Some observations on control by spoken words in children's conditional discrimination and matching by exclusion

This study examined matching-to-sample procedures that might result in the emergence of conditional behavior never explicitly taught. Subjects were preschool children. Two pictures were displayed as comparisons on every trial, and samples were spoken words. In baseline training preceding each of three experiments, children learned to select pictures of a dog, a table, and a banana in response to their spoken English names. Thereafter, probe trials displayed novel comparisons with baseline comparisons: one novel comparison was displayed with the dog and another with the table. The three experiments differed primarily in the nature of the samples presented on probe trials. In Experiment 1, probe samples were novel words, "JAIJAI" and "BREEL." On the probes, each of seven subjects reliably selected the novel comparisons, apparently "excluding" the familiar ones. In Experiment 2, probe samples were from the subjects' baseline. On one probe, for example, the sample was "TABLE," and the subject had to choose either the dog or the novel picture. Exclusion was logically possible because the dog had always before been incorrect in the presence of "TABLE." Under these conditions, however, only two of nine children excluded reliably. In Experiment 3, probe samples were words that had never been samples on any matching-to-sample trial, but that had controlled the children's behavior in other settings. On one probe, for example, the sample was "PENCIL," and the subject had to choose either the dog or a novel picture. Subjects virtually always excluded the former and selected the latter. Unreliable exclusion in Experiment 2, therefore, apparently resulted because the probe samples had previously served also as samples on baseline trials. Spontaneous verbalizations recorded during probing provided further data consistent with this interpretation. The study helps to define variables controlling exclusion performances by showing that such performances are more likely to occur if the sample has no prior experimental history.     

The impact of the therapeutic environment

This paper emphasizes the impact of the setting, space, and general physical properties of the clinic upon the difficult patient's profound neediness and absence of inner regulatory structure. Moreover, the clinic's administrative style and requirements often related to fiscal restraints, demands for accountability for both how funds are spent and treatment outcome, all impinge upon the patient. Humanizing clinics so they have the capacity for psychotherapeutic holding and provision of safety for difficult patients are discussed in detail in this contribution.     

Family system functioning: behavior in the laboratory and the family treatment setting

The Family System Functioning (FSF) scale is a new instrument for measuring dimensions of the intrafamilial environment thought to be important in recovery from major psychiatric illness. Modest statistical correlations were obtained when FSF ratings of laboratory-based family interactions were compared with researcher-guided therapist ratings of FSF based upon the family's behavior in family therapy sessions during the subsequent month. The data from these two settings provide support for the validity of some of the scales. Because of the modest size of the correlations, however, behavior in the laboratory setting may not always be an accurate indicator of how the family will behave in the early weeks of family therapy.     

A reanalysis of the influence of a "friendly visitor" program

A paper in the American Journal of Community Psychology (AJCP), by Reinke, Holmes, and myself, reported the results of a study of the influence of a friendly visitor program on the cognitive functioning and morale of elderly individuals. The program was reported to have had a significant multivariate effect on a combination of cognitive and morale measures and significant univariate effects on memory, self-perceived health, and activity director's ratings. Being intrigued by the memory finding, I conducted a follow-up study to further investigate the effect of a visitation program on cognitive functioning. In this second study the dependent measures included all of the cognitive variables included in the original study as well as some additional memory variables. The visitation program in the follow-up study had no effect on any of these measures. As a result of my failure to obtain a significant memory effect such as that reported in Reinke et al. (1981), I reanalyzed the data from the original study. In my reanalysis, the only significant effect was a borderline univariate effect for self-perceived health; the multivariate effect did not approach significance. On the basis of my inability to produce the results reported in Reinke et al. when I reanalyzed the original data, I must conclude that the friendly visitor program did not have the effects attributed to it in the original report.