The Journal of Genetic Psychology Research and Theory on Human Development
ISSN: 0022-1325 (Print) 1940-0896 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20
Delay of Reinforcement Effects with Reflective and Impulsive Children Tullio David Pitassi & Stuart I. Offenbach To cite this article: Tullio David Pitassi & Stuart I. Offenbach (1978) Delay of Reinforcement Effects with Reflective and Impulsive Children, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 133:1, 3-8, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.1978.10533351 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1978.10533351
Published online: 04 Sep 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vgnt20 Download by: [Central Michigan University]
Date: 07 November 2015, At: 06:45
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1978, 133, 3-8.
DELAY O F REINFORCEMENT EFFECTS WITH REFLECTIVE AND IMPULSIVE CHILDREN*'
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 06:45 07 November 2015
Purdue University
TULLIO DAVID PITASS1 AND STUART I. OFFENBACH SUMMARY Reflective, impulsive, fast-accurate, and slow-inaccurate second grade boys and girls (N = 156) learned a discrimination task with one of three reinforcement delay conditions: No delay; 10 sec delay with an attentional aid filling the delay period; and 10 sec delay with an unfilled interval. The attentional aid was expected to lead to improved learning task performance (vis-h-vis delay without an aid), especially for impulsive children who would focus on the task more with an aid during the delay. The results indicated that all children learned less well with a delay of feedback, and the attentional aid was ineffective (possibly because it did not prevent competing responses from occurring). The children who did best on the test of Conceptual Tempo (the MFF), the fast-accurates, learned with the fewest errors, while the slowinaccurate children made the most errors in learning. The results did not support the contention that impulsive children are poor attenders, but did indicate that some components of Conceptual Tempo are related to discrimination learning.
A.
INTRODUCTION
Research on the effects of reinforcement delay on children's learning has shown that acquisition generally is slower with delay unless some stimulus or
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on December 17, 1976. Copyright, 1978, by The Journal Press. I This research was based on part of a dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of Purdue University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph. D. degree by the first author under the direction of the second author. The first author would like to express his appreciation to the members of his advisory committee. The authors also would like to express their appreciation to Mr. Ronald Hamacher, Assistant Superintendent, Marion Community School Corporation, Marion, Indiana, and to his staff of principals and teachers who made the completion of this research possible. Request for reprints should be addressed to the second author at the address shown at the end of this article. 3
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 06:45 07 November 2015
4
JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
cue is provided during the delay period (3, 5 , 8). Without such a cue or “attentional aid,” S s are presumed to make irrelevant responses that are, in turn, accidentally conditioned by the late occurring reinforcement or feedback. With a cue present during the delay, attention is focussed on the task during the delay, and the occurrence of extraneous irrelevant responses is inhibited. This occurs even if the attentional aid does not include the task stimuli. Differences among children in the ability to attend selectively during the delay interval also should affect learning. Good attenders should benefit little from an attentional aid, while poor attenders might show substantial improvements. One way to identify good and poor attenders would be the Conceptual Tempo dimension of reflectivity-impulsivity (7). This dimension differentiates children who take time, attend to, and examine all aspects of the stimulus display (Reflectives) from children who respond quickly and seldom focus on all aspects of the display (Impulsives). Reflectives make more correct responses, are less distractible, are motorically inhibited, and have longer attention spans, while impulsives make more errors, are not motorically inhibited, and have shorter attention spans (1 1). The impulsive child should be especially vulnerable to a delay between the response and reinforcement, and an attentional aid that fills the delay period should lead to an improvement in performance. The present study examined that possibility. Kagan’s Matching Familiar Figures test (MFF) was used to determine reflectivity and impulsivity, and a multidimensional discrimination learning task with a reinforcement delay of zero or 10 seconds was administered to assess performance. B. 1.
METHOD Subjects
Two hundred forty second grade boys and girls were administered the MFF. All were from an urban school corporation in a moderate-sized industrial community. The age range was from 7 years to 9 years and Metropolitan Readiness Test percentiles (where available) ranged from 20 to 99.
