Biasing the development of response topography with nonspecific positive and negative evocative verbal stimuli

Conditioned response (CR) rate and development of CR latency, rise time, and airpuff attenuation were examined for V- and C-form responders using two nonspecific command words, do and don't, as conditioned stimuli (CSs) in single-cue, double-cue, and differential eyelid conditioning. In both single-cue and differential conditioning, regardless of the command word used to signal the unconditioned stimulus (UCS), the Vs produced a higher response rate and learned a better UCS-attenuating response topography than the Cs. However, in a double-cue conditioning paradigm in which both command words were presented alone on different trials and reinforced, response latency was longer and puff attenuation poorer among Vs than when the UCS was signaled by a unique cue. In contrast, adding a second reinforced cue actually enhanced the development of puff-avoidant CR topographies among Cs compared to single-cue conditioning. These results and others indicate that response topography development is to some extent a labile process that can be biased toward either good or poor puff-avoidant properties and that the factors responsible for influencing CR topography differ for Vs and Cs.     

Counseling for Decisions

This article presents a model for training counselors to help counselees in the process of making decisions. Three ineffective decision strategies (avoidance, excessive caution, and impulse) are explained and illustrated. An effective decision-helping approach that includes processing decisions, relating values to process, and relating actions to beliefs is presented. The authors contend that in order to produce satisfactory and adequate decisions, deeply rooted affective influences as well as logic and information must be dealt with.     

Quantification of three-dimensional structures

A mathematical model, based on additive subcomponents of grouping, subitizing and adding, was derived to account for quantification latencies of three-dimensional block arrangements. Subitizing is the process that people use to directly quantify a small number of objects without counting. It was found that most people consistently subitized up to four blocks. With more than four blocks, people resorted to grouping and adding, and the model was able to account for these data. The structural variables of compactness, symmetry, linearity, and planarity were shown to have small effects on quantification latencies relative to the large effect of number of blocks. Of these structural variables, compactness had the largest effect, and in terms of the model, it is suggested that visual structure had its effect on the perceptual grouping subcomponent.     

Progressive changes in articulatory patterns in verbal apraxia: A longitudinal case study

This research reports findings in a 10-year study of an apraxic adult, who was one of five subjects described by Shankweiler and Harris, (Cortex, ,2 277–292, 1966). Confusion matrices and feature analysis were used to compare 1965 and 1975 performances. Results indicate that over the 10-year period, errors of place, manner, and omission were markedly reduced. Voicing errors, however, while reduced in total number, still constituted a significant percentage of the patient's residual errors. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

The consequences of noncooperation for the target of third party instigated aggression

Consequences for a new target as a function of noncooperation was investigated in the instigative aggression paradigm. Subjects instigated partners to aggress against an opponent by suggesting what shock intensity to deliver. The partner was either cooperative (i.e., complied with the suggestion) or noncooperative (i.e., refused to set high shocks). Subsequently, subjects were given the opportunity to be directly aggressive by actually setting the shocks themselves. During this phase a new target who was nonprovocative was introduced. Subjects aggressed alone, in the presence of their partner, or in the presence of a new person. Results revealed that noncooperation reduced the level of instigative aggression and carried over to the second phase of the experiment. Subjects who had had cooperative partners were more aggressive toward the new target than were subjects who had had noncooperative partners. The presence or absence of the partner was not significant.