance X

Order X Trials (nested in Conditions); Skill vs. Chance X Locus of

Control X Order X Trials (nested in Conditions).

The results of this study emphasized the importance of attending

to individual expectancies when administering reinforcements based on

performance. Implications for further research are discussed.










CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction


The attempt by psychological scientists to understand, predict, and

control behavior proceeds by identifying, measuring, and manipulating

the component variables that at any point, or series of points, in time

affect behavior. The discussion of relevant variables has touched on

an extremely wide range of possible effectants. This paper is an attempt

to examine the effect of three of those variables (expectancy, reinforce-

ment value, and reinforcement contingency) on a performance task.

One systematic approach to this examination is that put forth by.

Julian B. Rotter, a social learning theorist.1 Rotter utilizes three

basic constructs in the measurement and prediction of behavior:

behavior potential, expectancy, and reinforcement value. These three

variables provide a model for the examination of the type of behavioral

performance addressed in this study.

Rotter states:

"Behavior potential may be defined as the potentiality of any

behavior's occurring in any given situation or situations as calcu-

lated in relation to any single reinforcement or set of reinforcements"

(p. 105). This probability of behavior in a situation is determined




IThe following discussion of Rotter's theory is taken from his book
Social Learning and Clinical Psychology, 1954 (see References).








where other alternatives exist and is a probability relative to the

alternatives.

"Expectancy may be defined as the probability held by the indi-

vidual that a particular reinforcement will occur as a function of a

specific behavior on his part in a specific situation or situations.

Expectancy is independent of the value or importance of tie reinforce-

ment" (Ibid, p. 107). Expectancy is considered an internal, psycho-

logical state of subjective import; an intervening variable that can

be observed through verbal behavior, choice performances, etc.

"The reinforcement value of any external reinforcement may be

defined ideally as the degree of preference for any reinforcement to

occur if the possibilities of their occurring were all equal" (Ibid,

p. 107).

Moreover, Rotter considers behavior probability to be a joint

function of expectancy and reinforcement value in a given situation

(s). The situation itself is an important variable and requires

attention now as a fourth factor.

"We mean by s a psychological situation or any part of it to

which the individual is responding . .. We define a situation as

that which is experienced by the subject with the meanings that the

subject gives it . [as well as that which is] describable in

objective terms for scientific purposes" (Ibid, p. 111). The

psychological context can affect expectancy ("It is presumed that the

manner in which a person perceives a given situation will determine for

him which behaviors are likely to have reasonable probability or the

highest probabilities of leading to some satisfaction," p. 200) and







reinforcement value (". . the value of a given reinforcement will

change if the situation is recategorized," p. 200). In general,

however, reinforcement value is not as greatly affected as expectancy.


Review of the Literature


Behavior Potential

Behavior potential, the dependent variable of a study, is

idiosyncratic to the task. Tasks which have served to define behavior

potential have included decision time on perceptual matching (Rotter

and Mulry, 1965), verbal learning (Watson and Baumal, 1967), and choice

behavior (Schneider, 1968), to name a few.


Expectancy

"In social learning theory, a reinforcement acts to strengthen

an expectancy that a particular behavior or event will be followed by

that reinforcement in the future" (Rotter, 1954, p. 2). It follows

from this thesis that generalized sets of expectancies result from such

a history. Rotter has classified these sets of expectancies along a

continuum identified as "locus of control." The locus of control

variable is simply whether a person believes (has expectancies) that

reinforcement is contingent upon his own behavior or not. If he

believes reinforcement is contingent upon his own behavior (i.e., he

has "control" over his own life), he is identified as internal (I). If

he believes reinforcement is not contingent upon his own behavior, but

instead occurs as a result of chance or other factors (i.e., he has no

control over his own life, it is controlled by things external to him),

he is identified as external (E).









in i l,. i .'i- , I :.rt : I i t i i r.-1 I Lt 1 [ : i ru . ,"' ,r r r a Il







irr. r :- r.. -.., i- l. [r. 1r. i : i .. r.i r, I .i --" [[ I ir' i Cl









.JI .ui :. d ri., i...,?i :I 1.. *: c I [ r-,-[ m, [ 1r I"--- ',I ,:1 LJ:
:' .: .1 J :-r ..'. r I kr 1 :' : -r -
S r.i r-.. r .. ,j' I r : .. ... l ii Lr,', ., .i I ..r. Er,

i,:. u ;l .. : l ...i :' 1 r. : i. l:n a ; r .-" r, ,C I r uri ,

n r r a l r i. .ri: `..'.:, r T -U 1 . 1 ri. prc, CE -..- e










-1-.- r i i ri . r - :rr .i iL i r .1 >:i L E r : i '. T. r hl-,





^ .:. L r.:rl,1 r, 1 1 j : r .:r :. ..: [. r 7 r jr mT ,, r r,= l r ,, rI,
,.u La r a I. I rr . i J r : .. :l r -. L.I r I'1 . : r. i L
E.:. rc .. .. .i r h r lt : r7 .: '[_, p | |Llr,: ,-,... rr' :.. *: I .n l ,:I

k.:- L r r..-.1 1 r I- I 1 1 .. f .r ,' .i l i: r rv t r i t ..r i

: -ur ir. r r i r I.I r r .E r r, ir r. r, .v-fd C ..u .f t r.

, .. rli r..r. ;r .. r.c i : i.. !...u .. t *s. r.i:. [ : H:.[ ;r I i 1..': 1 .I:.

l it [ E rer. :1 , ,: r i .- 1.. L i *: > -: n E .: L * -. r l


: 3a. n. I; r I .

L e : r c i i r. ,-i r.t 1 ri -Ili r be I .- r r l d :- t rL J 3 1











-..cE j tlI- r uiE l Ia tuJ *rr:..;.J th .cnr-iil curr.i :h ; : .ai

i^ir re i.' E- ii, k t ru.Ci'. :'ii El. ; fur7 -7; : :f nd n i th:I

h 0n tc Cu:: J th. ir. -.rn l : n r :.l b : .: ;








Several studies have examined the relationship of locus of control

to academic performance. Battle (1965) found that students who were

more "inner-directed" than "other-directed" (work for self vs. work for

approval from others, respectively) were more persistent at attempting

to solve a difficult mathematics problem.

Lesiak (1970) found no relationship between locus of control

measures and socioeconomic background or reflective/impulsive problem-

solving approaches. However, his data revealed sex differences in as

low as third grade, with girls tending to express stronger internal

feelings than males. In addition, higher internal control was predictive

of higher achievement in reading, but not in arithmetic.

In his review of the locus of control literature, Rotter (1966)

cited the results of an unpublished doctoral dissertation on achieve-

ment motivation. Franklin (1963) proposed 17 relationships of the

Internal-External Scale to reported evidence of achievement motivation

(i.e., intention to go to college, amount of time spent doing homework,

etc.). He found a significant relationship in the predicted direction

for 15 of the 17 relationships.

Further, Rotter (1966) summed the findings of studies discussed in

his review:

.the individual who has a strong belief that he can con-
trol his own destiny is likely to (a) be more alert to those
aspects of the environment which provide useful information
for his future behavior; (b) take steps to improve his
environmental condition; (c) place greater value on skill or
achievement reinforcements and be generally more concerned
with his ability, particularly his failures; and (d) be
resistive to subtle attempts to influence him.








Reinforcement Value

"Reinforcements are identifiable events that have the effect of

increasing or decreasing the potentiality of some behavior's occurring"

(Rotter, 1954, p. 148). Further, Ferster and Skinner (1957) reported

that lessened amounts of reinforcement resulted in lessened rates of

behavior. Two studies directed at the relationship of locus of control

to reinforcement appear in the literature.

Baron (1968) examined the effects of locus of control instructions

on performance, where the subjects were informed that they could or

could not influence reinforcement outcome. The results of the first

experiment indicated that where subjects were informed that reinforce-

ment was contingent upon their behavior, they showed an increase in

the frequency of reinforced responses over trials. The results of the

second experiment indicated that, in the absence of extrinsic reinforce-

ment, there was no evidence for a motivation effect of either internal,

external, or neutral locus of control instructions.

The purpose of Waldrip's (1967) study was to investigate the

effects of high vs. low reinforcement value, chance vs. skill instructions,

and locus of control differences on (1) a task-related expectancy, and

(2) motivation, inferred from decision times (response latency). The








irti o r i L i Ji L]Ii. 1 r.







