Creating new memories that are quickly accessed and confidently held

In two experiments involving a total of 542 subjects, a series of slides depicting a burglary was shown. After the initial event, subjects were exposed to one or more narratives about the event that contained some misinformation or neutral information about four critical details. Finally, subjects were tested on their memories of what they saw, and their reaction times and confidence levels were measured. When subjects took a standard test in which the misinformation item was a possible response option, they responded very quickly and confidently when making this incorrect choice. Misled subjects responded as quickly and confidently to these "unreal" memories as they did to their genuine memories. It does not seem, then, that the misinformation effect arises from a large proportion of subjects who must resolve a conflict between two memories when they are tested, a conflict that would be expected to take time. When subjects took a modified test in which the misinformation item was not a possible response, misled subjects were as accurate as were controls, but they responded more slowly, regardless of whether they ultimately chose the right or wrong option. These findings indicate that misinformation does introduce some form of interference not detected by a simple test of accuracy.     

A paradoxical prediction from locus of control

Individual differences in attribution have been little researched. Beliefs about locus of control have been taken to be stable and important differences between people. They may provide some of the background assumptions on which people base their explanations of actions, especially insofar as these explanations imply that the cause of an action was within the agent or his environment, and that the action was or was not under the agent's control. Respondents were therefore asked to fill in Rotter and Levenson locus of control questionnaires and to provide explanations or ask questions about several actions. It was hypothesized that internals would be inclined to go for explanations which were personal and implied high control, while externals would not. However, what emerged was the paradoxical finding that internals provided explanations which implied that the causes of the actions lay outside the agent, while externals provided ones which implied that the causes lay within. This result is discussed in terms of the difference between actions and outcomes, and the possibility that an important difference between people may be in the rigidity and simplicity of their beliefs about causality.     

The utility of differentiating between mixed and pure forms of antisocial child behavior

This study examined the utility of classifying boys on the basis of a typology of antisocial behavior. A group of 195 boys, aged 10–17, was divided into four mutually exclusive groups based on their pattern of antisocial behavior. Stealing and fighting were chosen as criteria to define the four groups: (a) boys who fought but did not steal (Exclusive Fighter Group), (b) boys who stole but did not fight (Exclusive Theft Group), (c) boys who stole and fought (Versatile Antisocial Group), and (d) boys who did neither (Remaining Group). A multimethod-multirespondent study of these boys showed that (a) the Exclusive Fighter Group tended to score high on a range of overt antisocial behaviors and were relatively little involved in delinquency; (b) the Exclusive Theft Group tended to score high on some overt antisocial behaviors and were much involved in delinquency; (c) Versatile Antisocial youths scored highest among all groups on almost all overt and covert antisocial behaviors, and in terms of delinquent acts. The Versatile boys came from families with the most disturbed child-earing practices.The authors are indebted to Gerald Patterson for his inspiration and encouragement through-out the study. They acknowledge the most helpful comments they have received during earlier drafts of this paper from Drs. John Reid, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, and Mark Weinrott.The paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Denver, Colorado, November 10, 1983. The study has been funded by the Center for Studies in Crime and Delinquency, National Institute of Mental Health, Grants MH 32857 and MH 37940.     

Conceptual,methodological, and clinical issues in cognitive-behavioral assessment

This article reviews cognitive-behavioral assessment principles and procedures. The functions of such assessments are noted, and issues and advances in cognitive assessment are discussed. The need for integrated cognitive, behavioral, and affective assessments is then explored. Finally, conceptual methodological, and clinical issues in the integration of assessments and study of reciprocal determinants are presented.Preparation of this paper was supported in part by a General Research Board Faculty Research Award from the University of Maryland. The author would like to thank Steve Graham, Donald Meichenbaum, Barbara Keogh, and Bernice Wong for their feedback during the preparation of this paper.     

Development of learning-disabled and normally achieving children's causal attributions

The causal attributions of learning-disabled (LD) and normally achieving (NA) children in grades 3 through 8 were compared. Attributions were measured by two scales that asked children to attribute hypothetical academic failure situations to factors that were either within (e.g., insufficient effort) or beyond (e.g., insufficient ability, blaming others) their control. Consistent with a learned helplessness hypothesis, LD girls, regardless of age, were more likely than NA children to attribute their failures to factors beyond their control. In contrast, LD boys' explanations for their failures paralleled those of NA children. That is, with increasing age the LD boys were more likely to attribute their failures to insufficient effort. Explanations and implications of sex differences in developmental patterns of LD children's causal attributions are discussed.The authors wish to thank Ruth Dusseault and Betty Wallace for their help in conducting this research. We also wish to thank the teachers, children, and administrators from the Leon County Schools for their cooperation.     

PROMOTING AUTOMOBILE SAFETY BELT USE BY YOUNG CHILDREN

A program using behavioral practice, assertiveness training, and social and contrived reinforcers was developed to establish and maintain automobile safety belt use by young children. Sixteen children (ages 4.8 to 7 years) who never used their safety belts during a 5-day preexperimental observation period were randomly assigned to two groups of eight each. A multiple baseline design across groups was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the training program. During the 8-day baseline period for Group 1, no children used their safety belts when unobtrusively observed while being driven from school. During the 26-day intervention period, the children were buckled up on 96% of the observations. Follow-up probes conducted 2–3 months after program discontinuance found safety belt use to range from 86% to 100%. For Group 2, the 14-day baseline safety belt use averaged 6% and increased to a mean of 81% during the 20-day training and maintenance program. Follow-up probes 2–3 months later found safety belt use to occur during 75% to 96% of the observations. Parent questionnaires indicated the generalizability and social validity of the program.