A SYSTEMATIC INVESTIGATION OF THE CONCEPT EXPECTANCY AS CONCEIVED WITHIN ROTTER'S SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY OF PERSONALITY

131 Pages·4.462 MB·English

by  CASTANEDA, ALFRED

A SYSTEMATIC INVESTIGATION OP THE CONCEPT
EXPECTANCY AS CONCEIVED WITHIN
ROTTER'S SOCIAL LEARNING
THEORY OF PERSONALITY
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy In the
Graduate School of The Ohio State
University
By
ALFRED CASTANEDA, A.B., M.A.
The Ohio State University
1952
.Approved by:
Advlser
AC KNOWLKDGMENTS
The writer would like to acknowledge his indebtedness
to Dr, Julian B, Rotter whose supervision throughout the
past three years has contributed immeasurably to the writer*
understanding of the problems in theory and research in the
field of psychology and without whose efforts at construct­
ing a social learning theory of personality this research
would not have been possible.
Special debts of gratitude are extended to Dr. Robert
R, Wherry for his contributions to the statistical aspects
of this study and to Mrs. Alberta M. Castaneda for her help
in the preparation of this manuscript.
To his fellow students and members of the weekly re­
search team meetings deep appreciation 5s expressed for the
opportunity to participate in their discussions and for
their many and varied contributions to the writer's under­
standing of major Issues in the social sciences.
ii
To my wife, Alberta
I! 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ................ 1
Antecedents of the Problem .................... k
I. Expectancy: A Review .................... k
II. Theoretical Background ........... . . . 12
III. Generalisation of Expectancies ......... 16
A. Some Mediating Mechanisms ........... 16
B. Amount of Experience .................. 18
IV. Past History of Reinforcements ......... 21
A. Frequency ............................. 21
B. Patterning and Reducing Increments . .
V. Changes In Expectancy: An Empirical
6
Equation ...............................
VI. Methodological Considerations ...........
VII. Hypotheses Tested ......................... 9i
A. Accumulation Effects .................. 51
B. Amount of Experience (Novelty) . . . . 53
C. Empirical Equation: Cross-
Validation ......................... 51+
D. Changes in Expectancy Under Condi­
tions of Extinction ................ 55
Methodology .................................... 58
I. Equipment .................................. 58
II. Subjects .................................. 59
III. Experimental Groups ...................... 60
IV. Procedure .................................. 63
Results and Discussion ......................... 69
I. Accumulation Effects .................... 69
II. Amount of Experience (Novelty) ......... 75
III. Empirical Equation: Cross-Validation . . 83
IV. Changes In Expectancy Under Conditions
of Extinction ......................... 96
Summary and Conclusions ......................
Bibliography ....................................
Appendix ........................................
Iv
LIST OP TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables Page
I Comparison of Empirical and Derived Expectancy
Scores for Two Reinforcement Patterns......... 1+0
II Mean Expectancy Score and Standard Deviation
For Groups I and III at Each T r i a l ........... 71
III Analysis of Variance of Expectancy Scores for
Groups I and III Over a Seventeen Trial Learning
S e q u e n c e ........................................ 71+.
IV Mean and Standard Deviation of the First and
Last Expectancy Scores (Eq and Eg) for the First
Pattern of Reinforcements for Group IV and the
Results of the Test of Significance of the
D iffer e nc e ...................................... 76
V Mean and Standard Deviation of Expectancy
Scores of Group IV For Each Trial at Each Pattern
of Reinforcements............................... 77
VI Mean and Standard Deviation of the Difference
Scores (Amount of Change) for the First and Sec­
ond Patterns of Reinforcements for Group IV and
the Results of the Test of Significance of the
D i ff e r e n ce...................................... 80
VII Mean and Standard Deviation of the Change Scores
(Number of Times Betting Is Changed) for the
First and Second Patterns of Reinforcement for
Group IV and the Results of the Test of Signifi­
cance of the Difference......................... 81
VIII Empirical and Derived Expectancy Scores for Two
Patterns of Reinforcements (Groups I and II) and
for Groups I and III Combined.................. Q0
IX Correlation Coefficients for the Empirical and
Derived Scores for Two (Group I and II) Rein­
forcement Patterns and for Groups I and III
C o m b i n e d ........................................
v
Tables Page
X Moan Difference, Standard Deviation of the Mean
Difference and Standard Error of the Mean Dif­
ference Between the Empirical and Derived Scores
for Two (Groups I and II) Reinforcement Patterns
and Groups I and III Combined and the Results of
the Test of the Significance of the Difference . 95
XI Mean and Standard Deviation of the Expectancy
Scores for Groups I and II at Trial 11 and the
Results of the Test of the Significance of the
Difference....................................... 97
XII Mean and Standard Deviation of the Expectancy
Scores for Groups I and II at Trials 12, 13, II4-,
1f>, l6 and 17 and the Results of the Test of
the Significance of the Difference............ 99
XTII Raw Data - Expectancy Scores for Group I . . . . 119
XIV Raw Data - Expectancy Scores for Group II . . . 120
XV Raw Data - Expectancy Scores for Group III . . . 121
