Quantifiers and question answering in young children

Two hypotheses were tested about how young children answer questions with the quantifiers all and some: (a) that children use syntactic cues in determining which noun phrase is quantified, and (b) that children evaluate a some-statement as part of evaluating an all-statement. To test these hypotheses, the same group of 60 4- to 7-year-olds were asked four contrasting types of quantitative questions. The results indicated that children can use syntactic cues under some presentation conditions. However, there was no evidence for an asymmetry between the all-and some-questions. A model of how young children might answer quantitative questions was then considered.     

Satiation for social reinforcers: The effects of contingency,vicarious experience,and ambiguous situations

The relative satiation effect, an inverse relationship between the frequency of prior social reinforcement (the word “good”) and the later effectiveness of the social reinforcer in controlling behavior, was studied. In Experiment 1, a discrimination task in which social reinforcement was given for correct responses was administered to first- to fourth-grade children (6 to 10 years of age), who had during a preexposure phase performed a preliminary task or observed another child performing. During the preexposure phase, the experimenter delivered frequent or infrequent social reinforcement that was either contingent or noncontingent. Only performers and observers who had experienced frequent noncontingent reinforcement showed the satiation effect during the discrimination task phase. The results were interpreted as inconsistent with J. L. Gewirtz' (Developmental Psychology, 1969, 1, 2–13) social drive formulation but supportive of an informational analysis in which the children are seen as responding appropriately to unambiguous evidence concerning the reliability of contingency information. In Experiment 2, seating arrangements were varied so that information concerning the direction of reinforcement was made ambiguous. Performers were less responsive during the discrimination phase after experiencing frequent noncontingent reinforcement when seated alone or opposite an observer than when seated next to an observer. The results are interpreted as indicating trust of the reliability of the contingency under ambiguous conditions.     

Active and passive observers' attraction to a self-disclosing other

Active observer (participant) subjects were induced to make either a high or a low intimacy disclosure about themselves to a partner. Their (videotaped confederate) partner then disclosed either intimately or non-intimately in return. The impressions and attributions of these subjects were compared to the predictions of passive observer subjects (non-participants) who were each furnished with the original instructions, heard a tape recording of a different active observer's disclosure, and watched the same videotape of the confederate that person had seen. As expected, both active observers' responses and passive observers' predictions indicated a preference for the intimate partner. In addition, passive observers' attraction predictions were less positive than active observers' reports. But contrary to the hypotheses, passive observers predicted that active observers would attribute the partner's disclosure more to personalistic causes than was actually the case, and guessed inaccurately that active observers would interpret the partner's intimacy as an indicator of attraction. The methodological implications of these active-passive observer differences for research in self-disclosure and relationships are discussed.     

Role of intertrial interval following an escape or avoidance response in bar-press avoidance

In three experiments, rats learned bar-press avoidance as a function of the intertrial interval following an escape or an avoidance. The general hypothesis is that the length of these intervals affects bar-press avoidance differentially, depending on whether an avoidance follows an escape (avoidance/escape) or an avoidance (avoidance/avoidance) on the previous trial. Specifically, it is proposed that short escape ITIs will facilitate avoidance/escape and avoidance/avoidance, while avoidance ITIs will have no effect on avoidance responding. The results tend to support this hypothesis. The shorter the intertrial interval following an escape, the higher the probability of both measures: avoidance/escape and avoidance/avoidance. No effect of avoidance interval was found on avoidance/avoidance. Unpredictedly, however, it was found that in comparison to a very short intertrial interval following an avoidance (0.5 sec), relatively long intervals (5 and 45 sec) facilitate avoidance/escape. These results were interpreted as mainly reflecting nonassociative factors such as shock-produced activity.     

Environmental dispositions and the evaluation of architectural interiors

The Environmental Response Inventory (ERI) was developed, in part, to assess dispositions toward everyday physical environments and to aid in explaining variance in response to settings. The eight ERI scales were examined and resultant hypotheses were tested in a design involving evaluative ratings of 10 everyday public building interiors briefly presented in sequences of color slides to 118 participants. Settings were arranged in three levels of generality. Results support the ERI as a promising tool. Biographical items also correlate with ratings. Environment evaluation is discussed as a complex phenomenon, in which rater differences play a significant part.     

Learned helplessness and the schedule-shift hypotheses

The critique of learned helplessness research and theory and the alternative schedule-shift discrimination hypothesis offered by McReynolds (Journal of Research and Personality, 1980,14, 139–157) are considered. Each point made by McReynolds is discussed and a variety of recent experimental evidence is reviewed. It is concluded that McReynolds' critique is without substance and that the schedule-shift discrimination explanation of the learned helplessness effect is contradicted by existing data.     

Common items and reliability in personality measurement

Most psychological tests and inventories, particularly in personality and attitude measurement, contain common items, that is, various subscales of the test or inventory may share one or more items in common. Surprisingly, the role of common items in such a fundamental personality test attribute as reliability is not known. The present report specifically considered common-item contributions to test internal consistency reliability using extant data from the California Psychological Inventory. No negative contribution of item overlap was found. To the contrary, it was concluded that the use of common items is an economical technique for increasing the total number of items in the scales, thus increasing scale internal reliabilities without increasing the overall number of items in the inventory.