624 SYMPOSIUM: SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT AND BEHAVIOR CHANGE 4, Experimental Analysis of Social Reinforcement: Terms and Methods* OGDEN R. LINDSLEY, Ph.D Harvard Medical School and Metropoliten State Hospital, Walthom, Mctsachusettst A set of operational and functional terms useful in describing social behavior is defined. New methods of directly recording and programing social rein- forcers are briefly described. The emergent properties of social over nonsocial reinforcement require new terms and methods and a higher order discipline. OCIAL BEHAVIOR is the term applied to a large class of behavioral inter- actions, or relationships, between two or more individuals. It has been defined as “the behavior of two or more peoplet with respect to one another or in con- cert with respect to a common environ- ment.”"* Although social behavior (defined as the interaction between two or more or- ganisms) is generally more complex than nonsocial behavior (defined as the inter- action between an organism and his me- chanical environment), nonsocial behav- ior can be made just as complex as so- * Accepted for publication, February 7, 1963. cial behavior and it lends itself more readily to experiment. Therefore, the reason for studying social behavior is not its complexity. The primary reason for studying so- cial behavior is to determine the laws or variables that emerge in social situations, The aspects of social behavior of great- est interest to social psychologists, psy- chiatrists and clinicians are the supposed “social emergents.” For example, if an individual can co-operate with a machine and with people of certain races but not with people of other races, he has a so- cial problem, a social bias, a racial bias. The research, conducted through the Behavior Research Laboratory, Harvard Medical School, at Metropolitan State Hospi 1, Waltham, Mass., was supported by Research Grants G-9516 and G-19608 from the Division of Social Sciences, National S& ‘The co-operation of Harvard Medical School's Department of Psyct M.D., Chairman) and of the staff of Metropolitan State Hospital (Wi ience Foundation, ity Jack R. Ewalt, im F. McLaughlin, M.D., Superintendent) is gratefully acknowledged. The skill of our excellent laboratory staff and the co-operation of our patients and normal volunteers have been essential to the con- duet of this research +Trapelo Road, Waltham, Mass. #Whether the ‘term social” should be restricted to interactions between two humans, als or two living systems cannot be decided here. We face a continuum bvo that is dichotomized only with difficulty. Probably the term will fall into disuse as more detailed terms are developed for socially emergent, specific behavioral proper Personally, I prefer to use the term “social” to describe interactions between two or more members of the animal kingdom.EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT: O. R. LINDSLEY This is not an individual behavioral defi- cit, because the individual's co-operation with the machine and with certain classes of people clearly shows that he is moti- vated and that he is capable of making the complicated discriminations required by the co-operative task. His inability to co-operate with people possessing spe- cific racial characteristics is a social emergent that may be of interest. It may be that much of what is gen- erally considered to be “social” behavior will be shown to follow the same laws as individual behavior, the only difference being that in social situations the stimuli are presented by another organism. For example, many “sexual deviants” may simply be people who cannot form the complicated discriminations demanded in social or sexual situations. Since they are able to mect the less complicated re- quirements of other situations, they may appear sexually deviant when they are merely deficient in the ability to make the discriminations required in social sit- uations. The character Lennie in Of Mice and Men is a fictional example of such a misinterpretation.’* In order to determine experimentally whether truly social emergents exist and whether social psychology is necessary as a separate discipline, it is essential not to confound variables when comparing nonsocial and social tasks. An ideal method for experimentally analyzing so- cial emergents would permit studying highly complicated nonsocial behavior in exactly the same way as social behavior is studied, In this way, social variables could be added one at a time while their effects on the behavior of individuals were objectively measured. The method of free-operant conditioning meets this requirement and has been successfully used for this purpose.’ 625 ADVANTAGES OF FREE-OPERANT CONDITIONING METHODS Over the past 25 years free-operant conditioning techniques have been devel- oped for the investigation of the adju: tive behavior of individuals in fully con- trolled experimental environments.1*:"* When a subject operates a lever, button or similar device, he is reinforced by the presentation of a rewarding event or the withdrawal of an aversive event, hence the term “operant.” Since the subject is free to respond at any time during the experimental session, the rate of occur- rence of the response can be recorded as the primary datum. For these reasons, the free-operant method of conditioning very closely approximates the free and adjustive behavior of individuals in their natural environments. Several outstanding advantages of free- operant methods make them especially appropriate for the investigation of hu- man social behavior; 1, A large body of data on the nonso- cial behavior of individuals has been ac- cumulated. This information is invalua- ble for reference in applying the method to complex social situations, 2. Full and automatic control of the experimental environment permits. iso- lation of variables and determination of the effects of single variables. 