Trejo MUA, Pacheco CV, Palma CAL,Zabala-Adriana L, Zavala PJ, Carpio RCA, Martínez OSN, Padilla TAA

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page: 480-509
PDF size: 505.52 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The study of interactive styles has generated contradictory evidence regarding the use of open contingencies and contingency arrangements established by Ribes (Ribes and Sánchez, 1990; Ribes, 2018). This has led to the use of these methodological categories becomes inconsistent, that justifies the need for a methodological alternative that allows systematizing the circumstances where interactive styles are identified. In this writing an alternative of this kind is presented based on the number of ways of behavior that generate the same effect. 5 students were exposed to two morphologically different but functionally equal tasks. In each task, participants were asked to form combinations of five elements by choosing numbers between 1 and 10 that could be repeated. The first task was to design an avatar while the second was to design a logo. The independent variable was the number of potentially effective combinations (CPE) and the dependent variables were the most repeated combinations per block and verbal reports. A multilevel within-subject design was used in which, in the first five sessions, the amount of CPE decreased, while in the last five, it increased. The results showed that the combinations formed by the participants were different from each other in the conditions in which differential consequences were programmed for forming effective and ineffective combinations. In the condition in which there was only one CPE, the participants, except for one, formed such a combination even though the instruction was always the same in all the conditions. The combinations formed remained consistent while they were effective in the different tasks and conditions, which suggests that individuals behave in the same way if that one is effective regardless of the morphology of the situation and time. The results are discussed in terms of the defining qualities of interactive styles: idiosyncrasy, consistency between situations and over time.

REFERENCES

1. Buss, A. (1989). Personality as traits. American Psychologist ,44(11), pp. 1378-1388.

2. Martínez, D. (2017). Un estudio experimental de la individual: Los estilos interactivos.Tesis Doctoral. Universidad Veracruzana.

3. Mischel, W. (1973). Personalidad y Evaluación. México: Trillas.

4. Mischel, W. (1988). Teorías de la personalidad (2a ed. en español). Mc Graw Hill.

5. Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. y Zeiss, A. (1973). Selective Attention to the Self: Situationaland dispositional determinants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,27(1), pp. 129-142.

6. Ribes, E. (1972). Técnicas de modificación de conducta: su aplicación al retardo en eldesarrollo. Trillas.

7. Ribes, E. (1985). ¿Qué es, desde el punto de vista psicológico, el lenguaje? Revista deLogopedia, Foniatría y Audiología, 5(3), 139-144.

8. Ribes, E. (1990). La individualidad como problema psicológico: el estudio de lapersonalidad. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 16, 7-24.

9. Ribes, E. (2018). Retornando al individuo y su historia: el devenir y la biografía en E.

10. Ribes (Ed.), El Estudio Científico de la Conducta Individual: Una introducción a laTeoría de la Psicología (pp.319-366). Manual Moderno.

11. Ribes, E. y Contreras, S. (2007). Individual Consistencies in Behavior: Achievementpersistence interactions as personality styles. Psychological Reports, 101, 365-377.

12. Ribes, E., Cortés, A. y Romero, P. (1992). Quizás el lenguaje no es un proceso o tipoespecial de comportamiento: algunas reflexiones basadas en Wittgenstein.Revista Latina de Pensamiento y Lenguaje, 1(1), 58-73.

13. Ribes, E. y López, F. (1985). Teoría de la conducta. Trillas.

14. Ribes, E. y Sánchez, S. (1990). El problema de las diferencias individuales: un análisisconceptual de la personalidad en E. Ribes (Ed.). Problemas conceptuales en elanálisis del comportamiento humano (pp. 79-88). Trillas.

15. Santacreu, J., y Hernández, J. M. (2017). T-data (tests). In V. Zeigler-Hill y T. K.Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1–4). New York, NY: Springer.

16. Santé, L. y Santacreu, J. (2001) La eficacia (o la suerte) como moduladora en laevaluación del estilo interactivo tendencia al riesgo. Acta comportamentalia. 9(2),163- 188.

17. Trejo, A. (2018). Análisis Experimental de la Personalidad: Propuesta de unaTaxonomía [Tesis de licenciatura, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala].http://oreon.dgbiblio.unam.mx/F?RN=378578952

18. Trejo, A., Palma, A., Pérez, M., Zavala, J., Rodríguez, M. y Pacheco, V. (2019, 15 denoviembre). Consistencia a través del tiempo y de situaciones: contingencia deriesgo [ponencia]. VII Seminario Internacional sobre Comportamiento yAplicaciones, Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Occidente.