Semantic focus and sentence comprehension.

Reaction time to detect a phoneme target in a sentence was found to be faster when the word in which the target occurred formed part of the semantic focus of the sentence. Focus was determined by asking a question before the sentence; that part of the sentence which comprised the answer to the sentence was assumed to be focussed. This procedure made it possible to vary position of focus within the sentence while holding all acoustic aspects of the sentence itself constant. It is argued that sentence understanding is facilitated by rapid identification of focussed information. Since focussed words are usually accented, it is further argued that the active search for accented words demonstrated in previous research should be interpreted as a search for semantic focus.     

The effect of self-recording and social reinforcement components of parent training programs

This investigation attempted to assess the effectiveness of two components of parent training programs: (1) the effect of a self-behavior management project prior to intervention with deviant child behaviors, and (2) that of social reinforcement from peers and the consultant. Four groups of parents were exposed to a basic training program and were measured on their success in an intervention program in the inappropriate behavior of their children (ages 7–9 years). Two groups of parents were requested to do a self-modification program prior to the intervention with deviant child behavior; two groups did a child intervention program without a self-management project. One group in the self-management and one group without self-management received verbal social reinforcement from peers and the consultant during interventions. Results obtained indicate that the parent group whose training involved a self-behavior management project prior to intervention with their child's inappropriate behavior and verbal social reinforcement achieved a significantly greater reduction of these behaviors when compared to the groups where either self-management of social reinforcement was used.     

Dissonance theory revised again: Comment on the paper by Fazio,Zanna, and Cooper

Fazio, Zanna, and Cooper (Dissonance and self-perception: An integrative view on each theory's proper domain of application. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1977, 13, 464–479) specified mutually exclusive domains of application for dissonance and self-perception theory and used a misattribution-of-arousal procedure to distinguish between dissonance reduction and self-perception processes. Because their proposed limitations of the domains of the two theories and their use of the misattribution procedure are not directly derivable from earlier statements of either theory, it may be best to regard their analysis as a new theory, rather than as a conciliation of the parent theories. New analyses based on the Fazio et al. results indicate that their data provide an insufficient basis for preferring their theory to earlier versions of dissonance and self-perception theories. Dissonance and self-perception: An integrative view of each theory's proper domain of application. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1977, 13, 464–479.     

Acquisition and forgetting in monkeys' memory of informational object-reward associations

The first experiment showed the monkeys could recall whether an object had been rewarded with peanuts or with sultanas, two equally preferred foods. The second investigated the effect of rewarded trials with an object on monkeys' ability to recall a nonrewarded trial with the same object. The third demonstrated that monkeys could use the memory of reward to predict nonreward and the memory of nonreward to predict reward, in a Win-Shift Lose-Stay paradigm. The fourth found differences between Win-Shift Lose-Stay and Win-Stay Lose-Shift in the rate at which associations between objects and reward events were forgotten. These results are discussed in relation to D. L. Medin's (In A. M. Schrier, Ed., Behavioral primatology, Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977, Vol. I, pp. 33–69) distinction between informational and hedonic effects of reward in monkeys. It is argued that the association between an object and a reward event is represented in memory by many independent traces, different traces recording the object's association with different attributes of the reward event.     

Through the looking glass: Sex differences in memory for self-facial poses

This study investigated recognition memory of photographs of the subject's own face. Male and female subjects were photographed as they projected sociable faces, trustworthy faces, and intelligent faces. After deciding which face of 10 best represented each characteristic, and judging which photograph best represented their “real self,” a recognition memory test of poses was given. Half of each sex were tested under intentional learning conditions and the remainder were tested under incidental learning conditions. Females demonstrated superior recognition memory of their own facial projections and, in particular, recalled photographs of their “real self” and “most sociable” self most easily. No differences were found between the two learning conditions. Subjects' recognition performance was not related to their confidence of judgments. The results were discussed in terms of sex differences and the role of self in memory.     

Memory scanning,introversion-extraversion,and levels of processing

Individual differences in information processing were studied in the form of the hypothesis that arousal, as indexed by a personality measure of introversion-extraversion, affects the speed with which certain kinds of processing are completed. The Sternberg paradigm was used, and the results suggested that introverts and extraverts scanned for physical features equally rapidly, but that introverts were slower than extraverts at scanning for the semantic features of category membership. There was limited support for the hypothesis that introverts, thought to be more aroused than extraverts, are less able to engage in shared or parallel processing. It was concluded that information processing in introverts and extraverts may differ qualitatively as well as quantitatively.     

Lateralization for reading musical chords: Disentangling symbolic, analytic, and phonological aspects of reading

It has been repeatedly shown that the left hemisphere (right visual field) is superior to the right hemisphere (LVF) in reading English, a bias possibly due to any or all of three confounded factors: (1) the symbolic nature of the coding system; (2) the analytic requirements of the decoding process; and (3) the phonological associations of the elements. Recent work on reading Japanese ideograms (Kanji) disentangles (1) from (2) and (3), but leaves the latter two confounded. We further disentangle (2) and (3) by examining visual field preference for reading musical chords, representatives of an analytic, nonphonological symbol system. The strong RVF advantage is interpreted as indicating that the left hemisphere is dominant for reading an analytic symbol system that is not phonologically based. We conclude that the left-hemisphere advantage traditionally found for reading phonological symbols is due to their analytic nature in addition to any effect due to their linguistic association.     

Behavioral inference in young children

Three experiments are reported on behavioral inference in children of 3 to 5 years of age. In each experiment the children learned two separate sequences of behavior which they were required to put together in the final test stage in order to obtain a reward. In the first experiment moderate levels of behavioral inference were obtained, although a relatively high proportion of children failed to respond in the test phase. In the second experiment different instructions were used in the test phase, the number of nonresponders was greatly reduced and a much higher proportion of children showed behavioral inference. The third experiment obtained similar results under conditions which excluded the possibility of mediation during a memory test, which was included in the previous experiments. It was concluded that behavioral inference is found, under suitable conditions, in children as young as 3-years-old, and that reports by other investigators of failure to find such inference up to the age of about 8 were due to problems with apparatus and instructions.