3. Automatic presentation of stimuli and automatic recording of responses completely eliminate observer bias, which often plagues experimenters using less highly controlled methods. 4. The sensitivity of the method to the behavior of single individuals elimi- nates the need for group research de- signs. This sensitivity to individual be- havior promises to be extremely impor- tant in social behavioral analysis. 5. A large number of useful and in-626 tegrated descriptive terms is available and can be extended from individual to social behavior with a minimum of con- fusion and modification. Since these terms were assembled gradually and em- pirically, they are not always used con- sistently and are being continually modi- fied. However, the terms are for the most part functional and operational and cover a much broader range of behavior than any other existing psychological terminology. TERMS FOR ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR During the past nine years we have been modifying free-operant methods fot application to human behavior."*” One of our major concerns has been modification of this methodology for ex- perimental analysis of human social be- havior.» %*%!" We have found it neces- sary to develop a tentative set of terms to describe and interpret our own and other social experiments. Since the anal- ysis is still continuing, the terms are necessarily tentative and are being con- tinually refined and modified. Neverthe- less, they are currently useful to the ex- tent that they permit interpretation and comparison of a large number of experi- ments. Since experiments on social be- havior usually do not use a consistent terminology, it is often extremely diffi- cult to compare them. Social behavioral events can be com- prehensively described using five dimen- sions. These tentative working dimen- sions are not meant to be dimensions in the physical sense. They are presented because they have proved useful to us in reviewing the experiments of others and in designing our own experiments. These dimensions of sociality are: function of the event, availability of the SYMPOSIUM: SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT AND BEHAVIOR CHANGE event, direction of stimulation, aspect of organism, and the general nature of the complete transaction. The first dimen- sion is identical with the functional de- scription of nonsocial events. The other four were added to make it possible to describe social behavior unambiguously. 1, Function of event. Social behavior may be analyzed in terms of the behavi- oral function of the events comprising a social transaction between two individ- uals. This is the sole dimension used in the analysis of transactions between an individual and his nonsocial environ- ment,” and it is not surprising that the same classes are useful in describing the behavior of individuals in social interac- tions, Social events can perform at least seven separate functions in social trans- actions: previous history, eliciting stim- uli, discriminative stimuli, facilitative and suppressive stimuli, responses, nat- ure of reinforcing stimuli and schedule or contingency of reinforcing stimuli, If at least one of these functions involves some aspect of another organism, the be- havior is usually considered social. If more than one of these functions involve aspects of another organism, the behav- ior is even more social. Maximal social- ity of the behavior would involve all seven functions. Previous histories of the organism in a given behavioral situation or similar be- havioral situations can be social or non- social. This function has received some interest and has been termed “social con- notation.” Although the behavior under study has no really social property, the subject may be told that there is a social aspect. This instruction would modify his behavior as a function of his previ- ous social experiences or his “personal- ity.” When the only social property ofEXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT: O. R. LINDSLEY the behavior is a previous extra-experi- mental history or a previous history ma- nipulated by verbal instructions, experi- ments are not as easily controlled or as reliable as possible. The previous history is a difficult variable to work with if it is not always under the direct control of the experimenter. Eliciting stimuli, which produce re- ponses without prior conditioning, also can be social. Many of the stimuli stud- ied by ethologists working with small an- imals are of this type. However, al- though social eliciting stimuli undoubt- edly exist among humans, they have not been experimentally demonstrated. Discriminative stimuli, which are cor- related with the reinforcement or nonre~ inforcement of responses, are very often social in nature. For