grams in clinical psychology, but the
table and article did not make clear
the great diversity and lack of ho-
mogeneity across the programs listed.
The Graduate School of Psychology
at Fuller Theological Seminary does
not offer a practitioner-model pro-
gram. The doctoral program in clin-
ical psychology is based on a scientist-
professional model, requiring exten-
sive studies in general psychology,
theology, a working knowledge of at
least one foreign language, research
training and supervised experiences
culminating in master's- and doctoral-
level research, and supervised field
training in a variety of clinical set-
tings.
The Fuller faculty is committed to
maintaining a balance between and
integration of the scientific and
professional aspects of psychology.
REFERENCE
Watson, N., Caddy, G. R., Johnson, J. H.,
& Rimm, D. C. Standards in the edu-
cation of professional psychologists: The
resolutions of thfe conference at Virginia
Beach. American Psychologist, 1981,
36, 514-519.
Credit, Credit, Who Gets
the Credit?
Jon D. Swartz
Southwestern University
With their questionnaire, Bridgwater,
Bornstein, and Walkenbach (May
1981) have answered empirically most
of the complex ethical questions sur-
rounding the assignment of publica-
tion credit. Furthermore, their find-
ings recently received wide circulation
by Yuker (1981) who summarized
them as follows: "The first or senior
author should be the person who de-
signed the project. The second author
should be the person who wrote the
report. Most other activities relating
to the research . . . should be ac-
knowledged by footnotes rather than
by inclusion in the byline" (p. 290).
If interpreted by others as Yuker
has interpreted them, these guidelines
undoubtedly will result in a reduction
340 • MARCH 1982 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST
in the number of authors per publi-
cation and a consequent clarification
in assigning credit for published work.
On the other hand, a new ethical
question has been raised by their re-
port and cries for an answer: What
did Walkenbach do to earn third au-
thorship credit on their comment?
REFERENCES
I . .
Bridgwater, C. A.,| Bornstein, P. H:, &
Walkenbach, J. Ethical issues and the
assignment of publication credit. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 1981, 36, 524-525.
(Comment)
Yuker, H. E. Authorship questions. Sci-
ence, 1981, 213, 290.
A Case of Delayed
Recognition:
Frederick Winslow Taylor
and the Immediacy of
Reinforcement
Ludy T. Benjamin, Jr.
Texas A 6- M University
Robert Perloff
Graduate School of Business
University of Pittsburgh
Frederick Winslow Taylor, widely
acknowledged by psychologists and
others as the "father of scientific man-
agement," may also deserve mention
in the history of learning theory. In
his 1911 book, The Principles of Sci-
entific Management, Taylor wrote
that "A reward, if it is to be effective
in stimulating men to do their best
work, must come soon after the work
has been done" (p. 94). Every student
of psychology will probably reco'gnize
that as a statement of the importance
of the immediacy of reinforcement,
a fundamental principle in learning
theory with far-flung applications in,
for example, child rearing, educa-
tional psychology, psychotherapy, and
the world of work: Though there does
not appear to be any evidence that he
had scientific data to support his as-
sertion, Taylor was clearly aware of
the desirability that the temporal in-
terval between response and rein-
forcement be as brief as possible.
The Evolution of a Principle
EDWARD L. THORNDIKE
Two years later Edward L. Thorndike
(1913) proposed a similar belief as a
corollary to his law of effect, He noted
that the strength of the reinforcer (i.e.,
the "degree of satisfyingness") varied
with the closeness of the satisfying
state and the response to which it was
connected. "Other things being equal,
the same degree of satisfyingness will
act more strongly on a bond made two
seconds previously than on one made
two minutes previously" (pp. 172-
173).
JOHN B. WATSON
The earliest data on this topic ap-
peared in an article by John B. Wat*
son (1917), who studied two groups
of rats that were required to dig
through sawdust to reach a covered
food cup. One group was allowed to
eat when they reached the cup, and
the other group had to wait for 30
seconds before the cover of the cup
was rembved. Watson found no dif-
ferences in performance between his
two groups, a factor Hull (1943) later
attributed to the presence of second-
ary reinforcement, since the animals
were detained in the same chamber
in which they were fed.
WARDEN AND HAAS
Apparently the topic received little
attention for 10 years, until a study
by Warden and Haas (1927) sought
to extend Watson's experiment by
using longer delays. Three groups of
rats were tested in a maze with eight
choice points. One group received im-
mediate reinforcement, and the other
two groups were forced to wait either
one minute or five minutes for their
reinforcement. Measuring trials to
learning, number of errors, and total
time in the maze, the authors reported
no differences between the immedi-
ate reinforcement group and the group
experiencing the five-minute delay,
except on the third measure (the delay
group spent more time in the maze).
The one-minute delay group differed
from both of the other groups on all
three measures; that is, the one-min-
ute group required more trials, made
more errors, and spent more time in
the maze. Warden and Haas believed
these results were due to the hetero-
geneity of performance by the ani-
mals in the one-minute delay group.
