Book reviews

SINGER, J. L. (Ed.). The Child's World of Make-Believe. New York: Academic Press. 1973. PP. 294. £5.75.

CRUE, B. L. (Ed.). Pain Research and Treatment. New York: Academic Press. 1975. Pp. 417. £12.50.

BEILIN, H. Studies in the Cognitive Basis of Language Development. New York: Academic Press. 1975. Pp. 420. £11.25.

ROLLS, E. T. The Brain and Reward. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 1975. Pp. 115. £3.00.

GAZZANIGA, M. S. and BLAKEMORE, C. Handbook of Psychobiology. New York and London: Academic Press. 1975. Pp. 639. £15.15.

KULLER, R. (Ed.). Architectural Psychology. Stroudsberg: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross. 1973. Pp. 450. S.Kr. 69.

CANTER, D. and LEE, T. (Eds). Psychology and the Built Environment. London: Architectural Press. 1974. Pp. 213. £7.50.

CLARE, A. Psychiatry in Dissent. Controversial Issues in Thought and Practice. London: Tavistock Publications. 1976. Pp. xvii +438. £7.50 (hardback); £4.00 (paperback).

RACHMAN, S. J. and PHILIPS, C. Psychology and Medicine. London: Temple Smith. 1975. PP. 223. £3.75.

VURPILLOT, ELIANE. The Visual World of the Child. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. 1976. Pp. 372. £9.50.

FALMAGNE, R. J. (Ed.). Reasoning: Representation and Process. London and New York: Wiley. 1975. Pp. 275. £10.15.

FANT, G. and TATHAM, M. A. (Eds). Auditory Analysis and Pevception of Speech. London: Academic Press. 1975. Pp. 564. £12.00.     

Book reviews

MILNER, P. M. Physiological Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1970. Pp. 531. £6.10.

BAKKER, D. J. and SATZ, P. (Eds). Specific Reading Disability: Advances in Theory and Method. Rotterdam: University Press, 1970. Pp. 166. D.Fl. 35.00.

FJERDINGSTAD, EJNARJ. (Ed.). Chemical Transfer of Learned Information. Amsterdam and London: North-Holland, 1971. Pp. xxvii + 268. £7.90.

GAZZANIGA, M. S. The Bisected Brain. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1970. Pp. 172. $12.10.

MROSOVSKY, N. Hibernation and the Hypothalamus. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971. Pp. 287. $16.00.     

Book reviews

Byrne, R. W. and Whiten, A. (Eds.) (1988). Machiavellian intelligence: Social expertise and the evolution of intellect in monkeys, apes, and humans. Oxford: Clarendon press. Pp. xiv + 413. ISBN 0-19-852175-8, £25.00 (paperback).

Dudai, Y. (1989). The neurobiology of memory. Concepts, findings, trends. Oxford: Oxford University press. pp. xi + 340. ISBN 0-19-854261-5, £40.00 (hardback), ISBN 0-19-854229-1, £18.00 (paperback).

Richards, R. J. (1987). Darwin and the emergence of evolutionary theories of mind and behavior. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press, Pp. xvii + 700. ISBN 0-226-71199-4. £23.95.

Archer, T. & Nilsson, L. (Eds.) (1989). Aversion, avoidance and anxiety: Perspectives on aversively motivated behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Pp. 491. ISBN 0-8058-0132-4. £29.95     

Avoidance responding in pigeons

Four pigeons were trained in a one-way shuttle box avoidance situation. Three of the birds met the criterion of 90% avoidances; the fourth, although frequently avoiding successfully, was too erratic to meet the criterion. Avoidance responding in two of the birds was subsequently extinguished, showing that the response was true avoidance, and not escape from the buzzer warning stimulus. In Experiment 2, the three birds that had met criterion in Experiment 1 were trained in a two-way avoidance task, and all three met the criterion of 90% avoidances. The shuttle box therefore provides a rapid and reliable method of obtaining avoidance performance in pigeons.     

Is light in pictures presumed to come from the left side?

