THE PREMACK EXPERIMENTAL
PRINCIPLE IN HUMAN AND APPLIED SETTINGS
TERRY Behavror
Therapy
J. KNAPP*
and Research Center, Nevada Mental Health P.O. Box 2460. Reno. NV 89505. U.S.A. (Rewired
9 Drcemher
Institute.
1974)
Summary-Studies claiming support for the Premack Principle in human experimental and applied settings are revtewed in terms of the standard test conditions associated with the Principle and in terms of the Principle’s conceptual constrains. Little definitive evidence was found to support the claim that a high probability response will reinforce a lower probability response. nor was the converse contention supported. that a low probability response will act as a punisher for a high probability response. More importantly. among the reports reviewed there was no evidence for the reversibility of the reinforcement relationship.
The Premack Principle (PP) or differential-probability hypothesis (Premack, 1959, 1965. 1971) predicts outcomes of operant response-stimulus consequence relationships in terms of the relative probability of the two behaviors entailed in any given contingency. If RLp and RHp represent respectively low and high probability (relative frequency or duration of responding) responses for an organism, then the PP predicts that RHP contingent upon R,, will produce reinforcement results, and conversely, that R,, contingent upon R,, will yield punishment results. Reinforcement and punishment results here refer to the respective increase and decrease in response rate as a function of a stimulus consequence. In the instance of an organism not initiating a stimulus, as with a food reinforcer, but rather terminating one. as in shock avoidance, the PP can be extended to the remaining conditions of negative reinforcement and negative punishment (Terhune and Premack. 1971; Weisman and Premack, 1966). Table 1 presents the four possible configurations. It necessarily follows from the PP, that by reversing the relative probability relationship between the operant response and the stimulus consequence (both of which may be regarded as responses by the organism) the contingency itself can be reversed. Thus, reinforcement and punishment effects are claimed to be both ,relative to response probability and predictable from response probability. The standard procedure for demonstrating the PP requires a haselir~e period during which the independent probability of two (or more) responses is assessed by allowing the organism unrestricted responding. Responding opportunities may be offered singly or in pairs, the latter method usually serving to reduce the response frequency compared to its independent rate. but continuing to maintain the ordinal relationship among the events (Premack, 1963). The baseline period is followed by the eontirigrrrt phclsr. during which the R,, is made contingent upon the R,,, and reinforcement results demonstrated through response rate (RLP) increase. Finally, in the reversing period, the Table
I. Relationship
between Response Probability. Response Off-set. and Experimental Outcome REINFORCEMENT
Positive
Rr.+Gi,,,,
* Request for reprints should he sent to the author sity, Morgantown. West Virginia. 26506.
at the Department 133
On-set
and
PUNISHMENT RHP-RLP.,,
of Psychology.
West Virginia
Univer-
134
T. J. KZAPP
independent response probabilities are reversed, and consequently the response-reinforcer relationship reversed. thereby demonstrating the predicted reinforcer and the reversibility of the reinforcement relationship. A recent animal study has elegantly exemplified the utilization of these procedures on a within-session basis (Bauermeister and Schaeffer, 1974). Several conceptual constraints, in addition to the standard test procedure, are typically placed on the assessment of the PP. These require (1) that the subject apply the stimulus to itself, as opposed to an environmental or experimenter determined stimulus presentation, (2) that the responding be measured under the conditions of free-operant baseline-that is, not maintained by externally imposed contingencies of reinforcement, and (3) that average response probabilities not be employed except in such circumstances as where the experimenter can demonstrate that the respective response duration-time curves are approximately comparable (Premack. 1971). Finally, two empirical limitations have found some support. Demonstration of reinforcement effects may (1) require a reduction in the total amount of responding to RHP (Premack, 1965) and (2) require a necessary increase in instrumental responding (RLH), if R,, is to be maintained at the free-operant baseline level (Eisenberger, Karpman and Trattner, 1967). Frequent attention is directed toward the PP as an adjunct axiom to the general principles of reinforcement. Prior 9 the Principle’s inception. applied behavior analysts relied upon the supposed trans-&iational nature of reinforcers, or other post-hoc procedures, for the recognition of reinforcing events. The PP is alleged to alleviate this difficulty by supplying the clinician and educator with a simple and effective technique with which to identify reinforcers for any given individual: Simply observe the behaviors that the organism engages in at a high response rate, and such behaviors will serve as reinforcers for any behavior occurring at a lower rate of response. Advantages which would flow from the empirical verification of the PP are often cited (Rachlin, 1970; White, 1971; and Danaher, 1974), and they may be summarized as (1) giving a partial answer to the often asked theoretical question, “why is a reinforcer reinforcing?” (2) providing an independent method of identification and measurement of a stimulus reinforcer’s potential, (3) allowing an easy means with which to identify and utilize reinforcing events in the natural and applied setting, (4) illustrating the conceptualization of reinforcers as behaviors (eating, drinking, running, copulating, etc.) as opposed to static objects or events (food, water, exercise, sex, etc.), and (5) permitting the use of reinforcing events which may be more natural to the organism. Despite the frequent citing of the PP in introductory operant and behavior modification textbooks (Bandura, 1969: Kanfer and Phillips, 1970; Liberman, 1972; Sherman, 1973; Sulzer and Mayer, 1972; Tharp and Wetzel, 1969; Whaley and Mallot, 1971) and extensive experimental animal studies (Bauermeister and Schaeffer, 1974; Holstein and Hundt, 1965; Harrison. 1970; Hundt and Premack, 1963; Premack, 1959, 1962, 1963.1972 : Premack. Schaeffer and Hundt. 1964; Schaeffer, 1963. 1967; Weisman and Premack, 1966) relatively few published studies evidence the investigation of the Principle with human subjects or the application of the Principle in natural settings. This paper serves to review studies of the PP which employed human subjects in an experimental setting or which assessed the PP in an applied or natural environment. Each such study is critically evaluated in terms of the previously outlined standard test procedure and conceptual criteria. The investigations reviewed may be partitioned into three broad categories: those which intend to assess the PP directly, those which assess the Principle within the context of Homme’s Coverant procedure, and those which report a R,, reinforcing a R,,. but with neither an independent assessment of response probabilities. nor a reversal of the response-reinforcer relationship.
