The foundations of epistemological probability

Epistemological probability is the kind of probability relative to a body of evidence. Many philosophers, including Henry Kyburg and Roderick Chisholm, hold that all epistemological probabilities reflect a relation between an evidential body of propositions and other propositions. But this article argues that some epistemological probabilities for empirical propositions must be relative to non-propositional evidence, specifically the contents of non-propositional perceptual states. In doing so, the article distinguishes between internalism and externalism regarding epistemological probability, and argues for a version of awareness internalism. The article draws three main concluding lessons. First, epistemological probability is not to be identified with the sort of objective, experience-independent probability that is familiar from statistical and propensity interpretations of probability. Second, it is doubtful that epistemological probability is measurable, in any useful way, by real numbers, even if it admits of comparative assessments. Third, contrary to the familiar claim of C. I. Lewis, epistemological probability should not be viewed as requiring a basis of certainty.     

Assessment of methods for measuring social support

A rapidly expanding literature documents the effects of social support on physical and psychological well-being. Although definitions vary, most include both tangible components (e.g., financial assistance and physical aid) and intangible components (e.g., encouragement and guidance). Social support has been implicated in the mediation of stressful life events, recovery from illness, and increased program adherence. There are many inconsistent findings in the literature, however, and it is difficult to resolve discrepancies because measures of social support vary widely from study to study. To guide in the selection of measurement methods for research and applied work, 23 techniques for assessing social support are reviewed and evaluated. Criteria for favorable evaluation included reliability coefficients greater than .8 and documentation of validity. Correlations between various social support and criterion measures are simulated in order to demonstrate the consequences of choosing a measure with low reliability. Scale developers reported reliability data for 19 of the reviewed measures. Internal consistency coefficients ranged from .31 to .98. Test-retest coefficients ranged from .22 to .96. At least some validity documentation was available for 13 of the scales. Discriminant validity evidence, however, is almost universally absent. Despite psychometric weaknesses and variability among the scales, researchers have several instruments available to them.     

Long-term memory in amnesia: cued recall, recognition memory, and confidence ratings

We explored what kind of information is acquired when amnesic patients are able to exhibit significant retention on tests of cued recall and recognition memory. Amnesic patients and control subjects attempted to learn sets of sentences. Memory for the last word in each sentence was tested after 1 hr in the case of the amnesic patients, or after 1 to 2 weeks in the case of (delayed) control subjects. Amnesic patients and (delayed) control subjects performed at similar levels on tests of cued recall and recognition memory. Amnesic patients were just as confident of their correct answers as were control subjects. However, amnesic patients were no more disadvantaged than control subjects when they were cued indirectly by presenting paraphrases of the original sentences. These findings demonstrate that the residual knowledge retained by amnesic patients can be as flexible, as accessible to indirect cues, and as available to awareness as the knowledge retained by (delayed) control subjects.     

Self-control in mentally retarded adolescents: choice as a function of amount and delay of reinforcement.

Three severely mentally retarded adolescents were studied under discrete-trial procedures in which a choice was arranged between edible reinforcers that differed in magnitude and, in some conditions, delay. In the absence of delays the larger reinforcer was consistently chosen. Under conditions in which the smaller reinforcer was not delayed, increasing the delay to delivery of the larger reinforcer decreased the percentage of trials in which that reinforcer was chosen. All subjects directed the majority of choice responses to the smaller reinforcer when the larger reinforcer was sufficiently delayed, although the value at which this occurred differed across subjects. Under conditions in which the larger reinforcer initially was sufficiently delayed to result in preference for the smaller one, progressively increasing in 5-s increments the delay to both reinforcers increased percentage of trials with the larger reinforcer chosen. At sufficiently long delays, 2 of the subjects consistently chose the larger, but more delayed, reinforcer, and the 3rd subject chose that reinforcer on half of the trials. These results are consistent with the findings of prior studies in which adult humans responded to terminate noise and pigeons responded to produce food.     

Changes in functional response units with briefly delayed reinforcement

In two experiments, key-peck responding of pigeons was compared under variable-interval schedules that arranged immediate reinforcement and ones that arranged unsignaled delays of reinforcement. Responses during the nominal unsignaled delay periods had no effect on the reinforcer presentations. In Experiment 1, the unsignaled delays were studied using variable-interval schedules as baselines. Relative to the immediate reinforcement condition, 0.5-s unsignaled delays decreased the duration of the reinforced interresponse times and increased the overall frequency of short (<0.5-s) interresponse times. Longer, 5.0-s unsignaled delays increased the duration of the reinforced interresponse times and decreased the overall frequency of the short interresponse times. In Experiment 2, similar effects to those of Experiment 1 were obtained when the 0.5-s unsignaled delays were imposed upon a baseline schedule that explicitly arranged reinforcement of short interresponse times and therefore already generated a large number of short interresponse times. The results support earlier suggestions that the unsignaled 0.5-s delays change the functional response unit from a single key peck to a multiple key-peck unit. These findings are discussed in terms of the mechanisms by which contingencies control response structure in the absence of specific structural requirements.     

Effects of alternative reinforcement sources: A reevaluation

The effects of two alternative sources of food delivery on the key-peck responding of pigeons were examined. Pecking was maintained by a variable-interval 3-min schedule. In the presence of this schedule in different conditions, either a variable-time 3-min schedule delivering food independently of responding or an equivalent schedule that required a minimum 2-s pause between a key peck and food delivery (a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule) was added. The differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule reduced response rates more than did the variable-time schedule in most instances. The delay between a key peck and the next reinforcer consistently was longer under the differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior schedule than under the variable-time schedule. Response rates and median delay between responses and reinforcers were negatively correlated. These results contradict earlier conclusions about the behavioral effects of alternative reinforcement. They suggest that an interpretation in terms of response–reinforcer contiguity is consistent with the data.