Effects of a coactor's prediction on latencies to predict and indentify stimuli

On each of 300 trials E's confederate (C) verbalized which of two stimuli would occur; then S made a prediction. Following each presentation, S and C pulled a trigger to identify the stimulus. Two latencies were measured: the interval between C's and S's prediction (prediction time), and the interval between stimulus presentation and S's identification response (choice RT). Prediction times were significantly shorter when S's prediction agreed rather than disagreed with C's prediction, when S's preceding prediction was correct rather than incorrect, and when S was female rather than male. Choice RT was influenced by distributions of C's stimulus predictions and C's prediction outcomes in directions supporting an expectancy model.     

Choosing between fixed time and variable time shock

Two experiments are reported dealing with choice of fixed or variable time shock schedules with and without signals. Response independent shock was presented on either a fixed-time or a variable-time schedule and subjects could change from one condition to the other for short periods after which the initial condition was automatically reinstated. In the first experiment shocks for both schedules were either unsignalled (6 subjects) or signalled (3 subjects) and all subjects changed from a schedule of variable-time shock to a fixed-time one. Subjects that were given the opportunity to change in the reverse direction did not do so. Opposite findings were obtained in the second experiment (7 subjects) comparing unsignalled fixed-time shock with signalled variable-time shock. Six of the seven subjects changed from the fixed-time schedule to the signalled variable-time one but not the reverse. The data were considered consistent with an analysis of choice based on the reinforcing value of discriminable shock-free periods.     

Effects of sucrose concentrations on single alternation runway responding in rats

Rats received runway training under alternating reward and nonreward in which rewarded (R) trials provided 32 or 4% sucrose concentration from a drinking tube and nonrewarded (N) trials provided a dry tube or, for half of the rats in the 32% condition, plain water. Both 32 and 4% concentrations yielded faster running on R trials than on N trials; but this effect was reliable only for the 32% condition. Compared to 4% sucrose, 32% sucrose yielded reliably slower running on N trials and unreliably faster running on R trials.     

Infantile stimulation and its effects on frustration- and fear-motivated behavior in rats

Infant rats that were either removed from the nest each day (handled) or left undisturbed (nonhandled) were, in adulthood, given 72 food-reinforced runway acquisition trials followed by 24 trials of extinction training with or without shock. Handled and nonhandled control animals were given runway training without food reinforcement. Reinforced rats ran faster than nonreinforced rats, and handled rats ran faster than nonhandled rats during the initial trials of runway acquisition irrespective of the reinforcement condition. Nonhadled rats stopped running sooner than handled rats when shock was introduced in the goalbox, but differences between handled and nonhandled rats given extinction training without shock were small. Results of a second experiment showed no differences between handled and non-handled rats in the magnitude of the depression effect after an incentive shift. It was concluded that infantile handling had little effect on frustration-motivated behavior, but did affect fear-motivated behavior.     

Race versus belief about race as determinants of attraction: Belief prejudice and two kinds of race prejudice

An experiment was conducted to assess the effects of actual racial membership versus similarity of beliefs about racial issues on interpersonal evaluations. Prejudiced and unprejudiced White male students observed a videotaped interaction of two Black and two White male actors discussing racial issues and then evaluated the actors on several scales. One White and one Black actor took a conservative stand on racial issues, and the other White and Black pair of actors took a liberal position. Results from the ratings showed strong belief prejudice effects. Prejudiced subjects were attracted to conservative actors while unprejudiced subjects were attracted to liberal actors. Additionally, there were two kinds of race effects. Prejudiced subjects preferred White to Black actors, but unprejudiced subjects showed a reverse bias, preferring Black to White actors. A tentative explanation for this unusual finding was proposed.