DIRECT
EVIDENCE
Direct evidence for the PP naturally sub-divides into three categories: studies which involved an actual manipulation of the experimental variables in the laboratory, or
The Premack Table
2. Manipulation
studies
135
Prmciple
directly
assessing
the Premack
I
Stud,
SUbJeCtS
M ‘CS*
Premack. 1959 Mclntrc. 1963 Bcrgei. 1965 Schaeffcr cf ~1. 1964 Elsenberger CI al, 1967 Was,k. 1967. 196X. 1969
Children Students Children Students Students Students
M M M M M M
GD GD GD ss GD SS
Pm hall machme Hlph frequency words Micro-sultch-wsual Lever press CRF Wheel turnmg Lever press: CRF. FR5.
Ayllon & Arrm Fratr. IYhX
PXl,ClIl\ Rcurd.lla
v M
GD ss
Tokens Play acLl”ltles
Student,
M
GD
Lever
Wa,,k Johansson
IY6h
1969 A. J. (1970) Behavior therapy of anorexia nervosa: Effectiveness of activity as a reinforcer of weight gain. A/n. J. Psychiur. 126. 1093-1098. * Four additional studies have become available since the original draft of this manuscript (BAT~MA~ S. (1975) Application of Premack‘s generalization on reinforcement to modify occupational behavior in two severely retarded individuals. .4rn. J. .EIerrr. Defic. 79. 604-610; EDDY J. B. (1974) Application of the Prcmack hypothesis to the verbal hehavtor of retardates. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nevada: GLOSS G. G. (1971) An application of the Premack contingency of reinforcement principle to the behavior of three conductdisordered chtldren. Doctoral dissertation. Case Western Reserve University. Ann Arbor: Xerox University Microfilms. No. 7&?5. 960; SCHAKFFER R. W.. and NOLAN R. J. (1974) Verbal learning and reinforcement: .4 reexamination of the Premack hypothesis. Bull. Psych. Sot., 2. 431-433). but do not alter the conclustons drawn.
146
T. J. KNAPP
D.. WR~BEL P. A. and MICHAELIS M. L. (lY68) Applymg “group” contingencies to the classroom study behavior of preschool children. J. appl. B&r. Anal. 1. 5561. CAUTELA J. R. (1966) Treatment of compulsive behavior by covert sensitization. Psvcltol. Rec. 16. 33-41. DALEY M. F. (1969) “The reinforcing menu”: Fmding effect&e reinforcers. In: Bel~a&ral Counsrl/i,ly: Cases and TechrMm (Eds. J. D. DRUMBOL~Z and C. E. THORESON) DD. I. 4245. Holt. Rmehart & Winston. New York.’ DANAHER B. G. (1974) The theoretical foundations and clinical applications of the Premack Principle: A review and critique. B&r. Thrrupy. 5. 307-324. DANAHER B. G. and LICHTESSTEIN E. (1974) An experimental analysis of coverant control: Cueing and consequation. t&srrrrl Ps~*chological .4ssociation. San Francisco. EISFNRERGER R.. KARPMAN M. and TRATTNEK J. (1967) What is the necessary and suficlent condition for remforcement in the contingency situation’! J. ezp. Psj~hol. 74. 342-350. FRAIR C. M. (1968) Behavioral moddication of trainable mentally retarded children. Doctoral dissertation. Utah State University. Ann Arbor: Xerox University Microfilms. No. 70-2396. GL.THRIE E. R. (1952) The Psycholog_v qf Lrurnitg. Harper, New York HARRISON R. G. C1970) Investigations of Premackian reinforcement theory. Doctoral dissertation. Florida State University. Ann Arbor: Xerox Microfilms, No. 71-7028. HARTIE J. C. (1973) Premackian reinforcement of classroom behavior through topic sequencing. J. Psycho/. 84. 61-74. HOLSTEIN S. and HUNDT A. G. (1965) Reinforcement of intracranial self-stimulation by licking. Psychm. sci. 3. 17-18. HOLT G. L. (1971) Systematic probability reversal and control of behavior through reinforcement menus. Psychol. Rec. 21. 465-469. HOMME L. E. (1965) Control of coverants. the operants of the mind. Psycho/. Rec. 15. 501-51 I. HOMME L. E. (1966) Contiguity theory and contingency management. Psychol. Rec. 16. 