ALTRUISM: TOWARD A PSYCHOBIOSPIRITUAL CONCEPTUALIZATION

Altruism, defined here as a regard for or devotion to the interest of others with whom we are interrelated, is pitted against two other dispositions in human beings: nepotism and egoism. We propose that to become fully human is to become more altruistic. We describe how altruism is mediated by our physiology, is expressed in our psychological development, is evolving in our social institutions, and becomes the moral communities that enforce our sense of right and wrong. A change in any one of these influences changes our disposition—changes who we are and what we do—potentially making altruism more possible in the world.     

Effect of instructional units on the analysis of related and unrelated skills

84 majors in elementary education were divided into three groups, one control group and two experimental groups. The control group received no instruction in skill analysis while the experimental groups were instructed via videotape in either the instep kick in soccer or in throwing, catching, and striking skills. All three groups were given a skill-analysis test composed of throwing, catching, and striking skills. Statistical analysis yielded significant effect for those who viewed the throwing, catching, and striking videotape. No effect was found for the control group or the group who viewed the soccer-instep videotape. The results suggest specificity may be as important in skill analysis as in acquisition.     

A comparison of generalization functions and frame of reference effects in different training paradigms.

Six experiments were carried out to compare go/no-go and choice paradigms for studying the effects of intradimensional discrimination training on subsequent measures of stimulus generalization in human subjects. Specifically, the purpose was to compare the two paradigms as means of investigating generalization gradient forms and frame of reference effects. In Experiment 1, the stimulus dimension was visual intensity (brightness); in Experiment 2, it was line orientation (line-angle stimuli). After learning to respond (or to respond "right") to stimulus value (SV) 4 and not to respond (or to respond "left") to SV2 (in Experiment 1) or SV1 (in Experiment 2), the subjects were tested for generalization (recognition) with an asymmetrical set of values ranging from SV1 to SV11. Go/no-go training produced peaked gradients, whereas choice training produced sigmoid gradients. The asymmetrical testing resulted in a gradual shift of the peak of responding (go/no-go group) or in the point of subjective indifference (PSI; choice group) toward the central value of the test series; thus, both paradigms revealed a frame of reference effect. The results were comparable for the quantitative (intensity) and the qualitative (line-angle) stimulus dimensions. Experiment 3 compared the go/no-go procedure with a yes/no procedure in which subjects responded "right" to SV4 and "left" to all other intensities and found no differences between these procedures. Thus the difference in gradient forms in go/no as opposed to (traditional) choice paradigms depends on whether one or two target stimuli are used in training. In Experiment 4, in which visual intensity was used, the shift in the PSI following choice training varied positively with the range of asymmetrical test stimuli employed. In Experiment 5, also with visual intensity, the magnitude of the peak shift following go/no-go training varied as a function of overrepresenting a high or a low stimulus value during generalization testing. Experiment 6, with line angles, showed that the PSI following choice training varies in a similar way. The frame of reference effects obtained in these experiments are consistent with an adaptation-level model.     

A comparison of generalization functions and frame of reference effects in different training paradigms

Six experiments were carried out to compare go/no-go and choice paradigms for studying the effects of intradimensional discrimination training on subsequent measures of stimulus generalization in human subjects. Specifically, the purpose was to compare the two paradigms as means of investigating generalization gradient forms and frame of reference effects. In Experiment 1, the stimulus dimension was visual intensity (brightness); in Experiment 2, it was line orientation (line-angle stimuli). After learning to respond (or to respond “right”) to stimulus value (SV) 4 and not to respond (or to respond “left”) to SV2 (in Experiment 1) or SV1 (in Experiment 2), the subjects were tested for generalization (recognition) with an asymmetrical set of values ranging from SV1 to SV11. Go/no-go training produced peaked gradients, whereas choice training produced sigmoid gradients. The asymmetrical testing resulted in a gradual shift of the peak of responding (go/no-go group) or in the point of subjective indifference (PSI; choice group) toward. the central value of the test series; thus, both paradigms revealed a frame of reference effect. The results were comparable for the quantitative (intensity) and the qualitative (line-angle) stimulus dimensions. Experiment 3 compared the go/no-go procedure with a yes/no procedure in which subjects responded “right” to SV4 and “left” to all other intensities and found no differences between these procedures. Thus the difference in gradient forms in go/no as opposed to (traditional) choice paradigms depends on whether one or two target stimuli are used in training. In Experiment 4, in which visual intensity was used, the shift in the PSI following choice training varied positively with the range of asymmetrical test stimuli employed. In Experiment 5, also with visual intensity, the magnitude of the peak shift following go/no-go training varied as a function of over representing a high or a low stimulus value during generalization testing. Experiment 6, with line angles, showed that the PSI following choice training varies in a similar way. The frame of reference effects obtained in these experiments are consistent with an adaptation-level model.