The purpose of these experiments are to establish the conditioned pupillary reflex in human subjects. We believe it will be of value to add another report to the discussion whether it is possible or not. Part I. The devices for experiments are the same as that of Hudgins', except in just a few minor parts. In Experiment I, the conditioned stimulus was the sound of bell, while the unconditioned one was the light of 100 w. Both stimuli were presented simultaneously. The total number of reinforcement was about 100 over a period of 3 to 5 days. Subjects employed for this experiment were 6 adult men. The procedure of Experiment II are very much like that of Baker and Wedell's. The conditioned stimulus, a weak tone of 1024 cycles near threshold was presented for 7 seconds through earphone. The unconditioned stimulus, light of 100 w., was presented for 4 seconds, 3 seconds after the conditioned stimulus had been given. During the 5 days of experiments, we gave the control experiment and 5 reinforcements on the first day, and from the second to the fifth day we gave 15 reinforcements every day. For this experiment 7 adults were employed. In so far as our experiments are concerned, we could not get good results from Experiment I, though we reinforced 100 times or more in total. 3 cases among 6 could be considered to have been conditioned. In Experinent II, conditioned reflexes were established easily and surely. The results were far better than that of Experiment I. After 10 times of reinforcement we could observe the conditioned reflex with the latency of 3 seconds. Thus we are able to conclude that, if the experimental procedure is good and adequate, it will be possible to condition human pupillary reflex. Part II. We further attempted to introduce a new method of conditioning pupillary reflex in human subjects. We have enough reason to believe that in conditioning any kind of human reflexes the differential reinforcement method is very efficient. By use of this differential reinforcement method, we used a tone of 1000 cycles (20 db.) as the positive conditioned stimulus, and that of 468 cycles (20 db.) as the negative one. Duration of these stimuli were 7 seconds. The positive one was followed by the unconditioned stimulus of the light of 100 w., while the negative one was not. In order to compare the results of the above mentioned method with the ordinary mothod of simple reinforcement using the tone of 1000 cycles (20 db.) as the conditioned stimulus and the light of 100 w. as the unconditioned stimulus, we examined 14 cases, 7 for the differential method and 7 for the ordinary method. After 40 times of differential reinforcements we could get conditioned reflex with the latent time of 4 seconds. On the other hand, it was not before 100 times of ordinary reinforcements that we could observe the conditioned reflex. Thus we may conclude that our newly introduced method is really effective and of value.
Our problem in this paper is to examine the nature of Humphreys' effect, the so-called ‘Paradox of reinforcement’. Unfortunately, there is no unified theory to account for this phenomenon. At present, the main alternatives are two: one is Humphreys expectation principle, the other is Hull's after-effect (generalization) principle. The first step in our research was directed to the examination of the former principle based on experiments. Since the expectation principle regards the extinction process as ‘another process of learning’, it tends to solve the problem by referring mainly to discrimination or cognition of the difference between acquisition and extinction situations. Extending the above principle, however, it would become difficult to explain the other well-known effect of reinforcement, namely, the more numerous the number of trials, the greater the resistance-to-extinction in case of continuous or 100% reinforcement. In order to make this point more precise and to get some indirect but important suggestions relating to Humphreys' effect, the comparison between extinction process and ‘another process of learning’ or relearning process would be required. The experimental arrangement used here was ot the card-game type and consisted mainly of the anticipatory responses of the human subjects. By setting the relearning series which was as simple as possible and comparable to the procedure of the extinction experiment, we studied: (1) The after-effect of mixed (or percentile) reinforcement. (2) In case of continuous reinforcement; a) some effects of the number of trials upon the acquisition level and relearning process. b) the correlation between the acquisition level and resistance-to-relearning. As a result of our study, it was revealed that the after-effect of mixed reinforcement showed Humphreys' effect dominantly both in the properties of the relearning process as a whole (α-effect) and the initial gradient of the relearning process (β-effect). However, the after-effct of continuous reinforcement showed, as we had expected, a high but negative correlation between the acquisition level and resistance-to-relearning which is a result opposite to the one derived in the extinction situation. Accordingly it has been established that the simple mode of the expectation principle, applied to the extinction process, can hardly be supported. Moreover, even with learning and relearning situations it might not be profitable to assert the principle so vaguely. Finally, our data revealed the more following points: (1) The relation between the learning process and individual difference. (2) The properties of the relearning process following mixed and continuous reinforcement respectively.
