Up or down: the influence of upcoming reinforcement on consummatory and operant behavior

Research has shown that animal subjects that are given a chance to consume a low-valued substance will consume less of it if a high-valued substance will soon be available than they would if the low-valued substance were to remain available (negative consummatory contrast). Research has also shown that subjects that lever press for a low-valued reinforcer will press the lever more often for that reinforcer if they will soon be able to lever press for a high-valued reinforcer than they would if they continue to press for the low-valued reinforcer (positive induction). The present study investigated these different changes in behavior across 3 experiments. The results suggest that the occurrence of contrast or induction does not depend on the type of substances that are used. We argue that further investigation of the contrast vs. induction issue is warranted because it has empirical, theoretical, and applied implications.     

Crowded minds: the implicit bystander effect

Five studies merged the priming methodology with the bystander apathy literature and demonstrate how merely priming a social context at Time 1 leads to less helping behavior on a subsequent, completely unrelated task at Time 2. In Study 1, participants who imagined being with a group at Time 1 pledged significantly fewer dollars on a charity-giving measure at Time 2 than did those who imagined being alone with one other person. Studies 2-5 build converging evidence with hypothetical and real helping behavior measures and demonstrate that participants who imagine the presence of others show facilitation to words associated with unaccountable on a lexical decision task. Implications for social group research and the priming methodology are discussed.     

The predictive capacity of the MMPI-2 and PAI validity scales and indexes to detect coached and uncoached feigning

The objective of this study was to examine the relative effectiveness of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) validity scales and indexes to detect malingering. Research participants were either informed (coached) or not informed (uncoached) about the presence and operating characteristics of the validity scales and instructed to fake bad on both the MMPI-2 and PAI. The validity scale and index scores produced by these research participants were then compared to those scores from a bona fide sample of psychiatric patients (n = 75). Coaching had no effect on the ability of the research participants to feign more successfully than those participants who received no coaching. For the MMPI-2, the Psychopathology F scale, or F(p), proved to be the best at distinguishing psychiatric patients from research participants instructed to malinger, although the other F scales (i.e., F and Fb) were also effective. For the PAI, the Rogers Discriminant Function index (RDF) was clearly superior to the other PAI fake-bad validity indicators; neither the Negative Impression Management scale nor Malingering Index were effective at detecting malingered profiles in this study. Overall, RDF proved to be marginally superior to F and F(p) in distinguishing MMPI-2 and PAI protocols produced by research participants asked to malinger and psychiatric patients. Both the RDF and the F and F(p) scales, however, were able to increase the predictive capability of one another.     

Further evidence of a robust point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions

Four experiments were conducted to test possible limits on the previously demonstrated point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions. Study 1 showed that deliberation did not eliminate the bias. Study 2 showed that forewarning did not eliminate the bias. Study 3 showed that directing greater attention to the content of the confession did not eliminate the bias. Study 4 showed that using a lengthier, case-based confession also did not eliminate the bias. Taken together, this research clearly indicates that the legal system needs to be concerned with the potential for bias that exists in videotaped confessions. This research was supported by funds from the Ohio Board of Regents and the National Science Foundation (BNS-8911067 and SBR-9514966). We thank Kevin Apple, Kim Dudley, Kelly Kinnison, Melanie LaForce, Matthew Leafgren, Richelle Newvahner, Laurie Olsen, John Ray, Alicia Santuzzi, Jason Secondi, and Katie Strieker for their contributions to various aspects of the research. With the exception of Lassiter, order of authorship is alphabetical.     

Evolutionary perspectives on imitation: is a comparative psychology of social learning possible?

Studies of imitation in animals have become numerous in recent times, but do they contribute to a comparative psychology of social learning? We review this burgeoning field to identify the problems and prospects for such a goal. Difficulties of two main kinds are identified. First, researchers have tackled questions about social learning from at least three very different theoretical perspectives, the "phylogenetic", "animal model", and "adaptational". We examine the conflicts between them and consider the scope for integration. A second difficulty arises in the methodological approaches used in the discipline. In relation to one of these - survey reviews of published studies - we tabulate and compare the contrasting conclusions of nine articles that together review 36 studies. The basis for authors' disagreements, including the matters of perceptual opacity, novelty, sequential structure, and goal representation, are examined. In relation to the other key method, comparative experimentation, we identify 12 studies that have explicitly compared species' imitative ability on similar tasks. We examine the principal problems of comparing like with like in these studies and consider solutions, the most powerful of which we propose to be the use of a systematic range of task designs, rather than any single "gold standard" task.     

Validation of the dimensional factor structure of the personality psychopathology five in clinical and nonclinical samples

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine whether the latent structure underlying the items composing the MMPI-2 Personality Psychopathology Five scales (PSY-5; Harkness, McNulty, & Ben-Porath, 1995) is representative of the theoretical model that informed their construction. Results from the CFA revealed a good fit between the hypothesized five-factor model and the obtained latent factor structure in both clinical (n = 284) and nonclinical (n = 351) samples. Moreover, the PSY-5 model proved to be a better fit than a random five-factor model and a one-factor model. Correlations between the PSY-5 scales and a set of MMPI-2 (DSM-IV) personality disorder scales provided additional evidence of convergent and discriminant validity.     

Perceived dysfunction of male-typed and female-typed DSM-IV personality disorder criteria

To determine whether female-typed personality disorders are associated with a different pattern of dysfunction than male-typed disorders, lay judges (N = 216) estimated the amount of social impairment, occupational impairment, and personal distress related to symptoms of personality disorders. Results for both the subset of six disorders originally rated by clinician judges in the research of Funtowicz and Widiger (1999) and for a larger set of nine disorders revealed a pattern originally reported by Funtowicz and Widiger where female-typed disorders were associated with relatively higher ratings of personal distress, whereas male-typed disorders were associated with relatively higher ratings of social (and sometimes occupational) impairment. Findings are discussed with respect to the emphasis of different forms of dysfunction for male- and female-typed disorders, lay versus clinician judgments, and directions for future research.