Like Watson's, this study detained the
animals in the goal box prior to feed-
ing. With regard to the absence of a
difference between the five-minute
group and the immediate-reinforce-
ment group, the authors concluded
that these results "must be considered
as so much evidence against the law
of effect, insofar as the latter insists
that the value of the 'satisfying state'
is a function of its 'nearness in time'
to the act, or series of acts to be fix-
ated" (p. 116). Coupled with Watson's
data the temporal component of the
law of effect did indeed seem to be
in trouble. However, a 1929 investi-
gation by E. L. Hamilton would
change that picture.
E. L. HAMILTON
Using the Columbia Obstruction Box,
which allowed her to delay her ani-
mals outside the goal box, Hamilton
investigated delays of reinforcement
ranging from one to seven minutes.
A no-delay group was used for com-
parison and was found to be clearly
superior to the delay groups in learn-
ing rate. There were no differences
among the delay groups, and although
all of the animals learned the task,
the delay groups required about twice
as many trials as the no-delay group.
Hamilton's data provided the first de-
scription of a gradient of reinforce-
ment for delay, something that had
been suggested earlier by Thorndike.
A later study (Wolfe, 1934) that in-
vestigated a number of delay inter-
vals, including three delays less than
one minute and some extending to as
much as 20 minutes, reported a sim-
ilar gradient.
CLARK HULL,
MARGARET WASHBURN, AND
EDWARD C. TOLMAN
At about this same time, Clark Hull
(1932) published his paper on the goal
gradient hypothesis, which recog-
nized that "the goal reaction gets con-
ditioned most strongly to the stimuli
preceding it, and the other reactions
of the behavior sequence get condi-
tioned to their stimuli progressively
weaker as they are more remote (in
time or space) from the goal reaction"
(p. 26). An earlier version of that hy-
pothesis had been described by Mar-
garet Washburn (1926) in the third
edition of The Animal Mind, Edward
C. Tolman (1934) made a similar ob-
servation in his study of learning of
successive discriminations; that is, the
discrimination closer to the goal was
learned in fewer trials than the earlier
one. For Tolman, the spatial relation-
ship inherent in that result was of im-
portance, not the temporal relation-
ship.
B. F. SKINNER
B. F. Skinner's (1936) research was the
first to investigate very brief delays:
zero, two, four, six, and eight seconds.
He found that compared to simulta-
neous reinforcement, the delays pro-
duced significant decrements in the
rate of responding. For example, a
delay of only two seconds was found
to reduce the effect of reinforcement
by approximately one third. Now sol-
idly established, the principle was
stated in Skinner's The Behavior of
Organisms (1938) and in Hull's Prin-
ciples of Behavior (1943). In fact Hull
devoted an entire chapter to the topic,
entitled "Habit Strength and the Time
Interval Separating Reaction from
Reinforcement."
It is evident that the principle re-
garding immediacy of reinforcement
has enjoyed investigation at the hands
of some of psychology's finest and
most celebrated researchers. Indeed,
the list of those involved reads like a
"Who's Who" in learning theory:
Thorndike, Watson, Hull, and Skin-
ner. The purpose of this comment is
not to argue for the contribution of
F. W. Taylor in this area. In fact his
book was not even cited in any of the
publications mentioned in this article;
thus he apparently had no impact on
the research described herein. Rather,
our purpose is only to point to Taylor's
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • MARCH 1982 • 341
primacy on the issue and to add his
name to the historical record.
In this connection, incidentally, we
are certainly cognizant of and not
unsympathetic to the proposition that
a "common sense" behavioral obser-
vation should not of itself justify the
establishment of scientific primacy, or
even credit (though posthumously in
this instance), for a law or principle
whose validity was subsequently de-
termined through the use of conven-
tional scientific procedures. Though
it is not our intent to canonize Taylor,
only to supplement—justifiably, we
believe—the historical record, his as-
sertion of the principle of the im-
mediacy of reinforcement is one that
was clearly not manufactured out of
thin air or from an untutored novice's
armchair. Rather, even though he
may not have buttressed his obser-
vation through conventional empiri-
cal procedures then extant, his rich
and extensive experiences with and
observations of thousands of workers
in numerous work settings clearly
formed a not unreasonable basis—al-
beit not necessarily a scientific one by
today's standards—for voicing the
principle of immediacy of reinforce-
ment. "His experiences as an appren-
tice, a common laborer, a foreman,
a master mechanic, and then the chief
engineer of a steel company, gave
Taylor ample opportunity to know at
firsthand the problems and attitudes
of workers and to see the great op-
portunities for improving the quality
of management" (Koontz, O'Donnell,
& Weihrich, 1980, p. 39). As a matter
of fact, foremost among Taylor's prin-
ciples of scientific management was
his insistence that rules of thumb be
replaced by scientific methods and
organized knowledge. Hence it is not
at all chimerical to infer the Taylor's
assertion of the principle of the im-
mediacy of reinforcement was prob-
ably based on systematic observation
or even harder evidence, rather than
on idle speculation.