233-241. HOMME L. E. and DEBACA C. (1965) Contingency management on a psychiatric ward. In: Brharior Technology: Motivation and Corrtingrnq Munugemenr (Eds. L. E. HOMME and D. T. TOSTI) (1971) pp. 83-92. Individual Learning System. San Rafael. CA. HOMMI L. E.. I)I.BA(A C.. DI \,\I P.. STI INHOST J. V. and RIC~LRT E. J. (1963) Use of the Premack Principle in controlling the behavior of nursery school children. J. erp. anal. B&w. 6. 544. HOMME L. E. and Tosn D. T. (1965) Some considerations of contingency management motivation. R;ar,7. Sot. Progr. Insrr. J. 4. 14-16. HORAN J. J. and JOHNSON R. G. (1971) Coverant conditioning through self-management application of the Premack Principle: Its effect on weight reduction. J. Eehau. The-. e.up. Psychiat. 2. 243-249: also see HORAN J. J. (1970) The effect on weight reduction of coverant conditioning through self-management application of the Premack Principle. Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, Ann Arbor: Xerox University Microfilms. No. 71-18.223. HUNDT A. G. and PREMACK D. (1963) Running as both a positive and negative reinforcer. Science 142. 1087-1088. INCE L. P. (1969) A behavioral approach to motivation in rehabilitation. Psychol. Rrc. 19. lO%lll. JOHANSSON S.. LFWINSOHN P. M. and FLIPPO J. F. (1969) An application of the Premack Principle to the verbal behavior of depressed patients. Associarion,for thr Adr~~ncrrn~ntof B&urior Thrrup~~. Washington. D.C.: also see Johunsson S. (1969) An application of the Premack Principle to the verbal behavior of depressed suhjccts. Master’s thesis. University of Oregon. JOH~.SON W. G. (1971) Some applications of Homme’s coverant control therapy: Two case reports. Brhut:. Thrrapy 2. 24s-248. KANFER F. H. and PHILLIPS J. S. (1970) Lrurning Fow~durions ofBehuoior Therapy. Wiley. New York. KUAI’I’ T. J. and SHOI)AI+I. S. A. (1974) Ben Franklin as a behavior moditier. Brhur. Thcrupy. 5. 656--660. LAWSOL D. M. and MA) R. B. (1970) Three procedures for the extinction of smoking behavior. Psychol. Rec. 20. 151-157. LEWINX)HU P. M.. WLIYSTIII\ M. and SHAW D. (19691 Depression: A clinical research approach. In: Adcanccs in Brhurior Thrrupj, (Eds. R. D. RL~BIN and C. M. FRANKS) (1969). pp. 231-240. Academic Press. New York. LIRERMA~VR. (1972) .4 Glridv ro Brhaciorul Amlysis urld Therapy. Pergamon Press. New York. MACDO~~;ALL)M. L. (1972) The modification of the play behavior of preschool children using the Premack Principle. Master’s Thesis. University of Illinois. MAHONEY M. J. (1970) Toward an experimental analysis of coverant control. Behuc. Therupy. 1. 510 521. MAHONEY M. J. (1971) The self-management of covert behavior: A case study. B&c. Thrrupy 2. 575-57X. MCINTIRL: R. W. (1963) Reinforcement and verbal learning: A test of the Premack hypothesis. Psycho/. Rep. 12. 99- IO?. MITCHLLL W. S. and STAFF~LMAYR B. E. (1973) Application of the Premack Principle to the behavioral control of extremeI> inactive schizophrenics. J. uppl. Brhuu. Anal. 6. 419423. PRI M,\CK D. (1959) Toward empirical behavioral laws: I. Positive reinforcement. Psychol. Rrr. 66. 219-133. PKI MACE D. (1962) Revcrsibihty of the reinforcement relation. Scir!fce 136. 255-257. PRLMAC~ D. (1963) PredictIon of the comparative reinforcement values of running and drinking. SL.~L’IZ(.(, 139. 1067-- 1063. PRCMAC~CD. (1963) Rate differential reinforcement in monkey manipulation. J. exp. unul. Behu~~ 6. 81-89. PREMACK D. (19651 Reinforcement theorv. In: Nebraska Swnoosiurn on Motivation (Ed. D. LEVINE), .pp. 123-180. _ . University of Nebraska Press. Lincoln. PREMACK D. (1971) Catching up with commonsense or two sides to a generalization: Reinforcement and punishment. In: T/II, Nutwe of Rcirlforcernrnt (Ed. R. GLASER), pp. 121-150. Academic Press, New York. PREMACK D. (1972) The effect on extinction of the preference relations between the instrumental and contingent events. In: Rcirlforc,c,r,lr/lr: A Brhu~iorul Analysis (Eds. R. M. GILBERT and J. R. MILLLNSON). pp. 51-65. Academic Press. Ne% York. BUSHELL
