ABSTRACT
El objetivo es identificar si los elementos que definen diferentes procesos de aprendizaje social, tanto imitativo como no imitativo, discutidos y evaluados en situaciones apetitivas pueden ser identificados en situaciones aversivas. Esta identificación permitirá valorar las bondades y/o limitaciones de los términos definidos, así como su alcance conceptual y heurístico. Se iniciará con un análisis general del concepto de aprendizaje, seguido de la distinción entre aprendizaje individual y social; posteriormente, se hará una delimitación de los componentes involucrados en los diferentes procesos de aprendizaje social en situaciones apetitivas, señalando las dificultades tanto conceptuales como metodológicas inherentes a esta área de investigación; se continuará con la misma delimitación de procesos en situaciones aversivas y se terminará con una discusión en la que, además de comparar las preparaciones experimentales en situaciones apetitivas y aversivas, se valorará si pueden ser descritas con los mismos conceptos.
This paper attempts to identify whether the components involved in different processes of social learning, both imitative and non imitative, evaluated in appetitive contexts can be identified in an aversive context. This identification will allow us to appraise the goodness and/or limitations of the concepts and their heuristic value. The paper begins with the definitions of learning, individual learning and social learning, followed by the definition of the different processes of social learning in appetitive contexts, with emphasis in conceptual and experimental difficulties. Then, the definition of the different processes of social learning in aversive context is proposed and the paper concludes with a discussion about differences and similarities in both contexts.
Subject(s)
Psychology, Social , LearningABSTRACT
Experiment 1 investigated the controlling properties of variability contingencies on choice between repeated and variable responding. Pigeons were exposed to concurrent-chains schedules with two alternatives. In the REPEAT alternative, reinforcers in the terminal link depended on a single sequence of four responses. In the VARY alternative, a response sequence in the terminal link was reinforced only if it differed from the n previous sequences (lag criterion). The REPEAT contingency generated low, constant levels of sequence variation whereas the VARY contingency produced levels of sequence variation that increased with the lag criterion. Preference for the REPEAT alternative tended to increase directly with the degree of variation required for reinforcement. Experiment 2 examined the potential confounding effects in Experiment 1 of immediacy of reinforcement by yoking the interreinforcer intervals in the REPEAT alternative to those in the VARY alternative. Again, preference for REPEAT was a function of the lag criterion. Choice between varying and repeating behavior is discussed with respect to obtained behavioral variability, probability of reinforcement, delay of reinforcement, and switching within a sequence.