Procedure The Matching Familiar Figures test (7) a match-to-sample task, was administered in the first of two sessions. In this task, the child tries to find which stimulus of six matches a standard. Errors (up to six per trial) and latency (of the first response) were recorded for each trial. 2.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 06:45 07 November 2015
TULLIO DAVID PITASSI AND STUART I. OFFENBACH
5
One week later, children were administered a two-choice discrimination learning task, similar to the complex discrimination learning task used by Offenbach and Meyer (9). This task had one relevant dimension (Size: large and small) and three irrelevant dimensions (Color: red and blue; Form: square and circle; and Position: left and right). The stimuli were rear-projected onto a 28 cm2flashed opal screen. A picture of the correct stimulus was shown on the screen either immediately after the child’s response or 10 seconds after the response. The criterion was 10consecutive correct responses (or 80 trials). The three reinforcement delay conditions were (a) Immediate Reinforcement ( I R W o r r e c t stimulus shown immediately after the response; (6)Delay Reinforcement, No Attentional Aid (lO-N)-Correct stimulus was shown on the screen 10 seconds after the response. During the delay interval, the screen was blank (asit was between trials); and ( c )Delay Reinforcement, Attentional Aid (10-AWorrect stimulus shown 10 seconds after the response, but during the delay interval a spot of white light was centered on the screen. This light was intended to keep the child’s attenion on the screen and prevent competing responses from developing during the delay interval. C. RESULTS The mean latency for all of the children on the M F F was 10.2 sec, and the mean number of errors was 26.6 (the means and medians, measures used by some investigators to separate groups, were similar and subject classifications with the mean or the median did not differ). There were no sex differences with these measures (or other measures in the learning task) and the boys’ and girls’ data were combined. In order to maximize conceptual tempo differences, only the extremes on the latency and error distributions were included in the learning phase of the experiment. Ten children above and 10 below the latency mean, and 10 above and 10 below the error mean, were not included in the learning task. Additionally, some investigators exclude children who are either both slow and inaccurate or fast and accurate (e.g., 4). These children were included here so as to lose as little information as possible about the relationships among latency, errors, and discrimination learning (cf 2 , 6). A total of 156 children completed both sessions. A 4 by 3 Analysis of Variance (Conceptual Tempo by delay conditions) was performed on the Metropolitan scores and neither the main effects nor the interaction was significant. The mean errors to criterion on the learning task for each group are in Table 1, and a 4 by 3 analysis of variance (Conceptual Tempo by Delay conditions) was computed. None of the effects was significant. However, inspection of the
6
JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 1 MEANERRORS TO CRITERION ON THE LEARNING TASK FOR ALL REINFORCEMENT CONDITIONS
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 06:45 07 November 2015
Reinforcement condition Immediate reinforcement 10-sec delay without aid 10-sec delay with attentional aid Combined mean
Slowinaccurate Mean N
Reflective Mean N
Fataccurate MeanN
Impulsive Mean N
Combined mean
18.2
15
23.6
8
11.6 7
23.1 20
19.2
21.5
19
33.0
8
21.8 8
21.5
15
24.4
25.3
19
29.2
8
16.8 8
22.0 20
23.3
16.7
22.2
21.6
28.6
data (Table 1, and decreases in errors over trials) suggested differences related to MFF latency and MFF errors and in learning rates. A 2 X 2 X 3 x 5 repeated measures analysis was computed (MFF latency, long or short; MFF errors, high or low; Delay conditions; and Trials, blocks of 16). This analysis yielded a significant MFF errors main effect [F (1,144) = 4.16; p < .05] and the children with many MFF errors (impulsives and slow-inaccurates) made more learning errors. The main effect based on MFF latency approached significance [F (1,144) = 3.41;p = .06] and children with long latencies made fewer learning tasks errors. Duncan’s Multiple Range tests revealed that the difference between the fast-accurate children and the slow-inaccurate children was significant (Difference = 11.93 errors, p < .05).The children who did well on the MFF (fast-accurates) made fewer errors and those who did poorly on the MFF also did poorly in the learning task. The Trials main effect alsowassignificant[F(4,576)= 34.31,p < .05]aswastheDelayConditionby Trials interaction [F (8, 576) = 2 . 4 3 , p < ,051. Errors by the children with no reinforcement delay dropped off more rapidly, and to a lower level, than for either of the delay groups. The MFF latency by trials interaction just missed being significant [F (4,576) = 2.29, p = ,0571. Errors decreased more rapidly for the children who had long latencies (although both groups attained the same eventual error rate).
D.