The Premack
Principle
147
PKL~ZA~K D. and PK~MACK A. J. (1963) Increased eating in tats deprived of running. J. e\-p. unal. B&r. 6. 209%’ 1’. PREMACK D.. SCHAEFFERR. W. and HCNDT A. G. (1964) Reinforcement of drinking by running: Effect of fixed ratio and reinforcement time. J. tsp. a&. B&n,. 7. 91-96. RACHLIN H. (1970) Introduction to Modern Behaviorism. Freeman. San Francisco. ROI~ERTSA. E. (1969) Development of self-control using Premack’s differential rate hypothesis: A case study. Be/m. Rrs. & 77wapy 7. 341-344. ROBINSON J. D. and LEWISSOHN P. M. (1973) Experimental analysis of a technique based on the Premack Principle changing verbal behavior of depressed individuals. Psycho/. Rep. 32. 199-210. S~HAEFFER R. W. ( IW?I The reinforcement relation as a function of the instrumental response rate. J. rsp. Ps~cl~ol. 69. 419425. SCHAEFFEK R. W. (1967) Positive reinforcement: An extension of the Premack Principle to response chains. PsychoIl. Sci. 8. 31-32. SCHAEFFER R. W.. BAUERMEISTERJ. J. and DAVID J. H. (1973) A test of Premack’s “indifference principle.” Bull. P.sych. Sot. 1. 399-401. SCHAEFFER R. W.. HANNA B. and Russo P. (1966) Positive reinforcement: A test of the Premack theory. P.~ycho~i. Sci. 4. 7-8. SI IT/. F. C. (1971) A behavior modification approach to depression: A case study. Psychok 8. 58-63. Sr LII K B. and MA) I K G. ( 1972) B&urior Morl~ficorron Proc~durcs ./or SC/IOO/Pcrsor~twl. Dryden Press. Hinsdale. III. SHERMAN A. (1973) Brhcior Mod$carim: Theory md Practice. Brooks/Cole. Monterey. CA. T’ERHCISTJ. and PMMACK D. (1970) On the proportionality between the probability of not-running and the punishment effect on being forced to run. Lrarning Morir. 1. 141-147. THARP R. G. and WETZEL R. J. (1969) Beharior Modificariorl in the Natural Emhrwwnt. Academic Press. New York. TIMBERLAKE W. and ALLISON J. (1974) Response deprivation: An empirical approach to instrumental performance. Psycho/. Rer. 81. 146164. TODD F. J. (1972) Coverant control of self-evaluative responses in the treatment of depression: A new use for an old principle. B&r. Thrrapy 3. 91-94. T~IILEY J. T. and PRATT S. (1967) An experimental procedure for the extinction of smoking behavior. Psychol. Rrc. 17. 209-218. TYLER V. 0. and STRALGHAN J. H. (1970) Coverant control and breath holding as techniques for the treatment of obesity. PSK-ho/. Res. 20. 473478. WASIK B. H. (1969) The effects of fixed ratio and contingent time on human lever-pressing behavior. Psychol. KC. 19. 95-104. N Aslh B. H. (1969) The effects of fixed ratio and contingent time on human lever-pressing behavior. Ps!xhoL Rec. 9. 95-104: also see WASIK. B. H. (1967) Tests of the applicability of Premack’s generalizations of reinforcement to human lever-pressing behavior. Doctoral dissertation. Florida State University. Ann Arbor: Xerox University Microfilms. No. 68-385: and WASIK. B. H. (1968) A post-contingency test of the effectiveness of reinforcement. Psyclto~~. Sci. 13. 87-88. WASK B. H. (1970) The application of Premack’s generalization on reinforcement to the management of classroom behavior. J. ezp. Child Psycho/. 10. 3343. WEISMAS R. G. and PREMACK D. (1966) Reinforcement and punishment produced by the same response depending upon the probability relation between instrumental and contingent responses. Psychottovlic So&f!, MrrfirxJ. St. Louis. WHALEY D. L. and MALOTT R. W. (1971) E1rnlrntar.r Prirlciples qf B&vior. Appleton-Century-Crofts. New York. WHITE 0. R. (1971) A Glossary qf Behmioral Trrrnirmlogy. Research Press. Champaign. Illinois.
