THE “WHERE IS IT?” REFLEX: AUTOSHAPING THE ORIENTING RESPONSE

The goal of this review is to compare two divergent lines of research on signal-centered behavior: the orienting reflex (OR) and autoshaping. A review of conditioning experiments in animals and humans suggests that the novelty hypothesis of the OR is no longer tenable. Only stimuli that represent biological “relevance” elicit ORs. A stimulus may be relevant a priori (i.e., unconditioned) or as a result of conditioning. Exposure to a conditioned stimulus (CS) that predicts a positive reinforcer causes the animal to orient to it throughout conditioning. Within the CS-US interval, the initial CS-directed orienting response is followed by US-directed tendencies. Experimental evidence is shown that the development and maintenance of the conditioned OR occur in a similar fashion both in response-independent (classical) and response-dependent (instrumental) paradigms. It is proposed that the conditioned OR and the signal-directed autoshaped response are identical. Signals predicting aversive events repel the subject from the source of the CS. It is suggested that the function of the CS is not only to signal the probability of US occurrence, but also to serve as a spatial cue to guide the animal in the environment.     

The second offspring of General Process Learning Theory: Overt behavior as the ambassador of the mind

Wasserman suggested in a recent book review that the study of intervening cognitive processes represents a current focus of interest in animal learning and that this has led to a revitalization of comparative psychology. An examination of the volume reviewed suggests that he may have overstated the case. Most of the authors to whom he refers expressed dissatisfaction with traditional stimulus-response associationism but few argued for the extreme (information processing) sort of cognitive approach described by Wasserman.     

Stimulus discriminability in free-operant and discrete-trial detection procedures.

Six pigeons were trained to discriminate different light intensities in four experimental procedures. Experiment 1 compared stimulus discriminability in a yes-no signal-detection task with discriminability measures obtained from two free-operant procedures. Discriminability estimates were significantly lower in the detection procedure. Experiment 2 showed this lowered discriminability to be a function of the delay between stimulus presentation and the availability of the choice-response keys in the standard detection task. In addition, reinforcement sensitivity was lowest when correct choice responses were intermittently, rather than continuously, reinforced.     

Methodological and theoretical issues in neuropsychological assessment

While there are philosophical and theoretical differences between neuropsychologists and behavior therapists, it is suggested that a significant reconciliation can be achieved in regard to assessment and treatment of the brain-damaged patient. While brain damage is often viewed as an irreversible disorder, there is evidence that substantial recovery of function can occur, particularly when adequate retraining is provided. There are practical and empirical considerations that suggest that neuropsychological tests are currently the best tools available for behavioral assessment of brain-damaged patients. However, the results of these tests can be used not only diagnostically but also to identify target behavioral deficits that may be rehabilitated through systematic retraining efforts. Such rehabilitation efforts can be optimally planned, implemented, and evaluated through an alliance between the neuropsychologist, who identifies the ability and deficit pattern, and the behavior therapist, who devises and evaluates the retraining program. It is possible that the successes of behavior therapy in numerous clinical and educational applications can be repeated in the cases of brain-damaged patients. However, such success would appear to be contingent on appreciation of the high degree of specificity often seen in neurological deficit patterns and the great complexities involved in the relationships between brain function and behavior.     

Considerations in the choice of interobserver reliability estimates

Two types of interobserver reliability values may be needed in treatment studies in which observers constitute the primary data-acquisition system: trial reliability and the reliability of the composite unit or score which is subsequently analyzed, e.g., daily or weekly session totals. Two approaches to determining interobserver reliability are described: percentage agreement and "correlational" measures of reliability. The interpretation of these estimates, factors affecting their magnitude, and the advantages and limitations of each approach are presented.     

RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHER ATTENTION AND THE “GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME” IN MODIFYING DISRUPTIVE CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR1

A variety of behavioral procedures have been employed in recent years to modify disruptive classroom behavior. Such methods have been developed with the belief that curtailing disruptive behavior would strengthen positive classroom performance. In this study, two procedures, the good behavior game and the teacher-attention method, were compared to determine short-run effectiveness. Four teachers (two fourth-grade and two fifth-grade) implemented both methods in their classrooms over a five-week period. Presentation of methods was alternated in a counterbalanced design to control for order effects. Each of the four classrooms consisted of 25 students. A time-sampling procedure was used to record the presence or absence of disruptive behavior within 15-second intervals. Disruptive behavior was defined as any talking-out or out-of-seat behavior without permission. The results indicated that both procedures were effective in modifying disruptive classroom behavior, but that the good behavior game reduced disruptive behavior significantly better than the teacher-attention method. In addition, all teachers preferred the game to the teacher-attention procedure. This reaction seemed related to the effort involved in initiating the two activities. The good behavior game required less effort on the teacher's part. However, use of the game alone raises certain ethical considerations. One such issue involves abuse of peer pressure. Also, there is a possibility that negative rules may tend to promote resentment. Positively stated rules would ameliorate that problem. Another relates to the possibility that some teachers might be carried away by the ease of the game's implementation to the extent that behavior control becomes the primary objective in the classroom. As a result, one might consider use of the game to maximize short-term change, but then phase out this procedure in favor of another method (e.g., teacher attention) for long-run effects.     

Two simple classes of mastery scores based on the beta-binomial model

Two simple classes of mastery scores which are suitable for hand calculations are presented for beta-binomial test score distributions combined with linear and cubic referral success. The models provide a simple way to explore the consequences of selecting an arbitrary mastery score. Such assessment would be useful whenever the test user is not willing to posta priori a loss ratio, but wishes to look at the various consequences before aiming at a particular score.     

Fitting and testing carroll's weighted unfolding model for preferences

A quadratic programming algorithm is presented for fitting Carroll's weighted unfolding model for preferences to known multidimensional scale values. The algorithm can be applied directly to pairwise preferences; it permits nonnegativity constraints on subject weights; and it provides a means of testing various preference model hypotheses. While basically metric, it can be combined with Kruskal's monotone regression to fit ordinal data. Monte Carlo results show that (a) adequacy of true preference recovery depends on the number of data points and the amount of error, and (b) the proportion of data variance accounted for by the model sometimes only approximately reflects true recovery.This study is based on a doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The author wishes to thank the members of his dissertation committee—Lawrence E. Jones, Chairman, Charles Lewis, Stephen Golding, Ledyard Tucker, and Nancy Wiggins—for their helpful comments.     

Alexithymia as a potential source of symptom over‐reporting: An exploratory study in forensic patients and non‐forensic participants

The traditional interpretation of symptom over‐reporting is that it indicates malingering. We explored a different perspective, namely that over‐reporting of eccentric symptoms is related to deficits in articulating internal experiences (i.e., alexithymia). Given that alexithymia has been linked to sleep problems and that fatigue may fuel inattentive responding to symptom lists, we administered measures of alexithymia (TAS ‐20) and symptom over‐reporting (SIMS ), but also sleep quality (SLEEP ‐50) to forensic psychiatric outpatients (n = 40) and non‐forensic participants (n = 40). Forensic patients scored significantly higher on all three indices than non‐forensic participants. In the total sample as well as in subsamples, over‐reporting correlated positively and significantly with alexithymia, with r s being in the 0.50–0.65 range. Sleep problems were also related to over‐reporting, but in the full sample and in the forensic subsample, alexithymia predicted variance in over‐reporting over and above sleep problems. Although our study is cross‐sectional in nature, its results indicate that alexithymia as a potential source of over‐reporting merits systematic research.     

THE COMMUNITY VIEW REVISITED

Abstract: Joining a vast Wittgensteinian anti‐theoretical movement, John Canfield has argued that it is possible to read the claims that (1) “language is essentially communal” and (2) “it is conceptually possible that a Crusoe isolated from birth should speak or follow rules” in such a way that they are perfectly compatible, and, indeed, that Wittgenstein held them both at once. The key to doing this is to drain them of any theoretical content or implications that would put each claim at odds with the other. I argue here, first of all, that it is not possible to detheorize both (1) and (2) and still hope to say anything illuminating about the nature of language. In fact, Canfield himself does not succeed in detheorizing both (1) and (2) but ends up trivializing (1) and leaving (2) with quite a bit of theoretical content. I further argue, however, that this is getting the matter the wrong way around. Contra Canfield et al., it is only when we recognize this that we can appreciate how radical and innovative Wittgenstein's claims about language really are.