Reply to silberberg and ziriax

Silberberg and Ziriax (1985) report that a modification of Vaughan's (1981) procedure produces results inconsistent with melioration (the position advocated by Vaughan) but consistent with a process they term molecular maximizing. Here it is argued that the theory of molecular maximization is not sufficiently unambiguous that researchers other than the developers can test its predictions, and that in any case none of the data presented by Silberberg and Ziriax are both clearly consistent with molecular maximization and inconsistent with melioration.     

Superstitious behavior in humans

Twenty undergraduate students were exposed to single response-independent schedules of reinforcer presentation, fixed-time or variable-time, each with values of 30 and 60 s. The reinforcer was a point on a counter accompanied by a red lamp and a brief buzzer. Three color signals were presented, without consistent relation to reinforcer or to the subjects' behavior. Three large levers were available, but the subjects were not asked to perform any particular behavior. Three of the 20 subjects developed persistent superstitious behavior. One engaged in a pattern of lever-pulling responses that consisted of long pulls after a few short pulls; the second touched many things in the experimental booth; the third showed biased responding called sensory superstition. However, most subjects did not show consistent superstitious behavior. Reinforcers can operate effectively on human behavior even in the absence of a response-reinforcer contingency and can, in some cases, shape stable superstitious patterns. However, superstitious behavior is not a consistent outcome of exposure of human subjects to response-independent reinforcer deliveries.     

Competitive fixed-interval performance in humans

Two persons responded in the same session in separate cubicles, but under a single schedule of reinforcement. Each time reinforcement was programmed, only the first response to occur, that is, the response of only one of the subjects, was reinforced. “Competitive” behavior that developed under these conditions was examined in three experiments. In Experiment 1 subjects responded under fixed-interval (FI) 30-s, 60-s, and 90-s schedules of reinforcement. Under the competition condition, relative to baseline conditions, the response rates were higher and the pattern was “break-and-run.” In Experiment 2, subjects were exposed first to a conventional FI schedule and then to an FI competition schedule. Next, they were trained to respond under either a differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) or fixed-ratio (FR) schedule, and finally, the initial FI competition condition was reinstated. In this second exposure to the FI competition procedure, DRL subjects responded at lower rates than were emitted during the initial exposure to that condition and FR subjects responded at higher rates. For all subjects, however, responding gradually returned to the break-and-run pattern that had occurred during the first FI competition condition. Experiment 3 assessed potential variables contributing to the effects of the competitive FI contingencies during Experiments 1 and 2. Subjects were exposed to FI schedules where (a) probability of reinforcement at completion of each fixed interval was varied, or (b) a limited hold was in effect for reinforcement. Only under the limited hold was responding similar to that observed in previous experiments.     

攻击的社会性认知学习的调节

这项研究探索了小学儿童的攻击与影响儿童是否采取攻击行为的社会认知的两个等级的联系.给攻击性和非攻击性的儿童(平均年龄为11.3岁)提供二个调查表,让他们进行回答.一个调查表是测量儿童对自己进行攻击的能力及相应的行为的认识(即自我实力的认识),而另一个调查表则测量儿童对攻击性行为会得到的奖励和惩罚的后果的认识.     

悖论,类型论以及解救悖论的其它方法(续)

罗素的观点看来是主张,类型论提供了避免一切悖论的方法,此外类型论在本质上还是这种方法的理论基础。让我们依次来考虑这两点。晚近的作者在所谓“语义悖论”和集合论悖论之间作出了区分,而罗素没有这样做。埃匹曼尼德悖论被称为语义悖论,因为它在本质上涉及到真的概念(谎话是不真的);并且“真”被称作一种语义关系,因为它是     

运动心理学的历史和当前的研究课题

一、历史运动心理学的基础在于运动学习和动作操作。1920年之前,就有少数人单独地进行一些零星分散的调查。这些调查推动了各种心理变量影响动作操作的研究。首先在美国发表的是观众对自行车比赛的影响。在1918年,伊利诺斯大学的心理学家C·R·格里菲斯对足球运动员和篮球运动员的反应时进行了比较,这仅仅为以后的研究播下了一些种子。在此期间,其它国家(苏联、德国和日本)也有类似的研究。 1920—1940年间,有些人对运动心理学的研究发生了特殊的兴趣。美国的运动心理学之父 C·R·     

欧州关于领导问题的研究

欧洲学者对于领导问题始终保持着兴趣。现代的有关研究有别于美国,更注重理论探讨,所考查的因素也更为广泛。英国伦敦塔维斯托克人类关系所的研究将组织看作为“社会-技术”系统,而领导就负责管理系统内各子系统间以及与环境间边界关系的过程。英国阿斯顿大学则认为是组织的整体结构而不是个别管理者的领导行为方式决定了组织的运行。斯图亚特的学说介乎两者之间,它将领导分为必须完成的、自愿完成的任务和限制完成任务的因素三种成分,这样领导既是被决定的,又是可作出选择的。在欧洲对领导问题中参与过程的研究很流行。几项大规模的调查表明参与性决策具有差异性和阶段性,因而海勒-维尔波特提出权变理论。领导问题的研究应朝着能够对在某一具体情景下领导者应如何行动作出预测的方向进行。     

模态逻辑的某些认知解释

Ⅰ我们的信念(至少)在两方面是模糊的:所相信的命题是模糊的(含有模糊的概念),相信与不相信的界限是模糊的,就是说相信这个概念本身是模糊的。通过下面的语句我们来说明后一种类型的模糊性。(1)光比声音传播的速度快。(2)大量的维生素 C 预防流感。(3)奥尔弗·帕尔梅将在1980年出任瑞典总理。(4)大卫·休谟身高五英尺六英寸。     

然而是善良意志的权力(驳 J.戴利达)

戴利达先生提出的问题无可辩驳地证明,我就本文和本文诠释的说明,在针对戴利达的众所周知的立场方面,没有达到目的。我很难理解他向我提出的问题。但我将努力去做到这一点,就象一个希望理解和被理解的人那样。我绝对看不出这种努力何以属于形而上学时代或更进一步属于善良意志的康德概念时代。我的思想,我已经在包括巴黎的讲演在内的讲演中说得很清楚:“善良意志”对我来说意味着     

生命伦理学的方法论问题

在过去的30年中,人们目睹了一场使伦理学问津生物医学科学和医疗卫生专业的学术和教学的复兴。这个领域(不是学科)现在被称作生命伦理学,生命伦理学是个新术语。尽管它看起来很新奇,但是在过去20年间,这个领域中的活动只不过是两千多年的思考、写作和教诲的后继,至少在西方是这样。目前的这场复兴(本文是这场复兴的一部分)在很大程度上是由道德神学家和宗教伦理学家发起的,尤其是弗莱彻和赖姆塞。