Psychological Situation

Williams (1970) demonstrated the importance of both generalized

expectancies (the locus of control variable) and situationally

determined expectancies. He proposed to demonstrate that (1) behavioral

predictions based on locus of control differences may depend on either

situational determinants of internal-external behavior or on generalized

determinants, and also that (2) Negro subjects, generally believed to

be non-achievement and externally oriented, would behave in an internal,

achievement-oriented manner under conditions of appropriate expectancies

and reinforcements. The results supported both hypotheses. Related to

generalized determinants, internals sought more information than

externals. Related to situational determinants, the following results

were obtained: with high perceived task utility, high expectancy for

success and reinforcement values, Negro subjects studied Black history

longer and harder than they studied the vice-presidency or the Vietnam

War, regardless of generalized locus of control differences.

A series of investigations (Holden and Rotter, 1962; James and

Rotter, 1958; Phares, 1957, 1962; Rotter, Liverant, and Crowne, 1961)

demonstrated predictable differences in the behavior of subjects' who

perceived the reinforcements they were receiving were a result of their

performance (skill situation) or were not (chance situation). Rotter

and Mulry (1965) studied the effects of situational expectancy (chance

vs. skill instructions) and generalized expectancy (Locus of control) on

decision times (response latency) in a perceptual matching task. The

results of their study indicated that neither main effect was significant,

but there was a significant interaction of the two variables. Internals








took much longer to decide when instructed that the task was a matter

of skill than when instructed the task was a matter of chance.


Congruency

The results of the studies already cited have led more recent

investigators to pose additional questions. These questions may be

stated as follows: How might the variables of external reinforcements,

expectancy, and the situation interact in affecting these subjects'

performances? Specifically, what is the relevance of belief, or

expectancy, in learning as it is compared to contingency of reinforce-

ment? Is the fact of contingency more, less, or equally as important

as the expectation of contingency? An additional question relates to

congruency between expectation and occurrence of contingency. Is

congruency more critical than contingency?

Two articles examined this latter question as it affects preference.

Schneider (1968) proposed the hypothesis that a subject's expectation

as measured by the Locus of Control Scale is related to his preference

for situations which involve different potential for internal or

external control. He hypothesized that external subjects would be more

likely to choose a game of chance (greater potential for external

control) than a game of skill (greater potential for internal control).

This hypothesis was supported for both males and females (1) when the

sex of the subject and the sex identity (masculine activity or

feminine activity) of the skill activities were congruent, and (2) on a

sexually neutral form.








Julian et al. (1968) raised the question of whether the locus of

control dimension determines differential preference for conditions that

appear to offer maximum control of task outcomes. Experiment I results

revealed that high internal subjects chose positions from which they had

greater control of their performance. Their second hypothesis, that

internals have a greater need for control, was not supported; however,

this may have been due to the chance nature of the task, where externals

have a greater need to achieve.

Further review of the literature reveals studies examining the

principle of congruency as it affects performance (vis a vis preference,

discussed above).

Diner (1969) categorized schizophrenic, paraplegic, and orthopedic

subjects on the basis of their intrapersonal (generalized) locus of

control scores and subjected them to a motor learning task in which the

situational locus of control was varied. The degree of congruence

between intrapersonal and situational locus of control accounted for the

most meaningful results. The significant results were accounted for by

the interaction but not by main effects, and Diner pointed to the

importance of considering both intrapersonal and situational variables

simultaneously.

Watson and Baumal (1967) discussed the findings that "individuals

perform most efficiently in situations in which the actual environmental

locus of control and the person's preference for, or appraisal of, the

locus of control are congruent" (p. 212). Their study was based on the

thesis that individuals in incongruent situations become anxious and

hence perform more poorly than in congruent situations. Subjects in the








skill-outcome groups were informed that they could avoid shock on a

second task according to their ability to recall words learned on a

first task. Subjects in the chance-outcome groups were told that they

would receive random shock on the second task regardless of their

performance on the first task. The results indicated internal control

subjects made more errors and required more trials in the chance

situation while external control subjects made more errors and required

more trials in the skill situations. Earlier, Rotter and Mulry (1965)

had found that internal control and external control subjects exhibited

longer decision times on skill and on chance tasks, respectively. They

had hypothesized that internals place greater value on rewards obtained

on a skill task, and that externals place greater value on rewards

obtained on a chance task. Watson and Baumal, therefore, suggested a

two-variable explanation for subjects' with lessened efficiency: the

outcome must be valued by the subject, and there must be incongruence

between locus of control and means of attainment.

Locus of control variables have been examined in a classical

conditioning experiment by Gold (1967). She demonstrated the effects

of situation-specific (instructions) and generalized locus of control

experiments on eyelid conditioning. Although there were no differences

between groups for the main effects, when situational expectancy and

generalized expectancy were congruent, differences in conditioning

appeared as expected.







The Problem


Thus we have reviewed Rotter's four original classes of variables

involved in prediction: the subject's behavior, his expectations that

his behavior will be followed by particular kinds of reinforcements, the

value of reinforcements, and the psychological situation in which the

behavior occurs. Further, as in the case of congruency, we have found

relationships between these variables to be predictive of performance.

This latter finding substantiates Waldrip (1967) who concluded that the

predictive value of each variable is increased as each is studied in

interaction with the other variables. The present study is organized

and discussed within Rotter's model, not because it is assumed to be

exclusively true, but because it provides a clear and efficient frame-

work that also appears to have validity.

In addition to being a functionally efficient model, this frame-

work provides an opportunity for further clarification of the principles

of behavior. The operant approach to learning stresses behavioral

change dependent on the occurrence of reinforcement. Reinforcement

dimensions (contingency, frequency, amounts, etc.) are considered the

major points of study. Rotter's model presents another variable

(expectancy) as being at least as significant a factor as reinforcement,

and that the interaction of variables, not the operation of one alone, is

the most potent effectant of behavioral performance. This has been

articulated by Diner (1969), Watson and Baumal (1967), and Gold (1967)

as the operation of a congruency principle. These authors found

congruency between expectation and occurrence of reinforcement promoted

both verbal and motor learning, with no main effects showing in either





12


study. Since neither Diner nor Watson and Baumal varied the amount

of reinforcement as a major part of their designs it is unclear what

the interactive effects of amount of reinforcement might have been

had this been included.

The problem for the present study, then, is the systematic exami-

nation of the independent and interactive effects of expectancy,

reinforcement value, and the psychological situation on performance on

a simple psychomotor task.












CHAPTER II

METHOD


Stating the problem in Rotter's framework, this study examined the

effects of three variables (independently and interactively) on

performance. Expectancy was measured by Rotter's Locus of Control Scale.

Reinforcement value was operationally defined in terms of amount of

M&M candy awarded. The psychological situation manipulated was reinforce-

mefit awarded contingent upon the subject's correct performance or simply

for his participation in the experiment (skill vs. chance conditions,

respectively). The behavior potential measured as the dependent variable

was the number of correct responses achieved by the subject on a per-

formance task (cancellation task).


Subjects


The data for the basic analysis of variance were based on the

performance of 120 subjects, undergraduate students from the University

of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. The original subject population was

137 subjects (59 male and 78 female); however, 7 subjects were randomly

eliminated to provide for equal numbers of subjects in each statistical

cell. The investigations of possible sex differences were based on the

data from 137 subjects.







Apparatus


1. The Locus of Control Scale (I-E Scale) by Julian B. Rotter

(1966) was administered to groups of subjects. (See Appendix A.)

2. The experimental task was a cancellation task in which subjects

were instructed to mark a slash through vowels on a page of letters

(Starch, 1915; Whipple, 1914; Bronner, 1927; Paterson et al., 1930).

To obtain some confidence in the reliability of the task, a pre-

test of ten 30-second trials was administered to 30 subjects at the

beginning of a class (x-scores) and again at the end of class (y-scores).

The mean score for each subject was computed for session x and for

session y for 1) all ten trials, and 2) for the last nine trials. The

difference between x and y was smaller when the data from the first trial

was omitted. The first trial was considered a practice trial, and

further calculations were performed without first trial scores. A

correlation coefficient for the two sets of scores (x,7) for all subjects,

trials 2-10, was computed: r = .80. A correlation coefficient for the

two sets of scores (x,y) for all subjects, trials 2-6, was computed and

proved more reliable: 4 = .83. Thus, it was decided to administer six

30-second trials per phase, and base statistical computations on the

data from trials 2-6.

The response page consisted of lines of 38 letters each (15 vowels

per line), and a place for sex and identification number. (See Appendix

C for a copy of the response sheet for the cancellation task.)

