255
NEW LEARNING BY GERIATRIC
SUBJECTS*
L. EUDORA PETTIGREW and LYNN T. KEITH Michigan State University
The research examined the acquisition level of a new verbal response class by geriatric subjects. Four nursing home residents and five members of a Senior Citizens club served as subjects. The experimenter used " very good " as a contingent reinforcement when the subjects emitted the criterion response—alliteration of the letter " s ". The non-institutionalized subjects manifested a significant increase in the frequency of the response whereas institutionalized subjects did not exhibit a significant increase in the
frequency of
the response.
The purpose of the present study was to investigate if the use of verbal reinforcement is effective in the acquisition of new verbal responses by geriatric subjects. Research evidence about the effects of operant conditioning on geriatric subjects indicates that they manifest performances in specific learning tasks which Geriatric subjects make more errors, are inferior to younger subjects’ performances. take more time to respond, seem less organized and adaptable to new learning tasks, and suffer from the effects of experimental stress to a greater extent than do younger subjects (Korchin and Basowitz, 1957; Brinley, 1963; Canestrari, 1962, 1963; Eisdorfer, Axelrod and Wilkie, 1963; Arenberg, 1965; Ross, 1968). Canestrari (1962, 1963), Oberleder (1964) and Ross (1968) have suggested that
experimental conditions, e.g., paced performance, self-paced performance, emotional environment and supportive stimuli, are intervening variables which affect geriatric subjects’ responses in new learning tasks. Lindsley (1964) has further defined those intervening variables as the cumulative effects of reinforcing events, both past and present, in the subject’s environment. In the latter context, Lindsley suggests that the geriatric subject may not obtain reinforcement for new learning in a situation which is non-supportive for the acquisition of new responses. Other researchers (Dignam, 1960; Coleman, 1963; and Swenson, 1965) report that geriatric subjects’ motor responses can be modified when specific reinforcing events are made contingent upon the desired response.
Lindsley’s (1964) contentions, when combined with the results of the findings by Dignam, Coleman and Swenson, suggest that supportive situations tend to provide discriminative stimuli and/or reinforcing events which can influence an increment in new learning in geriatric subjects whereas non-supportive situations tend to provide discriminative stimuli and/or reinforcing events that either sustain present behavioural patterns or produce a decrement in present behaviours. Thus, the *
for this study Bridgeport. Data
were
collected while the authors
were
at the
University of
256 found in new learning tasks between young and geriatric subjects may be a function of differentially relevant reinforcers as well as the reinforcement history of such subjects. The function of differential reinforcers may be especially reflected in the performance of geriatric subjects in new learning situations. The institutionalized geriatric subject may exhibit in his performance the consequences of not only his own unique reinforcement history, but also his ongoing reinforcement experiences within the context of the institution. Ayllon and Michael (1959) state that disrupting behaviours in the institutionalized geriatric patient commonly consist of the failure to engage in behaviours which are considered by social reinforcement agents to be normal and/or healthy. Thus, failure to engage in verbal and co-operative behaviours, motor activity and social interaction may be behavioural deficits resulting from the cumulative effects of present and past reinforcement environments (Swenson, 1965). Society has provided special food, toys and games to reinforce the behaviour of infants and children. Other relevant reinforcers exist for juveniles, young adults and middle age groups. However, a supportive environment which provides discriminative stimuli and relevant reinforcement for the continuance and/or re-establishment of motor, social and verbal behaviours for the geriatric person does not exist to any great extent. Given the adequate supportive milieu, the geriatric person might possibly exhibit operant increments in performance within the limitations of declining and/or impaired capacities. Supportive environments can thus be defined as those which provide discriminative stimuli and reinforcing events that result in an increment of normal and healthy behaviours from geriatric subjects, and non-supportive environments can be defined as those which provide discriminative stimuli and reinforcing events that result in a decrement in those same behaviours. Lindsley (1964) emphasizes the importance of testing numerous reinforcing events as they may apply to the geriatric person. He suggests that if appropriate historical and/or immediate reinforcers could be identified for the geriatric subject, such persons might become more amenable to conditioning and subsequent participation in the normal activities of the environment. In the present study, a non-supportive environment was defined in terms of an institutionalized situation, e.g., reinforcing events may result in a decrement in social and motor behaviours, and a supportive environment was defined as an organization for senior citizens in which reinforcing events may result in an increment in social and motor activities. The latter definition was derived from pre-experimental observations of the nursing home and a variety of senior citizens group meetings and social events. In addition, interviews were conducted with members of both organizations, including staff and clientele. The resultant information revealed clear differences between the organizations with respect to the availability of a range of reinforcing events for behaviour. Specifically, in terms of the social environment, the senior citizens group differed from the institutional situation by providing reinforcing events for primarily socially
