A Rational-Emotive paradigm for organizations

A case is made for incorporating a Rational Emotive paradigm within an organization setting. The paradigm consists of four separate, interconnected components: 1) Goals of the organization, 2) Management Effectiveness Training, 3) Staff Effectiveness Training, 4) Employee and Family Assistance Programs. The role of Rational Emotive theory is explained in terms of each component. Characteristics, attributes, and traits of employees working in a Rational Emotive Organization are postulated, and advantages to the organization are identified. A proposed ABC framework for the effective organization parallels the traditional model developed by Albert Ellis, founder of Rational Emotive Therapy.     

A Rational-Emotive Treatment program with conduct disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder adolescents

This study investigated the effects of a 12-week treatment program, based on Rational-Emotive Therapy, with conduct disorder (CD) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) adolescents. Two independent homogeneous CD (N=12) and ADHD (N=12) groups were selected on the basis of the DSM-111-R and use of methylphenidate. The dependent variables were irrational thinking, depression, and anger. Lecture, discussion, and theYou Can Do It!Motivational Program video were used in the treatment intervention. Discriminant function analysis of pretest scores revealed that 96% of the students were correctly classified (CD=100%, ADHD=92%). Multivariate analysis of pre-posttest scores revealed that the CD group significantly changed on all dependent variables, while no significant differences were found with the ADHD group. A comparison of posttest scores on the measure of irrational thinking revealed that the CD group accepted responsibility for their upsetness and were more willing to change than the ADHD group. The results of the study are interpreted in terms of the distinguishing characteristics of each group.G. Barry Morris Ph.D., is Director of the Canadian Institute for Rational-Emotive Therapy. He is a Fellow and training supervisor in Rational-Emotive Therapy, a professor at the University of Saskatchewan, a licensed psychologist, and is engaged in private practice.     

Extraversion and the detection of deception

Extraversion, neuroticism and threat of punishment were investigated in a detection of deception paradigm. Half of the 96 subjects, by instruction, had committed a mock crime while the other half were innocent of such an act. Extraversion was related to accuracy of detection such that those with high scores on this dimension were more likely to be classified correctly as guilty or innocent. This result had been predicted on the basis that detection is not determined by overall physiological responsiveness to questions but by contrasting responsiveness to critical and non-critical questions. Thus those high on extraversion, who were conceived of as difficult to arouse, responded only to the critical questions in the test while the more arousable introverts masked contrast by responding indiscriminately to both critical and non-critical questions. Neither of the other variables, neuroticism and threat of punishment, were related to detection.     

Field and laboratory studies of littering

Four studies are reported. In the first, it was shown that littering rates vary substantially across areas of a large urban region and that the rate for a particular area is correlated with the amount of litter already present. It was also found that males litter more than females and young people more than old. In the second study, a laboratory experiment, a causal relationship between the amount of litter in an area and the likelihood it will be littered was demonstrated. A third study replicated this latter finding, but did not find a relationship between the amount of stress experienced by a subject and the likelihood that he or she would litter. In the fourth study, a field experiment, subjects who were approached and asked to sign a petition about clean streets littered less than control subjects.     

Animal learning of independent and correlated events

Evidence suggests that experience of a truly random presentation of a conditioned and unconditioned stimulus (CS and US) retards subsequent acquisition of a classically conditioned response when the CS and US are paired. In these studies, no events reliably predict the US during the first part of training. The present experiment demonstrated impairment of subsequent appetitive conditioning in rats following a random CS-US presentation, both when another predictive cue is present and when it is absent during this experience. Results are discussed with reference to “general attention” theory, and learned helplessness. However, the data support an interpretation in terms of learning a specific relationship between a particular CS and US.     

Le développement des opérations concrètes chez les Esquimaux canadiens1

Le développement des opérations concrètes est étudié dans l'optique piagé-tienne chez des enfants esquimaux canadiens âgés de 6 à 14 ans. Les résultats sont comparés à ceux d'une étude similaire chez des enfants aborigènes australiens et européens. Les stades et leur ordre hiérarchique se retrouvent de façon identique dans toutes les populations comparées, alors que le rythme de développement est affecté par des variables socio-culturelles. Chez les enfants esquimaux, les courbes de développement dans le domaine des conservations apparaissent asymptotiques, une plus ou moins large partie de l'échantillon n'atteignant pas le stade des opérations concrètes, alors que, dans le domaine des relations et des classes, et surtout dans le domaine spatial, il y a simple décalage de rythme par rapport aux enfants européens, ou développement chronologiquement semblable. Une partie des résultats est discutée en fonction de la distinction entre compétence et performance.     

Preconditioning of reinforcing properties to an exteroceptive feedback stimulus

Three groups of rats were given Pavlovian preconditioning by means of a yoking procedure and subsequently trained to avoid. One group received a light stimulus during preconditioning at the same times as the master avoiding animals received an exteroceptive feedback stimulus. During the subsequent avoidance training, this group was then given the same light stimulus as a feedback stimulus on successful avoidance trials. The group learned two-way avoidance in about the same number of trials as one-way avoidance is typically learned and substantially faster than two other control groups. These data indicate that feedback stimuli develop reinforcing properties by a Pavlovian mechanism. The data of the control groups indicate that feedback stimuli do not provide “information” about responding in the present situation.     

Stimulus control of responding in the early trials of differential conditioning

In Experiment 1 two groups of rats were given 12 differential conditioning trials, seven to the rewarded alley (S+) and five to the nonrewarded alley (S?), prior to being extinguished in both alleys. Group S?S+ received S+ trials, following S? trials in acquisition, while Group S+S? did not receive S+ trials following S? trials in acquisition. In extinction S+ and S? trials were presented according to a quasi-random sequence for both groups. Running on the last 3 trials of acquisition was found to be faster following S+ than following S? trials. Group S?S+ showed greater resistance to extinction and less discriminative responding in extinction than Group S+S?. These results suggest that responding in differential conditioning is controlled not merely by S+ and S? but by the memories of reward (S^R) and of nonreward (S^N) as well. When the joint effects of both classes of cues were considered, e.g., S^R+S+, responding in the early trials of differential conditioning was shown to be highly orderly. Experiment 2 was highly similar to Experiment 1 except that Groups S?S+ and S+S? were equated along dimensions not equated in Experiment 1. The results obtained in Experiment 2 were highly similar to those obtained in Experiment 1.