3. M&M candy (plain) was used as reinforcement.







Procedure


The basic design was constructed from procedures used in a pilot

study examining the relationships of the variables discussed above

(Sokolof, 1972). [See Appendix H for a description of the Method and

Results of that study.] Modifications of those procedures for this

study resulted in a three-factor design with factors: 1) Situation:

Skill vs. Chance; 2) Locus of Control: Internal (I), Midrange (M),

and External (E); 3) Reinforcement Value: Baseline (no reinforcement),

Low (one MHM per 25 correct responses), and High (one MNM per correct

response). Two repeated-measures factors were also included in the

analysis: 1) Order (Baseline-Low-High vs. Baseline-High-Low); and 2)

Trials (five trials per condition within each order).


Phase I

Each subject was given an identification number to insure confiden-

tiality and facilitate data analysis. A short introduction and expla-

nation of the procedure was given by the experimenter and questions were

answered. Each subject then was given a Locus of Control Scale with

instructions. (See Appendix B for the explanation of the procedure and

instructions for Phase I.) After all subjects completed the questionnaire,

there was a brief rest period.


Phase II

Baseline.--Each subject was given a response sheet. They were

informed that there would be six 30-second trials during which they were

to mark a slash through every vowel (a, e, i, o, and u). (See Appendix

B for exact instructions for Phase II.) Questions were answered. Six

timed trials of 30 seconds each were given.








Reinforcement conditions.--Subjects were informed that they would

be repeating the same procedure as before; however, during this part of

the experiment they would receive M&M's. Further instructions were

given at the beginning of each trial as follows, depending on experi-

mental condition: Skill group: "You will receive M&M's based on how

well you perform." For the reinforcement conditions: 1) Low

Reinforcement: "You will receive one MGM for every 25 correct responses

at the end of each trial;" 2) High Reinforcement: "You will receive

one M&M for every correct response at the end of each trial."

Chance group: "You will receive M&M's at the end of each trial,

regardless of how well you perform." For the reinforcement conditions:

1) Low Reinforcement: "You will receive two M&M's at the end of each

trial;" 2) High Reinforcement: "You will receive x M&M's at the end of

the trial" (for trial 1, x = 54; trial 2, x = 55; trial 3, x = 58; trial

4, x = 56; trial 5, x = 56; trial 6, x = 59).

In the remainder of Phase II, subjects in the above, groups were

given two additional sets of six 30-second trials each. The order of

Reinforcement Value conditions for both skill and chance groups was

C :.:' rlj jrE i : r i a Jlu 7 '1 rl, l 1 i rl l.n '': I i, I' f i F i, :, c -"

r :. F. J l. ,, j i u rr .; ,i T 'I':L F .: r EL : L i | i *',:.U I,3 i7 A, ':,r .t.f :.:*.rr* .*:

T5'.55 :ri : ,,': : :.:.. ', A 4[ chr r-, 3 f :,.:r, r. r n i r r.. r 4'r.,r.. r. 'I,:.r:.



p r r r i : :"i ,*: .-1 .ir" i r irEt i :. Ehr i.Ilr -i': r

E.s cr t? Er Cir E T.rip 1 1* jr n Et r. r.

,..r(c' ; ,, r t i. tr l a. r:l.lrl r t,, 'l i r:,, : l'u l iuJ A1-1 r''." p 't- rGr L 'li r:;

*: r _.: ussr .i.i ,L ri.:" ,: r.LC ;-i: ,e1= ; i ;_ :r, :. r .i- :. ,J '.*

j f .t r.-r : z ; i r 5,:ir,[ : r i '.:r --, E'[ E [r 7d r.* EJ m .:- E up c .







At the conclusion of the experiment, subjects were thanked for their

participation, given a brief description of the study, asked not to

discuss the experiment with anyone, and dismissed.

A five-way analysis of variance was performed on the data (Skill

vs. Chance; Locus of Control; Order; Reinforcement Value; and Trials).

An additional three-way analysis of variance was performed to investigate

possible sex differences (Skill vs. Chance; Locus of Control; and Sex.)


Experimental Hypothesis


The experimental predictions for this study were as follows:

1. Significant results would be obtained in the interaction of

main variables, not in the main effects.

2. The significant interactions would support the congruency

principle. Specifically, subjects in the Internal-Skill and External-

Chance conditions would achieve higher scores than subjects in the

Internal-Chance and External-Skill conditions, respectively.













CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Main Effects


As predicted, analysis of the data revealed no significant main

effects for any of the factors identified in the experimental question

[Expectancy, Reinforcement Value, and Situations (Skill vs. Chance)].

(See Appendix D for a Summary Table of the Five-Way Analysis of Variance.)

This finding is congruent with the results obtained in the pilot study

(Sokolof, 1972; see Appendix H). There were two significant main effects

that were not part of the primary experimental predictions:

1. Analysis of the Baseline, Low, and High reinforcement

conditions revealed significant differences (p < .01). However,

examination of the mean scores for each condition indicated that the

major portion of the variance was accounted for by the difference

I...:r,. mr, rr:. ': iI :* r ,.'|- r, r.: r,_r,.:i..Ir.- nI .. I'.,, 1 [ .Il I j 1 l5:h

, -J : i r: : r. L jr. tl Ili r.i i L L:.Ce.iTr ,- r. f ...J i r. lri f



iri l: n, t r .' 'r,, i ,:r ,= ir ,',] 1 iL M I Jl-r ,;-' r. j



1 ";, i:.:.;c 7). I', .;.i i :t 1" i t ,,:.r :.:,.. [,' l 'I:' 1 ,: r.i









Table 1--Mian ; i,-cr of Correct Responses for Reinforcement Value
Condit -, *


Mean Score


Baseline

Low

High


46.7383

54.2316

55.6499


*N = 120 per cell


Table 2--Mean Number of Correct Responses for Trials (Nested in
Conditions)*.


Condition Trials


Baseline

Low

High


1

46.6750

53.2583

54.7083


2

46.1410

53.8833

55.59910


3

46.6166

54.3083

55.4500


4

47.1417

54.6917

55.7500


5

47.1083

55.0167

56.7416


*N = 120 per cell


--


--










-9 H





I


't1




It


fI I I I I I I I I


SHSNOSdSI O3MFOO U2ThNWfN NVa3


V




-I-t

KD























H t

-t -t -


0T m N- Ho HP -7 0T 04 0 H 0
n H~ n Hn n HA ) Hn H H~ -t t .


I I I-







Interaction Effects


Analysis of the data revealed significant two-way, three-way and

four-way interaction effects as follows:

1. It was predicted that those subjects who experienced a con-

gruency between their expectation of and the occurrence of reinforce-

ment would achieve high scores than those subjects in incongruent

situations. Analysis of the interaction Situation X Locus of Control

supported this hypothesis (p < .05). This finding is congruent with

results obtained in the pilot study (Sokolof, 1972; see Appendix H).

Scores for subjects in the Internal-Skill group accounted for the most

difference in the predicted direction. Subjects in the Internal-Chance

and External-Skill groups achieved lower scores than subjects in the

Internal-Skill and External-Chance groups, respectively (see Table 3).

2. A significant interaction occurred between Situation X Order

(p < .05). Analysis of the data revealed that the subjects in cells

Skill-Baseline/Low/High and Chance-Baseline/High/Low achieved mean scores

higher than the subjects in cells Skill-Baseline/High/Low and Chance-

Baseline/Low/High. Although none of the pairwise differences proved

significant on post-test comparisons, the cell means are completely

crossed (see Table 4).

3. Analysis of the data indicated a significant interaction

between Situation X Reinforcement Value Conditions (p < .01) (see

Table 5). Post-test comparisons of the mean scores in Skill and in

Chance groups revealed that both reinforcement conditions (Low and High)

were significantly different from no reinforcement (Baseline), but not

from each other (p < .01). Post-test comparisons also revealed no











T11 I --'Ie.- :J..,t r .:r C *r r : f i- ... -: : .. r r... r,: i.:. .
L r .: l.


Situation Inr -i. j


Locus of Control

LJIr -r


I:1. .!1..
,i,-.?j


T i.=t 1--ri- :...te r :- -: r r .: Fe r -:-r.: f-:. r C1r.. .r. r. i r'.: r :.: -,r
.- J L r. i r r" .



-:r J. r


,. ? i l


S : 1.1 r ,r.- Il


I[ -, I


: t. .J tI r. ,


Iill


E l. r .-. -I I r, ,i.: 1I ,- L L


", : ',

.,.I .