DISCUSSION
Support for the hypothesis that an attentional aid would facilitate performance, particularly for impulsive children, was lacking, as there was no significant interaction between Conceptual Tempo and delay of reinforcement. The purpose of the attentional aid was to keep the child’s attention on
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 06:45 07 November 2015
TULLIO DAVID PITASSI AND STUART I. OFFENBACH
7
the task and prevent competing responses from developing. Unfortunately, the aid probably was too similar to one of the task stimuli (the circle) and did not reduce such competing responses. Thus the difference in the delay procedures actually was small, as were the learning differences. Continued investigations of response produced cues should examine the relationship between distinctive attentional aids and the task stimuli. The impulsive children’s supposed attentional deficit was not observed, as there was little difference between reflectives and impulsives during learning. The conclusion that impulsive children are less attentive than reflective children may have been task specific effects-visual scanning strategies (in the MFF and in a similar differences task) in a study by Zelniker, Jeffrey, Ault, and Parsons (12) and memory in a study by Siegel, Kirasic, and Kilburg (10). In our discrimination learning task, reflectives and impulsives did not differ, but fast-accurate and slow-inaccurate children did. The results indicated that taking one’s time and/or being accurate (on the MFF) both were related to better discrimination task performance so that the fast-accurates made the fewest errors and the slow-inaccurates made the most errors. These results seem to indicate that children who were fast and accurate processed information more efficiently and in shorter periods of time. Slow and inaccurate children, on the other hand, seem to be inefficient information processors. This conclusion is consistent with Ault, Crawford, and Jeffrey’s (1) finding that children who made few MFF errors used systematic visual scanning strategies (and were good information processors), while eye movements of children who made many MFF errors appeared to be random (reflecting poor information processing). In summary, the labelling of impulsive children as poor attenders may be too global a generalization. Instead, differences in information processing strategies, operating in the specific situations, may account for the reported deficit. The significant differences in learning between the fast-accurate and slow-accurate children argues for further investigation on these groups of children.
REFERENCES 1. AULT,R., CRAWFORD, D., &JEFFREY, W. Visual scanningstrategiesof reflective, impulsive, fast-accurate, and slow-inaccurate children on the Matching Familiar Figures Test. Child Devel., 1972, 43, 1412-1417. 2 . BLOCK,J . , BLOCK,J. H., & HARRINCTON, D. M. Some misgivings about the Matching Familiar Figures test as a measure of Reflection-Impulsivity. Deuel. Psychol., 1974, 10, 61 1-632.
a 3. 4.
JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY BRACKBILL,Y., & KAPPY, M. Delay of reinforcement and retention. J . Comp. & Physiol. Psychol., 1962, 55, 14-18. BUSH,E., & DWECK,C. Reflections on conceptual tempo: Relationship between cognitive style and performance as a function of task characteristics. Devel. Psychol., 1975, 11, 567-574.
ERICKSON, M., & LIPSITT, L. Effects of delayed reward on simultaneous and successive discrimination learning in children. J . Comp. 6 Physiol. Psychol., 1960, 53, 256-260. 6. ESKA,B., i?a BLACK, K. N. Conceptual tempo in young grade-school children. Child Devel., 1971, 42, 505-516. W . Information-processingin 7. KAGAN,J., ROSMAN,B., DAY,D., ALBERT,J , , & PHILLIPS. the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychol. Monog., 1964, 78(1), Whole No. 578. 8. LIPSITT, L . , & CASTANEDA, A. Effects of delayed reward on choice behavior and response needs in children. J. Comp. 6. Physiol. Psychol., 1958, 51, 65-67. 9. OFFENBACH, S. I., & MEYER,W. C . A neglected source of reinforcement in discrimination learning. 1.Exper. Child Psychol., 1964, 1, 294-300. 10. SIEGEL,A,, KIRASIC, K., & KILBURG,R. Recognition memory in reflective and impulsive preschool children. Child Devel., 1973, 44, 651-656. 11. SIEGELMAN,E. Reflective and impulsive observing behavior. Child Devel., 1969, 40,
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 06:45 07 November 2015
5.
1213-1222. 12.
ZELNIKER, T . ,JEFFREY, W., AULT,R., & PARSONS, J. Analysis and modification of search strategies of impulsive and reflective children on the Matching-Familiar Figures Test. Child Devel., 1972, 43, 321-335.
