The Association of Group Self-Identification and Adolescent Drug Use in Three Samples Varying in Risk1

This study provides a cross-sectional analysis of the relations between group self-identification and adolescent drug use in 3 samples of youth: comprehensive high-school, continuation high-school, and runaway/street youth. Youth identified with discrete groups in all 3 samples, and similar general groups were formed. In most comparisons, a high-risk group showed greater levels of drug use than did other groups. This is the first study to demonstrate that group self-identification (a) is a generalizable construct across different types of adolescent samples, (b) is related to use of drugs other than tobacco, and (c) remains a significant correlate of drug use controlling for its relations with demographic variables and several other psychosocial variables.     

Matching- and nonmatching-to-sample concept learning in rats using olfactory stimuli

Previous research has shown that rats can learn matching-to-sample relations with olfactory stimuli; however, the specific characteristics of this relational control are unclear. In Experiment 1, 6 rats were trained to either match or nonmatch to sample in a modified operant chamber using common household spices as olfactory stimuli. After matching or nonmatching training with 10 exemplars, the contingencies were reversed with five new stimuli such that subjects trained on matching were shifted to nonmatching and vice versa. Following these reversed contingencies, the effects of the original training persisted for many trials with new exemplars. In Experiment 2, 9 rats were trained with matching procedures in an arena that provided for 18 different spatial locations for comparison stimuli. Five subjects were trained with differential reinforcement outcomes and 4 with only one type of reinforcer. Differential outcomes and multiple exemplars facilitated learning, and there was strong evidence for generalization to new stimuli for most rats that acquired several conditional discriminations. Performances with novel samples were generally above chance, but rarely reached the high levels obtained during baseline with well-trained stimulus relations. However, taken together, the data from the two experiments extend previous work, show that rats can learn both match and nonmatch relations with different experimental protocols, and demonstrate generalization to novel sample stimuli.     

Persistence and relapse of reinforced behavioral variability

The present study examined persistence and relapse of reinforced behavioral variability in pigeons. Pigeons emitted four‐response sequences across two keys. Sequences produced food according to a lag schedule, in which a response sequence was followed by food if it differed from a certain number of previous sequences. In Experiment 1, food was delivered for sequences that satisfied a lag schedule in both components of a multiple schedule. When reinforcement was removed for one component (i.e., extinction), levels of behavioral variability decreased for only that component. In Experiment 2, food was delivered for sequences satisfying a lag schedule in one component of a multiple schedule. In the other component, food was delivered at the same rate, but without the lag variability requirement (i.e., yoked). Following extinction, levels of behavioral variability returned to baseline for both components after response‐independent food delivery (i.e., reinstatement). In Experiment 3, one group of pigeons responded on a lag variability schedule, and the other group responded on a lag repetition schedule. For both groups, levels of behavioral variability increased when alternative reinforcement was suspended (i.e., resurgence). In each experiment, we observed some evidence for extinction‐induced response variability and for variability as an operant dimension of behavior.     

The distinction between positive and negative reinforcement: use with care

It is customary in behavior analysis to distinguish between positive and negative reinforcement in terms of whether the reinforcing event involves onset or offset of a stimulus. In a previous article (Baron & Galizio, 2005), we concluded that a distinction of these terms is not only ambiguous but has little if any functional significance. Here, we respond to commentaries by a group of distinguished behavior analysts about the issues we raised. Although several of the commentators argued for preservation of the distinction, we remain unconvinced that its benefits outweigh its weaknesses. Because this distinction is so deeply embedded in the language of behavior analysis, we hardly expect that it will be abandoned. However, we hope that the terms positive and negative reinforcement will be used with circumspection and with full knowledge of the confusion they can engender.     

Relationship infidelity: A loss perspective

Abstract

A particularly poignant type of loss may be experienced by persons involved in intimate relationships in which a partner is sexually or emotionally unfaithful. As a means of exploring women's and men's perceptions about and personal experiences of unfaithfulness, approximately 140 participants completed a lengthy questionnaire relevant to close relationships. As expected, participants perceived selected gender differences in reasons for and reactions to a partner's infidelity. Based on personal reports about relationship infidelities, it appears that extrarelationship involvement is a complex issue that may result in substantial losses for relationship partners.