In order to study the formation process of Abomb suffers' special attitudes, we investigated the suffers' behavior which arouse immediately after the A-bombing, and thus made a hypothetic sheme of A-bomb suffers' behavior (Fig. 2). As a character of this study made it necessary for us to select 54 teachers of Hiroshima University with whom we were very familiar as the subjects of the research. We used the following procedures to analyse and organize the data. (1) Checking the data according to several factors such as respondents' physical and psychological situations, their contact and interference with others, etc. As the result of checking we excluded the unappropriated parts. (2) Investigating respondents' personality as much as possible and examining their ages, profession, and their families then staying in Hiroshima, etc. These were the second checking. (3) Excluding conjunctions and modifications from answers, as well as adjectives obviously attached afterwards. Through this procedure the answers broke up in fragments. (4) Arranging these fragments in time order. (5) Organizing these arranged fragments. At first tremendous flash light came (‘Flash’). Almost all the respondents, perceiving it, took the reflex action (‘Instmctive Action’). After a moment, explosive wind came (‘Wind’), then all buildings were destroyed (‘Destruction’). All the respondents were at a loss (‘Blank I’). Immediately they asked themselves what that could be, and they judged by their frames of reference that their houses were bombed (‘Judgement I’). A few respondents who were under those destroyed building became aware that their situations were very dangerous to them, so they tried to escape (‘Action I’). The judgement that their houses were bombed included three principal factors, and according to them almost all the respondents ran out of doors (‘Action Ib’). The first factor was the counter-measure against bombing, which they were severely trained to do at that time. The second one was anxiety for the security of their families who were staying in Hiroshima. The third one was the care for injuries. The second cluster of stimuli attacked all respondents continuously and repeatedly. They became aware of their errors of ‘Judgement I’ and then standards of ‘Action Ib’ were completely destroyed. As soon as they were conscious of destruction of their standards, they seem to have tried to find new standards of judgement, but they could not find anything. This situation would be called panic (Stages from ‘Flash’ to ‘Action Ib’ would be pre-panic). It may be called one of the most awful panics, because it had complication of realistic fear (the first and the second cluster) and unrealistic anxiety (expectations of unexpected catastrophe). A few respondents were stupefied for a moment (‘Blank II’). Some respondents scarcely perceived that it might be severe bombing, and they tried several actions which apparantly seemed to belong to adjustment mechanisms. But their actions were fragmental and unpurposive and they did not check their actions at all. So we should think their actions could not be included in adjustment mechanisms. On the other hand, other respondents were affected by the first and the second clusters, and so there was an appearance of the security need. To satisfy it, escape actions were taken by them (‘Action II’). In a meantime, the third cluster of stimuli attacked all the respondents repeatedly. The effect of the third cluster oppeareatd reinforce and highten the catastrophic situation into which all the respondents had already fallen by the effects of the first and second clusters. It seems that some respondents who tried several fragmental actions, transformed from doing such actions to escaping to the directions which they thought were safe
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of an interpolated task in decreasing the amount of the Müller-Lyer illusion. The experiment consisted of three parts: In Part 1 the amount of illusion of one of the Müller-Lyer figure, the line with the arrow feathers (cf. Figure 1) was measured, in Part 2 some task given to the observer for 12-20 minutes and in Part 3 the amount of illusion of the initial figure was again measured. The experiment took place in the above order. If statistically significant difference is to be found between the initial amount of illusion and that after a given interpolated task, it may be considered as the effect of the interpolated task. The effects of various kinds of interpolated tasks were examined in this way. The principal interpolated tasks which were found to be effective in decreasing the amount of illusion were: Task A……repeating the adjustment trials many times on the Müller-Lyer figure with the arrow feathers. Task B……looking for the little dark spots presented one by one on different parts of the illusion figure (cf. Figure 3). The possibility of comparing the illusion figure with the variable line, during the task was excluded in later experiment. Task K……drawing the illusion figure many times on a sheet of paper. Task L……a task similar to A, but the illusion figure used here was one consisting of a line with the arrow heads. Task N……a task similar to B, but the illusion figure used here was one similar to that used in L. The interpolated tasks which were found to be ineffective were: Task F……looking fixedly at about the middle part of the illusion figure. Task I……a task similar to B, but the positions where dark spots were presented were limited to the intersecting points of the obliqus lines (cf. Figure 5). In addition, the author tried to test Köhler-Fishback hypothesis by using a figure shown in Figure 8. It was found that mere prolonged fixation on a given fixation point (a little cross mark on the center of Figure 8) itself had no significant effect in decreasing the amount of illusion, whereas the observation shifting freely on every part of illusion figure was remarkably effective. These results have led the author to the following conclusions: 1. Careful observation of every part of the illusion figure is as effective in decreasing the amount of illusion as the repeated ‘practice’ of adjustment trials. The author would call this effect “the effect of experience”. 2. In this experiment on “the effect of experience”, it is important to inspect carefully the whole figure structure, especially the part of oblique lines; the observation of the connecting line is not so important. 3. The figure used for purpose of giving “the experience of seeing that figure” needs not to be the same as the initial figure. It is necessary, however, that the two figures should have some structural character in common with each other. 4. Existence of “the pattern of satiation”, as mentioned in the Köhler-Fishback theory, might not be always the necessary condition nor always the satisfactory condition for bringing the effect stated above. From these conclusions, the author would like to suggest the necessity of postulating such an intervening variable as determines the interaction between the ‘percept’ and the ‘set’, and at the same time, is determined by the experience in ‘some’ aspects of the ‘percept’.
Problem: To determine the effects of cooperative and competitive social situations on group cohesiveness. Subjects: 16 experimntal groups were established; each group was composed of five fifth-grade boys of a primary school. Eight groups were assigned to cooperative situation, others competitive situation. Procedure: Before the experimental session, ten boys were assembled and each boy was made choose four boys from among them for his partners. From these ten boys (Group X) two groups (X1, X2) were formed in such a way that each group found approximately half of its sociometric choices in its own group and the remaining half in the other group. One (X1) of these two groups was brought into competition with a group of five boys (Y1) formed from among the other ten boys (Group Y). X1 and Y1 were indifferent to each other in the sociometric choice. The members of this group (X1) were expected to cooperate with one another to win against the opposing team (Y1) in the experimental tasks. The mnembers of another group (X2) were brought into competition mith one another in the experimental tasks. The tasks given to the subjects consisted of twenty questions, story telling, etc. At the conclusion of the experiment, the sociometric questions were repeated, Result: Amount of shift toward increased proportion of own group choices was taken as the measure of increased cohesiveness. For cooperative groups the changes in cohesiveness which resulted from the experimental treatment were in the positive direction, the difference being statistically significant. The cohesiveness of competitive groups did not increase significantly