The role of error-correction procedures in the reinforcement of errors

In Study I three different error-correction procedures and a trial-and-error procedure were implemented in a Japanese word/phrase receptive identification task. Training procedures differed in the specific type of error that evoked error-correction feedback. Outcomes indicated that when the error-correction consequence was contingent on incorrect responses, incorrect responses predominated initially. When this feedback consequence followed no response, non-responding initially prevailed. Task mastery was achieved in fewer trials with error-correction procedures than with the no prompt/trial-and-error. However, post-mastery probes I week after mastery indicated retention was greater for participants in the trial-and-error training condition. These patterns indicated that the feedback prompt itself could be functioning as a positive reinforcer. Demonstration of this effect would have been more definitive had individual participants been exposed to each experimental condition, and the limited number of participants in the trial-and-error group weakened conclusions from Study 1. These outcomes necessitated procedural replication. The initial question remained unanswered: if feedback were delivered contingent on trainee request and not contingent on errors, how would this affect errors and retention? Study 2, with a prompt-request ('Show me') answered this question. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.