Department of Psychological Sciences Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
ISSN: 0022-1325 (Print) 1940-0896 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20
Delay of Reinforcement Effects with Reflective and Impulsive Children Tullio David Pitassi & Stuart I. Offenbach To cite this article: Tullio David Pitassi & Stuart I. Offenbach (1978) Delay of Reinforcement Effects with Reflective and Impulsive Children, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 133:1, 3-8, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.1978.10533351 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1978.10533351
Published online: 04 Sep 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vgnt20 Download by: [Central Michigan University]
Date: 07 November 2015, At: 06:45
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1978, 133, 3-8.
DELAY O F REINFORCEMENT EFFECTS WITH REFLECTIVE AND IMPULSIVE CHILDREN*'
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 06:45 07 November 2015
Purdue University
TULLIO DAVID PITASS1 AND STUART I. OFFENBACH SUMMARY Reflective, impulsive, fast-accurate, and slow-inaccurate second grade boys and girls (N = 156) learned a discrimination task with one of three reinforcement delay conditions: No delay; 10 sec delay with an attentional aid filling the delay period; and 10 sec delay with an unfilled interval. The attentional aid was expected to lead to improved learning task performance (vis-h-vis delay without an aid), especially for impulsive children who would focus on the task more with an aid during the delay. The results indicated that all children learned less well with a delay of feedback, and the attentional aid was ineffective (possibly because it did not prevent competing responses from occurring). The children who did best on the test of Conceptual Tempo (the MFF), the fast-accurates, learned with the fewest errors, while the slowinaccurate children made the most errors in learning. The results did not support the contention that impulsive children are poor attenders, but did indicate that some components of Conceptual Tempo are related to discrimination learning.
A.
INTRODUCTION
Research on the effects of reinforcement delay on children's learning has shown that acquisition generally is slower with delay unless some stimulus or
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on December 17, 1976. Copyright, 1978, by The Journal Press. I This research was based on part of a dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of Purdue University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph. D. degree by the first author under the direction of the second author. The first author would like to express his appreciation to the members of his advisory committee. The authors also would like to express their appreciation to Mr. Ronald Hamacher, Assistant Superintendent, Marion Community School Corporation, Marion, Indiana, and to his staff of principals and teachers who made the completion of this research possible. Request for reprints should be addressed to the second author at the address shown at the end of this article. 3
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 06:45 07 November 2015
4
JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
cue is provided during the delay period (3, 5 , 8). Without such a cue or “attentional aid,” S s are presumed to make irrelevant responses that are, in turn, accidentally conditioned by the late occurring reinforcement or feedback. With a cue present during the delay, attention is focussed on the task during the delay, and the occurrence of extraneous irrelevant responses is inhibited. This occurs even if the attentional aid does not include the task stimuli. Differences among children in the ability to attend selectively during the delay interval also should affect learning. Good attenders should benefit little from an attentional aid, while poor attenders might show substantial improvements. One way to identify good and poor attenders would be the Conceptual Tempo dimension of reflectivity-impulsivity (7). This dimension differentiates children who take time, attend to, and examine all aspects of the stimulus display (Reflectives) from children who respond quickly and seldom focus on all aspects of the display (Impulsives). Reflectives make more correct responses, are less distractible, are motorically inhibited, and have longer attention spans, while impulsives make more errors, are not motorically inhibited, and have shorter attention spans (1 1). The impulsive child should be especially vulnerable to a delay between the response and reinforcement, and an attentional aid that fills the delay period should lead to an improvement in performance. The present study examined that possibility. Kagan’s Matching Familiar Figures test (MFF) was used to determine reflectivity and impulsivity, and a multidimensional discrimination learning task with a reinforcement delay of zero or 10 seconds was administered to assess performance. B. 1.
METHOD Subjects
Two hundred forty second grade boys and girls were administered the MFF. All were from an urban school corporation in a moderate-sized industrial community. The age range was from 7 years to 9 years and Metropolitan Readiness Test percentiles (where available) ranged from 20 to 99.
