Behavioral pharmacology and verbal behavior: Diazepam effects on verbal self-reports

Differential latency and selective nondisclosure in verbal self-reports

Several previous studies have examined the correspondence between self-reports and the delayed identity match-to-sample performance they supposedly described. The present two experiments used similar procedures to explore different characteristics of the self-reports. In both studies, match-to-sample responses were successful (earned points) if they were both correct and faster than a time limit. Following each response, a computer-presented query asked whether the response had been successful, and subjects replied by pressing a "Yes" or "No" button. Experiment 1 analyzed self-report latencies from a previously-published study (Critchfield, 1993a). Latencies generally were longer for self-reports of failure than for self-reports of success. In Experiment 1, a "Yes" or "No" self-report was required to advance the session. In Experiment 2, self-reports were optional. In addition to "Yes" and "No" buttons, subjects could press a third button (a "nondisclosure" option) to remove the self-report query without providing a "Yes" or "No" answer. Across a range of conditions, nondisclosures always occurred more frequently after match-to-sample failures than after successes (i.e., under conditions in which a self-report of failure would be appropriate). The effects observed in the two experiments are consistent with a history of differential punishment for uncomplimentary self-reports, which casual observation and some descriptive studies suggest is a common experience in United States culture. The research necessary to explore this notion should produce data that are of interest to psychologists both within and outside of Behavior Analysis.

Causation and complexity: old lessons, new crusades

A body of experimental work performed by Israel Goldiamond and his colleagues over 30 years ago is used to help define the evidential problems raised for inferences concerning the causal efficacy of human thought. This work suggests that matches of public indicator responses of inferred private rules or states to experimenter score sheets may be considered only as weak evidence for causality. Further, the problems of inferring causality raised by Wittgenstein's skeptical challenge, and its implications for investigating the role of human thought in determining human behavior, are briefly described. A selectionist approach, which is currently being used by biobehavioral scientists to investigate the behavioral complexity which concerns Bandura (this issue) and others, is suggested as one way to study the role of private events in human behavior.