Tale 5--Mcan Number of Correct Responses for Situation X Reinforcement
Value Conditions*.


Situation


Reinforcement
Value Conditions

Baseline


Skill

45.9567

55.2010

56.1833


Chance

47.5110

53.2533

55.1166


*N = 60 per cell


Table 6--Mean Number of Correct Responses for Order X Reinforcement
Value Conditions*.


Order


Reinforcement
Value Conditions

Baseline

Low

High


Baseline/Low/High

46.6333

53.3633

57.0600


Baseline/High/Low

46.8433

55.0910

54.2310


*N = 60 per cell







significant differences between Chance and Skill subjects in either

Baseline, Low, or High Conditions (see Figure 2).

4. A significant interaction occurred between Order X Reinforcement

Value Conditions (p < .01) (see Table 6). Post-test comparisons of the

mean scores in Skill and in Chance groups revealed that both reinforce-

ment conditions (Low and High) were significantly different from no

reinforcement (Baseline), but not from each other (p < .01). Examination

of the mean scores averaged over Trials for Conditions revealed that both

Baseline/Low/High and Baseline/High/Low subjects achieved higher scores

in the Low Reinforcement Condition than in Baseline; however, the

Baseline/High/Low group showed less acceleration in scores between the

second and third Condition than did the Baseline/Low/High groups (see

Figure 3).

5. Examination of the data indicated a significant interaction

between Situation X Trials (nested in Conditions) (p < .05) (see Table

7). Interpretation of this interaction can best be made by looking at

the three-way interaction of Situation X Order X Trials, represented in

Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7. The mean scores for Skill vs. Chance Situations

over Trials 1-15, are plotted in Figure 4 (Order: Baseline/Low/High)

and in Figure 5 (Order: Baseline/High/Low).

6. Analysis of the data revealed a significant interaction between

Order X Trials (nested in Conditions) (p < .01) (see Table 8). The mean

scores for Order: Baseline/Low/High and Baseline/High/Low over Trials

1-15, are plotted in Figure 6 (Skill Situation) and ir. F.;ui~ ILhiui.:

Situation).

7 i. tILt i. iir thr .-.. ..r r .t .:ri, founj r.,. -.r ,. : .

,"'Tjc r *. TF, i~ 3 ,,-, iii j i ,';.:,,J i ,: ': ) per ,,i !7 r ; -j [ ,r :,f










57.0
50 Skill
56.0 r


55.0 Chance
55.0


54.0 -


53.0


52.0 /
/
51.0


50.0


49.0 /


48.0 -


47.0 /


46.0


45.0
Baseline Low High

REINFORCEMENT VALUE


Figure 2--Mean Number of Responses for Situation by Reinforcement Value
Conditions Averaged Over Trials.















Baseline/
Low/
High






SBaseline/
High/
Low


Low

REINFORCEMENT VALUE


Figure 3--Mean Number of Responses for Order by Reinforcement Value
Conditions Averaged Over Trials.


Baseline


II











Table 7--Mean Number of Correct Responses for Situation X Trials (Nested
in Conditions)*.


Situation

Trials Skill Chance

Baseline 1 45.6333 47.7166
2 44.8333 47.4666
3 46.0166 47.2166
4 46.8499 47.4333
5 46.4500 47.7666

Low 1 53.6666 52.8499
2 54.7000 53.0666
3 55.7500 52.8666
4 55.8833 53.5000
5 56.0499 53.9833

High 1 54.6666 54.7500
2 56.8833 54.8166
3 55.8833 55.0166
4 56.3167 55.1833
5 57.6666 55.8166


*N = 60 per cell










Table 8--Mean Number of Correct Responses for Order X Trials (Nested
in Conditions)*.


Order


Baseline/Low/Hieh


46.3833
45.6333
46.7333
47.2833
47.1333

51.5910
52.7910
53.2833
54.3166
54.8166

57.0190
56.6333
56.7500
56.9666
57.8499


Baseline/High/Low


46.9666
46.6666
46.5000
47.0000
47.0833

54.9166
54.9666
55.3333
55.0666
55.2166

52.3166
54.5666
54.1499
54.5333
55.6333


Trials


Baseline 1
2
3
4
5

Low 1
2
3
4
5

High 1
2
3
4
5


*N = 60 per cell





29



a,
*-< u
H C)




r-i (=
'V-




H



\I I "






& \1>- '0 <











0

\ '0'
r0)


H
4.~P m r












*l 1 1 VII '0
H 000 N.. -? Cf N O ) 1) . H H
S0 HHH
*^ ii


Y ^U

^ --

3 O m h o mif mN i~ u~m r yr l v
rD r m m ul v) ) mv) r ~ i ~ f ~tf 1


SzSNOsa2I '3 o03 'a3~1N NV2I


















I
















f\






II





















5 I I I I I I I I I | | I
Ir llllllllll


rl






m
rl

N
rl



=I



4






m



r-



\o



u7


-I


-3 .,*J< Il '*: j ,, ii] .; [rfTli


- 7 -








3, -"M


t~\
^ \ ^


















KK




z '
I
4'
3'mh-'N \ 1 T fi ~VU~














a \ vi f u p
-HQ \n on r- n o n o o n r n o n

















SaSNOdSaI 193XSOJI ~I35~n& N~mI~







S *,

d

\ o



H *
,-1~~ I

I Hp -



ol V

'- "4











,--i
/I V





k N


// V




a/


II H
*.I I -i

H \ "H

H H H
L \ c, *riur
*\4 \ 3~~mh~u

-t / .- H


saSNOdsau 10UJao MaanN RVa4








the two-way interactions discussed above anl represented in Figures 4,

5, 6, and 7. (See Appendix F for mean number of correct responses per

cell.) The difference between Chance and Skill Situations is greater in

Baseline/Low/High Order than in Baseline/High/Low, especially in the last

five trials (Figures 4 and 5). This may also be seen in Figures 6 and 7,

where the difference between the two orders is greater in the last five

trials of the Skill Situation than in the last five trials of the Chance

Situation.

8. A significant four-way interaction occurred between Situation

X Locus of Control X Order X Trials (nested in Conditions) (p < .05).

(See Appendix G for cell means for this interaction.)


Sex Differences


A three-way analysis of variance with factors Skill vs. Chance,

Locus of Control (Internal, Midrange, External), and Sex (male vs.

female) was performed to investigate possible sex differences. The

data for this analysis were based on the performance of 137 subjects,

59 males and 78 females. Analysis of this data revealed no signifi-

cant main or interaction effects. (See Appendix E for Summary Table of

the Three-Way Analysis of Variance.) Mean socres for trials 1-15, for

males and for females can be seen in Figure 1. Inspection of this

figure reveals no interaction between sex and trials.
















SF i t lI I.




r' i u f'I



II. r.:;.JIr y :r" t ; iE r,. ;. r .. . J I. :.r.l. T- :ri ,,:r,' : I ", .. tl .

" ,-r l i; ri : r : *jlt. .:rL t..u r. .- r, i. .2:r *t .:-r. :. tf' ..r: r ri l- :r -.-i



:. r., ,:r,.r, 2:rt .: : :,. .: r,: Lh: 1.- r '. r 'A,*:rLt- .. ',, r r::: C c :





. n Lt [.. : r. '" : i ; l J t': r r.: -C ,., ', -' u : .J I... .: .:.. I l i ir. reJ L ... e -, i .r, .:r : :




iJ.J :.l i: :. ri:. r l Fr v:.:,:..r,: r':,r ,: .T ,r ...:,-, .rp r r :

rr C2 I1 r ..I L:.Ji: ..: : :r tr .r' .. .

i .: : :r.;ru 1 : :. r i.: [t .- r*r.:.r-, l, 1 r,- r. :r:r. It l.- r .

