| Abstract: | Attempted to test the A-B "complementarity" hypothesis. It was predicted that dyadic groups composed of dissimilar A-B pairs would perform better than dyadic groups composed of similar pairs. 40 male undergraduates and 4 male senior-class Es were studied in a verbal conditioning task because of its long-established acceptance as a technique for the testing of interactional personality and therapy variables. In that paradigm, however, a "similarity" hypothesis has been suggested as a possible explanation of "therapeutic effectiveness." A-type Ss conditioned significantly better than B-type Ss regardless of any other factor. Bs decreased their use of the reinforced response class over trials to a degree that was almost significant. The present findings, although not supporting an interactional explanation, support studies that have shown A types to be more facile and active verbally, and to be more sensitive to social cues, than Bs. (15 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