For good ecological reasons humans assume that the illumination in pictures comes from overhead rather than from below. Recent work has also raised the possibility that the preferred angle of illumination is between 20 degrees and 30 degrees to the left of vertical, although the ecological basis for that is obscure. We describe two studies of this question. In study 1, twenty subjects looked in free, unrestricted vision, at a picture of a single 'bubble' which appeared either convex if the illumination was from above, or concave if the illumination was from below. There was no evidence in study 1 that illumination from the left produced a different appearance from illumination from the right, the preferred angle of illumination being 0.5 degrees to the right of vertical. In study 2, on forty subjects, there was fast presentation (200 ms) of an array of 16 bubbles, one of which, the target, was illuminated from the opposite direction to the others, and hence 'popped out' from the display, appearing concave if the others were convex, or vice-versa. The preferred angle of illumination for detection of the target was about 14 degrees to the left of vertical in study 2. The estimates from studies 1 and 2 did not differ significantly, and when combined gave a preferred angle of 9 degrees to the left of vertical. The reasons for the seeming discrepancy between studies 1 and 2, or the smaller overall effect than that found in previous studies are not clear since the methodologies seem equivalent. In both studies 1 and 2 there was a highly significant association between the direction of spontaneous head tilt and preferred direction of illumination, and this factor has not previously been taken into account in studies of the phenomenon. Contrary to the study of Sun and Perona (1998, Nature Neuroscience 1 183-184), there was no association with handedness or other measures of functional lateralisation.     

Stigma,Stereotype, and Self-Presentation

How should we interpret the popular objection that stigmatised subjects are not treated as individuals? The Eidelson View claims that stigma, because of its connection to stereotypes, violates an instance of the general requirement to respect autonomy. The Self-Presentation View claims that stigma inhibits the functioning of certain morally important capacities, notably the capacity for self-presentation. I argue that even if we are right to think that stigma violates a requirement to respect autonomy, this is insufficient to account for the full weight of the charge that stigmatised subjects are not treated as individuals. We need the Self-Presentation View to explain a special threat to agency. I then address the worry that focusing on a concern with being treated as individuals opens the door to the suggestion that treating as superior can be just as morally troubling as stigma. This objection is fatal for the Eidelson View. But the Self-Presentation View has a number of resources for deflating the worry. We should not exclude the possibility of a moral symmetry between some cases of stigma and some cases of treating as superior. Rather, we should provide a nuanced account of the circumstances in which either phenomenon is detrimental for self-presentation.     

Hyperstriatal function in the pigeon: response inhibition or response shift?

Experiment 1 showed that pigeons with lesions of the anterior or posterior hyperstriatum were impaired relative to unoperated controls and to control operates having neostriatal lesions on both acquisition and reversal of a simultaneous position discrimination. The observation that hyperstriatal birds showed more tendency than controls to halt responding altogether in this situation cast doubt on the notion that the reversal deficit was due to a loss of response inhibition. A second experiment supported an alternative hypothesis, that hyperstriatal birds have a deficit in the ability to shift responding to an alternative stimulus as a consequence of nonreinforcement.     

Within-day serial reversal of a position discrimination by pigeons

Naive (N = 3) and experienced (N = 3) pigeons performed 3 reversals of a simultaneous position discrimination to the same criterion each day. In terms of trials to criterion, or number of correct choices preceding the criterion run, daily first reversals (R1s) were, for both groups, more difficult than either second (R2s) or third reversals (R3s), which did not differ on these measures. The results are interpreted as giving good support to the hypothesis that little or no inhibition is generated in R1s, whereas inhibition does occur in R2s and R3s. An explanation of the relative lack of inhibition in R1s, which relies on concepts drawn from frustration theory, is proposed.     

Behavioural contrast does not occur with continuous reinforcement in the positive component

An experiment reported by Jenkins (1961) obtained positive behavioural contrast in a discrimination with continuous reinforcement of the positive stimulus. A large body of research, however, has failed to obtain positive contrast with this type of schedule. Jenkins's experiment was repeated with an added control group matched to the discrimination group in number of nonreinforced components. No positive contrast was obtained, and it was concluded that Jenkins's result could not be interpreted as positive contrast. The implications of this result for some theoretical accounts of positive contrast were discussed.