The effect of adults' eating on young children's acceptance of unfamiliar foods

Adults presented unfamiliar foods to 14- to 20- and 42- to 48-month-old children individually in their homes. More children put the food in their mouths when the adults also were eating than when the adults simply were offering the food. More children put food in their mouths when their mothers were the source than when the source was a friendly adult “visitor”. However, even when alone with a child, the visitor's eating elicited reliably more tasting. Analysis of requesting behavior indicated that the adults' eating aroused a desire to eat in the children. There were no consistent sex differences or interactions between sex of visitor and sex of child in children's food acceptance. There was a suggestion that younger children were more affected by repeated offerings than were older children. It is concluded that a relatively “low level” form of observational learning—“social facilitation”—can account for the data.     

Developmental differences in intake and storage of visual information

A partial report technique was used to determine how much visual information subjects of four ages (ranging from 5-year-olds to adults) were capable of taking in and what the course of information loss was over a 1-sec time period. Subjects were tachistoscopically presented eight items followed by an indicator at variable intervals after array offset and were required to report that item in the indicated position. No reliable age differences were found at the earliest “memory point,” 50 msec. There were, however, age differences both before and after this point. Results suggested an absence of age differences in visual intake capacity, but important differences in other stages of processing.     

Social Comparison and Bystander Intervention in Emergencies

In a 2 × 2 experimental design, male subjects were exposed to a "lady in distress" in the presence of a confederate who was either similar or dissimilar to the subject and who reacted to the situation with either passive unconcern or with apparent alarm. Consistent with a social comparison interpretation, the confederate's reactions markedly influenced whether subjects intervened. While degree of similarity was unrelated to probability of occurrence of an intervention response, it exerted a strong effect on intervention response latency. It is proposed that social comparison processes not only may influence an observer's interpretation of a situation, but may also contribute to situational ambiguity and affect the observer's degree of confidence in the validity of his interpretation of the situation. Any of these factors may, in turn, determine whether and how quickly an intervention response occurs.     

Reinforcement and Helping Behavior1

A study was conducted to determine the effects of reinforcement following helping in one situation on subsequent helping behavior. It was predicted that helping behavior would increase following positive reinforcement and decrease following negative reinforcement. It was also predicted that the attractiveness of the dispenser of reinforcement would affect subsequent helping. The study was conducted using a 3 × 2 × 2 design with the variables bemg nature of reinforcement, attractivcness of the confederate, and sex of S. The data indicated that subsequent to negative reinforcement, helping responses decrease. There were no differences between the positive, neutral or control conditions. Sex of S interacted with reinforcemcnt condition, with mcn helping more than women following negative reinforcement. Malcs and females also differcd in quality of help given, with men offering more physical help than women, particularly following neutral reinforcement.     

There is no special problem with metaphysics

I argue for the claim in the title. Along the way, I also address an independently interesting question: what is metaphysics, anyway? I think that the typical characterizations of metaphysics are inadequate, that a better one is available, and that the better one helps explain why metaphysics is no more problematic than the rest of philosophy.