PRINCIPLE IN HUMAN AND APPLIED SETTINGS
TERRY Behavror
Therapy
J. KNAPP*
and Research Center, Nevada Mental Health P.O. Box 2460. Reno. NV 89505. U.S.A. (Rewired
9 Drcemher
Institute.
1974)
Summary-Studies claiming support for the Premack Principle in human experimental and applied settings are revtewed in terms of the standard test conditions associated with the Principle and in terms of the Principle’s conceptual constrains. Little definitive evidence was found to support the claim that a high probability response will reinforce a lower probability response. nor was the converse contention supported. that a low probability response will act as a punisher for a high probability response. More importantly. among the reports reviewed there was no evidence for the reversibility of the reinforcement relationship.
The Premack Principle (PP) or differential-probability hypothesis (Premack, 1959, 1965. 1971) predicts outcomes of operant response-stimulus consequence relationships in terms of the relative probability of the two behaviors entailed in any given contingency. If RLp and RHp represent respectively low and high probability (relative frequency or duration of responding) responses for an organism, then the PP predicts that RHP contingent upon R,, will produce reinforcement results, and conversely, that R,, contingent upon R,, will yield punishment results. Reinforcement and punishment results here refer to the respective increase and decrease in response rate as a function of a stimulus consequence. In the instance of an organism not initiating a stimulus, as with a food reinforcer, but rather terminating one. as in shock avoidance, the PP can be extended to the remaining conditions of negative reinforcement and negative punishment (Terhune and Premack. 1971; Weisman and Premack, 1966). Table 1 presents the four possible configurations. It necessarily follows from the PP, that by reversing the relative probability relationship between the operant response and the stimulus consequence (both of which may be regarded as responses by the organism) the contingency itself can be reversed. Thus, reinforcement and punishment effects are claimed to be both ,relative to response probability and predictable from response probability. The standard procedure for demonstrating the PP requires a haselir~e period during which the independent probability of two (or more) responses is assessed by allowing the organism unrestricted responding. Responding opportunities may be offered singly or in pairs, the latter method usually serving to reduce the response frequency compared to its independent rate. but continuing to maintain the ordinal relationship among the events (Premack, 1963). The baseline period is followed by the eontirigrrrt phclsr. during which the R,, is made contingent upon the R,,, and reinforcement results demonstrated through response rate (RLP) increase. Finally, in the reversing period, the Table
I. Relationship
between Response Probability. Response Off-set. and Experimental Outcome REINFORCEMENT
Positive
Rr.+Gi,,,,
* Request for reprints should he sent to the author sity, Morgantown. West Virginia. 26506.
at the Department 133
On-set
and
PUNISHMENT RHP-RLP.,,
of Psychology.
West Virginia
Univer-
134
T. J. KZAPP
independent response probabilities are reversed, and consequently the response-reinforcer relationship reversed. thereby demonstrating the predicted reinforcer and the reversibility of the reinforcement relationship. A recent animal study has elegantly exemplified the utilization of these procedures on a within-session basis (Bauermeister and Schaeffer, 1974). Several conceptual constraints, in addition to the standard test procedure, are typically placed on the assessment of the PP. These require (1) that the subject apply the stimulus to itself, as opposed to an environmental or experimenter determined stimulus presentation, (2) that the responding be measured under the conditions of free-operant baseline-that is, not maintained by externally imposed contingencies of reinforcement, and (3) that average response probabilities not be employed except in such circumstances as where the experimenter can demonstrate that the respective response duration-time curves are approximately comparable (Premack. 1971). Finally, two empirical limitations have found some support. Demonstration of reinforcement effects may (1) require a reduction in the total amount of responding to RHP (Premack, 1965) and (2) require a necessary increase in instrumental responding (RLH), if R,, is to be maintained at the free-operant baseline level (Eisenberger, Karpman and Trattner, 1967). Frequent attention is directed toward the PP as an adjunct axiom to the general principles of reinforcement. Prior 9 the Principle’s inception. applied behavior analysts relied upon the supposed trans-&iational nature of reinforcers, or other post-hoc procedures, for the recognition of reinforcing events. The PP is alleged to alleviate this difficulty by supplying the clinician and educator with a simple and effective technique with which to identify reinforcers for any given individual: Simply observe the behaviors that the organism engages in at a high response rate, and such behaviors will serve as reinforcers for any behavior occurring at a lower rate of response. Advantages which would flow from the empirical verification of the PP are often cited (Rachlin, 1970; White, 1971; and Danaher, 1974), and they may be summarized as (1) giving a partial answer to the often asked theoretical question, “why is a reinforcer reinforcing?” (2) providing an independent method of identification and measurement of a stimulus reinforcer’s potential, (3) allowing an easy means with which to identify and utilize reinforcing events in the natural and applied setting, (4) illustrating the conceptualization of reinforcers as behaviors (eating, drinking, running, copulating, etc.) as opposed to static objects or events (food, water, exercise, sex, etc.), and (5) permitting the use of reinforcing events which may be more natural to the organism. Despite the frequent citing of the PP in introductory operant and behavior modification textbooks (Bandura, 1969: Kanfer and Phillips, 1970; Liberman, 1972; Sherman, 1973; Sulzer and Mayer, 1972; Tharp and Wetzel, 1969; Whaley and Mallot, 1971) and extensive experimental animal studies (Bauermeister and Schaeffer, 1974; Holstein and Hundt, 1965; Harrison. 1970; Hundt and Premack, 1963; Premack, 1959, 1962, 1963.1972 : Premack. Schaeffer and Hundt. 1964; Schaeffer, 1963. 1967; Weisman and Premack, 1966) relatively few published studies evidence the investigation of the Principle with human subjects or the application of the Principle in natural settings. This paper serves to review studies of the PP which employed human subjects in an experimental setting or which assessed the PP in an applied or natural environment. Each such study is critically evaluated in terms of the previously outlined standard test procedure and conceptual criteria. The investigations reviewed may be partitioned into three broad categories: those which intend to assess the PP directly, those which assess the Principle within the context of Homme’s Coverant procedure, and those which report a R,, reinforcing a R,,. but with neither an independent assessment of response probabilities. nor a reversal of the response-reinforcer relationship.
