The effect of token reinforcement on McCarthy Scale performance for white preschoolers of low and high social position

In Study 1, the effect of making tokens contingent on correct performance of low social position preschoolers on the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilitieswas examined. Preschoolers in a token reinforcement group scored significantly higher (mean=8 IQ points) than subjects in a control group. In Study 2, the effect of tokens on McCarthyresults was examined as a function of social position in a 2×2 design. The high social position control group scored significantly above the low social position control. The low social position token reinforcement group, however, performed as well as both the high social position control and token reinforcement groups. Use of systematic reinforcement contingencies to reduce test error is discussed.     

Neurobehavioral deficits,adolescent traumatic brain injury,and transition to college

Outcome following traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been frequently evaluated for adults, although there has been minimal research on adolescents with TBI. It has been argued that TBI sequelae may be more difficult for adolescents to adjust to given developmental changes in physical (puberty), interpersonal (self-concept), and environmental domains (transition to college). In addition, it is commonly acknowledged that moderator variables such as psychiatric history, family functioning, substance use, and sexuality impact functional outcome following TBI, although it is often difficult to objectively evaluate these variables. The current study examined relationships among TBI-related deficits, moderator variables, and academic outcomes for six adolescents transitioning to college. The findings suggest that it may not be appropriate to predict functional outcome based solely on objective neuropsychological results. However, moderator variables appear to have a more direct relationship with outcome, depending on the moderator variable and the individual.     

What can prosody tell a parser?

In this paper, I consider how a sentence processor might use specific prosodic cues at various points in the processing of particular sentences containing (at least temporary) syntactic ambiguity. In principle, the usefulness of prosodic information depends on what a given cluster of prosodic cues typically signifies, and on which syntactic options exist for a given string: in only some instances can prosodic information provide useful disambiguating information.This work was supported by Grant #DC-01409, a Research and Training Grant funded by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communicative Disorders to the National Center for Neurogenic Communication Disorders, University of Arizona. I wish to thank Andrew Barss for very helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.     

Tasks and timing in the perception of linguistic anomaly

Three experiments were conducted to investigate the relative timing of syntactic and pragmatic anomaly detection during sentence processing. Experiment 1 was an eye movement study. Experiment 2 employed a dual-task paradigm with compressed speech input, to put the processing routines under time pressure. Experiment 3 used compressed speech input in an anomaly monitoring task. The outcomes of these experiments suggest that there is little or no delay in pragmatic processing relative to syntactic processing in the comprehension of unambiguous sentences. This narrows the possible explanations for any delays that are observed in the use of pragmatic information for ambiguity resolution.The research reported in this paper was supported by Program Project Grant HD-01994 to Haskins Laboratories from the National Institutes of Child and Human Development, and in part by a grant to Stephen Crain and Donald Shankweiler from the University of Connecticut Research Foundation. We thank Jacques Mehler and Gerry Altmann for helpful information about speech compression algorithms. We are especially grateful to Ignatius Mattingly for his generous expert advice on speech compression and design of the experimental materials, and also for recording all the speech stimuli. Julie Boland, Brian McElree, Janet Nicol, and Martin Pickering provided very helpful advice on an earlier draft.     

Effects of Self-Appraisal Information, Appraisal Purpose, and Feedback Target on Performance Appraisal Ratings

This experiment investigated the effects of three factors on performance appraisal ratings: self-appraisal information, appraisal purpose, and feedback target. Two hundred and three subjects rated a subordinate's performance on a clerical task subsequent to receiving either a high or low self-assessment. They were told they would provide performance feedback either to the experimenter (organizational agent) or their subordinate, and their ratings would be used either for an administrative decision or developmental feedback. Performance ratings were significantly higher when subjects received a favorable subordinate self-assessment than when self-assessments were unfavorable. A significant interaction was found between feedback target and the appraisal purpose. Implications for the use of self-appraisals in organizations were discussed.     

Gender Differences in the Rewards to Publishing in Academe: Science in the 1970s

This paper makes use of a unique data set fordoctoral-level biochemists, earth scientists,physicists, and physiologists to examine the question ofwhether the rewards to publishing in science are gender blind. The longitudinal nature of the data, andthe inclusion of different research outcome variables,permit the estimation of a wage-change model thatcontrols for fixed effects and productivity differences. We find little evidence that the reward processin academe during the 1970s was affected by gender. Wedo, however, find evidence that catch-up was occurring,implying that all was not well in the past for the women scientists in the study. [The1975 Survey of Doctorate Recipients indicates thatracial minority groups (Blacks, American Indians, andAsians) comprised, respectively, 5.9%, 6.3%, 2.8%, and 6.3% of the doctoral populations in physics,chemistry, earth science, and thebiosciences.]     

Comparing Risky Decision Making Under Conditions of Real and Hypothetical Consequences

In a series of three experiments, subjects made risky decisions under conditions of hypothetical or real consequences. Task variations across experiments included: (1) type of risk (monetary gambles or investments of time and effort), (2) within-subject and between-subjects manipulations of consequence condition, and (3) single or multiple decisions. The hypothesis of no difference between choices in real and hypothetical consequence conditions was retained in each experiment. Supplemental analyses ruled out various “artifactual” interpretations of the null results. Discussion focused on conditions in which researchers can and cannot infer decision makers’ actual risk preferences from their responses in laboratory tasks.