| Revue: | Acta comportamentalia |
| Base de datos: | CLASE |
| Número de sistema: | 000446229 |
| ISSN: | 0188-8145 |
| Autores: | Castro, Juliany Lopes de1 Paracampo, Carla Cristina Paiva1 Albuquerque, Luiz Carlos de1 |
| Instituciones: | 1Universidade Federal do Para, Belem, Para. Brasil |
| Año: | 2015 |
| Volumen: | 23 |
| Número: | 2 |
| Paginación: | 153-166 |
| País: | México |
| Idioma: | Portugués |
| Tipo de documento: | Artículo |
| Enfoque: | Experimental |
| Resumen en inglés | In rule following research, justification is a stimulus inserted in a rule that, when manipulated, may modify the probability of occurence of the behavior described by the rule. Justification Type 1 indicates that the experimenter aproves rule following. Justification Type 2 mention future advantages for rule-following, as permission to buy items in a shelf containing the most preferred items or indicates the disadvantages for not following the rule, as allowance to buy items only in the shelf containing the less preferred items). Investigating the effects of justifications on the rule-following that results in losses of programmed reinforcement (tokens exchangeable for toys), twenty children were exposed to a matching-to-sample procedure under contextual control, assigned to four conditions with five phases each. The task was to touch one stimulus in the presence of one light. The behavior was established by rule in Phase 1. The contingencies were changed in Phase 2, re-established in Phase 3, changed again in Phase 4, and re-established in Phase 5. In Condition 1, Phase 1, the behavior was established by rule corresponding to the contingencies with Type 1 and 2 aditional justifications for following the rule, no matter wether the participant was earning tokens or not. In Phase 2 the contingencies were modified without warning and rule following start leading to the loss of the programmed reinforcement. In Phase 3 the behavior was established by corresponding rule without aditional justifications. In Phase 4 the contingencies were changed and following the rule start leading to the loss of programmed reinforcement. In Phase 5 the behavior was established by rule corresponding to the contingencies without further aditional justifications. Condition 2 was different of Condition 1 because the rule presented in Phase 1 was presented in Phase 3 and viceversa. Condition 3 was different of Condition.. |
| Resumen en portugués | Este estudo procurou investigar se justificativas que indicam aprovação do seguir regras ou mencionam outras vantagens deste comportamento exercem a função de manter o seguir regra que produz perda do reforçador programado. Vinte crianças foram expostas a um procedimento de escolha segundo o modelo e distribuídas em quatro condições experimentais, com cinco fases cada. A tarefa era tocar um dos dois estímulos de comparação na presença de um estímulo contextual. Nas quatro condições, nas Fases 1, 3 e 5 eram apresentadas regras correspondentes às contingências programadas. Nas Fases 2 e 4, ocorriam mudanças não sinalizadas nas contingências e a manutenção do seguir regras produzia perda do reforço programado. As condições diferiam quanto às especificidades das justificativas adicionais apresentadas para a manutenção do seguimento de regra e quanto à fase em que tais justificativas adicionais eram apresentadas. Os resultados mostraram que, independentemente da condição experimental, 16 dos 20 participantes abandonaram o seguimento de regra quando esse comportamento passou a produzir perda do reforço programado nas Fases 2 e 4. Tais resultados sugerem que o seguimento de regras que produz perda do reforço programado tende a deixar de ocorrer, mesmo quando os participantes são expostos às mencionadas justificativas para a sua manutenção |
| Disciplinas: | Psicología |
| Palabras clave: | Psicología experimental, Reglas, Contingencias, Seguimiento de reglas, Consecuencias inmediatas, Justificación, Explicación, Conducta |
| Texte intégral: | Texto completo (Ver PDF) |