DIRECT
EVIDENCE
Direct evidence for the PP naturally sub-divides into three categories: studies which involved an actual manipulation of the experimental variables in the laboratory, or
The Premack Table
2. Manipulation
studies
135
Prmciple
directly
assessing
the Premack
I
Stud,
SUbJeCtS
M ‘CS*
Premack. 1959 Mclntrc. 1963 Bcrgei. 1965 Schaeffcr cf ~1. 1964 Elsenberger CI al, 1967 Was,k. 1967. 196X. 1969
Children Students Children Students Students Students
M M M M M M
GD GD GD ss GD SS
Pm hall machme Hlph frequency words Micro-sultch-wsual Lever press CRF Wheel turnmg Lever press: CRF. FR5.
Ayllon & Arrm Fratr. IYhX
PXl,ClIl\ Rcurd.lla
v M
GD ss
Tokens Play acLl”ltles
Student,
M
GD
Lever
Wa,,k Johansson
IY6h
1969 A. J. (1970) Behavior therapy of anorexia nervosa: Effectiveness of activity as a reinforcer of weight gain. A/n. J. Psychiur. 126. 1093-1098. * Four additional studies have become available since the original draft of this manuscript (BAT~MA~ S. (1975) Application of Premack‘s generalization on reinforcement to modify occupational behavior in two severely retarded individuals. .4rn. J. .EIerrr. Defic. 79. 604-610; EDDY J. B. (1974) Application of the Prcmack hypothesis to the verbal hehavtor of retardates. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nevada: GLOSS G. G. (1971) An application of the Premack contingency of reinforcement principle to the behavior of three conductdisordered chtldren. Doctoral dissertation. Case Western Reserve University. Ann Arbor: Xerox University Microfilms. No. 7&?5. 960; SCHAKFFER R. W.. and NOLAN R. J. (1974) Verbal learning and reinforcement: .4 reexamination of the Premack hypothesis. Bull. Psych. Sot., 2. 431-433). but do not alter the conclustons drawn.
146
T. J. KNAPP
D.. WR~BEL P. A. and MICHAELIS M. L. (lY68) Applymg “group” contingencies to the classroom study behavior of preschool children. J. appl. B&r. Anal. 1. 5561. CAUTELA J. R. (1966) Treatment of compulsive behavior by covert sensitization. Psvcltol. Rec. 16. 33-41. DALEY M. F. (1969) “The reinforcing menu”: Fmding effect&e reinforcers. In: Bel~a&ral Counsrl/i,ly: Cases and TechrMm (Eds. J. D. DRUMBOL~Z and C. E. THORESON) DD. I. 4245. Holt. Rmehart & Winston. New York.’ DANAHER B. G. (1974) The theoretical foundations and clinical applications of the Premack Principle: A review and critique. B&r. Thrrupy. 5. 307-324. DANAHER B. G. and LICHTESSTEIN E. (1974) An experimental analysis of coverant control: Cueing and consequation. t&srrrrl Ps~*chological .4ssociation. San Francisco. EISFNRERGER R.. KARPMAN M. and TRATTNEK J. (1967) What is the necessary and suficlent condition for remforcement in the contingency situation’! J. ezp. Psj~hol. 74. 342-350. FRAIR C. M. (1968) Behavioral moddication of trainable mentally retarded children. Doctoral dissertation. Utah State University. Ann Arbor: Xerox University Microfilms. No. 70-2396. GL.THRIE E. R. (1952) The Psycholog_v qf Lrurnitg. Harper, New York HARRISON R. G. C1970) Investigations of Premackian reinforcement theory. Doctoral dissertation. Florida State University. Ann Arbor: Xerox Microfilms, No. 71-7028. HARTIE J. C. (1973) Premackian reinforcement of classroom behavior through topic sequencing. J. Psycho/. 84. 61-74. HOLSTEIN S. and HUNDT A. G. (1965) Reinforcement of intracranial self-stimulation by licking. Psychm. sci. 3. 17-18. HOLT G. L. (1971) Systematic probability reversal and control of behavior through reinforcement menus. Psychol. Rec. 21. 465-469. HOMME L. E. (1965) Control of coverants. the operants of the mind. Psycho/. Rec. 15. 501-51 I. HOMME L. E. (1966) Contiguity theory and contingency management. Psychol. Rec. 16. 