example, individ- ual 4’s response may be reinforced only after individual B has made a response. In this case, the response of individual B would be the timinative stimulus indicating that individual A’s response will be reinforced. Facilitative and suppressive stimuli may also be composed of some aspect of another organism. These stimuli, al- though in no way contingent upon the behavior of another organism, may serve to increase (facilitate) or decrease (sup- press) the rate of responding of an or- ganism. For example, the mere presence of a mother in a room with her child may either increase the child’s rate of per- formance or decrease his rate of per- formance, depending upon the relation- ship between the mother and the child. This facilitative or suppressive effect is often found even though there is no re- lationship between the presence of the mother and the reinforcement contin- gency, This has been referred to by Royer and Gantt" as the “effect of per- 627 son,” and was mentioned earlier by Pav- lov."* Responses are quite often social, re- quiring the combined action of two or more individuals, Reinforcing stimuli themselves may consist of some aspect of another organ- ism, and, hence, may have a social nat- ure. There is in fact a very large class of social reinforcement involving the pre- sence of another organism (for example, smiles, words, approval, disapproval, en- couragement). The reinforcement contingency or schedule may be socially programed by another individual even though the na- ture of the reinforcing stimulus itself is nonsocial, Social programing of nonso- cial reinforcers is actually quite common in social situations. The presentation of food and candy to a child by his mother is an example of social programing, dis- tinct from direct social reinforcement, since the mother decides how often to reinforce certain types of responses, She does not comprise the reinforcing agent, which in this case is food or candy. These last two functions, the nature of the reinforcing stimuli and the program- ing of reinforcement contingencies, are the only two that can be properly con- sidered relevant to a discussion of social reinforcement. Most accurately, social re- inforcement should be limited to describ- ing behavioral situations in which the re- inforcement itself has social properties, In other words, the term social reinforce- ment is best reserved for situations in which some aspect of one individual is a reinforcing stimulus for the behavior of another individual. 2. Availability of event. The degree of availability of the event to the mem- bers of the group constitutes another di-628 mension for the description of social events, For example, reinforcing stimuli can be presented (a) individually,* whereby only one individual is reinforced at a time with reinforcement available only to him; (b) mutually, whereby all individuals in the group are reinforced at the same time with events available to themselves only and not to the other members of the group; (c) jointly, where- by each individual receives a portion of an event that is not reinforcing in it- self but, when joined with events re- ceived by others in the group, becomes a reinforcing event (for example, one person gets an onion, another some meat, another some potatoes, and another a pot of water—the joint reinforcement is stew); (d) communally, whereby a single reinforcing stimulus is presented to the group and is available to all individuals within the group, who may compete for all or part of it, or agree to divide it. The other forms of social stimulation, that is, previous histories, eliciting stim- uli, and facilitative stimuli, can be pre- sented individually, mutually, jointly or communally. Also, responses can be per- mitted to occur individually, mutually, jointly or communally. 3. Direction of stimulation. The di- rection of stimulation is important in ac- curately describing social interaction. So- cial interactions can be divided into three clear-cut types, depending upon the presence or absence of social stimu- lation and its direction within the group: (a) pseudosocial grouping, (b) unidirec- tional social behavior, (c) bidirectional social behavior. Pseudosocial grouping requires no cross stimulation between the members *In describing these four categories of availabilit SYMPOSIUM: SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT AND BEHAVIOR CHANGE of a group in order to maintain the be- havior. If the so-called social behavior is maintained after a total communication barrier is inserted between the two mem- bers of the group, the behavior is pseudo- social. Many symbiotic relationships are probably of this sort. The fable in which the cow and the horse “co-operate” in pushing down a fence to reach greener grass on the other side probably repre- sents such a relationship. The horse might also have been able to “co-oper- ate” with a high wind. Or even worse, a high wind and a fallen tree might operate” in pushing farmer Brown's fence down! Unidirectional social behavior exi when only one member of the dyad is dependent upon the other for stimula- tion. Stimulation must occur between the two members, but it need proceed in only one direction, If the behavior breaks down with a total stimulation barrier but is maintained with a one-way communication barrier, the behavior is