scholarly journals Influence of pattern variance and overt responding on subjective categorization in a two-schemata SCF task

1969 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 325-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret A. Hastings ◽  
D. F. Dansereau ◽  
T. R. Dixon
Keyword(s):  
Overt Responding

Overt responding in computer-based training

1990 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 373-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Silverman ◽  
Ogden R. Lindsley ◽  
Kathy L. Porter
Keyword(s):  
Computer Based Training ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Overt Responding

Explaining more by drawing on less

2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrike Hahn
Keyword(s):  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Psychological Theory ◽  
Logical Reasoning ◽  
The State ◽  
Reasoning Tasks ◽  
Overt Responding ◽  
Bayesian Rationality ◽  
State Of The Field

AbstractOne of the most striking features of “Bayesian rationality” is the detail with which behavior on logical reasoning tasks can now be predicted and explained. This detail is surprising, given the state of the field 10 to 15 years ago, and it has been brought about by a theoretical program that largely ignores consideration of cognitive processes, that is, any kind of internal behavior that generates overt responding. It seems that an increase in explanatory power can be achieved by restricting a psychological theory.

Transfer of a Discrimination and a Discrimination Reversal between Two Manipulandum-Defined Responses

1965 ◽  
Vol 16 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1213-1221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milton A. Trapold ◽  
Penelope B. Odom
Keyword(s):  
Discrimination Training ◽  
Variable Interval ◽  
Discrimination Reversal ◽  
Reversal Training ◽  
Free Operant ◽  
Mediational Process ◽  
Response Transfer ◽  
Overt Responding ◽  
Classically Conditioned ◽  
Free Operant Situation

An experiment was performed to determine the extent to which the effects of continuous reinforcement, variable interval reinforcement, discrimination training, and discrimination reversal training would transfer between a vertical and a horizontal bar-pressing response in the free operant situation. No transfer of continuous or variable interval reinforcement was found. However, both discrimination training and discrimination reversal training showed very appreciable amounts of inter-response transfer. These results are discussed in terms of a mediational process involving classically conditioned mediators which exert discriminative control over overt responding.

Comparison of Overt and Subjective Responses to the Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale under Conditions of Group Administration

1986 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 847-856 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas P. Spanos ◽  
Jesus Salas ◽  
Evelyn P. Menary ◽  
Pamela J. Brett
Keyword(s):  
Overt Response ◽  
Hypnotic Susceptibility ◽  
Subjective Responses ◽  
Overt Responding

109 subjects were group tested in counterbalanced order on the Carleton University Responsiveness to Suggestion Scale (CURSS) and Form C of the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale (SHSS:C). Both scales yielded three susceptibility scores for each subject. O (objective) scores reflected overt responding to suggestions, S (subjective) scores reflected subjective responding, and OI (objective-involuntariness) scores reflected the extent to which overt responses were experienced as occurring involuntarily. O scores were significantly higher than OI scores on both scales, and on the SHSS:C OI scores were much more strongly skewed toward the low end of the scale than were O scores. Corresponding dimensions on the two scales correlated highly with one another. Contrary to the assumption of some investigators, our findings indicate that substantial discrepancies between overt and subjective aspects of responding occur on both scales. On neither scale did overt response to suggestion accurately reflect subjects' experience of responding involuntarily.

The Relationship between Planned and Actual Responses to Hypnotic Suggestions

1989 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 283-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald R. Gorassini
Keyword(s):  
Action Planning ◽  
Subjective Experiences ◽  
Overt Behavior ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Overt Responding ◽  
Hypnotic Suggestions

The notion that subjects often intentionally produce their hypnotic behavior was assessed. Several hypnotic suggestions were administered to subjects, following which overt responding, experienced involuntariness, and action-planning were self-rated. Responses to suggestions occurred proportionately more often when plans to produce the overt behavior and subjective experiences of a hypnotized person were formulated than when plans to wait passively for the responses to occur on their own were made. The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document