Four major conclusions were supported in seven runway experiments: Rats count; rats routinely and perhaps automatically count reinforcing events; counting reinforcing events is of importance for understanding instrumental learning and performance; and counting is the result of several independent coordinated cognitive processes. The results suggested counting rather than some simpler numerical ability because (a) they cannot be ascribed to other mechanisms (e.g., an identical-nonidentical discrimination (Experiments 4 and 5) or subitizing (Experiments 1-7); (b) qualitatively different reinforcers were categorized as both similar and different for counting purposes (Experiment 5); (c) the order-irrelevance principle was followed (Experiment 6-7); (d) abstract tags were assigned on the basis of number of events (Experiments 5-7); and (e) assignment occurred according to complex and situationally determined rules that were themselves abstract (Experiments 6-7). Number cues associated with reinforcing events are often valid in learning investigations but are invariably confounded with various, equally valid number and duration cues (related to trials, responses, etc.). Reinforcers were counted when confounded with these other cues (Experiments 1, 2, 3, and 5), which supported the sequential view that rats are highly disposed to using number cues associated with reinforcers and normally do so in instrumental situations. There was some evidence that one or more of the confounded events (unidentified) provided cues that were used by the rat, but this was of minor significance.

No abstract

Two experiments indicated that two approaches to serial learning are too extreme-the classical view that it consists only of interitem associations and various recent views that it involves no interitem associations. The novel assumption introduced here was that phrasing cues, normally conceptualized as merely segregating long series into smaller units or chunks, may also enter into associations with items, thereby reducing interitem interference and facilitating serial learning. It was found that one item could become a signal for another item, an interitem association, or be overshadowed by a phrasing cue, such as a brightness and temporal cue, also signaling that item. The items were ,045-g pellets. Rats traversed a runway for items arranged in ordered series, 14-7-3-1-0 pellets (Experiment 1) or 10-2-0-10 (Experiment 2), Complete tracking of, for example, the 10-2-0-10 series would consist of fastest running to 10 pellets and slowest running to 0 pellets. In both investigations, the interitem association overshadowed was that between 0 pellets and the subsequent rewarded item, 0-14 (Experiment 1) or 0-10 (Experiment 2). Either repetitions of the 14·7·3-1-0 subpattem (Experiment 1) or merely the terminall0·pellet item (Experiment 2) were phrased, both methods producing identical results. Overshadowing the O-pellet item produced superior serial learning, more rapid extinction, and, in Experiment 1, considerable elevation of responding when the brightness phrasing cue was introduced in extinction, an effect said to be conceptually identical to spontaneous recovery and one demonstrating directly that phrasing cues are in reality overshadowing cues. It was suggested that many effects attributed to forgetting may be due to unrecognized overshadowing of memory cues by phrasing cues, giving rise to exaggerated estimates of forgetting.

Hypocrites are often thought to lack the standing to blame others for faults similar to their own. Although this claim is widely accepted, it is seldom argued for. We offer an argument for the claim that nonhypocrisy is a necessary condition on the standing to blame. We first offer a novel, dispositional account of hypocrisy. Our account captures the commonsense view that hypocrisy involves making an unjustified exception of oneself. This exception-making involves a rejection of the impartiality of morality and thereby a rejection of the equality of persons, which we argue grounds the standing to blame others.Jeff and Kate take the LSAT, and both receive high scores. Unfortunately, each scores well only as a result of cheating -an act for which both of them are responsible and blameworthy. After each discovers that the other has cheated, Jeff reproaches Kate for cheating. In response, Kate sensibly calls into question Jeff's standing to blame her, saying, 'Look, you hypocrite, you've done the same thing. Who are you to blame me?' Call this case Cheaters. Cheaters illustrates an important point: there are some situations in which an agent, R, doesn't have the standing to blame another agent, S, for some fault -even if S is blameworthy for that fault. Sometimes this is expressed by saying that R doesn't have the right to blame S for some fault.The ethics of blame concerns the appropriateness of R's blaming S for some fault.

We study Lebesgue integration of sums of products of globally subanalytic functions and their logarithms, called constructible functions. Our first theorem states that the class of constructible functions is stable under integration. The second theorem treats integrability conditions in Fubini-type settings, and the third result gives decay rates at infinity for constructible functions. Further, we give preparation results for constructible functions related to integrability conditions.