The effects of deadlines in contingency-specifying stimuli among nine 4 to 5 year old children were investigated. Each child was given verbal statements differing in the specified deadline, the delivery of the reinforcer, and the opportunity to respond. The results indicated: (a) statements not specifying deadlines or reinforcers failed to control the children's behavior reliably, (b) specifying deadlines, either immediate or delayed, and immediate reinforcers exerted reliable control over the children's behavior when the opportunity to respond was immediately available, and (c) specifying delayed deadlines or no deadlines and immediate or delayed reinforcers did not reliably control the children's behavior when the opportunity to respond was delayed.

The current study sought to investigate whether physiological responses, such as the electrodermographic response (EDG) and/or the frontalis muscle electrical potential (EMG) could be developed as a source of control over verbal responses. Discrimination training procedures using points exchangeable for money were employed to condition verbal responses occasioned by minute interoceptive events with 2 adult human subjects. Specific verbal responses were reinforced in the presence of changes in EDG with Sl and EDG and EMG with S2. Stimulus control over differentiated verbal responses was demonstrated with both subjects. The results suggest that minute interoceptive events can enter into controlling relations with verbal responses and that this control is partially a function of the size or range of physiological responses as well as conditioning history.

The original purpose of this study was to determine if Tegretol has an effect on the impulsive behavior exhibited by people with mental retardation. This was to be accomplished through a replication of the self-control choice procedures used by Ragotzy, Blakely, and Poling (1988). The procedure involved three stages. First, subjects chose between stimuli that provided either one or three edibles. Then the stimuli associated with the smaller and larger edibles were reversed. Following this, the procedure required the implementation of successively longer delays to the larger reinforcer. However, none of the subjects who participated was able to make the discriminations necessary to proceed, i.e., the subjects did not systematically select the stimulus associated with the larger magnitude edible choice. The identification and rectification of these errors in discrimination became the focus of this study. Various procedures were used to enhance discrimination, including fading, adjusting the magnitude of the edibles, and stimulus changes. None of these changes was successful in teaching the subjects the necessary discriminations.