differential
performance
257
adaptive and integrative behaviours, including: (1) verbal interchanges (as both speaker and listener), (2) co-operative behaviours, (3) recreational and volunteer service activities (within the limits of physical impairment), (4) interest in surroundings and current events, (5) intellectual curiosity ;and new learning, (6) group cohesion and morale, and (7) feelings of positive self-esteem and self-worth as a useful and productive individual member of the environment. Obervations and interviews with nursing home staffs revealed little if any reinforcement for the above behaviours. Indeed, clients in the nursing home were more encouraged to remain inactive than
the
engage in active behaviours. The above reported differences in presumed reinforcing events in the two geriatric environments suggest that geriatric subjects in an institutionalized environment will be less prone to manifest new verbal responses under verbal conditioning procedures. The present study was conducted to test the latter assumption. to
METHOD
Subjects The subjects were selected from two geriatric populations : a nursing home and senior citizens organization. Five subjects were active members of a senior citizens club. Their ages ranged from 66 through 83 with a mean age of 71.2 years. Four subjects were ambulatory residents of a nursing home. Their ages ranged from 57 through 90 with a mean age of 74.3 years.
a
Apparatus a
A portable tape recorder was used to record the responses stop-watch was used to time the experimental sessions.
Dependent
of the
subjects
and
Variable
The subjects’ emission of alliterative responses, defined as the consecutive verbalization of two or more words beginning with the letter &dquo; s &dquo; was designated as the learning task. Following the emission of the predetermined response, subjects were reinforced by the experimenter’s saying &dquo; very good.&dquo;
Procedure
.
experiment was conducted with each subject in a private room. The subject instructed to sit in a chair with his back to the experimenter. The recorder was unobservable during the experimental sessions, though it was possible for the subject to see the unit upon entering the experimental room. On each of fourteen The
was
258 consecutive days, two 15-minute experimental sessions were conducted, the first in the morning and the second in the afternoon. Thus there were a total of twentyeight 15-minute sessions for each of the subjects. The following instructions were read to each subject immediately before the start of each experimental session. &dquo; I want you to say all of the words that you can think of. Say each word individually. Do not use any sentences or phrases. Do not count. Please continue saying words as you think of them until I say stop.’ Are there any questions? Go ahead.&dquo; (Greenspoon, 1962). If the subject started using sentences, phrases or numbers, the experimenter would interrupt with the following: &dquo; Do not use any sentences, phrases or numbers. Say words as you think of them individually.&dquo; (Greenspoon, 1962). The first four sessions (two days) of the experimental period were used to obtain a baseline of each subject’s alliterative verbal responses with words beginning with ‘ s.’ Verbal conditioning began the first session of the third day. Following eight sessions of conditioning (4 days), extinction procedures were carried out for eight sessions (4 days). At the end of the fourteen-day experimental period, each subject was asked: (1) What do you think the experiment was about? (2) Did you notice any change in the kind of words you were saying? (3) What do you think was the purpose of my saying &dquo; Very good &dquo;? .
_
RESULTS z
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of criterion responses of Group A and Group B for each experimental condition. Fig. 1 shows the mean number of criterion responses for Group A and Group B for each sequence condition over the fourteen-day experimental period. The data reported in Table 1 reveal that subjects in Group A emitted notably more criterion responses over their base rate than did those in Group B. In the Acquisition phase, the subjects in Group A increased their alliterations by an average of 61 responses over baseline, and in the Re-acquisition phase increased alliterations by 188 responses over their base performance. In contrast, the subjects in Group B exhibited little change in the production of alliterations over their base rate. t-ratios (one-tailed) indicate that the mean differences between Group A and Group B were statistically significant for the Acquisition (t = 2.53, p
NEW LEARNING BY GERIATRIC
SUBJECTS*
L. EUDORA PETTIGREW and LYNN T. KEITH Michigan State University
The research examined the acquisition level of a new verbal response class by geriatric subjects. Four nursing home residents and five members of a Senior Citizens club served as subjects. The experimenter used " very good " as a contingent reinforcement when the subjects emitted the criterion response—alliteration of the letter " s ". The non-institutionalized subjects manifested a significant increase in the frequency of the response whereas institutionalized subjects did not exhibit a significant increase in the
frequency of
the response.