unidirectional. Co-operative and compet- itive behaviors are unidirectional when leader-follower relationships can be maintained without change. The leader is the stimulus producer, and the fol- lower responds to these stimuli. In bidirectional social behavior, both members of the dyad must respond to each other to maintain the social behav- ior. In this case, the behavior would break down if a total or even one-way communication barrier were placed be- tween the two members of the group. Only when two-way communication is permitted can the behavior be main- tained. Bidirectional social behavior can be simultaneous or successive. In simul- taneous bidirectional social behavior, of social events, the terms “group” and “team” were avoided because of so many conflicting prior usages and because of the lack of adverbial forms.EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT: O. R. LINDSLEY both members of the dyad must be able to respond simultaneously to stimuli pro- duced by each other. Successive bidirec- tional social behavior consists of an al- ternating combination of unilateral social behavior that demands at one time that individual A respond to stimulation pro- duced by individual B, and at another time that individual B respond to stimu- lation produced by individual A. This interlocking bidirectional social behav- ior is found in many competitive games in which leadership must be alternated, as in alternation of the serves in tem Bidirectional social behavior, appar- ently the most complicated, places the greatest demands upon all members of the group. Since unidirectional social be- havior demands social responding from only one member of the group, the other member may be entirely ignorant of the socially responding teammate. 4, Aspect of organism. The aspect of each organism that stimulates or sum- mates with the responses of the other or- ganism in the dyad is often useful in de- scribing social experimentation. A social event may be: (a) the mere presence of the other individual, (b) an actual re- sponse (movement) of the second indi- vidual, or (c) a mechanical event pro- duced by the response of the second in- dividual (this is actually social program- ing of nonsocial events, on a fixed-ratio schedule in this case). Furthermore, the physical presence and response of the in- dividual may be partial (for example, words, photographs, television images, movies) or complete with the person ac- tually present in the experimental enclo- sure with the other teammate. The use of closed-circuit television systems permits presenting the visual and auditory as- pects of one individual actively respond- ing to the second member of the dyad 629 without the second member being able to respond to his teammate or without his even knowing of the second individ- ual’s presence. Prior to the discovery of television, it was impossible to manipu- late independently all aspects of such dynamic two-person interactions. 5. Nature of transaction. Although not as useful for actual design of social experiments as the previous four dimen- sions, the nature of the transaction has proved useful in describing our own re- search in society, and permits compari- son with nontechnical treatises. Also, it is within this dimension that we search for clinically validating correlates, when estimating the importance of our work for society, and when deciding which areas should be instrumented first. The following terms, most of which are single-word complements, illustrate this dimension: Imitation .......... +++ Illustration Observing . . Displaying Altruism Sadism Rewarding .... Punishing Opportunity-creating . -. Trapping Leading ...... -Following Co-operation . - Competition These transactional terms are old and are found in the dictionaries, as well as in the talk of faculty colleagues, co-citi- zens and family members. We use them to tell people what we think we are study- ing—in the titles of our papers. EXEMPLARY METHODS FOR EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT Since space does not permit full cover- age of the many interesting modifications of the method of free-operant condition- ing for the experimental analysis of social reinforcement, we will include only two630 methods as examples. The first shows how the reinforcing power of social stim- uli can be directly and continuously measured using intermittent schedules of episodic reinforcement. For a more de- tailed description of these schedules, see Ferster and Skinner.* The second exam- ple involves a new schedule of reinforce- ment developed in our laboratory to per- mit the use of continuously available re- inforcing stimuli. Many social reinforc- ers, such as dramatic and musical enter- tainment media, lose much of their re- inforcing value if they are broken into segments for episodic presentation. Intermittent schedules of episodic re- inforcement. FIGURE 1 shows a device for experimentally measuring the rein- forcing value of observing a hungry kit- ten drink milk that is presented to the kitten contingent upon the response of the experimental subject. The subject's ALTRUIST'S ENCLOSURE EPISODIC REINFORCEMENT PROGRAMMER C'viy SYMPOSIUM: SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT AND BEHAVIOR CHANGE response is to pull the lever shown in the figure. The subject’s reinforcing stim- ulus is the drinking of the milk