Enhancing the prediction of self-handicapping

Levels of test anxiety, Type A and Type B coronary-prone behavior, fear of failure, and covert self-esteem were studied as predictors of self-handicapping performance attributions for college women who were placed in either a high- (N = 49) or low- (N = 49) evaluative test or task situation. We hypothesized that test anxiety. Type A or Type B level, and their interaction would account for reliable variance in the prediction of self-handicapping. However, we also theorized that underlying high fear of failure and low covert self-esteem would explain the self-handicapping claims of test-anxious and Type A subjects. The results indicated that only high levels of test anxiety and high levels of covert self-esteem were related to women's self-handicapping attributions.     

Repeated diazepam administration: effects on the acquisition and performance of response chains in humans.

The effects of repeated diazepam administration (80 mg) were assessed across a 12-hr time course with humans responding under a two-component multiple schedule of repeated acquisition and performance of response sequences. Subjects resided in an inpatient clinical research ward for the duration of the study. In each component of the multiple schedule, subjects completed sequences of 10 responses in a predetermined order using three keys of a numeric keypad. In the acquisition component, a new response sequence was to be acquired each session. In the performance component, the response sequence always remained the same. After stable responding was obtained and the effects of the placebo assessed, diazepam was administered for 3 consecutive days. The effects of repeated diazepam administration on overall percentage of errors across the two components of the multiple schedule were selective. In the acquisition component, the first dose of diazepam increased percentage errors with the magnitude of effects decreasing across the second and third days of diazepam administration. In the performance component, the percentage of errors was either minimally affected across all 3 days of diazepam administration or substantively increased on Day 1 with subsequent diazepam administrations having minimal effects. Effects on response rate were not selective. Diazepam decreased rates of responding in both schedule components, with the magnitude of effects decreasing across successive administrations. These results replicate previous findings in humans and nonhumans on the selective effects of diazepam on acquisition versus performance baselines. Also, the results suggest that the selective effects do not result from differences in reinforcement rate. Finally, the present results demonstrate that the selective recovery from repeated drug administration previously demonstrated in nonhumans using a repeated acquisition arrangement has generality to human behavior.     

Comparable Rates of Responding and Reinforcement Do Not Eliminate the Differential Effects of Ethanol on Response Chain Acquisition and Performance

Ethanol and other drugs commonly disrupt responding under repeated acquisition and performance baselines, with responding in the former condition being more sensitive to such disruption than the latter. The present study was conducted to determine if differential drug effects would occur when baseline rates of responding were comparable in the two baseline conditions. The acute effects of ethanol (0, 0.4, and 0.8 g/kg) were examined in healthy adult volunteers responding under a multiple schedule of repeated acquisition and performance of 10-response sequences. A 1-sec delay occurred after each response to keep rates of responding comparable in the acquisition and performance conditions. This delay also reduced differences in reinforcement rates between the two components. Nevertheless, responding in the acquisition condition was still more sensitive to the disruptive effects of ethanol than responding in the performance component. This differential sensitivity to ethanol was most evident in measures of accuracy of responding (e.g., percentage of errors). These findings suggest that differences in overall rates of responding and reinforcement in the repeated acquisition and performance conditions contribute little, if anything, to the differential drug effects observed on those baselines.

     

Interaction Effect of Extrinsic Rewards and Socioeconomic Strata

In an attempt to account for the poor test performance of lower-SES children, two conflicting theories were examined: (a) the early damage theory holds that lower-SES children have undergone such early and intensive deprivation that they cannot perform in testing situations; (b) the alienation theory contends that the public schools are middle-class institutions with middle-class intrinsic rewards which do not motivate lower-SES children. When faced with the testing situation the children choose not to perform. In order to test these theories, upper- and lower-SES students (N = 250) were randomly assigned to extrinsic and conventional reward conditions. The multivariate analysis of co-variance techniques indicated a significant (.01 level) improvement in the test performance of lower-SES children when extrinsic (money, food) rewards, as well as conventional rewards, are offered. Extrinsic rewards did not significantly improve the test performance of upper-SES children.     

Comments on cognitive science in the experimental analysis of behavior

Arguments are increasingly being made for the inclusion of cognitive science in the experimental analysis of behavior (TEAB). These arguments are described, and a critical analysis of them is presented, especially in regards to the logic of objective inference and the renewed use of cognitive intervening variables. In addition, one particular defining feature of cognitive processes (i.e., the absence of an immediate controlling stimulus) is described, along with alternative points of view stressing molar-molecular levels of analysis and historical causation. Finally, comments are made on the use of cognitive concepts and language in the behavioral sciences. On all of these issues, counter-arguments are based on available material in behavior analysis metatheory, concepts, and experimental practices.