Patterning of infant vocal behavior

Three-month-old infants received two consecutive 5-minute periods of adult social stimulation. In both periods the adult talked, smiled, and touched the infant and in a natural manner tried to elicit vocalizations from the infant. In the first period the adult became unresponsive for 5 sec contingent upon each infant vocalization (time-out, negative reinforcement). In the second period the infant received the same number of time-out periods at the same intervals but independently of vocal responding (yoked, noncontingent control). Negative reinforcement did not suppress infant vocal rate, but the contingent withdrawal of social stimulation did cause the infant to pause more frequently between vocal responses. These pauses generally occurred immediately after the contingently, as compared with the noncontingently, delivered time-out period. The infant appears to recognize the difference between contingent and noncontingent stimulation and pauses after the occurrence of the former. Adult social reinforcement changes the pattern and not the rate of infant vocal responding.     

Evaluation of infant vocal conditioning.

The use of the operant conditioning paradigm, as it has been applied to infant social, vocal behavior, reflects a failure to take into account the social nature of human infants over and above the rigid theoretical rationale of the paradigm. It is argued that: (1) the baseline procedure used in operant conditioning studies is methodologically and conceptually invalid; (2) the reinforcing stimulus used in social conditioning studies elicits the very response that it is assigned to reinforce; and (3) the effect of the response-reinforcer relationship is not the reinforcement (strengthening) of vocal response rate.     

Blocking of a taste aversion by prior pairings of exteroceptive stimuli with illness

Although rats preferentially associate gustatory stimuli with illness, this does not imply that other types of stimuli cannot be associated with illness. In Experiment 1, rats consuming tap water in a distinctive environment prior to illness subsequently suppressed ingestion in that environment, whereas rats poisoned or injected with saline 10 hr later did not. It was also found that rats poisoned after drinking saccharin in the environment paired with illness developed weaker saccharin aversions than identically trained rats which drank saccharin in a different location. In Experiment 2, degrading the correlation between injection-related cues and illness by interpolating saline injections between LiCl preexposures attenuated the decremental effects of illness preexposure. The strength of the exteroceptive cue-illness associations observed in these studies suggests that theories based on evolutionary arguments are not the most appropriate frame of reference for analyzing stimulus selection in poison-induced avoidance.     

Stimulus control of spatial behavior on the eight-arm maze in rats

Rats were trained on an eight-arm, elevated radial maze in a large cylindrical chamber where extramaze stimuli could be manipulated. The first experiment indicated that rats could use extramaze stimuli to locate the arms if such stimuli were available, whereas they performed less effectively and tended to employ response chaining if these stimuli were not available. The second experiment demonstrated that maze performance was disrupted by transposition of the stimuli but was relatively unaffected by rotation of the same stimuli. The third experiment suggested that the disruptive effect of stimulus transposition might be due to a “resetting” process elicited by the alteration in the configuration of the stimuli after stimulus transposition. These results suggest that when extramaze stimuli are available, rats tend to use such stimuli in a configurational manner to locate the arms rather than as a list of items processed independently of their spatial relationships to each other.     

Sign-tracking behavior in aversive conditioning: Its acquisition via a Pavlovian mechanism and its suppression by operant contingencies

When rats are presented with Pavlovian backward pairings in which shock is the unconditioned stimulus (US) and an elevated platform the conditioned stimulus (CS), they show a strong tendency to approach the platform. Attempts were made at evaluating the nature of the associative mechanisms responsible for the acwuisition and maintenance of the approach behavior. In Experiment 1, following a baseline period when platform presentations were given in the absence of shocks, first (training I), approach to the platform was prevented and subjects were exposed to either backward, forward, or random presentations of shock and platform: this procedure attempted to minimize the effects of response learning on the acquisition of approach behavior. Then (training II), all subjects received backward shock-platform pairings and had access to the platform. Approach to the platform was stronger in animals previously exposed to backward pairings than in the animals of the other two groups. Also, animals preexposed to forward platform-shock pairings showed suppression of approach behavior on the first trial of training II relative to their performance on the last trial of baseline. These data suggest that a stimulus-reinforcer learning mechanism alone is sufficent for the acquisition of approach. Experiments 2a and 2b evaluated the effects of “punishing” operant contingencies on Pavlovian-produced approach behavior. The results showed that approach can be eliminated, but only after repeated exposure to an operant contingency which consisted of the immediate closure of the platform upon approach responding. These data suggest that approach behavior produced by Pavlovian contingencies can be modified by operant contingencies. Taken together, these data provide additional support for a sign-tracking notion in aversive conditioning.     

