条件推理:“演绎”与“概率”两种实验研究范式之比较

本研究通过推理心理学研究中的“演绎”和“概率”两种实验范式设计对同一个班级的大学生参与者(实验一中N=57,实验二中N=43)进行先后两次有关条件推理的实验研究后,得出如下主要结果:(1)推理者在对不同的“纯形式条件命题本身的认可度”以及对由它们各自建构的同类型推理题的推理结果之间的作答反应模式之间的差异都很小且具有较高的一致性;(2)对由不同的“含具体内容的假言命题”本身的认可度之间以及由它们建构的同类型条件推理题的推理结果之间具有较大的差异性;(3)推理者对“演绎”和“概率”两种不同实验范式分别建构的内容近似的推进题进行推理时具有大致相同的作答反应趋势。由此可以推论推理者在“概率推理实验范式”中的作答或推理结果可以被视为只是对“演绎推理实验范式”的相应推理题给出“概率解”的心理加工过程。     

Assertive Ads for Want or Should? It Depends on Consumers’ Power

Advertisements using assertive language are commonly seen in marketing communications, yet assertive language has often been shown to be ineffective in communication and even decrease compliance. Recent research began to examine factors that influence the effectiveness of assertive advertising messages, but little research has studied the potential moderating role of consumer‐related factors. The current research fills this gap by investigating the moderating role of consumers’ power. Across five studies, the authors find that for high‐power consumers, assertive ads are effective in promoting want products but ineffective in promoting should products. For low‐power consumers, however, assertive ads are effective in promoting should products but ineffective in promoting want products. Moreover, the authors show that this pattern of results is driven (mediated) by consumers’ perception of the fit between the advertising message and the advertised product. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.     

What did mummy say? Dyadic interactions between young "hard to manage" children and their mothers

Thirty preschoolers rated as hard to manage on Goodman's (R. Goodman, 1997) Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), and a group of matched control children were observed and recorded on audiotape at home, interacting with their mothers (Time 1). At the 18-month follow-up home visits (Time 2), the children and mothers were filmed across 4 observation settings. Mother–child interactions were rated on affect, control, responsiveness and connectedness of communication. At Time 1, mothers of the hard to manage group used more negative control and engaged in fewer connected conversations than did mothers in the control group. At Time 2, mothers of the hard to manage group displayed higher levels of negative control and lower levels of positive control. These results are discussed in terms of the importance of examining connected communication and different observation contexts when examining dyadic mother–child interactions.     

Stimulus control topographies and tests of symmetry in pigeons

Pigeons were tested for symmetry after A-B training under conditions designed to avoid problems that may prevent its emergence, namely the change of stimulus location in testing relative to training and the lack of requisite discrimination training. In Experiment 1, samples appeared in two locations during baseline training to minimize the impact of stimulus location. Experiments 2 and 3 included multiple-location training along with additional identity and symbolic matching training, respectively, to explicitly train all of the simultaneous and successive stimulus discriminations required for testing. Experiment 4 provided reinforcement for symmetrical matching relations with some stimulus sets (with multiple-location training) prior to symmetry testing with different sets. In all experiments, pigeons showed no evidence of symmetry despite the fact that baseline (A-B) matching transferred to novel locations. Additional tests for reflexivity (Experiment 2) yielded similar outcomes. These results indicate that the change in stimulus location is not the sole reason that pigeons do not show symmetry and increase the plausibility of arguments that symmetry and other indexes of stimulus equivalence may be beyond the capabilities of the pigeon.     

Chimpanzee responding during matching to sample: control by exclusion

Three chimpanzees performed a computerized matching-to-sample task in which samples were photographs of items and comparison stimuli were geometric symbols called lexigrams. In Experiment 1, samples were either defined (i.e., they represented items that were associated already with a specific lexigram label by the chimpanzees) or undefined (i.e., they did not have an already learned association with a specific lexigram). On each trial, the foil (incorrect) comparison could be either a defined or an undefined lexigram. All 3 chimpanzees selected the correct comparison for undefined samples at a level significantly better than chance only when the foil comparison was defined. In Experiment 2, three comparisons were presented on each trial, and in Experiment 3, four comparisons were presented on each trial. For Experiments 2 and 3, the foil comparisons consisted of either defined or undefined comparisons or a mixture of both. For these two experiments, when the chimpanzees were presented with an undefined sample, they typically made selections of only undefined comparisons. These data indicate that the chimpanzees responded through use of exclusion. A final experiment, however, indicated that, despite the use of exclusion to complete trials with undefined samples correctly, the chimpanzees did not learn new associations between undefined samples and comparisons.     

Naming and categorization in young children: vocal tact training

In three experiments, 2- to 4-year-old children, following pretraining with everyday objects, were presented with arbitrary stimuli of differing shapes. In Experiment 1A, 9 subjects were trained one common tact response, "zag," to three of these and a second tact, "vek," to another three. In category match-to-sample Test 1, 4 subjects sorted accurately when required only to look at the sample before selecting from five comparisons. The remaining 5 subjects succeeded in Test 2, in which they were required to tact the sample before selecting comparisons. Experiment 1B showed, for 2 of these subjects, that tact training with 12 arbitrary stimuli established two six-member classes that were still intact 6 weeks later. In Experiment 2, 3 new subjects participated in a common tact training procedure that ensured that none of the exemplars from the same class were presented together prior to the test for three-member classes. Two subjects passed category Test 1 and the third passed Test 2. Tests showed subjects' listener behavior in response to hearing /zog/ and /vek/ to be in place. These experiments indicate that common naming is effective in establishing arbitrary stimulus classes and that category match-to-sample testing provides a robust measure of categorization.     

Effects of methylphenidate on sensitivity to reinforcement in children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: an application of the matching law

The behavior of children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been hypothesized to be the result of decreased sensitivity to consequences compared to typical children. The present study examined sensitivity to reinforcement in 2 boys diagnosed with ADHD using the matching law to provide more precise and quantitative measurement of this construct. This experiment also evaluated the effects of methylphenidate (MPH) on sensitivity to reinforcement of children with ADHD. Subjects completed math problems to earn tokens under four different variable-interval (VI) schedules of reinforcement presented in random order under both medicated and nonmedicated conditions. Results showed that, in the medicated condition, the matching functions for both subjects resulted in higher asymptotic values, indicating an overall elevation of behavior rate under these conditions. The variance accounted for by the matching law was also higher under the medicated conditions, suggesting that their behavior more closely tracked the changing rates of reinforcement while taking MPH compared to placebo. Under medicated conditions, the reinforcing efficacy of response-contingent tokens decreased. Results are discussed with respect to quantifying behavioral changes and the extent to which the drug interacts with prevailing contingencies (i.e., schedule values) to influence behavioral variability.     

Equivalence relations and the reinforcement contingency

Where do equivalence relations come from? One possible answer is that they arise directly from the reinforcement contingency. That is to say, a reinforcement contingency produces two types of outcome: (a) 2‐, 3‐, 4‐, 5‐, or n‐term units of analysis that are known, respectively, as operant reinforcement, simple discrimination, conditional discrimination, second‐order conditional discrimination, and so on; and (b) equivalence relations that consist of ordered pairs of all positive elements that participate in the contingency. This conception of the origin of equivalence relations leads to a number of new and verifiable ways of conceptualizing equivalence relations and, more generally, the stimulus control of operant behavior. The theory is also capable of experimental disproof.