Practice with anxiety improves performance,but only when anxious: evidence for the specificity of practice hypothesis

We investigated for the first time whether the principles of specificity could be extended to the psychological construct of anxiety and whether any benefits of practicing with anxiety are dependent on the amount of exposure and timing of that exposure in relation to where in learning the exposure occurs. In Experiment 1, novices practiced a discrete golf-putting task in one of four groups: all practice trials under anxiety (anxiety), non-anxiety (control), or a combination of these two (i.e., the first half of practice under anxiety before changing to non-anxiety conditions, anxiety-control, or the reverse of this, control-anxiety). Following acquisition, all groups were transferred to an anxiety condition. Results revealed a significant acquisition-to-transfer decrement in performance between acquisition and transfer for the control group only. In Experiment 2, novices practiced a complex rock climbing task in one of the four groups detailed above, before being transferred to both a high-anxiety condition and a low-anxiety condition (the ordering of these was counterbalanced across participants). Performance in anxiety transfer was greater following practice with anxiety compared to practice without anxiety. However, these benefits were influenced by the timing of anxiety exposure since performance was greatest when exposure to anxiety occurred in the latter half of acquisition. In the low-anxiety transfer test, performance was lowest for those who had practiced with anxiety only, thus providing support for the specificity of practice hypothesis. Results demonstrate that the specificity of learning principle can be extended to include the psychological construct of anxiety. Furthermore, the specificity advantage appears dependent on its timing in the learning process.     

Universes of Fuzzy Sets and Axiomatizations of Fuzzy Set Theory. Part I: Model-Based and Axiomatic Approaches

For classical sets one has with the cumulative hierarchy of sets, with axiomatizations like the system ZF, and with the category SET of all sets and mappings standard approaches toward global universes of all sets. We discuss here the corresponding situation for fuzzy set theory.Our emphasis will be on various approaches toward (more or less naively formed)universes of fuzzy sets as well as on axiomatizations, and on categories of fuzzy sets. What we give is a (critical)survey of quite a lot of such approaches which have been offered in the last approximately 35 years. The present Part I is devoted to model based and to axiomatic approaches; the forth-coming Part II will be devoted to category theoretic approaches. This paper is a version of the invited talk given by the author at the conference Trends in Logic III, dedicated to the memory of A. MOSTOWSKI, H. RASIOWA and C. RAUSZER, and held in Warsaw and Ruciane-Nida from 23rd to 25th September 2005. Presented by Jacek Malinowski     

Universes of Fuzzy Sets and Axiomatizations of Fuzzy Set Theory. Part II: Category Theoretic Approaches

For classical sets one has with the cumulative hierarchy of sets, with axiomatizations like the system ZF, and with the category SET of all sets and mappings standard approaches toward global universes of all sets.We discuss here the corresponding situation for fuzzy set theory. Our emphasis will be on various approaches toward (more or less naively formed) universes of fuzzy sets as well as on axiomatizations, and on categories of fuzzy sets.What we give is a (critical) survey of quite a lot of such approaches which have been offered in the last approximately 35 years.Part I was devoted to model based and to axiomatic approaches; the present Part II is devoted to category theoretic approaches.This paper is a version of the invited talk given by the author at the conference Trends in Logic III, dedicated to the memory of A. MOSTOWSKI, H. RASIOWA and C. RAUSZER, and held in Warsaw and Ruciane-Nida from 23rd to 25th September 2005.     

Effects of focusing strategy on speeded classification with grouping,filtering, and condensation tasks

Speeded classification was studied with three tasks varying in the way in which extra stimuli are provided for a single class:grouping, with additional levels on a single relevant dimension;filtering, with additional levels on an irrelevant dimension; andcondensation, with additional levels on a second relevant dimension. (Both relevant dimensions must be processed for correct classification.) For the dimensions used (color and form), filtering was easiest, followed by grouping and condensation. In the latter two cases, asymmetric classifications, in which one class had a single member, eliminated the difficulty of classification. The presumed mechanism is focusing, in which the single stimulus is seen as a positive set and all other stimuli as negative.     

The demands and capacities model: Response to siegel

Responses to the recent critical comments of Gerald Siegel to the demands and capacities model are given. A brief history of the model's development is followed by direct explanations of its empirical support and logical development. It appears that Dr. Siegel may have referred only to one of our publications on the model. His concern about difficulties in measuring capacities is also addressed. Finally, the logic of the model is explicated and a misunderstanding regarding the use of direct therapy is clarified.