., L7 : C in .' j-,,t 3r-; r r - L I r ,. ,, ,. .r, i .Lr. L i r



I : r. ...: r. e l .r ;..l[ ...r . i: '-,: :.. 1 -, : l L : :...: r,,t"r..: lI I r i
S 1. : f, : -I j I






S| .,r,r,: ri,.ri, :a- r. .t 1 L 'f ..rp I .:I.r. : cr .: i ..r1 F: r r :.r







. .cl : :.lr d r. :r J r l- i r Ti- LL I r i ir- : in .: l ; : i ,

r : : ; r l, r urri- r, i .:.L *; 1- ur1, -a r:I : Lihr t;e ;
-.:-r r.: u :. : : r l. a7 -:... [ I i I i : r I : f r.- r ( :r




I.' J .,r. r : r ..r.u. n ;r l i 3 r -ri.il in2u r m :,, c :.:.:.r-!








from comparison, all four of the remaining cell scores are in the

predicted directions. These findings are consistent with the predictions

derived from the congruency principle discussed by Diner (1969), Watson

and Baumal (1967) and Gold (1967). Those authors examined the indepen-

dent and interactive effects of situational and generalized Locus of

Control. The results of those three studies indicated no main effects,

but significant interaction effects; where significant interactions

occurred, highest scores were achieved where there was congruency between

situational and generalized Locus of Control. Thus, the results of this

study provide a further validation of the congruency principle.

Several significant effects appeared that were not part of the

experimental hypotheses. First, a slight practice effect appeared. This

result was expected, due to the simple, psychomotor nature of the

cancellation task; however, it was not so potent as to overshadow other

factor effects.

The interaction of Situation X Order points to the relationship of

perceived, or situational, locus of control and reinforcement conditions.

Subjects in the Skill situation perceived that their reinforcements

occurred contingent on their performance. As their correct performance

increased over trials, Skill subjects in the Baseline/Low/High condition

experienced a consistency between their own behavior and changes in the

reinforcement conditions. This was consistent with their expectations.

However, Skill subjects in the Baseline/High/Low condition experienced

an incongruence between the accelerating of their performance (practice

effect) and the decrease in reinforcement. For Chance subjects, there

was no perceived relationship between their performance and reinforce-

ment; however, the results indicate that these subjects' performances








remained consistent with their first reinforcement condition. This

could be explained in terms of "superstitious behavior," where the

probability of responding increases when a reinforcer is repeatedly

presented, even though the presentation is not contingent upon the

occurrence of the behavior (Reynolds, 1968). Had the reinforcement

been contingent upon the subject's performance, the change in value

would have been more likely to result in changed performance.

Further clarification of the order effect found for Skill subjects

above is possible through analysis of two other interaction effects.

The interaction Order X Reinforcement Value Condition, as shown in

Figure 3, also indicated that subjects in the Baseline/Low/High Order

achieved accelerating numbers of correct responses from the first to

last Conditions; however, this acceleration was slowed for subjects in

the Baseline/High/Low Order. Further, the three-way interaction of

Situation X Order X Trials (nested in Conditions) revealed a greater

difference between the Skill and Chance Conditions and a greater

difference between the Skill and Chance Situations in Order: Baseline/

Low/High, especially in the last five trials. Where motivational factors

appeared to be operating (Skill Conditions), performance rates continued

to increase. However, where no such motivational variables appeared to

be operating, rates either leveled off or declined. In addition, such

an effect can be discussed in an operant framework in terms of rates of

performance in one phase affecting rates of performance in the following

phase (Ferster and Skinner, 1957).

The significant four-way interaction does not app-ar E.: .,

r.: ic, n :. tc n, .: f tie iFr : ji tlrc :.f t is study.








It should be noted that the results of this study supported the

findings obtained in a pilot study examining the independent and

interactive effects of the main factors under consideration here: Locus

of Control, Reinforcement Value, and Reinforcement Contingency (Sokolof,

1972). Modification in the procedures for more precise control has

resulted in further validation of principles derived from Rotter's

theories as well as those proposed more recently as a congruency effect.

The differences in results between the pilot study and this study were

found primarily in variables added as controls (trials, condition order,

no reinforcement condition), not in factors directly related to the

experimental hypotheses.


Conclusions


The experimental predictions for this study have been validated,

and the results obtained in the pilot study have been supported: 1)

no main effects in any of the hypothesized variables appeared, and 2)

where an interaction between generalized and situation Locus of Control

occurred, the congruency principle was supported. A factor level that

was originally instituted as a control rather than as part of the

experimental predictions proved to have a significant effect in several

interactions. Specifically, it was found that the occurrence per se

of a reinforcer produced the most significant increases in performance.

Further, the appearance of an Order effect when different levels of

reinforcement are presented sequentially points to the need for an Order

effect (e.g., counterbalancing; using larger number of trials per

reinforcement level phase).








Additionally, where a simple, psychomotor task was used as the

dependent variable measure, practice effects appeared. Further experi-

ments addressing this problem should include some measures to counter-

act the practice effect, for example: 1) distributing the trials with

longer inter-trial intervals; 2) using different though reliable tasks,

or 3) presenting brief intervening tasks between trials.

Also, although not a confounding factor within this study, the

subject population used here was composed of college students, who

probably are more competitive (both with themselves and peers) than in

other populations. It would be of value to further investigate this

problem in different populations.

The results of this study have added information necessary to make

more precise predictions about behavior, especially as it related to a

simple performance task. First, the congruency effect found by Diner

(1969), Watson and Baumal (1967), and Gold (1967) has been validated.

Since the task presented here was different from the other studies,

congruency appears to be a general, rather than a task-specific, effect.

Such a finding indicates the necessity of future incorporation of

interaction effects in experimental designs concerned with generalized

Expectancy, Reinforcement Value, Situational Expectancy, and simple

performance.

Clearly, single variable studies will not account for as much of the

variance in behavior as will the more complex factorial designs. In

addition, this study has implications for the practical application:

when administering reinforcements, it is important to attend to both

r, tor, :al ii.J :.jri .iit[ i ri :. l.: [u Jii'. : n i i : .i :* expect ,c. ,.'t

rei-nr :.r.l-',5[ i 'lr. r t -itt. ,, .rr;, r: i r.' r .Tr-[ situa[ --





39


Thus, reinforcement based on his performance may not result in his

achieving a higher level of performance; in fact, it may reduce his

level of performance.












APPENDIX A

LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE


PLEASE MARK OVER THE LETTER THAT CORRESPONDS TO THE STATEMENT WHICH BEST
FITS H1OW YOU FEEL. CHOOSE ONLY ONE ANSWER, A OR B. IF YOU CHANGE AN
ANSWER, BE SURE TO ERASE COMPLETELY. YOU MAY BEGIN NOW.


1. a. Children get into trouble because their parents punish them
too much.
b. The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents
are too easy with them.

2. a. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to
bad luck.
b. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.

3. a. One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people
don't take enough interest in politics.
b. There will always be wars no matter how hard people try to
prevent them.

4. a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this
world.
b. Unfortunately an individual's worth often passes unrecognized
no matter how hard he tries.

5. a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense.
b. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades
are influenced by accidental happenings.

6. a. Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader.
b. Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken
advantage of their opportunities.

7. a. No matter how hard you try some people just don't like you.
b. People who can't get others to like them don't understand how
to get along with others.

8. a. Heredity plays the major role in determining one's personality.
b. It is one's experience in life which determines what they are
like.

9. a. I have often found that what is going to happen will ha1Fr,-
b. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as r,.lirl
3 ec-iion t ttile definite course of action.









10. a. In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely if
if ever such a thing as an unfair test.
b. Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course
work that studying is really useless.

11. a. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little
or nothing to do with it.
b. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place
at the right time.

12. a. The average citizen can have an influence in government
decisions.
b. This world is run by the few people in power and there is not
much the little guy can do about it.

13. a. When I make plans I am almost certain that I can make them
work.
b. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many
things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow.

14. a. There are certain people who are just no good.
b. There is some good in everybody.

15. a. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with
luck.
b. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping
a coin.

16. a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough
to be in the right place first.
b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability,
luck has little or nothing to do with it.

17. a. As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the
victims of forces we can neither understand nor control.
b. By taking an active part in political and social affairs the
people can control world events.

18. a. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives
are controlled by accidental happenings.
b. There really is no such thing as luck.

19. a. One should always be willing to admit mistakes.
b. It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes.

20. a. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you.
b. How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person you
are.







21. a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced
by the good ones.
b. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance,
laziness or all three.

22. a. With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.
b. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things
politicians do in office.

23. a. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades
they give.
b. There is a direct connection between how hard I study and the
grades I get.

24. a. A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what
they should do.
b. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are.

25. a. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things
that happen to me.
b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays
an important role in my life.

26. a. People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly.
b. There's not much use in trying hard to please people, if they
like you, they like you.

27. a. There is too much emphasis on athletics in high schools.
b. Team sports are an excellent way to build character.

28. a. What happens to me is my own doing.
b. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the
direction my life is taking.

29. a. Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the
way they do.
b. In the long run the people are responsible for bad government
on a national as well as on a local level.













