An Empirical Test of Three Alternative Explanations for Covert Reinforcement Effects

Abstract

The empirical validity of the explanations, instrumental-conditioning, counterconditioning, and exposure for covert reinforcement were tested. 45 female students, aged 19 to 35 yr., were subjects. Each was screened for level of fear toward snakes and ability to form clear images. They were randomly assigned to one of five treatment conditions and one of three categories of expectancy. Conditions were covert positive reinforcement, reversed covert positive reinforcement, neutral consequence, reversed covert positive reinforcement to nonsnake stimuli, and nondirective contact. Assessment of expectancy occurred pretreatment and posttreatment, posttreatment only, and no assessment. Results showed that assessment of expectancy did not affect performance on subjective or behavioral measures of fear. All treatment conditions except contact produced significant reductions in fear and increased expectations about ability to approach a live snake. Findings did not support the explanations of instrumental-conditioning, counterconditioning, or exposure. A cognitive-mediational account was offered as an alternative explanation for effects of covert reinforcement.