An Examination of Stimulus Control in Fluency-Based Strategies: SAFMEDS and Generalization

Fluency-based strategies such as Say All Fast a Minute Each Day Shuffled (SAFMEDS) effectively promote fluent responding (i.e., high rate and accuracy). It is possible, however, that the stimulus control developed through these activities inhibits stimulus generalization. We investigated this concern in a two-part study with college students. Study 1 assessed generalization of rates of responding from training with SAFMEDS to a novel set of equivalent SAFMEDS flashcards. Results indicate that SAFMEDS promoted fluent responding, but rates of responding decreased during generalization probes. Furthermore, higher rates of responding during training were correlated with a greater decrease in rates of responding during generalization probes. This may indicate that students attend to irrelevant stimulus features of SAFMEDS during training. Study 2 examined the effects of embedding multiple-exemplar training within SAFMEDS. Results indicate that multiple-exemplar training can promote generalization of accurate and high-rate responding when incorporated in a SAFMEDS activity.     

The heroic motive: Some experimental demonstrations

The appearance of heroic motives in interpersonal relations is examined. Three experiments were conducted to test the general hypothesis that witnessing the victimization of a partner would impel young men to incur costs in order to confront the transgressor. In each experiment, either the individual, his partner, or an anonymous other was insulted. Experiments 1 and 2 revealed that individuals were most willing to confront the insulter when their female partners (Experiment 1) or their male teammates (Experiment 2) were victimized. That pattern occurred despite evidence indicating that the most negative affective reactions were experienced by individuals who had been directly insulted. Experiment 3 revealed that individuals were also more willing to perform a subsequent altruistic act in response to the victimization of their partners than when they or an anonymous other person had been victimized. Taken together, the results indicated that heroic motivations in response to the victimization of a partner were distinguishable from other more negatively oriented processes that were aroused in response to self-victimization by the insulter.     

Once a Utilitarian,Consistently a Utilitarian? Examining Principledness in Moral Judgment via the Robustness of Individual Differences

Although individual differences in the application of moral principles, such as utilitarianism, have been documented, so too have powerful context effects—effects that raise doubts about the durability of people's moral principles. In this article, we examine the robustness of individual differences in moral judgment by examining them across time and across different decision contexts. In Study 1, consistency in utilitarian judgment of 122 adult participants was examined over two different survey sessions. In Studies 2A and 2B, large samples (Ns = 130 and 327, respectively) of adult participants made a series of 32 moral judgments across eight different contexts that are known to affect utilitarian endorsement. Contrary to some contemporary theorizing, our results reveal a strong degree of consistency in moral judgment. Across time and experimental manipulations of context, individuals maintained their relative standing on utilitarianism, and aggregated moral decisions reached levels of near‐perfect consistency. Results support the view that on at least one dimension (utilitarianism), people's moral judgments are robustly consistent, with context effects tailoring the application of principles to the particulars of any given moral judgment.