The purpose of the present study was to investigate if the use of verbal reinforcement is effective in the acquisition of new verbal responses by geriatric subjects. Research evidence about the effects of operant conditioning on geriatric subjects indicates that they manifest performances in specific learning tasks which Geriatric subjects make more errors, are inferior to younger subjects’ performances. take more time to respond, seem less organized and adaptable to new learning tasks, and suffer from the effects of experimental stress to a greater extent than do younger subjects (Korchin and Basowitz, 1957; Brinley, 1963; Canestrari, 1962, 1963; Eisdorfer, Axelrod and Wilkie, 1963; Arenberg, 1965; Ross, 1968). Canestrari (1962, 1963), Oberleder (1964) and Ross (1968) have suggested that
experimental conditions, e.g., paced performance, self-paced performance, emotional environment and supportive stimuli, are intervening variables which affect geriatric subjects’ responses in new learning tasks. Lindsley (1964) has further defined those intervening variables as the cumulative effects of reinforcing events, both past and present, in the subject’s environment. In the latter context, Lindsley suggests that the geriatric subject may not obtain reinforcement for new learning in a situation which is non-supportive for the acquisition of new responses. Other researchers (Dignam, 1960; Coleman, 1963; and Swenson, 1965) report that geriatric subjects’ motor responses can be modified when specific reinforcing events are made contingent upon the desired response.
Lindsley’s (1964) contentions, when combined with the results of the findings by Dignam, Coleman and Swenson, suggest that supportive situations tend to provide discriminative stimuli and/or reinforcing events which can influence an increment in new learning in geriatric subjects whereas non-supportive situations tend to provide discriminative stimuli and/or reinforcing events that either sustain present behavioural patterns or produce a decrement in present behaviours. Thus, the *
for this study Bridgeport. Data
were
collected while the authors
were
at the
University of
256 found in new learning tasks between young and geriatric subjects may be a function of differentially relevant reinforcers as well as the reinforcement history of such subjects. The function of differential reinforcers may be especially reflected in the performance of geriatric subjects in new learning situations. The institutionalized geriatric subject may exhibit in his performance the consequences of not only his own unique reinforcement history, but also his ongoing reinforcement experiences within the context of the institution. Ayllon and Michael (1959) state that disrupting behaviours in the institutionalized geriatric patient commonly consist of the failure to engage in behaviours which are considered by social reinforcement agents to be normal and/or healthy. Thus, failure to engage in verbal and co-operative behaviours, motor activity and social interaction may be behavioural deficits resulting from the cumulative effects of present and past reinforcement environments (Swenson, 1965). Society has provided special food, toys and games to reinforce the behaviour of infants and children. Other relevant reinforcers exist for juveniles, young adults and middle age groups. However, a supportive environment which provides discriminative stimuli and relevant reinforcement for the continuance and/or re-establishment of motor, social and verbal behaviours for the geriatric person does not exist to any great extent. Given the adequate supportive milieu, the geriatric person might possibly exhibit operant increments in performance within the limitations of declining and/or impaired capacities. Supportive environments can thus be defined as those which provide discriminative stimuli and reinforcing events that result in an increment of normal and healthy behaviours from geriatric subjects, and non-supportive environments can be defined as those which provide discriminative stimuli and reinforcing events that result in a decrement in those same behaviours. Lindsley (1964) emphasizes the importance of testing numerous reinforcing events as they may apply to the geriatric person. He suggests that if appropriate historical and/or immediate reinforcers could be identified for the geriatric subject, such persons might become more amenable to conditioning and subsequent participation in the normal activities of the environment. In the present study, a non-supportive environment was defined in terms of an institutionalized situation, e.g., reinforcing events may result in a decrement in social and motor behaviours, and a supportive environment was defined as an organization for senior citizens in which reinforcing events may result in an increment in social and motor activities. The latter definition was derived from pre-experimental observations of the nursing home and a variety of senior citizens group meetings and social events. In addition, interviews were conducted with members of both organizations, including staff and clientele. The resultant information revealed clear differences between the organizations with respect to the availability of a range of reinforcing events for behaviour. Specifically, in terms of the social environment, the senior citizens group differed from the institutional situation by providing reinforcing events for primarily socially