APPENDIX B

INSTRUCTIONS


Explanation of the Study

There will be two parts to this experiment. The first part

involves responding on an attitude questionnaire; the second part is

a simple paper and pencil task. During the second part you will

receive M&M's.


Instructions for Phase I

This is an attitude questionnaire; there are no right or wrong

answers, so please respond honestly. Your responses are completely

confidential, as each of you are known only by your experiment numbers;

I have no record of your names. There is an "a" and "b" statement that

goes with each number on this questionnaire. Read them both and choose

whichever one best fits how you think or feel, and mark over the corre-

sponding letter "a" or "b." It is important to answer every statement;

it will be difficult to make a choice on some of them, but choose

whichever answer best fits. Also, please circle "male" or "female" at

the top of the form.


Instructions for Phase II

(Baseline): I am going to give you 6 timed trials, 30-seconds

long each. During each trial, put a slash mark through every vowel that

you come to--a, e, i, o, and u. If you finish one line, go down to








the next and the next, etc., until I say stop. For each of the

following trials, begin on the next line that has no slashes in it, and

number one through six on the first line of each trial. Any questions?

Ready? Go.

(Low Value): You will be performing the same task as before (slash

through every vowel for 30-second trials); however, at the end of each

trial you will receive some M&M's.

Skill Group: You will receive one M&M for every 25 correct

responses. At the end of each trial the experimenters will count the

number of correct responses and give you the candy you have earned. Any

questions? Ready? Go.

Chance Group: You will receive two MHM's at the end of each trial.

At the end of each trial, the experimenters will give you your candy.

You will receive two M&M's regardless of how well you perform. Any

questions? Ready? Go.

(High Value): You will be performing the same task as before. At the

end of each trial you will receive M&M's.

Skill Group: You will receive one M&M for every correct response.

At the end of each trial, the experimenters will count the number of

correct responses and give you the candy you have earned. Any questions?

Ready? Go.

Chance Group: You will receive x M&M's at the end of each trial.

(Trial 1, x = 54; trial 2, x = 55; trial 3, x = 58; trial 4, x = 56;

trial 5, x = 56; trial 6, x = 59.) You will receive the M&M's regardless

of how well you perform. Any questions? Ready? Go.














APPENDIX C

CANCELLATION TASK


SEX (circle one): MALE FEMALE


Number:


AHETNA E D ETHFOSTS I SN

EHTDNALICUNOC ETAUDA

DNATSDNASE IC I LOP LAR

B D EHS I L B ATE S ERA LUOH

RS I LE CHOS ETAD I ARG E H

NE GMUM I N I MFAN E ME C RO

EVINEUHTINIKROWETIL

UP ETARGARGEHTFONOIT

SNOISIVIDDNASEGELLO

ETHROFYTILI B I SNOPSE

ISMARGORP ETAUDARG FO

NHISIVIDSEGELLOCLAU

SANAS E G E LLOC E HUFOTS

RYLITCERIDS I LAI C IFF

EGELLOCS IHNIYDUTSET

IAHAS I N CEDEHTHCI HW F

DARGEHTFOTN E GAHETUN

D E TALE RYC I LOP F N O S T

HTUCRAE S E RDETAICOSS

DNEMIOC E R DNASNOI T I T


OCLOHICS

RGEHTSAN

ENEGYTLU

CSETAIDA

TYTLUCAF

FN E E T R O

DARGOFSD

ANID 0 ROC

COUS I RAV

REHTATIS

SNBITARE

DIVIDNIE

0 M N I S T N E
OMNISTNE

OREHTORO

NUDARGRO

OLICUNOC

IEBNIMIH

UCEXEROF

ASNAYDUT

EPSREDID


ETAUDARGEHT

EDTNATS I S SA

CAFETAODARG

RGE HTFOSDRA

ETAUDARGETH

FELBISNOPSE

RADNATSLARE

ROF D NAY T I SR

ETH F O S MAR G P

RE V I N U E HTFO

PNODELISTED

HTN I D E TS E VS

MT RAP E D I NAS

NAEDTNATSIS

FE LA I SNOPS E

ETALDARGEHT

SOS I SSANAMR

YTLUCAFETAN

SETALDARGOT

SNOCLICNUCE









EHT F OS RE BMEME SARG

ITI DDAN I DE T I NOPAP

EFATSON S NOITATRES

NUFE S EHTFOYNAMROF

GEHTOTD E TNIOP P ANC

RETDNALI CUNOCETAU

BDEHSI LATE S ERALU

NEGMUMI N I MFANENEC

UPETARDARGEHTFONO

EHTROFYTI L I B I SNOP

NHI S I V I DSEGELLOCL

AHETNAE D E THFOS T S I


EDETEUDA

ERLOHWYT

SIDLAROT

REPOTDET

EBGNIVAH

DARGEHTS

OHCSETAI

ROFNEEHT

ITAN I DOR

SEREHTAT

AUDIVIDN


R G F 0 D R A W
RGFODRAW

LUCAFETT

CODTCERI

AEPXESIR

TUOHTIWS

ANEDTNAT

DARGEHTF

ROFELBIS

OCROFDNA

ISREVINU

IEHTNIDE


SN C LOH I C S E TAUDARGEHT


EHTDNAL I CUNOCETAUDARGEHTSANEDTNATS I S SA

DNATSDNASE IC I LOP LARGE N E G Y T LUCAFETA DAR G

BDEHS I LATE S ERALUOHCSETAI DARG E HTF OS D RA

RS I L E C H O S E TA D I AR G E H T Y T L UC AF ET A U D A R E T H

NE GMUM I N I MFAN E ME C ROFNE E HTRO F E L B I S NO P S E

EVINEUHTI N I KROWETI LDARGOFS DRADNATSLARE

UPETARGARGEHTFONO I TANI DOROCROFDNAYTI SR

SNO I S I VI DDNASEGE LLO COUS I RAVE TH F SMARG P

ETHROFYTI LI B I SNOPSEREHTATI SREVINUEHTFO

I SMARGORP E TAUDARGFOS N B ITAREPNODE L I STED

NHIS IV I DSEGELL C LAUD I V I DN I EHTN I DETSEVS

SANASEGELLOCEHUFOTSOMNIS T N E M T R A E :

RYLITCERIDSILAICIFFOREHTORONAED I. T I

E G E L L O C S I H N I Y D U T S E T N U D A R G R O F E L A i : '. 1-1 E
SEGELLOCSIDEHTHCIHWFNUT LICUAR N E A L .. ]-
I A H 1 4 I: LDEHTHCIHWFOLICUNOCETAL:*.- I-i


AHETS

UDARG

DOTNO

EBMEM

NOITE

SISSA

OSDRA

NOPSE

YTISR

EHTFO

TSEVS














APPENDIX D

SUMMARY TABLE OF 5-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

WITH ONE NESTED FACTOR AND TWO REPEATED MEASURES (N = 120).


Source* SS dF MS F


A 106.5800 1 106.5800 0.1486

B 224.9999 2 112.4999 0.1569

C 38.13554 1 38.13554 0.0532

D 27515.90 2 13757.95 381.0696***

E(D) 563.7070 12 46.97559 7.1109***

AXB 4415.367 2 2207.684 3.0781**

AXC 3307.555 1 3307.555 4.6117**

BXC 844.8572 2 422.4285 0.5890

AXD 1004.949 2 502.4746 13.9176***

BXD 259.4531 4 64.86328 1.7966

CXD 1613.730 2 806.8652 22.3487***

AXE(D) 217.5937 12 18.13281 2.7448**

BXE(D) 198.6406 24 8.276692 1.2529

CXE(D) 355.3594 12 29.61328 4.4827***

AXBXC 8.591553 2 4.2985776 0.0060

AXBXD 131.1484 4 32.78711 0.9081

AXCXD 308.5933 2 154.2966 4.2737

BXCXD 175.5022 4 43.87555 1.2153


77459.31 108 717.2158


S(AXBXC)








APPENDIX D

Continued


Source* SS dF MS F


AXBXE(D) 265.8945 24 11.07894 1.6771

AXCXE(D) 231.6914 12 19.30762 2.9227**

BXCXE(D) 165.5937 24 6.899739 1.0444

AXBXCXD 201.2097 4 50.30243 1.3933

SXD(AXBXC) 7798.352 216 36.10347

AXBXCXE(D) 264.2517 24 11.01049 1.6667**

SXE(AXBXCXD) 8561.566 1296 6.606147




*A: Situation, Skill vs. Chance; B: Locus of Control, Internal
vs. Midrange vs. External; C: Order, Baseline-Low-High vs. Baseline-
High-Low; D: Reinforcement Value, Baseline vs. Low vs. High; E(D):
Trials (nested in conditions), 1 vs. 2 vs. 3 vs. 4 vs. 5.

