| Revue: | Acta comportamentalia |
| Base de datos: | CLASE |
| Número de sistema: | 000399823 |
| ISSN: | 0188-8145 |
| Autores: | Albuquerque, Luiz Carlos de1 Silva, Laercio de Sousa2 Paracampo, Carla Cristina Paiva1 |
| Instituciones: | 1Universidade Federal do Para, Belem, Para. Brasil 2Instituto de Estudos Superiores da Amazonia, Belem, Para. Brasil |
| Año: | 2014 |
| Volumen: | 22 |
| Número: | 1 |
| Paginación: | 51-71 |
| País: | México |
| Idioma: | Portugués |
| Tipo de documento: | Artículo |
| Enfoque: | Analítico |
| Resumen en inglés | Aiming to investigate the control of behavior by rules, 10 college students were exposed to a matching to sample procedure with the task of pointing to each of three comparison stimulus in sequence. Each comparison stimulus shared one dimension with the sample: Color (C), Thickness (E) or Form (F).The participants were distributed in two groups. For both groups, in Session 1 no sequence was reinforced or instructed (baseline). During sessions 2, 3, and 4, the correct sequence was reinforced with points exchangeable for money. In Session 2 the sequence programmed as correct was sequence CEF. Initially the correct sequence was reinforced in a continuous reinforcement schedule (CRF), then in fixed ratio 2. The transition from Session 2 to 3 was characterized by the non signalized change in the programmed reinforcement contingencies for the sequences emitted. During Session 3, therefore, there were no instructions and only the sequence EFC was reinforced in CRF. The transition from Session 3 to 4 was characterized by the introduction – in the beginning of Session 4- of a discrepant rule specifying that emitting the sequence FCE the participant would earn points. During Session 4 the sequence EFC was the only one reinforced, in CRF. During Sessions 2, 3, 4, after every third trial the experimenter handled the participant a paper with the following question: “Answer in writing the following question: What is the sequence you have to point to the comparison objects in order to get points?”. The answers to the questions were never differentially reinforced by the experimenter. The two groups differed only concerning to the establishment of the correct sequence in Session 2. For the Group RD the correct sequence was established by differential reinforcement and for Group IN by rule |
| Resumen en portugués | Com o objetivo de investigar o controle por regras, 10 universitários foram expostos a um procedimento de escolha de acordo com o modelo; a tarefa era apontar três estímulos de comparação em uma sequência correta. Na Sessão 1 nenhuma sequência era reforçada ou instruída. As contingências da Sessão 2 eram alteradas na Sessão 3, e as contingências da Sessão 3 eram mantidas inalteradas na Sessão 4, iniciada com a regra discrepante. Os participantes eram solicitados a descrever as contingências durante as sessões e foram distribuídos em dois grupos, que diferiam porque a sequência correta na Sessão 2 era estabelecida por reforço diferencial no Grupo RD e por regra no Grupo IN. Os participantes que responderam corretamente na Sessão 3 tenderam a deixar de seguir a regra discrepante na Sessão 4; e os que responderam incorretamente na Sessão 3 tenderam a seguir a regra discrepante na Sessão 4. Um participante, na Sessão 2, formulou uma autorregra antes de o comportamento por ela especificado ter sido estabelecido por suas consequências imediatas. Neste caso, o comportamento especificado pela autorregra permaneceu inalterado nas primeiras tentativas da Sessão 3. Discutem-se os efeitos de perguntas, regras, autorregras, consequências e histórias do ouvinte sobre o comportamento |
| Disciplinas: | Psicología |
| Palabras clave: | Psicología educativa, Oyentes, Reglas discrepantes, Contingencias, Autoreglas, Historias, Conducta |
| Texte intégral: | Texto completo (Ver PDF) |
