Decision rules and signal detectability in a reinforcement-density discrimination.

Two probabilistic schedules of reinforcement, one richer in reinforcement, the other leaner, were overlapping stimuli to be discriminated in a choice situation. One of two schedules was in effect for 12 seconds. Then, during a 6-second choice period, the first left-key peck was reinforced if the richer schedule had been in effect, and the first right-key peck was reinforced if the leaner schedule had been in effect. The two schedule stimuli may be viewed as two binomial distributions of the number of reinforcement opportunities. Each schedule yielded different frequencies of 16 substimuli. Each substimulus had a particular type of outcome pattern for the 12 seconds during which a schedule was in effect, and consisted of four consecutive light-cued 3-second T-cycles, each having 0 or 1 reinforced center-key pecks. Substimuli therefore contained 0 to 4 reinforcers. On any 3-second cycle, the first center-key peck darkened that key and was reinforced with probability .75 or .25 in the richer or leaner schedules, respectively. In terms of the theory of signal detection, detectability neared the maximum possible d' for all four pigeons. Left-key peck probability increased when number of reinforcers in a substimulus increased, when these occurred closer to choice, or when pellets were larger for correct left-key pecks than for correct right-key pecks. Averaged over different temporal patterns of reinforcement in a substimulus, substimuli with the same number of reinforcers produced choice probabilities that matched relative expected payoff rather than maximized one alternative.

Professionals' attitudes towards sex between institutionalized patients.

Sexual activity among institutionalized patients has always been an issue of concern to institutions. Despite this fact, there has been little consensus about how patient sexuality should be dealt with. Nor have clinical insights with respect to patient sexuality been empirically tested. Given the diversity of beliefs and policies in this area, guidelines concerning sexual activity among hospitalized mental patients seem to be badly needed. We examined the following six factors that we thought might influence staff decisions: (1) the competence of a patient to engage in sexual activity, (2) the degree of consent, (3) the nature of sexual activity (e.g., hugging vs. genital relations), (4) the location of sexual activity (e.g., in bedroom vs. on grounds), (5) the sex of the initiating patient (6) the sex of the other patients. We hypothesized that mental health professionals, both as members of the community at large and as professionals, would have conventional moral views (as defined by Kohlberg) towards sexual activity. Supporting this hypothesis, of the six factors listed above, only location of the sexual activity and form of the sexual activity affected judgements on sexual activity significantly. The professionals interviewed appeared to be most condemning of homosexual acts, and least condemning of hugging. Although we had hypothesized that profession norms of consent and competence would be significant factors, they were not. The core implication of our study is that mental health professionals need training on competence assessment and its use in decision making and must reexamine their own prejudices (e.g., homophobia) to clarify their decision making about institutional policies.

Expert witness billing practices revisited: a pilot study of further data.

This pilot study follows up an earlier study of the strategies and rationales by which psychiatric expert witnesses bill for their time on a case. Questionnaires were answered by participants at a workshop at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law (AAPL). In this follow-up, additional novel billing issues were addressed, some subtler than in the original study. In addition, responses to one question supported the previous finding that experts billed more reasonably when a case was simple. Additional issues included use of fee agreements and returning an unpaid-for case. The implications of these findings are discussed.

"Telling tales out of court": a pilot study of experts' disclosures about opposing experts.

A pilot questionnaire surveyed forensic psychiatrists and psychologists about information they would feel it appropriate to disclose to their retaining attorneys about an opposing expert witness. A spectrum of hypothetical disclosures was offered, varying in their relevance to the case at hand and in their degree of "public" versus "personal" information. Respondents agreed significantly that "public" information could be disclosed to one's attorney, but responses about disclosing "personal" information varied widely. The findings and their implications are briefly discussed.

Expert witness travel dilemmas: a pilot study of billing practices.

A pilot study was performed, by questionnaire, on the strategies that expert witnesses use in calculating billing for travel on forensic cases. The authors tentatively conclude that as the complexity of the travel situation increases, a tendency toward redundant billing emerges. The results--the first of their kind--are presented with their implications for this and future studies.

Trading forensic and family commitments.

This pilot study explores the balancing of conflicting family and forensic commitments among forensic experts. Drawing upon consumer preference theory and behavioral economics, the authors devised an instrument to elicit choices between upholding family commitments and professional commitments. The instrument was administered to 15 forensic experts, and the data were used to construct trading functions for each individual. These functions were examined to reveal the decision-making process behind balancing conflicting sets of commitments. The study also examined the relationship between the trading functions and each participant's attitude toward the role of the expert witness, as well as some personal characteristics.