“Sleeper effects” in development: Fact or artifact?

The evolution of the concept of “sleeper effects” is traced from the work of J. Kagan and H. A. Moss (Birth to Maturity. New York: Wiley, 1962) to the present time. The phenomenon was originally inferred, without cross-validation, in the domain of personality, from correlations with early events which were stronger late in development than earlier. More recently it has been extended to account for long-term attainment differences associated with the presence or absence of preschool intervention. It seems possible that the original evidence may have capitalized upon chance fluctuations of few among many correlations. What is more certain, however, is that as currently used the term is imprecise, usually unjustified, and irrelevant to the supposed later effects of brief early intervention.     

Personality and the topography of the conditioned eyelid response

One-hundred and four women were tested on an eyelid conditioning paradigm in a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design where two levels of US intensity (1 vs 3 p.s.i.) were balanced against two rest pause interpolations (after 25 and after 50 trials), and the presence or absence of a warning stimulus prior to CS-US presentation. Subjects were later classified as high, low or intermediate extraverts on the basis of a personality questionnaire. A very detailed analysis of conditioned responses was carried out, using both simple and composite measures including work-ratio, utility-ratio, CR frequency, peak latency, peak amplitude, response area and effective response area, degree of avoidance amplitude and latency, etc. Major findings related to similar effects of high intensity US vs low intensity US, and introversion vs extraversion; introverts react as if they were responding to more intense stimuli than extraverts. This finding cuts across other parameter variables, and supports Eysenck's formulation of personality-conditioning relationships in terms of higher cortical arousal in introverts as compared with extraverts.     

Mobility among young workers in a multi-ethnic community

The job experiences of a group of young people of English and Pakistani origin who had left school four years earlier at the age of 16 were investigated using interviews and retrospective data from careers-office files. Job-changing had been frequent during the first 18 months of employment, with changes being largely of a non-promotional kind. Those who had experienced regular non-promotional job-change tended to have had low attainment in basic educational skills and inadequately developed vocational attitudes and personalities when leaving school. Yet in the majority of cases early mobility had led to stability by the end of the fourth post-school year. It is suggested that early job-changing may serve a positive function for the individuals concerned Implications for careers guidance in school are discussed.     

Do tough-minded people hold tough-minded attitudes?

Eysenck originally postulated that extraverts would adopt tough-minded social attitudes, although psychoticism is now considered to be of greater importance than extraversion. Previous research has attempted to relate psychoticism to realism-idealism, a principal factor of the Wilson-Patterson Conservatism Scale, and a measure of tough-mindedness acceptable to Eysenck. Results have proved discrepant; authors have used psychoticism scales of uncertain item content and length. The present study examines the relationship between psychoticism, extraversion and realism-idealism, using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and the Wilson-Patterson Attitude Inventory. The results provide only weak support for Eysenck’s theory. A more significant relationship was obtained between psychoticism and conservatism, and extraversion and conservatism, although a theoretical rationale for these relationships is lacking.     

Behavior modification and human rights: A legacy of Edward Stanton Sulzer, 1930-1970

Edward Stanton Sulzer was born in New York City on June 4, 1930. He attended school in Laureltown, N.Y., until the age of 15, when, after two years of high school, he was admitted into the University of Chicago. Leaving prematurely due to his mother's death, he returned to New York to work in film production. Sulzer completed his undergraduate work at the City College of New York, studying film production and psychology. In 1953 he entered the doctoral program in clinical psychology at Teachers College, Columbia. Spending two years in the Army during his graduate training, his work was completed in 1958. He then joined the faculty of the Upstate Medical School of the State University of New York, Department of Psychiatry, moving on two years later to the Psychiatry Department at the University of Minnesota. In 1965 Sulzer moved to assume the directorship of the Behavior Modification Program, in the Rehabilitation Institute at Southern Illinois University, where he remained until his death on February 28, 1970.In observance of the 10th anniversary of the death of Edward Stanton Sulzer, these reminiscences are presented. They describe how an individual psychologist could affect the professional and personal lives of many. Edward Sulzer is described in terms of the environment that shaped his values, how they affected the actions of his students and clients, and how they are reflected in current social policy. The account leads to a conclusion that the actions of single individuals may influence the course of human events.     

Orthogonal dimensions of individual and group forms of the Rorschach

Most dimensional analyses of traditional Rorschach scoring categories have either failed to control for differences in total R or have done so by introducing a nonstandard mode of administration. Consequently, the results of such studies may be either distorted or of questionable relevance to more typical situations. The present analyses, which compared both group and individual forms of the Rorschach administered to large samples (over 500 each) of male medical students, controlled for differences in total R by using residualized scores from which the linear effects of R had been partialled. The factor-analytic results are expressed in terms of seven easily interpretable factors (including total R), five of which are similar across forms, and simple formulas for deriving norm-referenced factor scores from the data of individual test administrations are provided.     

Blocking acquisition of the rabbit's nictitating membrane response to serial conditioned stimuli

Three experiments demonstrated that prior training with one stimulus (CS1) would block acquisition of the rabbit's nictitating membrane response (NMR) to another stimulus (CS2) which was more contiguous to the US during serial compound training (CS1-CS2-US). Specifically, the CS1-US interval was 800 msec, which produces only a modest rate of CR acquisition, while the CS2-US interval was 400 msec, which is an optimal value for the NMR preparation. Experiment 1 demonstrated blocking when CS1 overlapped CS2, and Experiment 3 demonstrated blocking when CS1 and CS2 were presented in a strictly sequential fashion. Experiment 2 showed that the magnitude of blocking in the serial compound was comparable to that obtained in a simultaneous compound in which both the CS1-US and CS2-US intervals were 800 msec, thus making CS2 less contiguous with the US than in the serial compound. Moreover, the level of responding to CS2 in all serial compound groups (blocking and control) was lower than in the simultaneous compound groups. The present findings provide further evidence that the associative consequences of CS-US contiguity can be highly attenuated by processes of attention or competition for associative strength.     

The following schedule of reinforcement as a fundamental determinant of steady state contrast in multiple schedules

Two experiments investigated whether steady-state interactions in multiple schedules depend exclusively on the following schedule of reinforcement. Experiment 1 used a four-component multiple schedule in which two components were associated with the same constant schedule of reinforcement, and where rate of reinforcement was varied in the component that followed one of these. Contrast effects were reliable only in the component that preceded the point of reinforcement variation, although some contrast did occur otherwise. In those instances where contrast other than the following-schedule effect did occur, it was accounted for by the effect of the preceding schedule, an effect for which there were consistent individual differences among subjects, and which varied with component duration. Experiment 2 used a three-component schedule, in which reinforcement rate was varied in the middle component. The results were consistent with Experiment 1, as the following-schedule effect was the only consistent effect that occurred, although an effect of the preceding schedule did occur for some subjects under some conditions, and was especially evident early in training. The conclusion from both experiments is that there is no general effect of relative rate of reinforcement apart from the sum of the effects of the preceding and following schedules, and that the following-schedule effect is the fundamental cause of steady-state interactions.