Explanation and the theory of questions

In The Scientific Image B. C. van Fraassen argues that a theory of explanation ought to take the form of a theory of why-questions, and a theory of this form is what he provides. Van Fraassen's account of explanation is good, as far as it goes. In particular, van Fraassen's theory of why-questions adds considerable illumination to the problem of alternative explanations in psychodynamics. But van Fraassen's theory is incomplete because it ignores those classes of explanations that are answers not to why-questions but to how-questions. In this article I provide a unified theory of explanatory questions that comprehends both how-questions and why-questions, and I show that a question-theoretic approach to explanation can be defended independently of van Fraassen's programme of Constructive Empiricism.     

Intelligence and the Frontal Lobe: The Organization of Goal-Directed Behavior

Basic to the study of individual differences is the concept of “general intelligence” or Spearman'sg.In this article we suggest thatgis largely a reflection of the control functions of the frontal lobe. A series of experiments investigates a phenomenon we callgoal neglect:disregard of a task requirement even though it has been understood and remembered. Subjectively it is as though the neglected requirement “slips the subject's mind.” Previously described in frontal patients, we show that goal neglect can also be seen in some members of the normal population. In line with conventional distinctions between controlled and automatic processing, eliciting conditions for goal neglect include novelty, weak error feedback, and multiple concurrent task requirements. Under these conditions neglect is linked closely togand extremely common after frontal lesions. Following many other models, we suggest that behavior in any task is structured by a set of action constraints or requirements, derived in part from verbal instructions and specified at multiple levels of abstraction. A frontal process of constraint or requirement activation is fundamental to Spearman'sg.     

Eyewitness testimony and memory distortion

Abstract: Do memories change as we acquire new information? Recent research on memory distortion using implicit tests along with research using confidence is reviewed and new studies are presented. Two new studies asked misinformed subjects to provide reasons for their answers. In each study 15% to 27% of subjects said they remembered seeing items they had only read about. In another study subjects were asked to identify the source of misleading items they had seen in slides or read in misleading questions. Subjects were more likely to say they had seen in slides something they read about in the questions than they were to confuse information from two nearly identical sets of slides. Recent work shows that, not only is it possible to distort memory for events, it is possible to implant an entire memory for something that never happened. The evidence is now clear that we can become mentally tricked into making large as well as small changes in the way we recall the past.     

Victim-Blaming and Society-Blaming Scales for Social Problems

Until now, no general scales have been available for measuring victim or society blaming. This constraint has been an impediment to policymaking with regard to those who are affected by social problems. Four scales were constructed: stable victim-blaming scale, unstable victim-blaming scale, stable society-blaming scale, and unstable society-blaming scale. Based on the results of the preliminary exploratory factor analysis and the reliability coefficients, the unstable society-blaming scale was deleted from further analysis. Then, a confirmatory factor analysis using the LISREL 7 program was conducted to evaluate the parameter estimates of the scale items and examine the construct validity of the 3 scales. The scales were judged to have construct validity with satisfactory reliability.     

THE TREATMENT OF COVERT SELF-INJURY THROUGH CONTINGENCIES ON RESPONSE PRODUCTS

Assessment and treatment of covert self-injurious behavior are complicated because it is difficult to quantify and apply differential consequences to covert responses. In this study, both tangible and social reinforcers were identified using reinforcer assessment methods. These reinforcers were then provided contingent upon the absence of tissue damage identified during physical examinations, resulting in near 100% success in physical assessment checks that was maintained over 10 months.     

THE EFFECTS OF CONTINGENT AND NONCONTINGENT ATTENTION ON SELF-INJURY AND SELF-RESTRAINT

Self-restraint and self-injurious behavior (SIB) are two responses that can sometimes be members of the same functional response class (i.e., maintained by the same contingency). In such cases, a single treatment should be effective for both responses. In this investigation, we examined the effects of providing attention (the presumed reinforcer) both noncontingently and contingent upon either SIB or self-restraint. Results were consistent with our hypothesis that both responses were maintained by attention and suggested that noncontingent reinforcement was a potentially effective treatment.     

A PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT-BASED PROCEDURES

In the current investigation, a modification was made to the preference assessment described by Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, and Page (1985) to predict the effects of stimuli when used in a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (DRO) schedule for 2 clients with severe self-injurious behavior (SIB) and profound mental retardation. Based on the results of the preference assessment, three types of stimuli were identified: (a) high-preference stimuli associated with high rates of SIB (HP/HS), (b) high-preference stimuli associated with relatively lower rates of SIB (HP/LS), and (c) low-preference stimuli associated with low rates of SIB (LP/LS). Consistent with the results of the preference assessment, the DRO schedule with HP/HS stimuli resulted in increased SIB, and the DRO schedule with LP/LS stimuli resulted in no changes in SIB. HP/LS stimuli were demonstrated reinforcers but did not result in a change in SIB when used in a DRO schedule. Thus, the stimulus preference assessment may be useful clinically in some situations for predicting both the beneficial and the negative side effects of stimuli in DRO procedures.