Procedure The Matching Familiar Figures test (7) a match-to-sample task, was administered in the first of two sessions. In this task, the child tries to find which stimulus of six matches a standard. Errors (up to six per trial) and latency (of the first response) were recorded for each trial. 2.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 06:45 07 November 2015
TULLIO DAVID PITASSI AND STUART I. OFFENBACH
5
One week later, children were administered a two-choice discrimination learning task, similar to the complex discrimination learning task used by Offenbach and Meyer (9). This task had one relevant dimension (Size: large and small) and three irrelevant dimensions (Color: red and blue; Form: square and circle; and Position: left and right). The stimuli were rear-projected onto a 28 cm2flashed opal screen. A picture of the correct stimulus was shown on the screen either immediately after the child’s response or 10 seconds after the response. The criterion was 10consecutive correct responses (or 80 trials). The three reinforcement delay conditions were (a) Immediate Reinforcement ( I R W o r r e c t stimulus shown immediately after the response; (6)Delay Reinforcement, No Attentional Aid (lO-N)-Correct stimulus was shown on the screen 10 seconds after the response. During the delay interval, the screen was blank (asit was between trials); and ( c )Delay Reinforcement, Attentional Aid (10-AWorrect stimulus shown 10 seconds after the response, but during the delay interval a spot of white light was centered on the screen. This light was intended to keep the child’s attenion on the screen and prevent competing responses from developing during the delay interval. C. RESULTS The mean latency for all of the children on the M F F was 10.2 sec, and the mean number of errors was 26.6 (the means and medians, measures used by some investigators to separate groups, were similar and subject classifications with the mean or the median did not differ). There were no sex differences with these measures (or other measures in the learning task) and the boys’ and girls’ data were combined. In order to maximize conceptual tempo differences, only the extremes on the latency and error distributions were included in the learning phase of the experiment. Ten children above and 10 below the latency mean, and 10 above and 10 below the error mean, were not included in the learning task. Additionally, some investigators exclude children who are either both slow and inaccurate or fast and accurate (e.g., 4). These children were included here so as to lose as little information as possible about the relationships among latency, errors, and discrimination learning (cf 2 , 6). A total of 156 children completed both sessions. A 4 by 3 Analysis of Variance (Conceptual Tempo by delay conditions) was performed on the Metropolitan scores and neither the main effects nor the interaction was significant. The mean errors to criterion on the learning task for each group are in Table 1, and a 4 by 3 analysis of variance (Conceptual Tempo by Delay conditions) was computed. None of the effects was significant. However, inspection of the
6
JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 1 MEANERRORS TO CRITERION ON THE LEARNING TASK FOR ALL REINFORCEMENT CONDITIONS
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 06:45 07 November 2015
Reinforcement condition Immediate reinforcement 10-sec delay without aid 10-sec delay with attentional aid Combined mean
Slowinaccurate Mean N
Reflective Mean N
Fataccurate MeanN
Impulsive Mean N
Combined mean
18.2
15
23.6
8
11.6 7
23.1 20
19.2
21.5
19
33.0
8
21.8 8
21.5
15
24.4
25.3
19
29.2
8
16.8 8
22.0 20
23.3
16.7
22.2
21.6
28.6
data (Table 1, and decreases in errors over trials) suggested differences related to MFF latency and MFF errors and in learning rates. A 2 X 2 X 3 x 5 repeated measures analysis was computed (MFF latency, long or short; MFF errors, high or low; Delay conditions; and Trials, blocks of 16). This analysis yielded a significant MFF errors main effect [F (1,144) = 4.16; p < .05] and the children with many MFF errors (impulsives and slow-inaccurates) made more learning errors. The main effect based on MFF latency approached significance [F (1,144) = 3.41;p = .06] and children with long latencies made fewer learning tasks errors. Duncan’s Multiple Range tests revealed that the difference between the fast-accurate children and the slow-inaccurate children was significant (Difference = 11.93 errors, p < .05).The children who did well on the MFF (fast-accurates) made fewer errors and those who did poorly on the MFF also did poorly in the learning task. The Trials main effect alsowassignificant[F(4,576)= 34.31,p < .05]aswastheDelayConditionby Trials interaction [F (8, 576) = 2 . 4 3 , p < ,051. Errors by the children with no reinforcement delay dropped off more rapidly, and to a lower level, than for either of the delay groups. The MFF latency by trials interaction just missed being significant [F (4,576) = 2.29, p = ,0571. Errors decreased more rapidly for the children who had long latencies (although both groups attained the same eventual error rate).
D.