Literature of the Past: Old
Wine in Old Bottles
Moreover, we would like to offer the
earlier passage quoted from Taylor as
evidence of the richness of ideas to be
found in the literature of the past in
psychology and related fields. It is but
one example of the value of knowl-
edge of the history of our field. In the
case of Taylor, there were others who
would shortly share his beliefs,
whether or not they were aware of his
writings. Other ideas of great impor-
tance, however, have remained hid-
den, or at least unrecognized, for
many years. The history of ideas is
replete with examples of new discov-
eries that ignored earlier versions of
those discoveries. For example, Gre-
gor Mendel's brilliant work in genet-
ics was rediscovered more than 30
years after its' publication by several
scientists who were unaware of his
earlier claim. Drawing on an example
closer to psychology, consider the fol-
lowing passage from a paper by
George Trumbufl Ladd in an 1892
issue of Mind:
Perhaps in deep and dreamless sleep (and
for purposes of my present inquiry
"dreamless" sleep means sleep in which
no images of things seen rise above the
threshold of consciousness) this position of
the eyeballs [turned upward and inward]
is maintained unchanged. But I am in-
clined also to believe that, in somewhat
vivid visual dreams, the eyeballs move
gently in their sockets, taking various pp-
sitions induced by the retinal phantasms
as they control the dreams, (p. 304)
For years researchers had searched
for an objective indicator of dream-
ing—a search that ended with the
"discovery" of rapid eye movement
sleep by Eugene Aserinsky and Na-
thaniel Kleitman in 1953. Yet Ladd's
hypothesis was there in the literature
for 60 years just waiting for someone
to test it.
We are not suggesting that one
should diligently search the ancient
342 • MARCH 1982 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST
psychological literature for hypo-
theses to test. Such a strategy would
likely be uneconomical. Instead, we
would argue for increased familiarity
with the body of literature that un-
derlies the development of facts and
theories in one's area of research in-
terest. Such an understanding might
add considerably to the value of con-
temporary work. In the words of per-
haps the most eminent of psycholog-
ical historians, E. G. Boring (1950),
"A psychological sophistication that
contains no historical orientation seems
to me to be no sophistication at all"
(p. ix). Apparently the American Psy-
chological Association shares Boring's
view, since the 1979 version of the
criteria for the accreditation of doc-
toral programs requires that students
have, knowledge of history and sys-
tems of psychology (APA, 1979, pp.i
5-6). Perhaps such an emphasis can
reduce the time between discovery
and rediscovery. In turn, this time
reduction, according to the principle
of the immediacy of reinforcement,
may even reinforce scholars, research-
ers, and practitioners in enhancing
their creativity and usefulness for sci-
ence and society!
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. Cri-
teria for accreditation of doctoral train-
ing programs and internships in profes-
sional psychology. Washington, D.C.:
Author, 1979.
Aserinsky, E., & Kleitman, N. Regularly
occurring periods of eye motility and
concomitant phenomena during sleep.
Science, 1953, 118, 273-274.
Boring, E. G. A history of experimental
psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Ap-
pleton-Century-Crofts, 1950.
Hamilton, E. L. The effect of delayed in-
centive on the hunjger drive in the white
rat. Genetic Psychology Monographs,
1929, 5, 131-207.
Hull, C. L. The goal gradient hypothesis
and maze learning. Psychological Re-
view, 1932, 39, 25-43.
Hull. C. L. Principles of behavior. New
York: Appleton-Century, 1943.
Koontz, H., O'Donnell, C., & Weihrich,
H. Management (7th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1980.
Ladd, G. T. Contribution to the psychol-
ogy of visual dreams. Mind, 1892, 1,
299-304.
Skinner, B. F. The effect on the amount
of conditioning of an interval of time
before reinforcement. Journal of Gen-
eral Psychology, 1936, 14, 279-295.
Skinner, B, F. The behavior of organisms.
New York: Appleton, 1938.
Taylor, F. W. The principles of scientific
management. New York: Harper &
Row, 1911.
Thorndike, E. L. Educational psychology:
Vol. 1. The original nature of man.
New York: Teachers College Press, 1913.
Tolman, E. C. Backward elimination of
errors in two successive discrimination
habits. University of California Publi-
cations in Psychology, 1934,6,145-152.
Warden, C. )., & Haas, E. L. The effect
of short intervals of delay in feeding
upon speed of maze learning. Journal
of Comparative Psychology, 1927, 7,
107-116.
Washburn, M. F. The animal mind (3rd
ed.). New York: Macmillan, 1926.
Watson, J. B. The effect of delayed feed-
ing upon learning. Psychobiology, 1917,
I, 51-60.
Wolfe, J. B. The effect of delayed reward
upon learning in the white rat. Journal
of Comparative Psychology, 1934, 17,
1-21.
We are grateful to James A. Craft, Robert
Glaser, Per Jenster, H. Melzer, Merle J.
Moskowitz, Jack Nation, and Evelyn Per-
loff for their helpful comments on an ear-
lier version of this comment.
Requests for copies of this comment
should be sent to Ludy T. Benjamin, Jr.,
Department of Psychology,'Texas A & M
University, College Station, Texas 77843: