effects of social reinforcement contingent on

The Psychological Record, 2012, 62, 631–644

EFFECTS OF SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT CONTINGENT ON CONVENTIONAL OR UNCONVENTIONAL RESPONSES ON GENERALIZED CREATIVITY BY OLDER ADULTS IN RESIDENTIAL CARE Courtney Allyn Polenick and Stephen Ray Flora Youngstown State University

The effects of social praise contingent on either usual (conventional) or unusual (unconventional) responses during an object uses task were assessed on measures of generalized creativity in two novel, unrelated tasks. Participants were 20 older adults, ages 63 to 89 years (M = 80.90), who were recruited from a joint skilled nursing and assisted living facility. In a counterbalanced within-­ subjects design, participants completed both experimental conditions across two sessions separated by 6 to 10 days. Consistent with learned industriousness theory, social praise contingent on unconventional responses during the initial task was associated with increases in both objective and subjective measures of creativity in subsequent tasks. These findings indicate that social praise contingent on creative responses functioned as reinforcement and can increase generalized creativity in older adults living in a residential care setting. Key words: creativity, social reinforcement, older adults, residential care, generalization, learned industriousness theory Creativity may be defined as “the generation of novel behavior that meets a standard of quality or utility” (Eisenberger, Haskins, & Gambleton, 1999, p. 308). Beginning in middle age and continuing into older adulthood, adults may experience declines in abilities related to creativity, such as the production of original solutions to open-­ended problems (e.g., McCrae, Arenberg, & Costa, 1987; Reese, Lee, Cohen, & Puckett, 2001; Ruth & Birren, 1985). However, observed declines in these abilities may not reflect an unavoidable consequence of aging; rather, they may occur as a result of increasingly infrequent engagement in creative activities as individuals age (Tranter & Koutstaal, 2008). Creative activities may offer numerous benefits in older adulthood, such as enhancing problem-­solving abilities, which can increase adaptive skills and facilitate a flexible approach to handling everyday challenges (Fisher & Specht, 1999; Flood & Phillips, 2007). Activities that result in the production of original ideas or products can help older adults to maintain a sense of purpose and productivity and can increase feelings of competence (Fisher & Specht, 1999). Engagement in creative activities has also been associated with reduced levels of anxiety and depression (Flood & Philips, 2007; Hannemann, 2006). Environmental conditions that facilitate the use of creative abilities (e.g., problem solving) may be effective in maintaining cognitive performance in older adults (Stine-­Morrow, Parisi, Morrow, Greene, & Park, 2007; Stine-­Morrow, Parisi, Morrow, & Park, 2008; Tranter & Koutstaal, 2008). Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Stephen Ray Flora, Department of Psychology, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44555. E-mail: [email protected]

632

POLENICK AND FLORA

Residential care settings for older adults typically afford few opportunities for creativity. Residents generally receive social reinforcement for dependent behaviors while independent behaviors are ignored (e.g., Baltes & Wahl, 1992, 1996; Flora, 2004, pp. 207– 209). Therefore, as dependent behaviors tend to increase in frequency, a corresponding decrease in independent behaviors is often observed. This can lead to feelings of reduced autonomy and a lack of meaningful activity in this population, which may contribute to depressive symptoms (Choi, Ransom, & Wyllie, 2008). Conversely, creative activities can provide both the opportunity to engage in independent decision making and the occasion to receive social reinforcement for doing so. This may result in an increase in independent behaviors and may also increase feelings of perceived environmental control (Hannemann, 2006). Additionally, creative activities make use of remaining functional strengths and abilities, and they can provide powerful sources of positive reinforcement (e.g., social praise or winning an award). Thus, increasing creativity in older adults living in residential care may have beneficial effects on health and overall quality of life. Behavioral procedures have been shown to increase creativity across varied age groups (Winston & Baker, 1985). In several studies, Eisenberger and colleagues found that contingent reinforcement for providing unconventional responses increased subsequent measures of creativity during unrelated tasks in preadolescent children (e.g., Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994). Eisenberger’s learned industriousness theory asserts that when individuals are rewarded for performing a task, they learn which performance dimensions are contingent on producing the reward and respond accordingly during subsequent tasks. For example, reinforcement of high effort in one task selects high effort as a behavioral trait that generalizes to other tasks (Eisenberger, 1992). Just as imitation and rule-­governed behavior may be selected as generalized operants (Flora, 2004, pp. 105–113), when a history of reinforcement is provided to an individual for creative responses in one task, creativity as an operant may be selected and increases in creativity may be observed in subsequent tasks (e.g., Eisenberger, Armeli, & Pretz, 1998; Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001). As no behavioral study has attempted to increase creativity in older adults living in a residential care setting, the present study adopted procedures used by Eisenberger and colleagues to examine the possibility of increasing generalized creativity in this population. During an initial task, social praise intended to function as reinforcement (e.g., Flora, 2004, pp. 48–49) was contingent on the production of either usual (conventional) or unusual (unconventional) uses for a series of common objects. The effects of social praise contingent on conventional or unconventional responses on the level of creativity in two subsequent, unrelated tasks were assessed to determine if social praise contingent on unconventional responses increases generalized creativity in older adults living in residential care environments.

Method Participants and Setting Participants were older adults, ages 63 to 89 years (M = 80.90), who were recruited from a joint skilled nursing and assisted living facility in northeast Ohio. Facility staff assisted with identifying individuals who might be able and willing to participate. Participants were asked directly by the experimenter if they would like to volunteer for the study. Inclusion criteria required that participants (a) did not have a diagnosis of dementia, (b) were able to provide a usual use for all 18 objects during the initial task, and (c) were able to provide an appropriate unusual use for at least 13 out of 18 objects during the initial task. The latter requirement was included to ensure that participants experienced sufficient and approximately equal amounts of social praise during the initial task in both experimental conditions in order to assess for later generalization effects. Prior to data collection, the experimental procedure was approved by Youngstown State University’s Human

EFFECTS OF SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT

633

Subjects Research Committee. Participants were provided with a verbal and written description of the study’s procedure and signed an informed consent form. Twenty-­five participants were originally recruited for this study. Data from five participants were not included for the following reasons that prevented completion of the second experimental session: one suffered complications from a fall, one had a family emergency, one was unable to provide appropriate responses for at least 13 out of 18 objects during the unusual condition of the object uses task, and two stated that they did not wish to continue. At the time of the study, 11 participants were residing in the skilled nursing section of the facility, and 9 participants lived in the assisted living section of the facility. Twenty participants completed both experimental sessions. Participants were quasirandomly assigned to one of two groups of 10 participants each that determined condition sequence and were told that the purpose of the study was to examine aspects of cognitive functioning in older adults. The words creative and creativity were not used by the experimenter in verbal or written interactions with participants prior to or during the study, but participants were fully debriefed after all data were collected. Quasirandom assignment involved placing participants in groups that were closely matched in terms of age, gender, living environment, and functional status. Group Usual–Unusual included five assisted living residents and five skilled nursing residents, ages 64 to 89 years (M = 82.40). Group Unusual–Usual consisted of four assisted living residents and six skilled nursing residents, ages 63 to 89 years (M = 79.40). In both groups, seven participants ambulated using a wheelchair, and three participants used a walker. Both groups consisted of four male participants and six female participants. Individual sessions occurred at each participant’s place of residence, in a quiet area with limited distractions.

Design and Procedure Figure 1 illustrates the sequence of experimental events to which participants were exposed in each condition. Participants first received the object uses task, where they were asked to give either a usual use (usual-use condition) or an unusual use (unusual-use condition) for a series of common objects. In a counterbalanced within-­subjects design, all participants completed both conditions across two experimental sessions separated by 6 to 10 days. Both sessions were conducted during the same time of day (e.g., morning or afternoon) for all participants. Group Usual–Unusual received the usual-use condition first and the unusual-use condition second, while the reverse sequence was presented to Group Unusual–Usual. During each condition, appropriate responses resulted in social praise from the experimenter, which consisted of a brief statement of praise (e.g., “excellent”) along with smiles and eye contact. Immediately following the initial task, participants were given two generalization tasks. For all participants, the story title task was completed first and the drawing task was completed second. No performance feedback, social praise, or eye contact was provided for the two generalization tasks. The experimenter maintained a neutral facial expression and stared at her notebook while the participant provided responses. If a participant asked how he or she is doing during the task, the experimenter stated in a neutral tone of voice that he or she is doing fine. Initial task: Object uses. During the initial task, participants were asked to give a use for 18 common objects (hammer, shoe, ruler, etc.). Object names were printed individually on 7.62 × 12.7 cm index cards that were presented one at a time (see Appendix). During the usual-use condition, participants were asked to give the usual use for each object. During the unusual-use condition, participants were asked to give an unusual use for each object. The same 18 objects were used during both conditions for all participants. In both conditions, if an inappropriate response was given (e.g., giving an unusual use during the usual-use condition, or vice versa, or giving a physically impossible use), social praise was withheld and participants were prompted to try again. An example of a use that is physically impossible (i.e., does not employ the object’s physical properties) would be if

POLENICK AND FLORA

634

the participant said that a sheet of paper could be used to hammer a nail. If a second inappropriate response was given, social praise was again withheld and the experimenter went to the next item. An inappropriate response or a failure to respond within 10 s resulted in no eye contact, no verbal feedback, and a neutral facial expression from the experimenter for 3 s. Group Unusual–Usual

Group Usual–Unusual

Social praise for responding with unusual object uses.

Social praise for responding with usual object uses.

“A Boy and His Dog” story title generalization task. No social praise given.

Drawing generalization task. No social praise given.

Social praise for responding with usual object uses.

Social praise for responding with unusual object uses.

“A Girl and Her Vacation” story title generalization task. No social praise given.

Drawing generalization task. No social praise given.

Figure 1. Flow chart of events experienced by participants in both sequence groups. Filled arrows indicate within-subject condition change.

Usual-use condition. Identical to Eisenberger et al. (1999), the experimenter provided the following instructions: I am going to show you words for everyday objects. When I show you each word, read it out loud. Then tell me the usual use for that object. Do you understand? Okay. Here is the first word. What is this word? [Word is shown to participant, who responds.] What usual use might you have for a ___?” [Participant responds.] (p. 315) During this condition, an appropriate response was given when the participant stated the usual (standard) use for the object. An inappropriate response occurred when the

EFFECTS OF SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT

635

participant stated an unusual (nonstandard) use for the object (see Appendix). If the participant stated an unusual use for the object, the experimenter said, “That is something that people seldom do with a ___. Tell me something usual you might do with a ___” (Eisenberger et al., 1998, p. 708). If the participant gave another unusual use (i.e., an inappropriate response), or failed to respond after 10 s, the experimenter moved on to the next object. When participants gave a usual use (e.g., using a book for reading), they were provided with social praise. Unusual-use condition. This condition was identical to the usual-use condition with the following changes: During the initial task, participants were asked to give an unusual use for 18 common objects (see Appendix). Identical to Eisenberger et al. (1999), the experimenter provided the following instructions: I am going to show you words for everyday objects. When I show you each word, read it out loud. Then tell me an unusual use for the object. For example, if I showed you the word book, you might tell me that you could use the book to hold open a door. Do you understand? Okay. Here is the first word. What is this word? [Word shown to participant, who responds.] What is an unusual use for a ___?” [Participant responds.] (p. 315) During this condition, an appropriate response was given when the participant stated an unusual (nonstandard) use for the object. An inappropriate response occurred when the participant stated the usual (standard) use for the object (see Appendix). If the participant stated a usual use for the object, the experimenter said, “That is something that people often do with a ___. Tell me something unusual you might do with a ___.” If the participant gave an unusual use that is impossible or did not incorporate any distinctive physical properties of the object, the experimenter said, “Tell me something unusual you might actually do with a ___” (Eisenberger et al., 1999, p. 315). If the participant provided another usual or impossible use (i.e., an inappropriate response), or failed to provide a response after 10 s, the experimenter moved on to the next object. When participants gave an unusual use (e.g., using a book to hold a door open) they were provided with social praise. Generalization Task 1: Story title task. In the first generalization task, participants were asked to verbally provide possible titles for two subject prompts: (1) a boy and his dog, or (2) a girl and her vacation. One topic was presented during each session. For counterbalancing purposes, Group Usual–Unusual received the first topic during the usual-use condition and the second topic during the unusual-use condition, while Group Unusual– Usual received the first topic during the unusual-use condition and the second topic during the usual-use condition (see Figure 1). Participants were told to make up as many titles as they would like, to take as much time as they needed, and to verbally indicate when they are finished giving responses. The experimenter also asked participants not to provide titles that have previously been used for well-­k nown stories, books, or movies (e.g., Alice in Wonderland or Old Yeller). Generalization Task 2: Drawing task. For the second generalization task, participants were given a 21.59 × 27.94 cm sheet of paper containing fifteen 4.1 cm diameter circles. The upper left circle contained a predrawn happy face. This task was based on one that was adapted by Eisenberger and colleagues (e.g., Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Eisenberger et al., 1998) from the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1965). Although Eisenberger and colleagues used sheets of paper containing 30 open circles, sheets with 15 circles were used in this study so as not to intimidate or overwhelm participants. Unlike the preadolescent participants in the studies by Eisenberger and colleagues, the older participants in this study may not have engaged in similar activities for many years. During each session, the experimenter placed the sheet in front of the participant and provided the following instructions, identical to Eisenberger and Armeli (1997): Make pictures from these circles. A circle should be the main part of whatever you make. Remember, make pictures from these circles. A circle should

636

POLENICK AND FLORA

be the main part of whatever you make. Here is an example of a picture you might make [experimenter pointed to the happy face picture on the participant’s sheet]. Do you understand? (p. 656) When explaining that a circle should be a main part of the picture, the experimenter traced the shape with a pen. While the participant completed the task, the experimenter turned her chair to face away from the participant and pretended to review her notes. When the task was finished, the experimenter asked the participant to state the subject of each picture and wrote down the participant’s answers. Participants were provided with a fine-­ point black marker to complete this task. A marker was chosen because it required little pressure to make marks on the paper.

Scoring Dependent Measures The primary dependent measures for each participant were the creativity score for each session on the first generalization task and the mean originality score for each session on the second generalization task. Three judges, working independently and blind to experimental conditions, determined creativity scores for the story title task. Two judges were first-year students in an applied behavior analysis master’s program, and one judge was an undergraduate honors student in psychology. As in Eisenberger and Rhoades (2001), the creativity score in the story title task was determined using a 5-point Likert-­ type scale ranging from 1 (little or no creativity) to 5 (highly creative), and creativity was defined as “novelty combined with quality in terms of how well responses dealt with the posed problem” (p. 732). Prior to scoring, judges were provided with written instructions that included a copy of the above definition of creativity and the Likert-­t ype scale that was to be used to determine creativity scores. Scores were assigned to each participant’s entire set of responses. Creativity scores for each response set were determined using the mean of the scores assigned by the three judges. Following the first subject prompt (a boy and his dog), story titles from participant response sets that received lower creativity scores (mean scores from 1.00 to 3.00) included “A Boy and His Dog” and “A Boy and His Dog Have Fun,” while response sets that received higher creativity scores (mean scores greater than 3.00) included the titles “Right by My Side” and “Chasing Him Out.” Story titles from response sets that received lower creativity scores following the second subject prompt (a girl and her vacation) included “A Girl on Vacation” and “A Girl on a Cruise,” while higher creativity scores were given to response sets that included the titles “How the Heck Do You Pitch This Tent?” and “Her Suitcase Went to London, but She Didn’t.” Although judges were aware of both the purpose and the predicted outcomes of the study, response sets were presented to judges in a random order so that it was impossible to discern either the participant or the session order that corresponded with each response set. Interrater reliability was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying that number by 100. Scores were considered to agree when all three judges assigned the same score or when two judges assigned the same score with the third judge scoring within one point of that score. In addition, the number of titles given during each session was collected as a measure of ideational fluency (i.e., the number of different responses or ideas), another objective dimension of creativity. A higher number of titles indicated greater creativity. As in studies by Eisenberger and colleagues (Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Eisenberger et al., 1998; Eisenberger et al., 1999; Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994), originality in the drawing task was defined as the statistical infrequency of an individual response in the total sample of participant responses. An originality score was assigned to each drawing equal to the total number of times that the same subject was used in drawings produced by all of the participants across both experimental sessions. For instance, a face was the most common subject and appeared a total of 71 times in the sample of drawings produced by all participants; thus, a drawing of a face received a score of 71. Similarly, a drawing of the

EFFECTS OF SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT

637

bottom of a glass received a score of 1 because it appeared only once in the total sample of drawings. If a drawing subject was repeated by a participant in an experimental session, or if it did not incorporate the circle as a main element of the drawing (e.g., if a picture was made using the circle as a border), that drawing was assigned a score of equal to the most common subject in the entire sample of drawings. Drawing subjects with a lower frequency of occurrence were scored as having higher originality. Examples of participant drawing subjects with a high frequency of occurrence (i.e., low originality) included faces, balls, and clocks. Participant drawing subjects with a low frequency of occurrence (i.e., high originality) included placemats, light bulbs, and bottle tops. Mean originality scores were determined for each participant by adding the originality scores for all drawings completed during the session and dividing that number by the total number of drawings produced for that session. As another objective measure of creativity (ideational fluency), the number of drawings produced by participants during each session was also recorded.

Results Initial Task: Object Uses Participants in both groups produced appropriate responses during the usual condition on 100% of occasions. During the unusual condition, Group Usual–Unusual provided appropriate responses on 91.11% of occasions, while Group Unusual–Usual gave appropriate responses on 92.77% of occasions. Thus, participants in both groups received a similar amount of social praise during both experimental conditions.

Generalization Task 1: Story Title Task A mixed design ANOVA with condition as the within-­subject variable and sequence as the between-­subject variable (e.g., Linton & Gallo, 1975) were used to statistically analyze the results, along with subsequent independent t tests. As shown in Figure 2, participants produced significantly more titles during the unusual condition (M = 4.95, SD = 2.89) than during the usual condition (M = 3.40, SD = 1.90), resulting in a significant main effect for condition, F(1, 18) = 5.67, p = .028. Effects of condition × sequence interaction approached significant levels, F(1, 18) = 4.30, p = .053. The main effect for sequence was not significant, F(1, 18) = 1.62, p = .219. As shown in Figure 3, participants in Group Unusual–Usual produced significantly more titles (M = 4.80, SD = 2.30) than participants in Group Usual–Unusual (M = 2.20, SD = 0.92) in the first session, t(18) = −3.32, p = .004. In Session 2, however, the difference between Group Unusual– Usual (M = 4.60, SD = 1.90) and Group Usual–Unusual (M = 5.10, SD = 3.51) was not significant, t(18) = 0.40, p = .697, suggesting that scores following initial exposure to the unusual uses condition were generally maintained across sessions. As shown in Figure  4, a significant main effect was found for condition, F(1, 18) = 11.19, p = .004. Participants received significantly higher title creativity scores during the unusual condition (M = 3.40, SD = 0.98) relative to the usual condition (M = 2.33, SD = 0.97). Nonsignificant effects were found for both sequence, F(1, 18) = 0.71, p = .410, and condition × sequence interaction, F(1, 18) = 3.14, p = .093. Figure 5 shows the mean title creativity scores for the two groups across Sessions 1 and 2. For Session 1, a significant difference was determined between Group Usual–Unusual (M = 1.93, SD = 0.78) and Group Unusual–Usual (M = 3.23, SD = 0.99), with the latter group earning significantly higher scores, t(18) = −3.25, p = .004. Scores were not significantly different for Group Usual–Unusual (M = 3.56, SD = 0.98) and Group Unusual–Usual (M = 2.73, SD = 1.00) during Session 2, t(18) = 1.88, p = .077. Interrater reliability of title creativity scores in the story title task was 92.5%.

POLENICK AND FLORA

638

6

Number of Titles

5 4 3 2 1 0

Usual

Unusual

Experimental Conditions Figure 2. Mean number of story titles for all participants (N = 20) during both experimental conditions. Higher numbers indicate greater creativity. There was a significant main effect for condition, F(1, 18) = 5.67, p = .028.

6

Number of Titles

5 4 3 Usual–Unusual

2

Unusual–Usual

1 0

Session 1

Session 2

Consecutive Sessions Figure 3. Mean number of story titles for Group Usual–Unusual and Group Unusual–Usual during Sessions 1 and 2. Higher numbers indicate greater creativity. In Session 1, there was a significant difference between groups, t(18) = −3.32, p = .004.

Generalization Task 2: Drawing Task The mean number of drawings produced during the usual condition (SD = 4.59) and the unusual condition (SD = 4.60) was 5.10 for both conditions. The condition × sequence interaction was not significant, F(1, 18) = 2.77, p = .113. However, there was a significant main effect for sequence, F(1, 18) = 5.50, p = .031. As shown in Figure 6, participants in Group Unusual–Usual produced significantly more drawings during Session 1 (M = 6.80, SD = 5.49) relative to participants in Group Usual–Unusual (M = 2.60, SD = 2.12), t(18) = −2.26, p = .037. This trend carried over into Session 2, with Group Unusual–Usual (M = 7.60, SD = 5.10) again producing significantly more drawings than Group Usual– Unusual (M = 3.40, SD = 2.84), t(18) = −2.28, p = .035.

EFFECTS OF SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT

639

5

Title Creativity

4

3

2

1

0

Usual

Unusual

Experimental Conditions

Figure 4. Mean title creativity scores for all participants (N = 20) during both experimental conditions. Higher scores indicate greater creativity. There was a significant main effect for condition, F(1, 18) = 11.19, p = .004. 5

Title Creativity

4

3

2 Usual–Unusual 1

0

Unusual–Usual

Session 1

Session 2

Consecutive Sessions Figure 5. Mean title creativity scores for Group Usual–Unusual and Group Unusual–Usual during Sessions 1 and 2. Higher scores indicate greater creativity. In Session 1, there was a significant difference between groups, t(18) = −3.25, p = .004.

Drawing originality was determined by the statistical infrequency of drawing subjects. Therefore, drawings receiving a higher score (i.e., drawing subjects that occurred more frequently in the entire sample of participant drawings) were less original than drawings receiving a lower score (i.e., drawing subjects that occurred less frequently in the entire sample). Although mean originality scores are reported in the text as described, reciprocals of mean scores are presented in Figures 7 and 8 as in studies by Eisenberger and colleagues (e.g., Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Eisenberger et al., 1998). For simplicity of presentation, reciprocals are shown in the figures so that higher scores reflect greater originality. The reciprocal of each mean originality score was determined by dividing the number one by the mean originality score and multiplying that number by 100. The main effect for condition was significant, F(1, 18) = 5.25, p = .034. As shown in Figure 7 (reciprocals presented), participants produced drawings with greater originality during the unusual condition (M = 46.01, SD = 28.61) relative to the usual condition (M = 55.43, SD = 26.75). Additionally, there was a significant condition × sequence interaction,

POLENICK AND FLORA

640

F(1, 18) = 4.80, p = .042. The main effect for sequence was not significant, F(1, 18) = 0.01, p = .925. As with story titles in the first generalization task, scores obtained by Group Unusual–Usual were generally maintained across sessions, regardless of the change in reinforcement contingencies. Figure 8 (reciprocals presented) shows drawing originality across sessions. Although Group Unusual–Usual (M = 51.08, SD = 31.15) produced more original drawings in Session 1 compared to Group Usual–Unusual (M = 59.36, SD = 21.97), these differences were not significant, t(18) = 0.69, p = .501. In Session 2, Group Usual– Unusual (M = 40.94, SD = 26.48) produced more original drawings relative to Group Unusual–Usual (M = 51.49, SD = 31.51), however the difference was not significant, t(18) = −0.81, p = .428. 8 7

Number of Drawings

6

Usual–Unusual Unusual–Usual

5 4 3 2 1 0

Session 1

Session 2

Consecutive Sessions Figure 6. Mean number of drawings for Group Usual–Unusual and Group Unusual–Usual during Sessions 1 and 2. Higher numbers indicate greater creativity. There was a significant main effect for sequence, F(1, 18) = 5.50, p = .031. There was a significant difference between groups in Session 1, t(18) = −2.26, p = .037, and in Session 2, t(18) = −2.28, p = .035. 3

Drawing Originality

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Usual

Unusual

Experimental Conditions Figure 7. Reciprocals of the mean drawing originality scores for all participants (N = 20) during both experimental conditions are presented so that higher scores indicate greater originality. There was a significant main effect for condition, F(1, 18) = 5.25, p = .034.

EFFECTS OF SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT

641

3

Drawing Originality

2.5 2 1.5 Usual–Unusual

1

Unusual–Usual 0.5 0

Session 1

Session 2

Consecutive Sessions Figure 8. Reciprocals of the mean drawing originality scores are presented for Group Usual– Unusual and Group Unusual–Usual during Sessions 1 and 2 so that higher scores indicate greater originality. There was a significant condition × sequence interaction, F(1, 18) = 4.80, p = .042.

Discussion As has been obtained with other populations (e.g., Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001; Goetz & Baer, 1973; Winston & Baker, 1985), these results show that repeated social praise functioning as reinforcement contingent on creative responding increases subsequent creativity in older adults living in a residential care setting. Social praise contingent on creative responses during an initial task was associated with increased creativity in generalization tasks that did not include reinforcement contingencies and did not provide explicit instructions to respond creatively. The finding that increases in creativity were observed in subsequent, unrelated tasks demonstrates a reinforcing effect of social praise and the possible selection of creative responding as a generalized operant. The within-­subjects design allowed for repeated testing measures, so that each participant completed both experimental conditions in a counterbalanced sequence. Group Unusual–Usual showed little decreases in the mean number of titles, title creativity scores, and drawing originality in the second session and displayed an increase in the mean number of drawings. Receiving social praise contingent on unusual responses during the first session may have influenced performance during the second session. According to learned industriousness theory (Eisenberger, 1992), reward should increase creativity if the appropriateness of creative performance has been selected by past experience. Thus, for Group Unusual–Usual, task instructions or reinforcement contingencies from the first session may have affected performance to a greater degree than those delivered during the second session. Conversely, Group Usual–Unusual displayed consistently lower mean scores relative to Group Unusual–Usual on all measures during Session 1. However in Session 2, participants in Group Usual–Unusual exceeded the highest scores obtained by Group Unusual–Usual on all measures except the mean number of drawings produced. This suggests that social reinforcement contingent on unusual uses had a more durable influence on behavior. Although research has indicated that creativity typically declines with increasing age (e.g., McCrae et al., 1987; Reese et al., 2001), this study suggests that creativity may represent a potentially malleable dimension of behavioral responding. Relative to younger adults, older adults typically behave more conventionally and are less likely to be open to new, original ideas (Ruth & Birren, 1985; Zimprich, Allemand, & Dellenbach, 2009). While this may be related to a decreased cognitive capacity to be flexible and creative, it is

642

POLENICK AND FLORA

also likely that older adults generally respond more conventionally because, compared to younger adults, they have a longer reinforcement history for conventional behavior (Skinner & Vaughn, 1983, p. 74). Throughout childhood and into adulthood, conventional (or noncreative) behavior is reinforced more often than unconventional (or creative) behavior (Flora, 2004, p. 80). However, the present findings suggest that individuals may retain the ability to be creative throughout advanced age, even when they currently live in environments that offer few opportunities for creative behavior. The present results and the current literature suggest that environmental conditions that provide opportunities and reinforcement for creative responding may promote future creativity (e.g., Stine-­Morrow et al., 2008; Tranter & Koutstaal, 2008) and may strengthen problem solving and other adaptive skills in older adults (e.g., Fisher & Specht, 1999; Flood & Phillips, 2007). This study provides evidence that social reinforcement contingent on creativity can generalize to increases in measures of creativity during subsequent, unrelated tasks completed by older adults who are currently living in environments that typically present few such opportunities. These findings indicate that it may be possible for creativity to be selected as a generalized operant in older adults living in residential care. Thus, future research may find that increasing creativity in this population also increases independent functioning (e.g., problem solving, decision making). However, even if increasing creativity in a given task does not generalize to increased creativity during everyday activities, opportunities for creative responding can provide older adults living in residential care with new sources of positive reinforcement, thus enriching their environment and enhancing overall quality of life.

References (1992). The dependency-­support script in institutions: Generalization to community settings. Psychology and Aging, 7, 409–418. doi:10.1037//0882-7974.7.3.409 BALTES, M. M., & WAHL, H. W. (1996). Patterns of communication in old age: The dependence-­support and independence-­ignore script. Health Communication, 8, 217–231. doi:10.1207/s15327027hc0803_3 CHOI, N. G., RANSOM, S., & WYLLIE, R. J. (2008). Depression in older nursing home residents: The influence of nursing home environmental stressors, coping, and acceptance of group and individual therapy. Aging and Mental Health, 12, 536–547. doi:10.1080/13607860802343001 EISENBERGER, R. (1992). Learned industriousness. Psychological Review, 99, 248–267. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.99.2.248 EISENBERGER, R., & ARMELI, S. (1997). Can salient reward increase creative performance without reducing intrinsic creative interest? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 652–663. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.72.3.652 EISENBERGER, R., ARMELI, S., & PRETZ, J. (1998). Can the promise of reward increase creativity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 704–714. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.704 EISENBERGER, R., HASKINS, F., & GAMBLETON, P. (1999). Promised reward and creativity: Effects of prior experience. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 308–325. doi:10.1006/jesp.1999.1381 EISENBERGER, R., & RHOADES, L. (2001). Incremental effects of reward on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 728–741. doi:10.1037//00223514.81.4.728 EISENBERGER, R., & SELBST, M. (1994). Does reward increase or decrease creativity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1116–1127. doi:10.1037/00223514.66.6.1116 BALTES, M. M., & WAHL, H. W.

EFFECTS OF SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT

643

(1999). Successful aging and creativity in later life. Journal of Aging Studies, 13, 457–472. doi:10.1016/S0890-4065(99)00021-3 FLOOD, M., & PHILLIPS, K. D. (2007). Creativity in older adults: A plethora of possibilities. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 28, 389–411. doi:10.1080/01612840701252956 FLORA, S. R. (2004). The power of reinforcement. Albany: State University of New York Press. GOETZ, E. M., & BAER, D. M. (1973). Social control of form diversity and the emergence of new forms in children’s blockbuilding. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 209–217. doi:10.1901/jaba.1973.6-209 HANNEMANN, B. T. (2006). Creativity with dementia patients: Can creativity and art stimulate dementia patients positively? Gerontology, 52, 59–65. doi:10.1159/000089827 LINTON, M., & GALLO, P. (1975). The practical statistician. Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole. MCCRAE, R. R., ARENBERG, D., & COSTA, P. T., JR. (1987). Declines in divergent thinking with age: Cross-­sectional, longitudinal, and cross-­sequential analyses. Psychology and Aging, 2, 130–137. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.2.2.130 REESE, H. W., LEE, L., COHEN, S. H., & PUCKETT, J. M., JR. (2001). Effects of intellectual variables, age, and gender on divergent thinking in adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 491–500. RUTH, J., & BIRREN, J. E. (1985). Creativity in adulthood and old age: Relations to intelligence, sex and mode of testing. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 8, 99–109. SKINNER, B. F., & VAUGHN, M. E. (1983). Enjoy old age. New York, NY: Norton. STINE-­MORROW, E. A. L., PARISI, J. M., MORROW, D. G., GREENE, J. C., & PARK, D. C. (2007). An engagement model of cognitive optimization through adulthood. Journal of Gerontology B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62, 62–69. doi:10.1093/geronb/62.special_issue_1.62 STINE-­MORROW, E. A. L., PARISI, J. M., MORROW, D. G., & PARK, D. P. (2008). The effects of an engaged lifestyle on cognitive vitality: A field experiment. Psychology and Aging, 23, 778–786. doi:10.1037/a0014341 TORRANCE, E. P. (1965). Rewarding creative behavior: Experiments in classroom creativity. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. TRANTER, L. J., & KOUTSTAAL, W. (2008). Age and flexible thinking: An experimental demonstration of the beneficial effects of increased cognitively stimulating activity on fluid intelligence in healthy older adults. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 15, 184–207. doi:10.1080/13825580701322163 WINSTON, A. S., & BAKER, J. E.(1985). Behavior analytic studies of creativity: A critical review. The Behavior Analyst, 8, 191–205. ZIMPRICH, D., ALLEMAND, M., & DELLENBACH, M. (2009). Openness to experience, fluid intelligence, and crystallized intelligence in middle-­aged and old adults. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 444–454. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.01.018 FISHER, B. J., & SPECHT, D. K.

POLENICK AND FLORA

644

Appendix Initial Task: Object Uses Object names, standard uses, and nonstandard uses are described below. Nonstandard-use examples were selected from actual participant responses. Object Name pencil

Standard Use making marks on paper (writing or drawing)

Nonstandard-Use Examples using as a conductor’s baton; using as a hair accessory

ruler

measuring items

using as a drumstick; using to retrieve objects from under a couch

rubber band

holding items together

using as a hair band to tie up hair; using as a slingshot

sock

wearing on a foot

making into a puppet; using as a cleaning cloth

car keys

opening a car door or trunk; scratching a scratch-lottery ticket; turning the ignition carving marks on a wood surface

bed sheet

putting on a bed

making a tent; rolling it up to play a game of tug of war

toothbrush

brushing teeth

cleaning the sink or in between tiles; using as a paintbrush

paper clip

holding papers together

making into an earring; using to hang up a holiday ornament

drinking glass

containing liquid for drinking

using as a flower vase; using the bottom of the glass to trace a circle on paper

spoon

scooping food for eating

tapping a glass to make a musical instrument; digging in soil to plant seeds

newspaper

reading

using in an art collage; protecting your head from the rain

hammer

nailing

using as a paperweight; using as a weapon

shoe

wearing on a foot

dipping the sole in paint to make marks on paper; using as a dog toy

screwdriver

rotating screws

using to dig mud out of shoe treads; using as a backscratcher

car tire

putting on the rim of a car (to enable driving the car)

using as a pot for flowers and plants; using as a sled

sheet of paper

writing or drawing

folding up and putting under an uneven table leg; using as a bookmark

butter knife

spreading butter or other edible spreads

using as a screwdriver; using to pry open a lid

brown paper grocery bag

containing groceries

using to wrap a gift; wearing over your head as a disguise

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.