by the kitten. This is arranged by presenting the dipper to the kitten, which has previously been trained to drink from it. The high motivation of the kitten and his previous conditioning insure that the dipper pre- sentation produces drinking behavior. The dipper can be presented on any of numerous intermittent schedules of epi- sodic reinforcement. The rate of the sub- ject’s responding (pulling the lever) indi- cates the reinforcing value to him of ob- serving the kitten’s drinking response. This can be considered as experimental “altruism,” “charity” or “succor.” The behavior is unidirectional, since a one- way screen between the subject and the kitten permits the subject to observe the kitten, and preventing the kitten from observing the subject does not destroy the behavior. In other words, the subject REINFORCEMENT EPISODES RESPONSE DEFINER ALTRUISTIC RESPONSES FiGune |. Schema of apparatus for measuring amount of reinforcement to a person in giving a hungry kitten a lap or two of milk (Infanto-felino-altruism?). permitted to drink only in five-second episodes, the subject's altruii inforced on an episodic reinforcement schedule. Since the kitten was ic lever pulling was re-EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT: O, R. LINDSLEY is engaging in social interaction and is being socially reinforced, but the kitten is being nonsocially reinforced. If an electrical grid were placed under the kitten’s feet, electrical shocks to the kitten’s feet could be made contingent upon the responding of the subject. This simple change in the apparatus would permit measurement of the aggressive be- havior of the subject (“sadism”) as he pulled the lever to punish the kitten. Furthermore, human subjects, respond- ing to appropriate reinforcers and pun- ishers, can be substituted for the kitten in this experiment. In this way altruistic and sadistic transactions can be directly measured. Other more complicated forms of al- truism could be developed by having the response of subject A produce a rein- forcement both for himself and for an- other subject, B, who could be seen in an adjoining room. If subject A responded at a higher rate to produce reinforcement for both himself and his neighbor than 631 alone, he could be considered altruistic. It is easy to construct situations in which subject A has two levers in front of him, ‘one to produce reinforcement for him- self and one to produce reinforcement for a neighbor whom he can see through a window. In such a situation, the ratio of subject ’s responding on the two lev- ers would represent his “charity rati Space does not permit discussion of all the interesting possible combinations and permutations of such experimental de- signs, or a review of the literature in which words, doll play and other social reinforcers have been used in similar fashion. Conjugate reinforcement contingen- cies. FIGURE 2 is a schematic diagram of the experimental arrangement for the presentation of silent movies that are conjugately contingent upon panel-push- ing responses by a human infant. The infant lies in a small bassinet with his feet against a panel, which can be de- to produce reinforcement for himself pressed approximately one inch. A © MOVIE PROJECTOR DEFINER LOOKING RESPONSES Ficure 2, Schema of apparatus for measuring reinforcing value of silent movies to a human infant, The continuously available moving picture is presented on a conjugate reinforcement contingency. This contingency appears most suitable for social reinforcers.632 switch output from this panel goes to a response definer that prevents “holding” responses by converting the switch op- erations into impulses. The output of the response definer is fed into a cumulative recorder, which records the panel-pushing response rate. The output also enters a conjugate reinforcement mechanism that briefly increases the intensity of the pro- jection lamp with each response. Thus, rapid pressing of the pedal makes the projector lamp grow brighter and brighter, thereby relating the rate of panel pushing directly to the intensity of the moving picture projected on the back of a translucent screen in the ceiling of an air-conditioned, sound-proofed ex- perimental enclosure. These contingen- cies make the panel-pushing response a looking response. With this method we have been able to obtain high, sustained rates of re- sponding from a five-month-old infant reinforced with a movie of a strange woman smiling, In other words, the smile of a female stranger is reinforcing to a five-month-old infant. Other pic- torial materials can be presented in this way to persons of any age, to determine the materials’ reinforcing value.