DISCUSSION
Support for the hypothesis that an attentional aid would facilitate performance, particularly for impulsive children, was lacking, as there was no significant interaction between Conceptual Tempo and delay of reinforcement. The purpose of the attentional aid was to keep the child’s attention on
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 06:45 07 November 2015
TULLIO DAVID PITASSI AND STUART I. OFFENBACH
7
the task and prevent competing responses from developing. Unfortunately, the aid probably was too similar to one of the task stimuli (the circle) and did not reduce such competing responses. Thus the difference in the delay procedures actually was small, as were the learning differences. Continued investigations of response produced cues should examine the relationship between distinctive attentional aids and the task stimuli. The impulsive children’s supposed attentional deficit was not observed, as there was little difference between reflectives and impulsives during learning. The conclusion that impulsive children are less attentive than reflective children may have been task specific effects-visual scanning strategies (in the MFF and in a similar differences task) in a study by Zelniker, Jeffrey, Ault, and Parsons (12) and memory in a study by Siegel, Kirasic, and Kilburg (10). In our discrimination learning task, reflectives and impulsives did not differ, but fast-accurate and slow-inaccurate children did. The results indicated that taking one’s time and/or being accurate (on the MFF) both were related to better discrimination task performance so that the fast-accurates made the fewest errors and the slow-inaccurates made the most errors. These results seem to indicate that children who were fast and accurate processed information more efficiently and in shorter periods of time. Slow and inaccurate children, on the other hand, seem to be inefficient information processors. This conclusion is consistent with Ault, Crawford, and Jeffrey’s (1) finding that children who made few MFF errors used systematic visual scanning strategies (and were good information processors), while eye movements of children who made many MFF errors appeared to be random (reflecting poor information processing). In summary, the labelling of impulsive children as poor attenders may be too global a generalization. Instead, differences in information processing strategies, operating in the specific situations, may account for the reported deficit. The significant differences in learning between the fast-accurate and slow-accurate children argues for further investigation on these groups of children.
REFERENCES 1. AULT,R., CRAWFORD, D., &JEFFREY, W. Visual scanningstrategiesof reflective, impulsive, fast-accurate, and slow-inaccurate children on the Matching Familiar Figures Test. Child Devel., 1972, 43, 1412-1417. 2 . BLOCK,J . , BLOCK,J. H., & HARRINCTON, D. M. Some misgivings about the Matching Familiar Figures test as a measure of Reflection-Impulsivity. Deuel. Psychol., 1974, 10, 61 1-632.
a 3. 4.
JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY BRACKBILL,Y., & KAPPY, M. Delay of reinforcement and retention. J . Comp. & Physiol. Psychol., 1962, 55, 14-18. BUSH,E., & DWECK,C. Reflections on conceptual tempo: Relationship between cognitive style and performance as a function of task characteristics. Devel. Psychol., 1975, 11, 567-574.
ERICKSON, M., & LIPSITT, L. Effects of delayed reward on simultaneous and successive discrimination learning in children. J . Comp. 6 Physiol. Psychol., 1960, 53, 256-260. 6. ESKA,B., i?a BLACK, K. N. Conceptual tempo in young grade-school children. Child Devel., 1971, 42, 505-516. W . Information-processingin 7. KAGAN,J., ROSMAN,B., DAY,D., ALBERT,J , , & PHILLIPS. the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychol. Monog., 1964, 78(1), Whole No. 578. 8. LIPSITT, L . , & CASTANEDA, A. Effects of delayed reward on choice behavior and response needs in children. J. Comp. 6. Physiol. Psychol., 1958, 51, 65-67. 9. OFFENBACH, S. I., & MEYER,W. C . A neglected source of reinforcement in discrimination learning. 1.Exper. Child Psychol., 1964, 1, 294-300. 10. SIEGEL,A,, KIRASIC, K., & KILBURG,R. Recognition memory in reflective and impulsive preschool children. Child Devel., 1973, 44, 651-656. 11. SIEGELMAN,E. Reflective and impulsive observing behavior. Child Devel., 1969, 40,
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 06:45 07 November 2015
5.
1213-1222. 12.
ZELNIKER, T . ,JEFFREY, W., AULT,R., & PARSONS, J. Analysis and modification of search strategies of impulsive and reflective children on the Matching-Familiar Figures Test. Child Devel., 1972, 43, 321-335.
Department of Psychological Sciences Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