233-241. HOMME L. E. and DEBACA C. (1965) Contingency management on a psychiatric ward. In: Brharior Technology: Motivation and Corrtingrnq Munugemenr (Eds. L. E. HOMME and D. T. TOSTI) (1971) pp. 83-92. Individual Learning System. San Rafael. CA. HOMMI L. E.. I)I.BA(A C.. DI \,\I P.. STI INHOST J. V. and RIC~LRT E. J. (1963) Use of the Premack Principle in controlling the behavior of nursery school children. J. erp. anal. B&w. 6. 544. HOMME L. E. and Tosn D. T. (1965) Some considerations of contingency management motivation. R;ar,7. Sot. Progr. Insrr. J. 4. 14-16. HORAN J. J. and JOHNSON R. G. (1971) Coverant conditioning through self-management application of the Premack Principle: Its effect on weight reduction. J. Eehau. The-. e.up. Psychiat. 2. 243-249: also see HORAN J. J. (1970) The effect on weight reduction of coverant conditioning through self-management application of the Premack Principle. Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, Ann Arbor: Xerox University Microfilms. No. 71-18.223. HUNDT A. G. and PREMACK D. (1963) Running as both a positive and negative reinforcer. Science 142. 1087-1088. INCE L. P. (1969) A behavioral approach to motivation in rehabilitation. Psychol. Rrc. 19. lO%lll. JOHANSSON S.. LFWINSOHN P. M. and FLIPPO J. F. (1969) An application of the Premack Principle to the verbal behavior of depressed patients. Associarion,for thr Adr~~ncrrn~ntof B&urior Thrrup~~. Washington. D.C.: also see Johunsson S. (1969) An application of the Premack Principle to the verbal behavior of depressed suhjccts. Master’s thesis. University of Oregon. JOH~.SON W. G. (1971) Some applications of Homme’s coverant control therapy: Two case reports. Brhut:. Thrrapy 2. 24s-248. KANFER F. H. and PHILLIPS J. S. (1970) Lrurning Fow~durions ofBehuoior Therapy. Wiley. New York. KUAI’I’ T. J. and SHOI)AI+I. S. A. (1974) Ben Franklin as a behavior moditier. Brhur. Thcrupy. 5. 656--660. LAWSOL D. M. and MA) R. B. (1970) Three procedures for the extinction of smoking behavior. Psychol. Rec. 20. 151-157. LEWINX)HU P. M.. WLIYSTIII\ M. and SHAW D. (19691 Depression: A clinical research approach. In: Adcanccs in Brhurior Thrrupj, (Eds. R. D. RL~BIN and C. M. FRANKS) (1969). pp. 231-240. Academic Press. New York. LIRERMA~VR. (1972) .4 Glridv ro Brhaciorul Amlysis urld Therapy. Pergamon Press. New York. MACDO~~;ALL)M. L. (1972) The modification of the play behavior of preschool children using the Premack Principle. Master’s Thesis. University of Illinois. MAHONEY M. J. (1970) Toward an experimental analysis of coverant control. Behuc. Therupy. 1. 510 521. MAHONEY M. J. (1971) The self-management of covert behavior: A case study. B&c. Thrrupy 2. 575-57X. MCINTIRL: R. W. (1963) Reinforcement and verbal learning: A test of the Premack hypothesis. Psycho/. Rep. 12. 99- IO?. MITCHLLL W. S. and STAFF~LMAYR B. E. (1973) Application of the Premack Principle to the behavioral control of extremeI> inactive schizophrenics. J. uppl. Brhuu. Anal. 6. 419423. PRI M,\CK D. (1959) Toward empirical behavioral laws: I. Positive reinforcement. Psychol. Rrr. 66. 219-133. PKI MACE D. (1962) Revcrsibihty of the reinforcement relation. Scir!fce 136. 255-257. PRLMAC~ D. (1963) PredictIon of the comparative reinforcement values of running and drinking. SL.~L’IZ(.(, 139. 1067-- 1063. PRCMAC~CD. (1963) Rate differential reinforcement in monkey manipulation. J. exp. unul. Behu~~ 6. 81-89. PREMACK D. (19651 Reinforcement theorv. In: Nebraska Swnoosiurn on Motivation (Ed. D. LEVINE), .pp. 123-180. _ . University of Nebraska Press. Lincoln. PREMACK D. (1971) Catching up with commonsense or two sides to a generalization: Reinforcement and punishment. In: T/II, Nutwe of Rcirlforcernrnt (Ed. R. GLASER), pp. 121-150. Academic Press, New York. PREMACK D. (1972) The effect on extinction of the preference relations between the instrumental and contingent events. In: Rcirlforc,c,r,lr/lr: A Brhu~iorul Analysis (Eds. R. M. GILBERT and J. R. MILLLNSON). pp. 51-65. Academic Press. Ne% York. BUSHELL