* We had previously found that episodically presented photographs of smiling female faces produced occasional responses in the human infant, but not a high, sus- tained rate of response. Therefore, it ap- pears that the conjugate contingency is much more appropriate for the presenta- tion of social reinforcers. These conjugate reinforcement con- tingencies have been used in a wide class of human situations and show promise for use in the presentation of a wide va- +A wide variety of apparatuses for conjugate reinforcement with social SYMPOSIUM: SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT AND BEHAVIOR CHANGE ricty of socially reinforcing _ stim- uli." We are currently refining and testing experimental apparatus for ex- perimental analysis of the therapist-pa- tient dyad, probably one of the most complicated social relationships available for experimental analysis (for a more complete description sce Lindsley"). The therapist is in one experimental room and the patient in an adjacent room. Visual and auditory communica- tion between the rooms are controlled both in degree and direction by the use of closed-circuit television cameras and receivers, The patient has two switches, or operanda, in front of him. A rapid rate of pressing one operandum brings the therapist into visual focus on a tele- vision screen in front of the patient. Rapid pressing of the other operandum increases the intensity of the therapist's voice heard over a loud speaker in the patient's room. The rates of pressing these two operanda are recorded in an- other room on cumulative response re- corders. Variations in the rates of these two responses indicate the immediate re- inforcing effects of the therapist's move- ments on one recorder and the thera- pist’s speech on the second recorder. Fluctuations in these rates of responding indicate subtle changes in the degree of transference within psychotherapeutic sessions. Correlations of these rate vari- ations with the verbal content of the communication between patient and ther- apist will reveal and test many of the dynamics involved in therapeutic ses- sions. SUMMARY Operational terms consistent with forcers is com- mercially available from Behavior Research Company, Belmont 78, Massachusetts.EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT: O. R. LINDSLEY 633 free-operant conditioning nomenclature and useful in describing experimental analysis of social behavior have been pre- sented. The complexity and detail in- volved in such operational terms ex- ceeds expectation. Most existing social research has confounded the variables described by these terms. Much interest- ing, highly controlled research must be done before the nature and direction of operation of these previously overlooked variables will be known. Examples of methods of directly re- cording effects of social reinforcement and of automatically presenting continu- ous social reinforcers (conjugate rein- forcement) have also been described, An. interesting application of free-operant methods was mentioned, in which closed-circuit television separating ther- apist and patient permitted direct experi- mentation upon ongoing psychotherapeu- tic relationships. Social psychology is necessary as a sep- arate and higher order discipline above individual psychology. Social cmergents require this. The requirements for care- ful operational terms, for high experi- mental control and for continuous and functional measurement exceed those for research on the behavior of single in- dividuals. Therein lies the challenge to social scientists and the test of our skills and creativity. REFERENCES 1. Azeix, N. H. ano 0, R. Linpstey. 1956. | The reinforcement of cooperation between children. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psy- chol, $2: 100-102. 2. ConEN, D. J, 1962. Justin and his peers: an experimental analysis. of a child’s social world. Child Develop. 33: 697-717. 3. Fersrer, C. B. AND B. F. SKINNER, 1957, Schedules of Reinforcement. Ap- pleton-Century-Crofts. New York, N.Y, 4, 12. 13. 14. 15. Livpstey, O. R. 1986. Operant con- ditioning ‘methods applied to research in chronic schizophrenia. Psychiat. Res. Rep. Amer. Psychiat. Assn. S: 118-139. . Linsey, O. R. 1957. Operant be- havior during sleep: a measure of depth of sleep. Science 126: 1290-1291. Linostey, O. R. 1960, Characteristics of the behavior of chronic psychotics as revealed by free-operant conditioning methods. “Dis, Nerv. Syst. Monogr. Suppl. 21: 66-78. Linpstey, O. R. Experimental anal of cooperation and competition, Pre- sented at the Eastern Psychological As- sociation, Philadelphia, April 1961 Linpstey, O. R. Conjugate reinforce- ment schedules. Presented at the Amer- ican Psychological Association, New York, September 1961. Linvsuey, ©. R. 1962. Operant con- ditioning ‘methods in diagnosis. In Psy- chosomatic Medicine: The First Hahne- mann Symposium. J. H. Nodine and J, H. Moyer, Eds. Lea & Febiger. Phila- delphia, Penna. : 41-54. Linpstey, 0. R. 1963. Free-operant conditioning and psychotherapy. In Cur- rent Psychiatric Therapies, J. Masserman, Ed. Grune & Stratton, New York, NY. + 47-56. . LINDSLEY, O. R. AND P. CONRAN. 1962. Operant behavior during EST: a measure of depth of coma. Dis. Nerv. Syst. 23: 407-409. Linpstey, O. R., J. H. Hopika AND B. E. Ersten. 1961. Operant behavior during anesthesia recovery: a continuous and ob- jective method. Anesthesiology 22: 937-946, Pavioy, I. P. 1928, Lectures on Con- ditioned Reflexes. W. H. Gantt, Trans International Universities Press, Inc. New York, N.Y. Royer, F. L. ap W. H. Gantt. The effect of different persons on the heart Tate of dogs. Presented at the Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, April 1961. SKINNER, B. F. 1938. ‘The Behavior of Organisms. Appleton Century. New York, NY. . SkINNER, B, F, 1953. Science and Hu- man Behavior. Macmillan Co., New York, N.Y. + 297. |. SKINNER, B. F. 1987. The experimen- tal analysis of behavior, Amer. Sci. 43: 343-371. . STEINBECK, J. 1937. Of Mice and Men, Covici Friede. New York, N.Y.