**Significant at the .05 level.

***Significant at the .01 level.














APPENDIX E

SUMMARY TABLE OF 3-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (N = 137).


Source* SS dF MS F


166.6698

11.4898

6.0239

34.3705

41.5145

87.1982

130.4607


5704.4903


6182.2176


166.6698

11.4898

3.0119

34.3705

20.7573

43.5991

65.2303


3.6522

.2518

.0659

.7531

.4548

.9554

1.4294


125 45.6359


136


*Sex, Male vs. Female; A: Situation, Skill vs. Chance; B: Locus
of Control, Internal vs. Midrange vs. External.


Sex

A

B

Sex X A

Sex X B

AX B

Sex X A X B


ERROR


TOTAL


















: f F. Er.o i F


F a rT. T-.I i f : il: t l I : :'J. F'. I T T i,'' 0 .'i .I TiI -


I I.C T I l .' i l i I


L I L '
- L '" f It


-I 'i.






Li rr



,i.~~77


-r, ir :-
SL i t L


J 1:


Jr. :nr...






I'I



H .'.


-I, '- H-




2-' J--
I,-1'
iIJ


- -.1-


"N .= '* p-. r 'i 1i


"'b L 1 = ba3 lin L, .- h t II L : 8 _.'- li.e H LI. L.' .


i r..t








.~ ~.






r

: c~
5 ~.
; ;
1111111















-O |CMNNNN0








1-] i\o 0- \


N3 N *^ N N7 0C



i- Q N -a N T N N













N? Nr N N N)
N NT Nt *- N




~N N N N
t\ Nr LT0 Nr NN





N CN N N~ Nf
*-] M 1' V LO n























i<] 0 N Cl N- N~


N N N N N





0. .
E- \DU N)P
V| >\oCioor~





\0 M Ml/lc--








-31 cQ,- Ot CO






3 -~\o \o ooc







CO (1


m~mm
(NM(NIt-^
IN N N NN





Ln LOLnLIi/i1/



























N N Noi- r-~
3-M.iM Ln
1 LOY LO in L/



























N N N N3N
mNNNN

Mnonm



















LI)1 ~LO LlLO








O in\or-~ \




VIVLOLOLIT






mLn r-oooo
virmmmm














r-mm(NCT



Ln I-rI-r> n i


N N N N N

N N N N N


ULO /aLO LO >
N N N N N

N N N N N
N n N Nr


No oN rN

SrloNo N N








i-n nngIrLOia
N0 cON N








O n N N N


















N Ln n NN






0 '*0 LO lCi
D LO N

co N) N N N







LO N NNLO N
*^- NON N- m

CN No N N~ N~





NO NI NNLO
N N N NO




N0' NNNN

LnD\r-1 ,-
3N NLNNN


.0)
0) 0











APPENDIX H

METHOD AND RESULTS FROM PILOT STUDY:

THE EFFECT OF LOCUS OF CONTROL, REINFORCEMENT VALUE

AND REINFORCEMENT CONTINGENCY ON A SIMPLE LEARNING TASK

Method


Expectancy was measured by Rotter's Locus of Control Scale.

Reinforcement value was the number of points exchanged for classroom

extra credit. The psychological situation manipulated was the

announcement that reinforcement would be contingent upon the subject's

correct performance or simply would be given as a result of his partici-

pation in the experiment. The behavior potential measured as the

dependent variable was the subject's number of correct responses on a

simple learning task.


Subjects

The subjects were undergraduate students from the University of

Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Although the Locus of Control Scale was administered to 240 students,

the data were based on a sample of 96 subjects. This reduction resulted

from: (1) approximately 80 subjects not showing up for the second

phase of the study; (2) the removal of 24 subjects' scores which

centered around the median score [this was to insure that the groups

(Internal vs. External) would be sufficiently disparate for comparison];

and (3) the random elimination of 43 subjects' scores to provide equal

numbers of subjects in each cell.







Apparatus

1. The Locus of Control Scale by Julian B. Rotter (1966) ;as

administered to groups of students.

2. The experimental task required that subjects look at a list of

paired items for 30 seconds, then write down the missing item on a list

of half the pairs. Three different sets of the paired stimulus items

were used: Set I = names of colors paired with numbers; Set II = shapes

paired with letters; Set III = names of animals paired with symbols.

Each set consisted of ten pairs of stimuli (each item in one column

paired with one different item in the other column). The items comprising

each set were different from all other sets. The paired stimulus items

were printed on three sheets of vinyl overlay for use with an overhead

projector.

3. Response sheets for each of the three sets were composed of a

list of the items in one column only, with the subjects being required

to write down the appropriate paired response. The response sheets for

Set I listed names of colors; Set II, shapes; and Set III, names of

animals. The response sheets were arranged face down to prevent subjects

from observing any items before they were projected onto the screen.

4. Red pens for marking answers correct when the paired lists were

reprojected were used. The bright visibility of these pens improved

the experimenter's ability to make sure no cheating occurred.

5. Overhead projector and screen.


Procedure

The study was carried out as a 2 x 2 x 2 deisng, with factors:

(1) Locus of Control, Internal (I) vs. External (E); (2) reinforcement







value, high vs. low number of points; and (3) contingent vs. noncon-

tingent reinforcement. Thus, there were eight factor level combinations.

Because it was assumed that the subjects were all of relatively

high intelligence (college students), a simple learning task should have

been equally appropriate for each subject, thereby removing relative

difficulty of the task as a potential confounding variable.

A practice trial and two test trials of the task were presented.

The experimental data is based on the sum of the scores from the last

two trials.


Phase I

Each subject was given an identification number to insure confi-

dentiality and facilitate data analysis. A short introduction and

explanation of the procedure was given by the experimenter and questions

were answered. The subjects were notified of the time and place for

Phase II. Each subject then was given a Locus of Control Scale with

instructions.


Phase II

- As each subject arrived, he or she was given a red pen and a

response sheet booklet. Depending upon the experimental condition

group, reinforcement information was given as follows:

r "Each of you has earned one-half extra credit point for having

filled out the questionnaire previously.

[for High-Contingent (HiC) groups] You now have the opportunity

to earn the rest of your extra credit. You will receive two working

points for each correct answer you achieve; for every ten working points,

you will get an additional half credit.







[for High Non-Contingent (HiNC)] You need ten working points for

each additional half-credit. You are being given 20 working points.

Thus, you will receive an additional one whole extra credit for coming

here tonight.

[for Low-Contingent (LoC)] You now have the opportunity to earn

the rest of your extra credit. You will receive one working point for

every two correct answers you achieve; for every ten working points, you

get an additional half-credit.

[for Low-Non-Contingent (LoNC)] You need ten working points for

each additional half-credit. You are being given ten working points.

Thus, you will receive a half-credit for coming here tonight."

Reinforcement instructions for each group were repeated. The

experimental task procedure was then explained, and questions were

answered. The Phase II tasks proceeded as follows:

The stimulus items for Set I were projected on the screen for

thirty seconds. When the projector light was cut off, subject tore off

the top sheet of the response booklet (Response sheet--Set I), turned it

over and completed as many of the pairs as possible. As each one

finished working, pencils were put down. When all subjects had finished,

the stimulus pairs were projected onto the screen again, and subjects put

a check by each correct answer, using the red pen, and wrote the total

number correct at the top of the page.