The Premack
Principle
147
PKL~ZA~K D. and PK~MACK A. J. (1963) Increased eating in tats deprived of running. J. e\-p. unal. B&r. 6. 209%’ 1’. PREMACK D.. SCHAEFFERR. W. and HCNDT A. G. (1964) Reinforcement of drinking by running: Effect of fixed ratio and reinforcement time. J. tsp. a&. B&n,. 7. 91-96. RACHLIN H. (1970) Introduction to Modern Behaviorism. Freeman. San Francisco. ROI~ERTSA. E. (1969) Development of self-control using Premack’s differential rate hypothesis: A case study. Be/m. Rrs. & 77wapy 7. 341-344. ROBINSON J. D. and LEWISSOHN P. M. (1973) Experimental analysis of a technique based on the Premack Principle changing verbal behavior of depressed individuals. Psycho/. Rep. 32. 199-210. S~HAEFFER R. W. ( IW?I The reinforcement relation as a function of the instrumental response rate. J. rsp. Ps~cl~ol. 69. 419425. SCHAEFFEK R. W. (1967) Positive reinforcement: An extension of the Premack Principle to response chains. PsychoIl. Sci. 8. 31-32. SCHAEFFER R. W.. BAUERMEISTERJ. J. and DAVID J. H. (1973) A test of Premack’s “indifference principle.” Bull. P.sych. Sot. 1. 399-401. SCHAEFFER R. W.. HANNA B. and Russo P. (1966) Positive reinforcement: A test of the Premack theory. P.~ycho~i. Sci. 4. 7-8. SI IT/. F. C. (1971) A behavior modification approach to depression: A case study. Psychok 8. 58-63. Sr LII K B. and MA) I K G. ( 1972) B&urior Morl~ficorron Proc~durcs ./or SC/IOO/Pcrsor~twl. Dryden Press. Hinsdale. III. SHERMAN A. (1973) Brhcior Mod$carim: Theory md Practice. Brooks/Cole. Monterey. CA. T’ERHCISTJ. and PMMACK D. (1970) On the proportionality between the probability of not-running and the punishment effect on being forced to run. Lrarning Morir. 1. 141-147. THARP R. G. and WETZEL R. J. (1969) Beharior Modificariorl in the Natural Emhrwwnt. Academic Press. New York. TIMBERLAKE W. and ALLISON J. (1974) Response deprivation: An empirical approach to instrumental performance. Psycho/. Rer. 81. 146164. TODD F. J. (1972) Coverant control of self-evaluative responses in the treatment of depression: A new use for an old principle. B&r. Thrrapy 3. 91-94. T~IILEY J. T. and PRATT S. (1967) An experimental procedure for the extinction of smoking behavior. Psychol. Rrc. 17. 209-218. TYLER V. 0. and STRALGHAN J. H. (1970) Coverant control and breath holding as techniques for the treatment of obesity. PSK-ho/. Res. 20. 473478. WASIK B. H. (1969) The effects of fixed ratio and contingent time on human lever-pressing behavior. Psychol. KC. 19. 95-104. N Aslh B. H. (1969) The effects of fixed ratio and contingent time on human lever-pressing behavior. Ps!xhoL Rec. 9. 95-104: also see WASIK. B. H. (1967) Tests of the applicability of Premack’s generalizations of reinforcement to human lever-pressing behavior. Doctoral dissertation. Florida State University. Ann Arbor: Xerox University Microfilms. No. 68-385: and WASIK. B. H. (1968) A post-contingency test of the effectiveness of reinforcement. Psyclto~~. Sci. 13. 87-88. WASK B. H. (1970) The application of Premack’s generalization on reinforcement to the management of classroom behavior. J. ezp. Child Psycho/. 10. 3343. WEISMAS R. G. and PREMACK D. (1966) Reinforcement and punishment produced by the same response depending upon the probability relation between instrumental and contingent responses. Psychottovlic So&f!, MrrfirxJ. St. Louis. WHALEY D. L. and MALOTT R. W. (1971) E1rnlrntar.r Prirlciples qf B&vior. Appleton-Century-Crofts. New York. WHITE 0. R. (1971) A Glossary qf Behmioral Trrrnirmlogy. Research Press. Champaign. Illinois.
