Response force in RT tasks: Isolating effects of stimulus probability and response probability

Mattes, UIrich, and Miller (1997) found that as response probability decreases in a simple reaction time (RT) task, participants produce more forceful responses as well as longer RTs, suggesting a direct influence of preparatory processes on the motor system. In this previous study, however, response probability was confounded with stimulus probability, leaving open the possibility that response force was sensitive to stimulus- rather than response-related preparation. The present study was conducted to unravel the effects of stimulus and response probability. Experiment 1 manipulated stimulus probability and revealed that responses to a more probable stimulus are less forceful than responses to a less probable stimulus even when both stimuli require the same response. Experiment 2 demonstrated that this stimulus probability effect does not depend on the overall level of response probability. Experiment 3 showed an analogous effect for response probability when stimulus probability is kept constant. The complete pattern of results suggests that both stimulus probability and response probability affect the forcefulness of a response. It is argued that response probability exerts adirect influence on the motor system, whereas stimulus probability influences the motor system indirectly via premotoric adjustments.     

Social learning in captive African elephants (Loxodonta africana africana)

Social learning is a more efficient method of information acquisition and application than trial and error learning and is prevalent across a variety of animal taxa. Social learning is assumed to be important for elephants, but evidence in support of that claim is mostly anecdotal. Using a herd of six adult female African bush elephants (Loxodonta africana africana) at the San Diego Zoo’s Safari Park, we evaluated whether viewing a conspecific’s interactions facilitated learning of a novel task. The tasks used feeding apparatus that could be solved in one of two distinct ways. Contrary to our hypothesis, the method the demonstrating animal used did not predict the method used by the observer. However, we did find evidence of social learning: After watching the model, subjects spent a greater percentage of their time interacting with the apparatus than they did in unmodeled trials. These results suggest that the demonstrations of a model may increase the motivation of elephants to explore novel foraging tasks.     

On Not Giving Up the World – Davidson and the Grounds of Belief

Abstract

What is the relation between our beliefs, or thoughts in general, and the perceptual experience of the world that gives rise to those beliefs? Donald Davidson is usually taken to have a well‐known answer to this question that runs as follows: while our beliefs are, at least in part, caused by our experience, such experience does not thereby count as providing a rational ground for those beliefs; our beliefs are thus evidentially grounded in other beliefs, but not in the experience that gives rise to them. John McDowell, among others, has challenged this Davidsonian picture on the grounds that it actually severs the connection between beliefs and their proper evidential grounds. Against such a view, this paper argues the Davidsonian position grounds belief in the specificity of our own locatedness in the world, and in the more general and prior embeddedness of belief in the world that is a part of the very concept of belief.     

Broadening the application of mixed methods in sales research

Mixed method research designs can be extremely useful in extending knowledge in the sales domain. A bevy of mixed method designs are at the disposal of sales researchers seeking to reap the benefits of this combination of research approaches. However, application of mixed methods in sales research has been rather limited, focusing primarily on exploratory sequential designs. The purpose of this article is to provide an exposition of mixed method research in the sales domain and offer avenues of extension that employ underutilized mixed methodological approaches. Accordingly, a definition of mixed methods along with its benefits and drawbacks is espoused followed by guidance in conducting mixed method research. A review of sales-related mixed method studies is then provided and articles containing both quantitative and qualitative methods are analyzed to glean insight on the state of mixed methods research in sales. Future avenues for mixed method research are then provided focusing on best practices and techniques that have yet to be embraced by sales researchers. This article aims to be a resource for sales scholars in expanding the mixed method research paradigm.     

The Impact of the Antitobacco Norm on the Selected Mode of Cognitive Dissonance Reduction

Two experiments tested the hypothesis that when behavior violates an antismoking injunctive norm, dissonance is aroused, but the injunctive norm constrains how people reduce their discomfort. In Experiment 1, participants with positive or negative attitudes toward public smoking wrote an essay for or against a ban on public smoking. Whereas attitude change occurred for those whose counter‐attitudinal essay supported the antismoking norm, those whose counter‐attitudinal essay violated the antismoking norm did not change their attitudes to reduce dissonance. In Experiment 2, participants who wrote against the ban on public smoking eschewed attitude change in favor of reducing dissonance through trivialization and act rationalization. The discussion focuses on how maintaining social connections makes cognitions resistant to change when dissonance is aroused.     

Spontaneous Self‐Practice of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) by Aboriginal Counsellors During and Following CBT Training: A Retrospective Analysis of Facilitating Conditions and Impact

Previous cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) training studies have suggested that therapists who practice CBT strategies on themselves during training may experience professional and personal benefits. However, it has also been reported that some CBT trainees are reluctant to engage in self‐practice. The present study reports an incidental finding from a CBT training study with Aboriginal counsellors: all five counsellors reported that they practiced CBT techniques on themselves without specific encouragement by the trainers to do so. This paper therefore posed three questions: (a) Why—in contrast to some other trainees—did this group choose to apply CBT to themselves? (b) How did they apply it—with what purpose, in what contexts, and which skills? (c) What was the impact of CBT self‐practice? Data from the group's reflections were qualitatively analysed by two of the researchers, and “member checked” by the remainder. Results indicated that the counsellors were motivated to practice CBT on themselves for two principal reasons: the value they placed on CBT, and their personal need resulting from the high number of crises experienced while living and working in their communities. The counsellors reported practicing CBT in a wide variety of contexts as part of their learning. As in previous studies, the impact of CBT self‐practice was that it increased their confidence and competence as therapists. It also appeared to be a valuable burnout prevention strategy. If the results are generalisable, they suggest that self‐experiential training in CBT may be a culturally responsive and adaptive way for Aboriginal counsellors to enhance their learning of CBT skills.     

Problems and solutions for a hybrid approach to grounding practical normativity

Source Hybridism about practical reasons is the position that facts that constitute reasons sometimes derive their normative force from external metaphysical grounds, and sometimes from internal. Although historically less popular than either Source Internalism or Source Externalism, hybridism has lately begun to garner more attention. Here, I further the hybridist's cause by defending Source Hybridism from three objections. I argue that we are not warranted in rejecting hybridism for any of the following reasons: that hybridists cannot provide an account of normative weight, that hybridists are committed to implausible results concerning practical deliberation, or that Source Hybridism is objectionably unparsimonious.