Sign-tracking in aversive conditioning

Two experiments were conducted to determine if rats tend to avoid contact with a stimulus that signals the occurrence of shock and contact a stimulus that signals the nonoccurrence of shock. The conditioned stimulus was a 60-sec platform presentation, and the unconditioned stimulus was a 2-sec inescapable shock. In each experiment, the emphasis was on two types of Pavlovian pairings: forward pairing in which each platform presentation was followed by shock, and backward pairing in which each platform presentation was preceded by shock and followed by a lengthy shock-free interval. Experiment 1 showed that in comparison with Random and CS-only procedures, the backward procedure produced a significant increase in approach and contact with the platform, but the forward procedure failed to produce a significant decrease in contact with the platform. Experiment 2, in which all groups were roughly equated for baseline levels of platform preference, demonstrated strong effects of both forward and backward conditioning. The experiments provide evidence for an aversive sign-tracking system in which animals' tendencies to withdraw from or approach and contact a platform CS are determined by the Pavlovian contingencies which render it a reliable signal for the occurrence or nonoccurrence of shock.     

Operant and Pavlovian factors in cross-response transfer of inhibitory stimulus control

Experiment 1 used a within-response procedure to compare inhibitory stimulus control of the extinction cue in multiple variable interval-extinction (mult VI EXT) and the variable time cue in multiple variable interval-variable time (mult VI VT). Experiment 2A made the same comparison using a crossresponse procedure. In addition, Experiment 2A also tested the extinction cue in multiple variable time-extinction (mult VT EXT), and Experiment 2B tested the variable time cue in mult VT EXT. Unlike the mult VI EXT and mult VI VT conditions, the mult VT EXT condition was administered in the absence of a response manipulandum. The main findings of the present study were: (1) cross-response suppression by the variable time cue in mult VI VT; (2) greater response suppression by the extinction cue in mult VI EXT than by either the variable time cue in mult VI VT or the extinction cue in mult VT EXT; and (3) response facilitation by the variable time cue in mult VT EXT. These findings indicate that inhibitory stimulus control based on an operant source (i.e., absence of an R-S contingency) does transfer across responses, and that such transfer cannot be explained in terms of competing responses. These findings also indicate that operant and Pavlovian sources of stimulus control summate algebraically to determine the inhibitory strength of the extinction cue in mult VI EXT. Finally, the third finding is not consistent with notions that emphasize the importance of location and localization of cues explicitly paired with positive events.     

Distinguishing between social reinforcement and social elicitation

The theoretical, procedural, analytic, and interpretive components of Poulson's (1983, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 36, 471–489) study were considered in an effort to clarify the distinction between social reinforcement and social elicitation. Contrary to Poulson's contention, DRO was not, and cannot by definition be, a control for reinforcement. More importantly, the speciestypical, social nature of the infant probably reflects the collaborative influence of elicitation and reinforcement. By carefully unravelling these two interacting processes, future conditioning studies might specially enhance our knowledge of early social development.     

Forms of social awareness and helping

People encounter situations from different forms of awareness; that is, they can attend to different focal topics (e.g., self, other person, or other person's situation) from different perspectives (e.g., the self's viewpoint, the other person's viewpoint). Two studies assessed whether brief interactions would produce different forms of social awareness, whether the form of awareness would persist to a subsequent interaction, and whether it would influence helping in that encounter. Pedestrians on a city sidewalk were induced to become self-focused (experimenter took their picture), become other-focused (they took experimenter's picture), or empathically adopt the perspective of another person (they advised experimenter where to take a picture). In Study 1, subjects were interviewed after leaving the experimenter. First- and third-person pronoun use and self-ratings suggested that subjects had different forms of awareness. In Study 2, pedestrians participated in one of the same three interaction conditions or a control noninteraction condition and subsequently encountered a confederate in need of help. Subjects in the self-focused and empathic condition helped more than subjects in the other-focused or control condition. Results suggest that forms of awareness created in a brief interaction do persist to subsequent interactions and influence helping. Other variables may influence helping by altering forms of social awareness.     

