A systematic replication investigating the efficiency and effectiveness of restricted- and free-operant programming

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Andrew J. Bulla, Amanda S. Bradley, Jennifer L. Wertalik, Allison Sullivan
{"title":"A systematic replication investigating the efficiency and effectiveness of restricted- and free-operant programming","authors":"Andrew J. Bulla,&nbsp;Amanda S. Bradley,&nbsp;Jennifer L. Wertalik,&nbsp;Allison Sullivan","doi":"10.1002/jaba.70048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Researchers have examined differences between free- and restricted-operant teaching arrangements while equating response and reinforcement rates. Preliminary data suggest that nonhuman organisms acquire novel discriminations more quickly under free-operant arrangements (Hachiya &amp; Ito, 1991). In contrast, Bulla et al. (2024) found that humans learned novel discriminations more efficiently under restricted-operant arrangements. This study systematically replicates Bulla et al. (2024). We taught participants to say the corresponding numeral 0–10 for Hindi, Eastern Arabic, and Mandarin numbers. We assigned each number set to a free-operant, restricted-operant, or control teaching arrangement. The study assessed the effects of each arrangement across two phases: (1) acquisition and (2) frequency building. Additionally, data were collected on measures of fluency outcomes. Results suggest that participants acquired novel discriminations more quickly under restricted-operant arrangements. No major differences emerged in fluency outcomes when response–reinforcer relations remained equal. Procedural modifications are discussed to clarify distinctions between basic and translational findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":14983,"journal":{"name":"Journal of applied behavior analysis","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of applied behavior analysis","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.70048","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Researchers have examined differences between free- and restricted-operant teaching arrangements while equating response and reinforcement rates. Preliminary data suggest that nonhuman organisms acquire novel discriminations more quickly under free-operant arrangements (Hachiya & Ito, 1991). In contrast, Bulla et al. (2024) found that humans learned novel discriminations more efficiently under restricted-operant arrangements. This study systematically replicates Bulla et al. (2024). We taught participants to say the corresponding numeral 0–10 for Hindi, Eastern Arabic, and Mandarin numbers. We assigned each number set to a free-operant, restricted-operant, or control teaching arrangement. The study assessed the effects of each arrangement across two phases: (1) acquisition and (2) frequency building. Additionally, data were collected on measures of fluency outcomes. Results suggest that participants acquired novel discriminations more quickly under restricted-operant arrangements. No major differences emerged in fluency outcomes when response–reinforcer relations remained equal. Procedural modifications are discussed to clarify distinctions between basic and translational findings.

研究限制和自由操作规划的效率和有效性的系统复制。
研究人员在等同反应率和强化率的同时,研究了自由操作和限制操作教学安排之间的差异。初步数据表明,在自由运作的安排下,非人类生物更快地获得新的歧视(Hachiya & Ito, 1991)。相比之下,Bulla等人(2024)发现,人类在限制性操作安排下更有效地学习新的区分。本研究系统地复制了Bulla et al.(2024)。我们教参与者说出印度语、阿拉伯语和普通话数字的对应数字0-10。我们将每个数字集分配给自由操作、限制操作或控制教学安排。该研究通过两个阶段评估了每种安排的效果:(1)获取和(2)频率构建。此外,还收集了测量流利程度结果的数据。结果表明,在限制性操作安排下,参与者更快地获得新的歧视。当反应强化关系保持不变时,流畅性结果没有出现重大差异。程序修改的讨论,以澄清基本和翻译结果之间的区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of applied behavior analysis
Journal of applied behavior analysis PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
20.70%
发文量
61
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书