XVI Raw Data - Expectancy Scores for Group IV . . . 122
XVII Raw Data - Expectancy Scores for Group V . . . . 123
Figures
I Comparison of Expectancy Curves for Groups A
and B on Different Reinforcement Sequences . . . 36
II Comparison of Empirical and Derived Expectancy
Curves for Group A .............................. i|.l
III Comparison of Empirical and Derived Expectancy
l±2
Curves for Group B ..............................
IV Sequence of Reinforcements for Three Groups of
Subjects......................................... 6l
V Sequence of Reinforcements for Group IV . . . . 6l
vi
Figures Page
VI Comparison of Expectancy Curves for Groups I
and I I I ........................................... 72
VII Expectancy Curve for Group I I I ................ 78
VIII Comparison of Empirical and Derived (Old Equa­
tion) Expectancy Curves for Group I V ......... 81+.
IX Comparison of Empirical and Derived (New Equa­
tion) Expectancy Curves for Group IV ......... 86
X Comparison of Empirical and Derived (New Equa­
tion) Expectancy Curves for Group A ............ 87
XI Comparison of Empirical and Derived (New Equa­
tion) Expectancy Curves for Group B ............ 88
XII Comparison of Empirical and Derived Expectancy
Curves for Group I .............................. 91
XIII Comparison of Empirical and Derived Expectancy
Curves for Group I I .............................. 92
XIV Comparison of Empirical and Derived Expectancy
Curves for Groups I and III C o m b i n e d ......... 93
XV Comparison of Empirical Expectancy Curves for
Groups I and I I .................................. 98
XVI Comparison of Empirical and Derived Expectancy
Curves for Group V ................................ 102
vil
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In its efforts to meaningfully order an overwhelming
mass of empirical relationships, psychology devises terms
with varying degrees of precision. For these terms psychol­
ogists develop various preferential attitudes. Frequently
the preference Is predicated on the applicability of the term
in dealing with that class of phenomena with which the indi­
vidual psychologist attempts to deal, but in the process he
may reject others on the basis of their Inapplicability even
though such terms do not propose to deal with that set of
problems. Thus such Issues as to whether a term is "cogni­
tive," "mechanistic," "dynamic," etc., become irrelevantly
appended to the pragmatic Issue as to whether a term is
predictive of that set of relationships It proposes to pre­
dict. The Issue regarding the relative value of predictions
relating to a white rat at a choice point in a maze versus
predictions concerning the choice made by an adolescent in a
complex social situation cannot be answered with the logic
of scientific procedure. If, however, the ultimate goal In
psychology is the prediction of human behavior such issues
as to whether constructs derived from infra-human situations
2
represent the more economic course of action may Appear rel­
evant. However, at this present stage of development In
psychology, a given position on this Issue reflects perhaps
a preference founded on a basis other than the superiority
of its merits. The final evaluation of a scientific construct
is to be based on the answers It gives to the questions of
how well it predicts what it intends to predict in comparison
to other constructs and perhaps whether It predicts a wider
range of empirical phenomena.
Preliminary to such final evaluation the construct must
undergo a process of definition whereby the potential for
Its measurement becomes an actuality. Herein, pephaps, lies
the task of central importance in all scientific theorizing
since the possibility of refinements In prediction Is en­
hanced by operational procedures. Quantification, then, is
not an end goal but a necessary condition for the evaluation
of a term whose purpose Is to predict empirical relationships*
A concise and summarized mathematical expression of these re­
lationships is the final measure of the success of the entire
scientific effort. It is to this end that psychology strives
and, perhaps, unifies and coordinates many of the differences
in the types of problems Investigated or in the differences
in approaches to the same problem.
In the process of arriving at this ultimate $tate of
3
affairs the complex nature of the problem restricts systematic
observations to those necessarily limited situations such as
those In the laboratory. These observations once recorded
and quantified must then be coordinated with other such sys­
tematic observations with the necessary expansion and revision
of their mathematical expression as other variables are con­
sidered. The result is a flow of constant interaction between
observation and subsequent revision of constructs. The study
reported In this paper represents an attempt at such a sys­
tematic investigation in an admittedly limited situation as
well as an attempt to summarize these observations in equa­
tion form. These observations are with regard to the construct
expectancy. It is one which has had a major position in the
history of psychology's efforts to systematize the conditions
under which the organism modifies, changes or varies its re­
lationship to an external environment as a function of its
experiences with it. The construct, revised in certain
aspects, has been incorporated in a recent attempt by Rotter
to devise a social learning theory of personality. It is
within this framework that this investigation Is made.