differential
performance
257
adaptive and integrative behaviours, including: (1) verbal interchanges (as both speaker and listener), (2) co-operative behaviours, (3) recreational and volunteer service activities (within the limits of physical impairment), (4) interest in surroundings and current events, (5) intellectual curiosity ;and new learning, (6) group cohesion and morale, and (7) feelings of positive self-esteem and self-worth as a useful and productive individual member of the environment. Obervations and interviews with nursing home staffs revealed little if any reinforcement for the above behaviours. Indeed, clients in the nursing home were more encouraged to remain inactive than
the
engage in active behaviours. The above reported differences in presumed reinforcing events in the two geriatric environments suggest that geriatric subjects in an institutionalized environment will be less prone to manifest new verbal responses under verbal conditioning procedures. The present study was conducted to test the latter assumption. to
METHOD
Subjects The subjects were selected from two geriatric populations : a nursing home and senior citizens organization. Five subjects were active members of a senior citizens club. Their ages ranged from 66 through 83 with a mean age of 71.2 years. Four subjects were ambulatory residents of a nursing home. Their ages ranged from 57 through 90 with a mean age of 74.3 years.
a
Apparatus a
A portable tape recorder was used to record the responses stop-watch was used to time the experimental sessions.
Dependent
of the
subjects
and
Variable
The subjects’ emission of alliterative responses, defined as the consecutive verbalization of two or more words beginning with the letter &dquo; s &dquo; was designated as the learning task. Following the emission of the predetermined response, subjects were reinforced by the experimenter’s saying &dquo; very good.&dquo;
Procedure
.
experiment was conducted with each subject in a private room. The subject instructed to sit in a chair with his back to the experimenter. The recorder was unobservable during the experimental sessions, though it was possible for the subject to see the unit upon entering the experimental room. On each of fourteen The
was
258 consecutive days, two 15-minute experimental sessions were conducted, the first in the morning and the second in the afternoon. Thus there were a total of twentyeight 15-minute sessions for each of the subjects. The following instructions were read to each subject immediately before the start of each experimental session. &dquo; I want you to say all of the words that you can think of. Say each word individually. Do not use any sentences or phrases. Do not count. Please continue saying words as you think of them until I say stop.’ Are there any questions? Go ahead.&dquo; (Greenspoon, 1962). If the subject started using sentences, phrases or numbers, the experimenter would interrupt with the following: &dquo; Do not use any sentences, phrases or numbers. Say words as you think of them individually.&dquo; (Greenspoon, 1962). The first four sessions (two days) of the experimental period were used to obtain a baseline of each subject’s alliterative verbal responses with words beginning with ‘ s.’ Verbal conditioning began the first session of the third day. Following eight sessions of conditioning (4 days), extinction procedures were carried out for eight sessions (4 days). At the end of the fourteen-day experimental period, each subject was asked: (1) What do you think the experiment was about? (2) Did you notice any change in the kind of words you were saying? (3) What do you think was the purpose of my saying &dquo; Very good &dquo;? .
_
RESULTS z
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of criterion responses of Group A and Group B for each experimental condition. Fig. 1 shows the mean number of criterion responses for Group A and Group B for each sequence condition over the fourteen-day experimental period. The data reported in Table 1 reveal that subjects in Group A emitted notably more criterion responses over their base rate than did those in Group B. In the Acquisition phase, the subjects in Group A increased their alliterations by an average of 61 responses over baseline, and in the Re-acquisition phase increased alliterations by 188 responses over their base performance. In contrast, the subjects in Group B exhibited little change in the production of alliterations over their base rate. t-ratios (one-tailed) indicate that the mean differences between Group A and Group B were statistically significant for the Acquisition (t = 2.53, p
