Function-altering effects of contingency-specifying stimuli

Contingengy-specifying stimuli (CSSs) can function differently than discriminative stimuli. Rather than evoking behavior due to a history of discrimination training, they alter the function of other stimuli and, therefore, the behavioral relations involving those stimuli. CSSs can alter the evocative function of discriminative stimuli, establishing operations, and conditional stimuli, as well as the efficacy of reinforcing and punishing stimuli and of stimuli that can function in second-order respondent conditioning. The concept of function-altering CSSs has implications for such areas of interest as stimulus equivalence, the terminology involving "rules" and "rule-governed behavior," and the way in which behavior analysts view the effects of such basic processes as reinforcement and punishment.     

The Therapeutic Effect of Physical Fitness on Measures of Personality: A Literature Review

The authors review the literature concerning the effects of physical fitness on various measures of personality and offer specific suggestions for future research in this area.     

The Nature of Preference: A Response to Grantham and Gordon

Grantham and Gordon (1986) contended that preference was inadequately understood as a construct and that a more incisive conceptualization was needed to promote research and theoretical considerations. We contend that their offering adds to the terminological confusion. A brief critique of Grantham and Gordon's notions and an alternative conceptualization and schema are offered.     

Abuse and Older Persons: Issues and Implications for Counselors

Counselors can play a vital role in addressing the needs of increasing numbers of older persons subject to and at risk for abuse from their families, caretakers, and themselves.     

Effects of voir dire variations in capital trials: A replication and extension

With a sample of 18 capital cases tried in Kentucky, South Carolina, and California, we attempted to replicate an earlier study which showed that significantly more defense challenges for cause were granted under conditions of sequestered, individual voir dire than when voir dire was conducted under less enhanced conditions. In the current sample, sequestered, individual voir dire again resulted in more defense removals for cause than obtained with less extensive voir dire. We present data on the defense removals for cause partitioned into five categories according to the reason for the challenge and analyze the effects of jury selection consultants on the various indices of voir dire as well as final sentence.