Díaz LRY, Carpio RCA

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 1343-1359
PDF size: 554.79 Kb.

ABSTRACT

A positive relationship has been identified between the duration of a blackout because of error and sensitivity to contingencies. The explanation revolves on the one hand, around assuming aversive characteristics of blackout; on the other, the emission of verbalizations during this period is ignored. It is likely that the sensitivity observed during this period is sponsored by the verbalization emitted during the period and not exclusively by its duration. To evaluate this possibility, the objective of the present study was to evaluate the effects of different durations and the inhibition of relevant verbalizations during the blackout period on insensitivity to contingencies in matching-tosample tasks. 36 young adults participated, exposed to different durations of blackout (0, 4, 8, 16's) in which relevant verbalizations were inhibited using mathematical operations. Participants went through six different conditions in which the matching criterion that operated did not correspond to the one indicated at the beginning of each condition. An execution criterion of greater than 80% correct answers was established to transition between conditions. The results show that the longer the duration of blackout with inhibition of relevant verbalizations, there is greater insensitivity to contingencies. The role of verbalizations emitted during the blackout period is discussed.

REFERENCES

1. Bentall, R. P., & Lowe, C. F. (1987). The role of verbal behavior in human learning:III. Instructional effects in children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis ofBehavior, 47(2), 177–190.

2. Catania, A. C., Lowe, C. F. & Horne, P. (1990). Nonverbal behavior correlated withthe shaped verbal behavior of children. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 8,43-56.

3. Cerutti, D. T. (1989). Discrimination theory of rule-governed behavior. Journal ofthe Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 259–276.

4. Díaz, Y. (2020) Efectos de distintos componentes verbales consecuentes sobre elnivel de efectividad en una tarea de discriminación condicional de segundoorden [ Tesis de licenciatura, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México]Tesiunam.http://132.248.9.195/ptd2019/diciembre/0798905/Index.html

5. Ferster, B. y Skinner, B.F. (1957). Schedules ofreinforcement. Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall.

6. Fox, E y Kyonka, E (2017) Searching for the variables that control human rule‐governed “insensitivity”. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 108(2),236-254.

7. Herrera, H. (2016).Control instruccional: historia de instrucciones, blackout yretroalimentación en una tarea de discriminación condicional en humanos(Tesis doctoral) Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, México. https://savecc.com/Tesis/2016%20-%20TESIS%20-%20Control%20instruccional.%20Historia%20de%20instrucciones%20Blackout%20y%20retroalimentacion%20-%20David.pdf

8. Hojo, R. (2002) Effects of instructional accuracy on a conditional discriminationtask. The Psychological Record. 52. pp 493-506.

9. Kaufman, A., Baron, A., y Kopp (1966) Some effects of instructions on humanoperant behavior. Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 1, pp. 243-250.

10. Lowe, C. (1979) Determinants of human behavior. En Zieler y Harzem (dirs.),Reinforcement and the organization of behavior, Vol. 1, Nueva York.

11. Martínez, H. y Ribes, E. (1996). Interactions of Contingencies and instructional history on conditional discrimination. The Psychological Record, 46, 301-318.

12. Martinez, H. y Tamayo, R. (2005) Interactions of contingencies, instructionalaccuracy, and instructional history in conditional discrimination. ThePsychological Record, 55(4) , pp 633-646.

13. Martínez, H., Ortiz, G. & González, A. (2007). Efectos diferenciales deinstrucciones y consecuencias en ejecuciones de discriminación condicionalhumana. Psicothema, 19, 14-22

14. Matthews, B., Shimoff, A., Catania, C., y Sagvolden, J. (1977). UninstructedHuman Responding: Sensitivity to Ratio and Interval Contingencies. Journal ofthe Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 453-467

15. Ortiz, G. y Cruz, Y. (2011). El papel de la precisión instruccional y laretroalimentación en la ejecución y descripciones poscontacto. RevistaMexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 37(1), 69-87.

16. Segal, E. (1972) Induction and the provenance of operants. En Gilbert, R. yMillenson ,J. (Eds.) Reinforcement: Behavioral Analyses ( pp. 1-34) Academic.Trigo, E., Martínez, R. y Moreno, R. (1995). Rule performance and generalizationin a matching-to-sample task. The Psychological Record, 45(2), 223-241.