Performance on a complex task immediately following frustrative nonreward was investigated with 45 college students and findings partially replicated. After an expectancy for reward was established in a two-task sequence, the first task was reinforced intermittently and number of errors and latencies on the second more complex task analyzed. During the early stage of learning more errors occurred on the second task following nonreward than following reward on the first task. In later stages of learning, there was a tendency for fewer errors to follow nonreward than reward, but this finding was not replicated. In the overall within-.? analyses, a greater number of errors followed frustration. Such differences were not maintained in between-5 analyses, suggesting that frustration may affect performance but not learning.

Personality disorders frequently are seen among depressed psychiatric in‐patients. In a group of 73 depressed psychiatric outpatients, this study identified 85% whose response to the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) suggested a personality disorder. On retest 12 weeks later, only 64% manifested a response style consistent with the DSM‐III personality disorders. These findings are discussed in relation to methodology, characteristics of the MCMI, and the response style of the depressed patient, which may lead to an overidentification of personality disorders on a self‐report measure. Related aspects of the diagnostic criteria for personality disorders also are discussed.

Based on Rotter's definition of the personality variable-locus of control of reinforcement-it was predicted that internal 5s in an ambiguous experimental situation would be responsive to frustrative nonreward whereas external 5s might not be similarly frustrated As predicted, internal 5s responded with reduced latencies following nonreward and, early in learning, made significantly more errors on a subsequent complex task Consistent with Spence's theory of emotionally based drive, these same 6s showed improved performance following frustration at a later stage in learning when the task was largely mastered No similar experimental effects emerged for the external Ss suggesting that only the internal 5s were significantly frustrated by the experimental procedures

Stwzmary.-Both academic and disruptive behavior in a classroom for children with behavioral problems were monitored under two different pcocedures for administering token reinforcement. Behavioral control was demonstrated when children were reinforced on a variable interval schedule for "in-seat" behavior and also when they were reinforced for correct performance on daily tests. Academic performance was enhanced in the latter but nor the former condition suggesting that control of classroom behavioral problems may be more efficiently achieved by reinforcing academic behaviors incompatible with disruptive behaviors.Numerous studies attest to the relevance of behavior modification procedures for [he classroom setting. Out-of-seac behavior, inappropriate talk, aggressive behavior, talking out inappropriately, and other disruptive behaviors have been successfully modified to promote a classroom environment more conducive to learning (Becker, Madsen, Arnold, & Thomas, 1967;Rickard, 1971;Wolf, Hanley, King, Lachowicz, & Giles, 1970). Perhaps the most systematized approach to behavior modification has been the token economy. Axelcod (1971), in a review of literacure on token reinforcemenc, notes that posicive results are almost invariably obtained. In most studies of token reinforcemenc, Es have been concerned wich managerial behaviors such as inappropriate or disruptive behavior (Becker, et al., 1967; Thomas, Nielson, Kuypers, & Becker, 1968). In a few studies the dependent variable has been academic behavior (Lovitt gr Curtiss, 1769; Lovitt & Esveldt, 1970; Rickard, Clemencs, & Willis, 1970). Rarely have investigators assessed boch academic progress and behavioral control in the same experiment. One might question the effect on academic performance of reinforcing non-disruptive behavior. Does increased behavioral control enhance academic performance? Conversely, would reinforcemenc for academic performance lead to behavioral control while also promoting academic progress? The manner in which tokens are dispensed, i.e., reinforcemenc schedule, has not been systematically investigated with children in the academic setting. Ferster and Skinner (1957) provide ample evidence that the schedule of reward is a potent variable affecting performance on infrahuman organisms. Variable interval (VI) and variable ratio (VR) schedules, with the availability of reinforcemenc being somewhat uncertain, generate a relatively stable rate of responding with few pauses. Fixed ratio ( F R ) schedules generate a high rate of responding.The present study assessed che relative effectiveness of a VI schedule of token reinforcement for "in-seat" behavior and an FR schedule for academic performance. "Oiit-of-seat" behavior and academic performance were monitored