This procedure was repeated for Set II and for Set III of the

paired stimulus items. When the response sheets for Set III had been

collected, each subject was dismissed and given a slip of paper which

read as follows:








T ,,, ,:.u mT'.:. F_ .r E p Ai -" tr' : 1 toP r, . c c i'. r Il l ,

p r ,:. T .r. ,. t . i zri ..d i l l r e~ : i rriv .t. : r : trr :r : J i t

S r r .:: :r .-7 t .: . :., : F.: 'i.r : I r : i rJ i e: : ,.I .,,r r .:t ,l



, : ,..: ,_ -" I
S J r : r p :- . L'. 1






:.jr ,f .:r ir I rL i l .: tr I: : r-r_:.rTed ..r, tr,.- 3j t



S1 a EY 1 T, rul11




J1 I r. E



S' t r ri .:r IL* t in. , i .r . rit I . t, .I ':r :I.-it

,-r, r : :. F ,,J T :.ri i l:. .?, tr-rnji : .,:re r.. :.r C ,i lIe :in:e jIll

- rr. n ;,: r.j '. r : ,::r -r *!"lr.t:_: e re .:,-




r:, rl. ,-:r i L l '. : -.w i. I i ,t:re i:,. Ir = .-.9I, r: = .:.-' r c : i,



rc' I tr Ia c" r E f t. .m *r.
in.:-', -. r, r l1 t, lit, --: -:rn trial: ,:.inr r It : p-::.t-: i; e ,:h ,',t tfh

ltl e : .:- re ,r:,.. : r.: 11f s..r:r. fr.iL e: r i : e- r.



i r t : r L E1 i ff- :t I

i : r tr- Jilc rc. il] e t-I -r : ;"JlrT1f it t' T.'r- L, Or.T

[rr .: .. r r E:.r, e:c h t?,cE :r, hn lj.I : Z a.a ;.:,l ip."-l

5:r::: t. .: arian,.l : re -: 1.:1 A r li n. r r ult. Ip I Ir, n r [ o t'.F:-

a. r ,i I cri tr l .:: r-ei i h ri t 1 pnri, r ier, t11 h.,, a C.c r

it -" ir,: a, ct.1 th, .t tr,.:,.:e _; n, ei tl n.: .,:r= -rinn -eJ i .,:rn rutr.e.,'

I:.et ., :, : r.r :iir e .c.-: tLt..:r. : i *: r -I- ,..i:urrcr X.*: :,f i rif,:.cr.;cT.: ru iJi d

a.n ctE 'f, "' ,C'!'. [tnlm trh.-ic ul:.i.c ,:t in j i iirn .:-L..'-i E iJti ,ll rin ih.-r





57


Locus of Control and Reinforcement Contingency interacted, the groups

achieving the highest to lowest scores were: Internal-Contingent

([ = 8.08), External-Non-Contingent (k = 7.20), External-Contingent

(x = 6.85), and Internal-Non-Contingent (x = 6.79).

It was predicted that those subjects who received High Value,

Contingent reinforcement would achieve the highest scores and those who

received Low Value, Non-Contingent reinforcement would achieve the

lowest scores. Analysis of the data partially supported this prediction.

Where Reinforcement Value and Reinforcement Contingency interacted, the

groups achieving the highest to lowest scores were Low-Contingent

(x = 7.75), High-Non-Contingent (x = 7.58), High-Contingent (x = 7.18),

and Low-Non-Contingent (x = 6.41).

















-j .- - T '


I, TII ILI L i.I .11. TI-L T t 1 l .I


I*. I):1



I. J-



I. -
1 1 .


4..









'' 1


.1..5









Ij.l


I rrul irr rn l E t.- r r. i I .. r,._ I : ,er

T Ir.,l rIi TriJ


'"A1 iLh r ti ; S I l h .15 1 : 1il


LI


l :i[ L F l [, .












BIBLIOGRAPHY


Baron, R.A. "The effects of locus of control instructions and reinforce-
ment contingency on performance in a two-choice situation," Dissert.
Abstr., 29(6-B):2215, 1968.

Battle, E.S. "Motivational determinants of academic task persistence,"
J. personal soc. Psychol., 2(2):209-218, 1965.

Bronner, A.F., Healy, W., Lowe, G.M., and Shimberg, M.E. A Manual of
Individual Mental Tests and Testing. Boston: Little, Brown and
Company, 1927.

Diner, M. "The locus of control construct, as an intrapersonal variable
and a situational variable, in a motor learning task, with schizophrenic,
paraplegic, and orthopedic subjects," Dissert. Abstr., 29(10-B):3899,
1969.

Ferster, C.B., and Skinner, B.F. Schedules of Reinforcement. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957.

Franklin, R.D. "Youth;s expectancies about internal versus external
control of reinforcement related to N variables," Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Purdue University, 1963.

Gold, D. "The effect of generalized and specific expectancies upon
eyelid conditioning," Psychonom. Sci., 8(4):147-148, 1967.

Holden, K.B., and Rotter, J.B. "A nonverbal measure of extinction in
skill and chance situations," J. exper. Psychol., 63:519-520, 1962.

James, W.H. and Rotter, J.B. "Partial and 100% reinforcement under
chance and skill conditions," J. exper. Psychol., 55:397-403, 1958.

Julian, J.W., Lichtman, C.M., and Ryckman, R.M. "Internal-external
control and the need to control," J. soc. Psychol., 76:43-48, 1968.

Lefcourt, H.M. "Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a
review," Psychol. Bull., 64(4):206-220, 1966.

Lefcourt, H.M. "Effects of cue explication upon persons maintaining
external control expectancies," J. personal. soc. Psychol., 5(3):372-
378, 1967.

Lesiak, W.J. "The relationships of the internal-external locus of
control dimension to scholastic achievement, reflection-impulsivity and
residence in priority areas," Dissert. Abstr. Internat., 31(4-B):2285
1970 (Oct.)
59







Paterson, D.G., Elliott, R.M., Anderson, L.D., Toops, H.A. and
Heidbreder, E. Minnesota Mechanical Ability Tests. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1930.

Phares, E.J. "Expectancy changes in skill and chance situation," J.
abnorm. soc. Psychol., 54:339-342, 1957.

Phares, E.J. "Perceptual threshold decrements as a function of skill
and chance expectancies," J. Psychol., 53:399-407, 1962.

Reynolds, G.S. A Primer of Operant Conditioning. Glenview, Illinois:
Scott, Foresman and Co., 1968.

Rotter, J.B. Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954.

Rotter, J.B. "Review of the literature on locus of control," Psychol.
Monograph, 80(1), 1966.

Rotter, J.B., Liverant, S., and Crowne, D.P. "The growth and extinction
of expectancies in chance controlled and skilled tests," J. Psychol.,
52:161-177, 1961.

Rotter, J.B. and Mulry, R. "Internal versus external control of reinforce-
ment and decision time," J. person, soc. Psychol., 2(4):598-604, 1965.

Schneider, J.M. "Skill versus chance activity preference and locus of
control: Role of masculinity-feminity and activity level," Dissert.
Abstr., 29(4-B):1497, 1968.

Sokolof, M.J. "The effect of locus of control, reinforcement value,
and reinforcement contingency on a simple learning task." Unpublished,
1972.

Starch, D.W. Experiments in Educational Psychology. New York: The
MacMillan Co., 1915.

Waldrip, E.L. "The effect of reinforcement value and locus of control of
reinforcement upon the acquisition and extinction of expectancies in
chance and skill situations," Dissert. Abstr., 28(5-B):2151, 1967.

Watson, D. and Baumal, E. "Effects of locus of control and expectation
of future control upon present performance," J. person. soc. Psychol.,
6(2):212-215, 1967.

Whipple, G.M. Manual of Mental and Physical Tests. Part I: Simpler
Processes. Baltimore: Warwick and York, Inc., 1914.

Williams, J.G. "Internal-external control as a situar -,r.a .rar. !. in
determining information-seeking by Negro students," Ci:.-r r.rir
Internal., 31(6-B):3718, 1970 (Dec.).











BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


Marilyn Toby Sokolof was born February 6, 1946, in Brooklyn,

New York. She received her elementary and secondary education in Miami,

Florida. Admitted to the University of Florida, she received the

Bachelor of Arts degree, with a major in psychology, in 1968. As a

graduate student in psychology at the University of Florida, she

received the Master of Arts degree in 1971. In 1972, she was awarded

the First Annual Florence Schafer Award for the Most Outstanding Student

Therapist. During the 1971-72 academic year, she was an intern in

clinical psychology at the Guidance Center, Inc., an outpatient community

mental health clinic in Daytona Beach, Florida. She has been awarded a

post-doctoral fellowship in community student mental health at the

Department of Student Mental Health, University of Florida.












I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.




J4cqueUin Goldman, Chairman
Associate Professor of Psychology

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.




Audrey c Imacher
Professor of Psychology

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy




Madelaine Ramey /
Assistant Professor of P chology

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.




ernon Van De Riet
Associate Professor of Clinical
Psychology








I certify that I have read this study and that in my opirls-i'i Lr
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation an-l i. ful I
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degr'.: -
Doctor of Philosophy.




William Wolking
Associate Professor of/ cial
Education


This dissertation was submitted to the Department of Psychology in the
College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was
accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.

December, 1972




Dean, Graduate School




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs