Thesis (Ph. D.)--Columbia University, 1929. / Vita. "Reprinted from Archives of psychology ... no. 108." Bibliography: p. 54-55.

Zugl.: Bochum, Univ., Diss., 2005

Zweite Studienarbeit Hochschule für Angewandte Psychologie Zürich, 2004.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1957. / Typescript. Abstracted in Dissertation abstracts, v. 17 (1957) no. 11, p. 2692. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 45-46).

An association between antisocial and histrionic personality disorders has been examined in familial and intrapersonal research. This association was explored within the framework of Gorenstein and Newman's (1980) model of disinhibitory psychopathology. Two studies were proposed to examine the association of these personality disorder features, with the second study contingent on the results of the first experiment. The first study investigated whether the response perseveration phenomenon would generalize to college students identified with antisocial personality features using a card playing task developed by Newman, Patterson, and Kosson (1987). Results indicated that the response perseveration phenomenon did not generalize, however, college females identified with antisocial features performed in a similar fashion on the card playing task as Newman et al.'s psychopathic subjects. The evidence gathered from this study suggest that whether the response perseveration phenomenon generalizes to antisocial feature college women requires further investigation. / Department of Psychological Science

Issued also as thesis, Columbia University. / Bibliography: p. [82].

The current study evaluated individual differences in factors that both facilitate (narcissism) and inhibit (self-regulation) the expression of aggression upon provocation. The overarching goal of the study was to examine the integration of two models of aggression: the threatened egotism model and the self-regulation model. An undergraduate sample of participants (N=323) were assigned to receive either positive or negative (provocative) feedback from a fictitious opponent. After receipt of the feedback a competitive reaction time task, in which the participant was allowed to subject the ostensible opponent to sound lasts of white noise, was employed as a behavioural measure of aggression. Consistent with previous research, negative feedback elicited aggression compared to positive feedback, especially among narcissistic males compared to females. Self-regulation was assessed using a battery of executive functioning measures. Results indicated that males with higher perseveration were more aggressive in the negative feedback condition. When the influence of narcissism and self-regulation were assessed simultaneously, a moderating model (i.e., narcissism X self-regulation) was not supported but there was evidence in support of an additive model for males only. Self-regulation predicted a unique portion of variance in aggression (7%) over an above the variance accounted for by narcissism (16%) for males who received negative feedback. These results are discussed in terms of a risk factor model for aggression.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--CSULA/UCLA, 2008. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 63-78).

Orientador: Eliane Mauerberg de Castro / Banca: José Angelo Barela / Banca: Renato de Moraes / Resumo: Para Piaget (1954), uma forma de observar como os bebês se relacionam com o mundo, assim como eles se desenvolvem cognitivamente, é através de seus gestos. Assim, ele criou a clássica prova A-não-B para verificar se bebês tinham a noção de objeto e conceitos de sua permanência em relação ao espaço e tempo. A prova consistia na observação da resposta de alcançar por bebês quando o experimentador escondia um objeto sob uma tampa em um de dois locais iguais, separados por uma pequena distância. Os bebês eram estimulados a buscar o objeto escondido no local designado como A. Após algumas repetições, o experimentador escondia o mesmo objeto no local ao lado denominado como local B, e em seguida os bebês eram novamente estimulados a encontrar o objeto no novo local. Bebês de 8 a 10 meses tendem a retornar a busca no lado A, mesmo observando o experimentador esconder o objeto em um novo local, o lado B. Para Piaget (1954), este comportamento ocorre em função de uma limitação no desenvolvimento cognitivo, no qual o bebê ainda não estabeleceu relações de permanência de objetos e de memória consistentes. Entretanto Thelen e colaboradores, numa nova visão, reinterpretou este fenômeno afirmando que o erro ocorre por conta de uma perseveração motora criada por uma memória motora, resultante de repetidos gestos na mesma direção. Experimentos de Thelen mostraram que algumas manipulações no contexto da tarefa podem reduzir a perseveração motora. A questão central do estudo é: será que se modificarmos a orientação da posição da caixa na apresentação do estímulo em B, o comportamento perseverativo seria interrompido ou reduzido, provocando uma maior exigência atencional e assim um gesto diferenciado no alcançar? Desta forma, o objetivo deste estudo foi verificar se uma manipulação no contexto da tarefa poderia reduzir o comportamento... (Resumo completo, clicar acesso eletrônico abaixo) / Abstract: Piaget (1954) described how it is possible to observe the cognitive development of infants through their interactions with the world as well through their gestures. He created the classic "A not B task" in order to verify whether or not infants exhibit concepts of permanence of objects relative to space and time. The "A not B task" consists of presenting an infant with two identical locations, in which an object is hidden. The experimenter "entices" the infant to search for the object at the first location (called "A") a total of four separate times, with a 3-second delay between each cue (shaking the lid to entice the child to search) and giving the object (the stimulus) to the infant as a reward for completing the search. Subsequently, the second location, called "B,"is similarly cued two times consecutively, and the child is allowed to search for and grasp at the hidden object. Typically, around the age of 8-10 months, normally-developing infants return to search for the "A" location even after being cued to reach for the "B" location. Piaget interpreted this "error" as a limitation in cognitive development: infants are not able to establish object permanence relations, and they have inconsistent memory skills. However, Thelen and collaborators offered a new perspective on this phenomenon. They believed that perceptual-motor memory creates perseverative behavior due to repetitive reaching attempts in the same direction. Thelen demonstrated in experiments with a modified task that used lids instead a hidden object that task manipulation can induce, more or less, perseveration. The purpose of our study was to observe whether or not infants change their perseverative rates when the orientation of the "B" trials during the "A not B task" is changed to a vertical position. Twenty-one infants, ages 8 to 12 months, were tested in this modified context as well... (Complete abstract click electronic access below) / Mestre

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:22:54Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2007-03-30Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T20:29:18Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 polanczyk_sd_me_rcla.pdf: 1291175 bytes, checksum: 52eb9951862042a8c61d912c4bf96512 (MD5) / Para Piaget (1954), uma forma de observar como os bebês se relacionam com o mundo, assim como eles se desenvolvem cognitivamente, é através de seus gestos. Assim, ele criou a clássica prova A-não-B para verificar se bebês tinham a noção de objeto e conceitos de sua permanência em relação ao espaço e tempo. A prova consistia na observação da resposta de alcançar por bebês quando o experimentador escondia um objeto sob uma tampa em um de dois locais iguais, separados por uma pequena distância. Os bebês eram estimulados a buscar o objeto escondido no local designado como A. Após algumas repetições, o experimentador escondia o mesmo objeto no local ao lado denominado como local B, e em seguida os bebês eram novamente estimulados a encontrar o objeto no novo local. Bebês de 8 a 10 meses tendem a retornar a busca no lado A, mesmo observando o experimentador esconder o objeto em um novo local, o lado B. Para Piaget (1954), este comportamento ocorre em função de uma limitação no desenvolvimento cognitivo, no qual o bebê ainda não estabeleceu relações de permanência de objetos e de memória consistentes. Entretanto Thelen e colaboradores, numa nova visão, reinterpretou este fenômeno afirmando que o erro ocorre por conta de uma perseveração motora criada por uma memória motora, resultante de repetidos gestos na mesma direção. Experimentos de Thelen mostraram que algumas manipulações no contexto da tarefa podem reduzir a perseveração motora. A questão central do estudo é: será que se modificarmos a orientação da posição da caixa na apresentação do estímulo em B, o comportamento perseverativo seria interrompido ou reduzido, provocando uma maior exigência atencional e assim um gesto diferenciado no alcançar? Desta forma, o objetivo deste estudo foi verificar se uma manipulação no contexto da tarefa poderia reduzir o comportamento... / Piaget (1954) described how it is possible to observe the cognitive development of infants through their interactions with the world as well through their gestures. He created the classic A not B task in order to verify whether or not infants exhibit concepts of permanence of objects relative to space and time. The A not B task consists of presenting an infant with two identical locations, in which an object is hidden. The experimenter entices the infant to search for the object at the first location (called A) a total of four separate times, with a 3-second delay between each cue (shaking the lid to entice the child to search) and giving the object (the stimulus) to the infant as a reward for completing the search. Subsequently, the second location, called B,is similarly cued two times consecutively, and the child is allowed to search for and grasp at the hidden object. Typically, around the age of 8-10 months, normally-developing infants return to search for the A location even after being cued to reach for the B location. Piaget interpreted this error as a limitation in cognitive development: infants are not able to establish object permanence relations, and they have inconsistent memory skills. However, Thelen and collaborators offered a new perspective on this phenomenon. They believed that perceptual-motor memory creates perseverative behavior due to repetitive reaching attempts in the same direction. Thelen demonstrated in experiments with a modified task that used lids instead a hidden object that task manipulation can induce, more or less, perseveration. The purpose of our study was to observe whether or not infants change their perseverative rates when the orientation of the B trials during the A not B task is changed to a vertical position. Twenty-one infants, ages 8 to 12 months, were tested in this modified context as well... (Complete abstract click electronic access below)