Driven by distraction: An integrative review of social facilitation theory and research

Social facilitation refers to the enhancement of an organism's dominant responses by the simple physical presence of species-mates, independent of any informational or interactional influences the others may exert. This phenomenon represents the consequences of the most elementary transition from a nonsocial to a social environment, and is one of the first research areas in experimental social psychology. The present analysis examines the status of three different explanations for socially facilitated behavior. Substantial weaknesses exist in the propositions that the presence of others elicits a reflexive alertness or preparedness response (Mere Presence) and that the presence of others increases drive through classically conditioned anticipations of positive and negative outcomes (Learned Drive). A third proposition argues for increased drive due to response conflict involving incompatible tendencies to attend to others and to ongoing task requirements (Distraction/Conflict). The basic assumptions of the Distraction/Conflict hypothesis are found to have considerable empirical support, and a wide variety of apparently anamolous results are integrated into the attentional conflict framework. Finally, a synthesis of the three approaches is proposed wherein slightly modified versions of the Mere Presence and Learned Drive theories serve to specify two common antecedents for the arousal of attentional conflict (the Attentional Processes model). Connections between the Attentional Processes model and past and future research are explored.     

Distraction and social comparison as mediators of social facilitation effects

Sanders and Baron (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 956–963) suggested that increases in drive produced by the presence of others (social facilitation) are due to the tendency for others to distract task performers as they worked on a task. This Distraction-Conflict theory proposes that socially mediated drive induction will occur whenever there is some reason to shift attention from the task to the social stimuli. In the case of humans, one such reason may be the opportunity to obtain social comparison information from an audience or coactors. The present research demonstrated that social facilitation effects (improved simple task performance and impaired complex task performance produced by the presence of others) occurred only when subjects were motivated to obtain comparison information (Experiment I) and when comparison information was available (Experiment II). The availability of comparison information also led to increased accuracy in estimating the coactor's performance. This indicated that in conditions manifesting social facilitation, subjects were spending some time monitoring the coactor's work, which is an inherently distracting activity. Several supplementary measures of distraction were generally consistent in indicating greater distraction under conditions manifesting social facilitation. The present results offer no support for the explanations of social facilitation suggested by Zajonc and by Cottrell.     

Abstract and concrete data in the perseverance of social theories: When weak data lead to unshakeable beliefs

The perseverance effect—the finding that people cling to their initial beliefs more strongly than appears warranted—has been demonstrated in a wide variety of settings. The existing explanation of the effect implies that beliefs based on concrete data should be more resistant to challenges than beliefs based on abstract data. The present studies compared the amount of belief perseverance when the beliefs were initially based on either abstract or concrete data. Subjects examined either two case histories (concrete data) or a statistical summary (abstract data) suggestive of either a positive or a negative relationship between fire fighter trainees' level of preference for high risk and their subsequent success as firefighters. These data sets were equated for the initial strength of beliefs they induced. Subjects were the thoroughly debriefed about the fictitious nature of their initial data. Subsequent assessments of subjects' personal beliefs about the true relationship revealed (a) significant levels of theory perseverance both immediately and 1 week later; (b) significantly more perseverance in the concrete data conditions, both immediately and 1 week later. Experiment 2 revealed that subjects frequently engage in causal processing spontaneously, especially when examining concrete data. Overall, the data suggested that memory for initial data did not contribute to the abstract/concrete effects, but that the generation of general, causal explanations did contribute to the stronger perseverance of theories in the concrete conditions.     

Attitude bolstering when behavior is inconsistent with central attitudes

An experiment was conducted to study the effects of behaving inconsistently with a central attitude. In a theoretical account, it is suggested that subjects who score high on a feminism scale and who fail to solve a sex-role problem and thus demonstrate sexist thinking will be motivated to adopt feminist (nonsexist) behavior more than subjects who are either lower in feminism or who don't fail such a problem. Since the attitude is central, attitude bolstering rather than change in the direction of the behavior should be the preferred mode of inconsistency reduction for such subjects. Bolstering, in the form of positive affirmative action decisions, was generally demonstrated by subjects who failed the sex-role problem. This effect was more pronounced for those highest in feminism. No such effects on affirmative action decisions were observed for subjects who didn't fail the sex-role problem. Results support the view that threats to one's self-image caused by one's own counter-attitudinal actions lead to attempts to reestablish those threatened values. A conceptual analysis of the conditions under which bolstering rather than attitude change in the direction of the behavior should be expected is presented.     

