No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Four groups of twenty Ss each were conditioned for an abnormal response of the Muller-Lyer illusion. The four groups were:1. Control - no response from E2. Positive reinforcement - "mmm-hmm" when parison was longer than the standard3. Punishment - "huh-uh" when the comparison was shorter than the standard.4. Both punishment and positive reinforcement - "mmm-hmm" when the comparison was longer than the standard and "huh-uh" when the comparison was shorter than the standardThere was no difference in sex, or in tests before and after verbalization of the reinforcement contingency by each S. There was an overall difference as measured by an analysis of variance (p < •001) . There was no significant difference between positive reinforcement and the control group. There was a significant difference between Groups 1 and 3, and Groups 1 and 4. There was no significant difference in Groups 3 and 4 although there was a trend in that direction.

A conditioning theory of tolerance postulates a mechanism of a conditioned compensatory response which both modulates the effect of the drug and produces cravings when the drug is not forthcoming. Using measures of heartrate and peripheral vasodilation the author investigated whether reactions opposite in direction to the effects of nicotine such as bradychardia and peripheral vasodilation could be elicited specifically with smokers who are presented with smoking-related stimuli. Due to confounding variables supportive data were not obtained. Recommendations are to conduct future experiments when there is a low differential temperature between the outside and inside, incorporating a more salient conditioned stimulus so control over the conditioned response could be stronger and including more subjects to aid statistical analysis.

Numerous human behavior' problems are characterized by a choice between small-immediate and large-delayed reinforcement. Individuals often choose the poorer or smaller of two alternative rewards, even when they seem to be entirely familiar' with both alternatives. In a typical situation choice behavior appears to have a short-term advantage which is later followed by an obvious disadvantage. Selection of the delayed-large reward has been termed self-control.Recent work in the animal laboratory has lead to a model off serf-control that may be partially understood in terms of gradients of delayed reinforcement. This model, developed by George Ainslie and Howard Rachlin, suggest that the self-control situation can be conceptualized as a choice between a small-immediate and a larger-delayed reinforcer whose effective control over behavior is positively accelerated as its availability approaches.Aislie and Rachlin’s model makes two predictions: the first predicts a reversal in preference between two reward options as a function of passing time. The second conceptualizes self-control as a process which involves forestalling the temporary effectiveness that some small rewards acquire as a result of their temporal position. Thus, the model predicts that, given an appropriate opportunity, an organism will commit itself to receiving only the delayed-larger reward. The present research attempted to determine if these two predictions can be confirmed with children, using points on a counter, later exchanged for money as the reinforcer.Children were exposed to a choice between a small-immediate reward and a large-delayed reward in which the time elapsing before making a choice was lengthened systematically. An opportunity to commit themselves to receiving only the large-delayed reward was also provided.Results were congruent with the predictions of the model, although support was not robust and open to alternative explanations. Areas needing refinement include the nature of reinforcer used and the relationship between the amount and length of time delays.