Confidence depends on level of aggregation

The credible intervals that people set around their point estimates are typically too narrow (cf. Lichtenstein, Fischhoff, & Phillips, 1982). That is, a set of many such intervals does not contain the actual values of the criterion variables as often as it should given the probability assigned to this event for each estimate. The typical interpretation of such data is that people are overconfident about the accuracy of their judgments. This paper presents data from two studies showing the typical levels of overconfidence for individual estimates of unknown quantities. However, data from the same subjects on a different measure of confidence for the same items, their own global assessment for the set of multiple estimates as a whole, showed significantly lower levels of confidence and overconfidence than their average individual assessment for items in the set. It is argued that the event and global assessments of judgment quality are fundamentally different and are affected by unique psychological processes. Finally, we discuss the implications of a difference between confidence in single and multiple estimates for confidence research and theory.     

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.     

The acquisition of observing.

Pigeons were exposed to stimuli correlated with the presence or absence of a variable-interval 60-second schedule of reinforcement only while they depressed a crossbar or "perch." In the first experiment, the stimuli were different tilts of a line displayed on the key. When the difference in brightness between the line and the background (salience) was maximal, seven of eight birds acquired the discrimination, but when the difference was reduced by 50%, only one succeeded. In the second experiment, wavelength of chamber illumination served as the relevant dimension. Neither experiment showed a large effect attributable to the magnitude of the difference (disparity) between the positive and the negative stimulus. Individual differences in time spent observing were positively correlated with level of discrimination in the presence of the stimuli. All birds produced the positive stimulus for a greater proportion of the available time than they did the negative stimulus. This may be the mechanism that provides selective reinforcement of observing. Finally, the formation of a discrimination was analyzed in terms of changes in the proportion of time spent in contact with the discriminative stimuli.     

PROCEDURAL VARIATIONS IN GROUP CONTINGENCIES: EFFECTS ON CHILDREN'S ACADEMIC AND SOCIAL BEHAVIORS

There has been little research on the effects of the many procedural variables in applied group contingencies. In the present study, an individualized contingency and three group contingencies with different “responder” criteria (e.g., reward based on the group average, reward based on the work of a designated, low-achieving student, or reward based on the work of a randomly selected student) were applied to the academic work of primary grade children in a learning disabilities classroom. Group social interaction during each contingency was measured systematically. Although there were large individual differences in students' academic and social responses to the different contingencies, some consistent effects were observed. Two of the four low-achieving target students did their best academic work during the group contingency which focused on their performance as a designated responder. This type of contingency also produced high levels of positive social interaction in three of four groups of children observed.     

Changes in a multiple-response repertoire during response-contingent punishment and response restriction: Sequential relationships

A multiple-response baseline of four activities was established using gerbils as subjects. When one of the baseline responses was punished (Experiment 1) or restricted (Experiments 2 and 3), only the most probable of the alternative baseline responses increased. The response most likely to follow the punished or restricted responses during baseline sessions was also suppressed during subsequent punishment or response-restriction treatment.     

Serial learning in the pigeon.

Three pigeons learned to peck four colors in a particular sequence, regardless of how these colors were positioned on four response keys and without feedback following each response. This demonstrates that serial learning is possible in subprimate animals.     

SELF-STIMULATION AND LEARNING IN AUTISTIC CHILDREN: PHYSICAL OR FUNCTIONAL INCOMPATIBILITY?1

This study investigated whether an observed inverse relationship between self-stimulation and learning in autistic children is due to a physical inability of the subject to use the same body part for self-stimulation and task responding, or whether self-stimulation “distracts” the subject from task responding. Four actively self-stimulating autistic children were taught two discrimination tasks; one required a response that physically interferred with their self-stimulation; the other did not. Results were: (a) all subjects responded similarly across both tasks; (b) the three subjects with higher mental age scores learned both tasks without external suppression of self-stimulation; and (c) none of the subjects showed an inverse relationship between self-stimulation and learning. The study demonstrated that elimination of self-stimulation is not a necessary prerequisite for the acquisition of a new behavior in all autistic children.     

THE ROLE OF FEEDBACK IN VOLUNTARY CONTROL OF BLOOD PRESSURE IN INSTRUCTED SUBJECTS1

Forty normal male volunteers were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions and instructed to raise and lower their systolic blood pressure. Subjects received either beat-to-beat feedback contingent on pressure changes, noncontingent beat-to-beat feedback, noncontingent feedback presented randomly with respect to the occurrence of each heart beat, or instructions alone. The order of increase and decrease trial blocks was counterbalanced across groups. Subjects receiving contingent feedback were monetarily rewarded for appropriate pressure changes. Subjects receiving noncontingent feedback received rewards and feedback equal to the mean received by the contingent group. Subjects in the instructions-only condition were also paid this bonus but were informed of their earnings only at the conclusion of the experiment. Results indicated that in the presence of instructions, feedback, whether contingent or noncontingent, added little to subjects' ability to control pressure during a single session. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed.     

TWO-TO-ONE versus ONE-TO-ONE STUDENT-TEACHER RATIOS IN THE OPERANT VERBAL TRAINING OF RETARDED CHILDREN1

The operant training of two retarded children simultaneously on a picture-naming task was investigated as an alternative to the more commonly reported one-to-one student-teacher ratio. In Experiment I, two conditions were compared in which the children received primary reinforcement on a fixed-ratio schedule for responding correctly on prompt and probe trials in a standardized picture-naming procedure. During the “Group Condition”, the experimenter alternated from one child to the other after each primary reinforcement, after each incorrect response, after each response omission, and after each 10-sec period in which a child did not “attend” (by making a trial-initiating response) when it was his or her turn to be worked with. During the “Individual Condition”, the experimenter worked with only one child, and presented trials whenever the child made attending responses. Experiment I demonstrated that the Group Condition was more efficient than the Individual Condition in terms of total correct responses and total pictures learned per unit of training time. Incidental learning was also found in that the children learned some of each others' pictures as well as their own, thus indicating a further advantage of the larger student-teacher ratio. In Experiment II, an attempt was made to equate the two conditions, except for the presence of two children in the Group Condition, by ignoring the child in the Individual Condition for brief periods equal to those that occurred in the Group Condition when the experimenter presented training trials to the other child. The results demonstrated that the greater efficiency of the Group Condition was not due to the manner in which training time was allocated to the two members of a group. It also replicated the finding that the children learned some of each others' words in the Group Condition.