Transfer of a response controlling stimulus duration across discrimination problems

In the acquisition phase, pigeons learned to peck at a changeover key to shorten the duration of S? but not of S+ presented on the food key in a discrimination problem. In the transfer phase, the significance of S+ and S? was changed through extinction of both, equal reinforcement, or discrimination reversal, while the changeover key was not available. Transfer tests then showed appropriate modification of the changeover response. Similar transfer was demonstrated across orthogonal stimulus dimensions. Further analytic studies showed that this transfer of the changeover response did not depend upon mediation due to differential response rates to the food key. This research strategy enriches the study of the “second learning process” by providing an indicator of stimulus control in all phases of the procedure. Direct transfer between different problems also indicates that discriminative stimuli, although physically dissimilar, have the same “psychological value” for the subject.     

The effect of S− on observing behavior

Eight pigeons were run on a one-key, discrete-trials observing procedure. Pecks during a trial produced S⁺ and S^?, colored key lights which signalled whether the trial would end with response-independent grain reinforcement or nonreinforcement. S⁺ and S^? were produced on a VI schedule which began operating at the onset of the trial. In the main experimental condition, only a response preceded by at least 6 sec of nonresponding could produce S^? on nonreinforced trials; any response which satisfied the VI requirement produced S⁺ on reinforced trials. This procedure allowed the birds to produce S⁺ on reinforced trials with or without producing S^? on nonreinforced trials. The subjects learned to produce fewer S^?s over sessions, indicating that S^? had a punishing effect on observing. The results were taken as evidence for the conditioned reinforcement hypothesis of observing and against the uncertainty reduction hypothesis.     

Psychological relations and psychophysical scales: On the status of “direct” psychophysical measurement

Arguments, originally developed some fifteen years ago, concerning the sort of “direct” psychophysical measurement advocated by S. S. Stevens are reproduced here in order to facilitate access by a wider audience. Considerations of measurement theory, biological adaptation, perceptual invariance, and neurophysiological noise, as well as various empirical results, suggest (a) that it is primarily the relations—particularly the ratios—between stimulus magnitudes and not the individual magnitudes themselves that are represented within the organism and, accordingly, (b) that “direct” psychophysical measurement, by itself, uniquely determines neither a psychological magnitude of any one stimulus nor a psychophysical law relating such psychological magnitudes to corresponding physical magnitudes. What such measurement can uniquely determine, evidently, is a psychological parameter characterizing each sensory continuum.     

The infant's acquisition of knowledge of bimodally specified events

Four-month-old infants viewed, for a duration of several minutes, two objects that bounced in synchrony with two percussion sounds. This synchrony was the only information tying each sound to its respective object. During the viewing the infants learned about the relationships between sound and object. Learning was revealed in two ways. In a search test, infants looked for an object when its sound was played. In a transfer test, infants' declining interest in a sound presented alone generalized to the visible object that the sound specified. Studies that reversed the spatial locations of the objects revealed that sound-object learning, rather than place or response learning, guided infants' perceptual exploration.     

Visual dominance in inhibitory conditioning in the pigeon

In a conditioned inhibition paradigm (A+, B+, AX?_, pigeons received either of two keylight stimuli reliably followed by food (A+, B+). However, when one of these keylights was accompanied by another stimulus, food did not follow (AX?). For some groups, the putative inhibitor was a tone, whereas for others it was illumination of a red houselight. The birds pecked the A and B stimuli at a high rate. When X was red houselight, the birds pecked A at a much lower rate in the presence of X. When X was a tone, discrimination between A and AX was much poorer. Moreover, in a transfer test, red houselight inhibited responding to the other keylight, B, but tone did not. These results indicate that red houselight becomes a conditioned inhibitor more quickly than tone in appetitive situations, just as red houselight becomes a conditioned excitor more quickly in those situations. These results contradict the assertion that the latter outcome occurs because red houselight is a stronger appetitive excitor than tone at the start of the experiment (the “head start” hypothesis).