Derived control by compound and single stimuli in a matching-to-sample task in children

A matching-to-sample procedure was used to investigate whether 9-year-old children would demonstrate the emergence of a derived compound-sample conditional discrimination following training in four interrelated single-sample conditional discriminations and vice versa, as adults did in previous studies. In Experiment 1, three out of three children demonstrated the emergence of a compound-sample conditional discrimination following training in four single-sample conditional discriminations. In Experiment 2, two out of three children acquired a compound-sample conditional discrimination and they demonstrated the emergence of four single-sample conditional discriminations; one of them did so only after being exposed to a remediation training and testing procedure. Training variables that facilitated discrimination emergence in both directions are discussed. In general, results showed that the sophisticated learning skills that are supposedly possessed by adults are not required to demonstrate the two types of derived control under study.     

Determinants of Joint Attention in Young Siblings' Play

The nature of joint attention (JA) engagement of 32 sibling pairs (M age older sibling = 55.21 months; M age younger sibling = 19.60 months) was assessed in a free play context. Relations among JA engagement states, both siblings' age, temperament, and language, and older sibling theory of mind were explored. The frequency of coordinated JA was related to features of temperament of both the younger siblings (emotionality) and the older siblings (activity level and sociability). Younger siblings' age was significantly related to siblings' engagement in coordinated JA, whereas the older siblings' age and theory of mind correlated with the frequency of passive JA engagement. Implications regarding the role of partner characteristics in young sibling JA interactions will be discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Equivalence class analysis of responding consistent with the relational frame of opposition

We replicated and extended studies showing that contextual cues for matching stimuli from 2 separate equivalence classes control the same derived relations as contextual cues for opposition frames in RFT studies. We conducted 2 experiments with 6 college students. In Phase 1, they received training in a conditional discrimination AB. Then, they received training for maintaining AB with X1 as context, and for reversing the sample–comparison relations of AB, with X2. In Phase 2, X1 functioned as context for matching same-class stimuli, and X2 functioned as context for matching separate-class stimuli. In Phase 3, X2 controlled the same derived arbitrary relations as cues for opposition frames in RFT studies. This functional equivalence may suggest that X2 functioned as a cue for opposition frames. In Phase 4, participants matched different stimuli with X2 as context, instead of matching most different (opposite) stimuli. In addition, Different, a cue for matching different stimuli, controlled the same derived arbitrary relations as X2. These results are incompatible with X2 being a cue for opposition frames. Contextual control over equivalence and responding by exclusion can explain these outcomes. The implications of these findings for RFT studies on opposition frames are discussed.     

Analysis of apparent demonstrations of responding in accordance with relational frames of sameness and opposition

We evaluated whether contextual control over equivalence and nonequivalence and responding by exclusion can explain the outcomes of relational frame theory (RFT) studies on sameness and opposition relations. We trained nine college students to maintain and reverse conditional discriminations with X1 and X2 as contextual stimuli. In Experiment 1, X1 and X2 controlled derived stimulus relations (DSR) analogous to those controlled by Same and Opposite in RFT studies. These results can be explained by at least two hypotheses: X1 and X2 were cues for equivalence and nonequivalence and responding by exclusion, or for sameness and opposition. In Experiment 2, X1 and X2 controlled DSR predicted by the hypothesis that they were cues for equivalence and nonequivalence and responding by exclusion, and not predicted by the hypothesis that they were cues for sameness and opposition. The results of Experiment 2 and the functional equivalence of X1 and X2 with Same and Opposite in Experiment 1 suggest that Same and Opposite were cues for equivalence and nonequivalence and responding by exclusion in RFT studies.     

Common control by compound samples in conditional discriminations

We tested whether teaching control by single stimulus samples in conditional discriminations would result in common control of two-stimuli compound samples, and vice versa. In Experiment 1, 5 participants were first taught four single-sample conditional discriminations. The first conditional discrimination was as follows: given sample stimulus P1, select comparison stimulus A1 and not A2; given sample P2 select comparison A2 and not A1. The second conditional discrimination was as follows: given sample P1 select comparison B1 and not B2; given sample P2 select B2 and not B1. Different sample stimuli (Q1 and Q2) were used in the third and fourth conditional discriminations. Moreover, A1 and B1 were presented together as comparisons, such that, if Q1 was presented as the sample, A1 was correct and B1 was incorrect; and if Q2 was presented as the sample, B1 was correct and A1 was incorrect. A2 and B2 were also presented as comparisons. When Q1 was presented, A2 was correct and when Q2 was presented B2 was correct. After training with these four single stimulus sample discriminations, participants were tested with compound PQ samples presented with A1, A2, B1, and B2 as comparisons. If common control were established by the PQ stimuli, a participant would select A1 when P1Q1 was presented, A2 when P2Q1 was presented, B1 when P1Q2 was presented, and B2 when P2Q2 was presented. Such common control by PQ samples occurred in 4 of 5 participants. In Experiment 2, 4 participants were given reverse training. They were first taught to select the A1, A2, B1, and B2 stimuli in response to the appropriate PQ combinations and then probed on the single stimulus sample discriminations. All 4 participants were successful on this probe. Experiments 3 and 4 investigated the effects of teaching additional conditional discriminations with novel stimuli on subsequent transfer from the single-sample discriminations to performance on the compound-sample conditional discrimination.     

Disappointment for others

Two studies examined when and why people experience disappointment for others. Study 1 demonstrated that participants reported disappointment for another's outcome only when the outcome had strong personal implications. Study 2 demonstrated that self-image concerns rather than empathy or resource concerns mediated the experience of disappointment for others. Collectively, these findings suggest that people experience disappointment for others when those outcomes implicate the self-image.     

Development and validation of the Eyewitness Metamemory Scale

Metamemory can be defined as the knowledge about one's memory capabilities and about strategies that can aid memory. In this paper, we describe the development and validation of the Eyewitness Metamemory Scale (EMS), tailored specifically for use in face memory and eyewitness identification settings. Participants (N = 800) completed the EMS and other measures on general metamemory. Results from exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis revealed good factorial validity, internal consistency, and content validity. The EMS items emerged into three distinct factors: memory contentment, memory discontentment, and memory strategies. The EMS is a brief and easily administrable questionnaire that might be used to assess self‐ratings of face recognition capacity and use of strategies to encode faces.