“…Moreover, it is also unclear whether the verbal reports and gambling patterns were functionally related or whether both were determined by the gambling contingency. Future studies might better evaluate the relationship between verbal reports and gambling, such as by using "talk-aloud" procedures (e.g., cabello, luciano, Gomez, & Barnes-Holmes, 2004) or by collecting verbal reports about task performance repeatedly throughout the experiment (e.g., Barnes & Keenan, 1993;Hackenberg & Joker, 1994;rosenfarb, Newland, Brannon, & Howey, 1992). Such research may be important not only for analyzing the role of self-generated rules in gambling but also for evaluating whether differences in self-generated rules contribute to individual differences in gambling patterns.…”
“…Moreover, it is also unclear whether the verbal reports and gambling patterns were functionally related or whether both were determined by the gambling contingency. Future studies might better evaluate the relationship between verbal reports and gambling, such as by using "talk-aloud" procedures (e.g., cabello, luciano, Gomez, & Barnes-Holmes, 2004) or by collecting verbal reports about task performance repeatedly throughout the experiment (e.g., Barnes & Keenan, 1993;Hackenberg & Joker, 1994;rosenfarb, Newland, Brannon, & Howey, 1992). Such research may be important not only for analyzing the role of self-generated rules in gambling but also for evaluating whether differences in self-generated rules contribute to individual differences in gambling patterns.…”
“…The talk aloud procedure (Cabello & O'Hora, ; Cabello, Luciano, Gomez, & Barnes‐Holmes, ; Wulfert et al, ) served to measure participants' vocal verbal responses during analogy tests. After each participant completed Component Listener Training (and prior to analogy tests), we asked him or her to describe a problem‐solving task (unrelated to analogies) with the following instructions:We are interested in how people solve problems.…”
We evaluated the effects of listener training on the emergence of analogical reasoning, as measured via equivalence‐equivalence and explored the role of verbal behavior when solving analogy‐type tasks. We taught 18 college students to select component stimuli from 2 classes, labeled “vek” and “zog,” and evaluated tacts and relational responding in the presence of baseline (AB and BC), symmetry (BA and CB), and transitivity (AC and CA) compounds. In Experiment 1, 5 out of 6 participants passed analogy tests, but none of them engaged in the relational tacts “same” and “different” during tact tests, possibly due to lack of instructional control. A change in instructions during Experiment 2 produced relational tacts in 4 of 6 participants, and 5 participants passed analogy tests. In Experiment 3, we implemented a talk‐aloud procedure to determine if the participants were emitting relational tacts during analogy tests. All 6 participants tacted stimuli relationally and engaged in problem‐solving statements to solve analogy tests. Results from these studies suggest that listener and speaker behavior in the form of relational tacts and other problem‐solving statements influenced the participants' equivalence–equivalence performance.
“…Pesquisas futuras, utilizando o presente estudo como parâmetro, poderiam contribuir para fazer tais esclarecimentos. Tais investigações são importantes porque, embora haja algumas proposições sugerindo que as verbalizações dos participantes podem facilitar a discriminação das contingências (Cabello, Luciano, Gomez & Barnes-Holmes, 2004;Dixon & Hayes, 1998;Rosenfarb, Newland, Brannon & Howey, 1992; e que é improvável que o seguimento de regras seja mantido quando o esquema programado para reforçar o não-seguimento de regras é um esquema de reforço contí-nuo (Newman e cols., 1995), também há evidências experimentais mostrando que o seguimento de regras pode ser mantido, mesmo quando os participantes são solicitados, ao longo do experimento, a descrever o comportamento que produz reforço, e mesmo quando o esquema programado para reforçar o seguimento de regra, antes da mudança nas contingências, e o não-seguimento de regra, depois da mudança nas contingências, é um esquema CRF (Paracampo e cols., 2001). Tais investigações também são importantes porque poucos estudos têm procurado avaliar o papel da complexidade da tarefa na sensibilidade do comportamento a mudanças nas contingências, embora haja evidências experimentais mostrando que a complexidade da tarefa pode interferir na ocorrência do seguimento de regras (Albuquerque & Ferreira, 2001).…”
RESUMOCom o objetivo de investigar o papel de variáveis que podem interferir no seguir regras, 10 universitários foram expostos a um procedimento de escolha de acordo com o modelo; a tarefa era apontar cada um dos três estímulos de comparação em uma dada seqüência. Nas duas condições experimentais, nenhuma resposta era reforçada na Sessão 1 (linha de base). As contingências na Sessão 2 eram alteradas na Sessão 3, e as contingências na Sessão 3 eram mantidas inalteradas na Sessão 4, iniciada com a regra discrepante das contingências. A duas condições diferiam apenas na Sessão 2. Na Sessão 2, a seqüência correta era estabelecida por contingências na Condição RD e por regra na Condição IN. Na Condição RD, 4 dos 5 participantes responderam corretamente, de acordo com as contingências, na Sessão 3 e deixaram de seguir a regra discrepante na Sessão 4. Na Condição IN, 4 dos 5 participantes responderam incorretamente na Sessão 3 e seguiram a regra discrepante na Sessão 4. Esses resultados apóiam a sugestão de que a manutenção do seguimento de regra discrepante pode depender das fontes de controle do comportamento alternativo ao especificado por essa regra na história do ouvinte. Discute-se também o papel de outras variáveis. Palavras-chave: regras e contingências; histórias comportamentais; insensibilidade às contingências programadas.
ABSTRACTThe effects of behavioral history on contingency-discrepant rule-following behavior With the purpose of investigating the role of variables that may interfere with rule-following, 10 university students were exposed to a matching-to-sample procedure, where they had to point, in sequence, to three comparison stimuli. In the two experimental conditions, neither response was reinforced in Session 1 (baseline). The contingencies in Session 2 were changed in Session 3, and the contingencies in Session 3 remained unchanged in Session 4, which began with a rule that was discrepant to the programmed contingencies. The two conditions differed only in Session 2. In Session 2, the sequence was established by contingencies in Condition RD and by rule in Condition IN. In Condition RD, four of the five participants gave correct responses in accordance with the contingencies in Session 3 and abandoned discrepant rule following in Session 4. In Condition IN, four of the five participants gave incorrect responses in Session 3 and followed the discrepant rule in Session 4. These results suggest that the maintenance of discrepant rule following may depend on the control of behaviors different from those specified by rules in the participant's previous behavioral history. The potential contribution of other variables is also discussed. Keywords: rules and contingencies; behavioral history; insensibility to programmed contingencies.De modo geral, o controle por regras 2 tem sido investigado de duas maneiras. Na maneira mais tradicional, observa-se se o comportamento previamente especificado pela regra muda quando as contingências de reforço programadas mudam (por exemplo, Cerutti,
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
