The effects of a pre-time-out stimulus on matching-to-sample of humans,

In each of two experiments human subjects were intermittently reinforced with money on a fixed-ratio schedule for emitting correct matching responses. A pre-time-out stimulus which signaled removal of positive reinforcement was periodically superimposed. In the first experiment the superimposed pre-time-out stimulus was paired with a 1-min or 4-min response-independent time out. In the second experiment the pre-time-out stimulus was paired with a 1-min or 4-min time out contingent on the incorrect responses. The pre-time-out stimulus did not markedly influence performance when the time out was response independent. In contrast, the pre-time-out stimulus markedly suppressed incorrect responding when the time out was contingent on the incorrect responses. When duration of this time-out was increased from 1-min to 4-min, suppression of incorrect responding increased and correct responding was suppressed. Therefore, behavioral suppression by a pre-time-out stimulus was obtained only when the signaled aversive event-time out-was response produced. In this case, suppression was influenced by time-out duration.     

A statistical description of verbal learning

Free-recall verbal learning is analyzed in terms of a probability model. The general theory assumes that the probability of recalling a word on any trial is completely determined by the number of times the word has been recalled on previous trials. Three particular cases of this general theory are examined. In these three cases, specific restrictions are placed upon the relation between probability of recall and number of previous recalls. The application of these special cases to typical experimental data is illustrated. An interpretation of the model in terms of set theory is suggested but is not essential to the argument.     

Reviews of current books

Pastoral Psychology -     

Monitoring and blunting: validation of a questionnaire to assess styles of information seeking under threat

Subjects were divided into information seekers (high monitors)/information avoiders (low monitors) and distractors (high blunters)/nondistractors (low blunters) on the basis of their scores on a self-report scale to measure coping styles, the Miller Behavioral Style Scale (MBSS). In Experiment 1, subjects were faced with a physically aversive event (the prospect of electric shock). High monitors and low blunters chose to seek out information about its nature and onset whereas low monitors and high blunters chose to distract themselves. This effect was strongest with the blunting dimension. High monitoring and low blunting were also accompanied by sustained high anxiety and arousal. In contrast, low monitors and high blunters were able to relax themselves over time. In Experiment 2, subjects worked on a series of tests that presumably predicted success in college. They could attend as often as they wished to a light that signaled how well they were performing. Results showed that coping-style scores accurately predicted informational strategy, particularly with the monitoring dimension: High monitors tended to look at the light whereas low monitors tended to ignore it. Thus the MBSS measure of coping styles appears to be a valid instrument for predicting behavioral strategies in response to both physical and psychological stressors. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

An exploratory study of delinquency, criminal offenses, and juvenile status offenses via the cross-validation design

This article reports the results of an exploratory study of thirty variables that may have an effect on delinquency, criminal offenses, and juvenile status offenses. The study is based on secondary data, and the split-sample cross-validation procedure is used for analysis. Prediction equations were generated in Sample 1; Sample 2 was used for validation. In Sample 1, seven significant predictors of delinquency were found, five for criminal offenses, and five for juvenile status offenses. When these prediction equations were subjected to validation in Sample 2, the number of significant predictors was reduced from seven to four for delinquency, from five to four for criminal offenses, and from five to three for juvenile status offenses. The researchers interpreted these findings within the framework of the cross-validation procedure.