An Apple II-based slide-projector laboratory

We describe the software and hardware of a laboratory running under UCSD Pascal on an Apple II computer. The system includes: two random-access projectors and two standard projectors, all equipped with tachistoscopic shutters; two filter wheels; a voice key; a tone generator; and eight response boxes. The laboratory can be used for any experiment in which visual stimuli are to be presented and in which precise display times, reaction times, and luminances are required. It is particularly well suited to picture-perception and picture-memory experiments.     

Temporal factors influencing the pigeon's successive matching-to-sample performance: sample duration, intertrial interval, and retention interval

A successive matching-to-sample procedure that entails the sequential presentation of sample and test stimuli and the monitoring of response rates in a go/no-go discrimination of matching and nonmatching stimuli was studied as an alternative to the familiar delayed-matching paradigm of animal short-term memory. Three within-subject experiments studied the effects of sample duration (1 to 12 seconds), intertrial interval (5 to 50 seconds), and retention interval (1 to 50 seconds) on the pigeon's successive-matching performance. The results revealed that retention was (a) an increasing function of sample duration and intertrial interval, and (b) a decreasing function of retention interval. These results were in accord with those of more traditional short-term memory paradigms, and reveal the suitability of the successive-matching procedure for studying memory processes.     

Effect of multiple images on associative learning

The present research investigated the effects of multiple images on associative learning. In Experiment 1, subjects formed either a noninteractive image of two words, a single interactive image, a multiple interactive image consisting of multiple copies of the same image, or a multiple interactive image consisting of different images. In Experiment 2, the different multiple images were formed across trials instead of simultaneously during the same trial. Both experiments showed that, although interactive images are superior to noninteractive images, there is no reliable facilitation from multiple images as compared with single images. The results were discussed in terms of the variable-encoding hypothesis and previous findings that multiple retrieval paths facilitate verbal learning.     

Self-reinforcement: Appealing misnomer or effective mechanism?1

The purpose of these two experiments was to test the motivational explanation for the effectiveness of self-reinforcement techniques. In each experiment, the classic self-reinforcement procedure (a desirable consequence following a target behavior) was compared with variations. In Experiment 1, undergraduate females (n = 61) showed no more self-recorded exercise when they performed a classic self-reinforcement procedure (high-probability activities following exercising) than when they only self-monitored exercise or engaged in one of three related procedures (high-probability activities preceding exercise, or low-probability activities following or preceding exercise). Indeed, only this last group produced significantly more self-recorded exercise. In Experiment 2, undergraduates (n = 62) attempted more workbook questions following a reading session in which they read a page and then ate a chosen food (classic self-reinforcement procedure) or ate a chosen food and then read a page, than when they read and ate in no particular order. More importantly, more workbook questions were answered correctly by the group who ate a chosen food and then read a page than by the other two groups. No differential results were produced by subjects' level of food deprivation. The classic self-reinforcement procedure showed no advantage over the variations in either experiment. These results call into question the motivational explanation for the effectiveness of self-reinforcement techniques. An alternative stimulus or cuing explanation is offered: that self-reinforcement is effective because it cues the long-term environmental consequences that actually control the frequency of the target behavior.     

THE DISTINCTIVENESS EFFECT IN SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION:

Abstract— Three studies tested the hypothesis that people assume that the identities of other people are tied more closely to their distinctive than to their nondistinctive traits. In Studies 1 and 3, subjects predicted the preferences of a target person who was a member of both a statistically distinctive and a statistically nondistinctive category (e g, sky diver and tennis player). In Study 2, subjects judged the degree of interpersonal similarity between pairs of people sharing distinctive as opposed to nondistinctive category memberships. Consistent with the hypothesis, subjects linked targets with their more distinctive traits and assumed targets would be more similar to people who shared their distinctive traits than to people who shared their nondistinctive traits. The implications of this distinctiveness effect for an understanding of stereotyping are explored.     

Resistance and Insubordination

I introduce the notion of the counterstory: a story that contributes to the moral self-definition of its teller by undermining a dominant story, undoing it and retelling it in such a way as to invite new interpretations and conclusions. Counterstories can be told anywhere, but particularly when told within chosen communities, they permit their tellers to reenter, as full citizens, the communities of place whose goods have been only imperfectly available to its marginalized members.     

Mental health treatment and medical utilization: First pilot study in the military

Savings in medical utilization, as a function of psychotherapeutic intervention, which has been widely demonstrated elsewhere, can be replicated in military medical settings. Results point not only to decreased medical utilization following mental health intervention, but also to more appropriate treatment.The material herein should in no way be construed as reflecting the views or opinions of the Department of Defense or the United States Air Force.