ABSTRACT
Investigando variáveis que podem interferir no seguir regras, 16 universitários foram expostos a um procedimento de escolha segundo o modelo. A tarefa: apontar cada um dos três estímulos de comparação, em seqüência. A Fase 1 era de linha de base; na Fase 2, a seqüência correta era estabelecida por contingências; e na Fase 3 era apresentada a regra discrepante das contingências. Manipulou-se os esquemas utilizados para reforçar as seqüências corretas nas Fases 2 e 3. Para os Grupos 1 e 2, os esquemas eram CRF na Fase 2, CRF na Fase 3 do Grupo 1 e FR 3 na Fase 3 do Grupo 2. Para os Grupos 3 e 4, os esquemas eram FR 3 na Fase 2, FR 3 na Fase 3 do Grupo 3 e CRF na Fase 3 do Grupo 4. A história construída na Fase 2 e o esquema na Fase 3 interferiram no seguir regras(AU)
In an investigation of variables that may interfere with rule-following, 16 college students were exposed to a matching-to-sample procedure, where they had to point, in sequence, to three comparison stimuli. Baseline was referred in Phase 1. In Phase 2, the correct sequence was established by contingencies, and in Phase 3 the discrepant rule to contingencies was presented. The reinforcement schedules in Phases 2 and 3 were manipulated as follows: For Groups 1 and 2, a CRF schedule was used in Phase 2 and also in Phase 3 of Group 1; schedule FR3 was employed in Phase 3 of Group 2. For Groups 3 and 4, the schedules were FR3 in Phase 2, FR3 in Phase 3 of Group 3, and CRF in Phase 3 of Group 4. The history constructed in Phase 2, as well as the schedule in Phase 3, interfered with rule-following(AU)
Subject(s)
Behavior Control , StudentsABSTRACT
Investigando variáveis que podem interferir no seguir regras, 16 universitários foram expostos a um procedimento de escolha segundo o modelo. A tarefa: apontar cada um dos três estímulos de comparação, em seqüência. A Fase 1 era de linha de base; na Fase 2, a seqüência correta era estabelecida por contingências; e na Fase 3 era apresentada a regra discrepante das contingências. Manipulou-se os esquemas utilizados para reforçar as seqüências corretas nas Fases 2 e 3. Para os Grupos 1 e 2, os esquemas eram CRF na Fase 2, CRF na Fase 3 do Grupo 1 e FR 3 na Fase 3 do Grupo 2. Para os Grupos 3 e 4, os esquemas eram FR 3 na Fase 2, FR 3 na Fase 3 do Grupo 3 e CRF na Fase 3 do Grupo 4. A história construída na Fase 2 e o esquema na Fase 3 interferiram no seguir regras
In an investigation of variables that may interfere with rule-following, 16 college students were exposed to a matching-to-sample procedure, where they had to point, in sequence, to three comparison stimuli. Baseline was referred in Phase 1. In Phase 2, the correct sequence was established by contingencies, and in Phase 3 the discrepant rule to contingencies was presented. The reinforcement schedules in Phases 2 and 3 were manipulated as follows: For Groups 1 and 2, a CRF schedule was used in Phase 2 and also in Phase 3 of Group 1; schedule FR3 was employed in Phase 3 of Group 2. For Groups 3 and 4, the schedules were FR3 in Phase 2, FR3 in Phase 3 of Group 3, and CRF in Phase 3 of Group 4. The history constructed in Phase 2, as well as the schedule in Phase 3, interfered with rule-following
