关于社会性与非社会性强化物的识别和使用:研究实践综述》。

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Perspectives on Behavior Science Pub Date : 2024-10-29 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1007/s40614-024-00426-0
Samuel L Morris, Katherine G Bridges
{"title":"关于社会性与非社会性强化物的识别和使用:研究实践综述》。","authors":"Samuel L Morris, Katherine G Bridges","doi":"10.1007/s40614-024-00426-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent research has developed efficacious methods for identifying individualized social reinforcers and utilizing social reinforcers may be beneficial for several reasons. However, the relative likelihood of utilizing social versus nonsocial reinforcers in behavior-analytic research remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate how likely behavior analysts are to employ social versus nonsocial reinforcers in the context of research. We pursued this aim by evaluating the types of reinforcers utilized in research published during the past 9 years in five applied behavior-analytic journals. Results suggest that researchers in applied behavior analysis have been more likely to use individualized nonsocial reinforcers than individualized social reinforcers. Moreover, when social reinforcers were employed, they were much more likely to be generic and not individualized. These data suggest there is room for improvement in the types of programmed reinforcement contingencies we use in research and ways of facilitating such improvement are discussed. Implications and directions for future research evaluating current practices, demonstrating the utility of social reinforcers, and comparing the utility of social versus nonsocial reinforcers are also discussed.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40614-024-00426-0.</p>","PeriodicalId":44993,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Behavior Science","volume":"47 4","pages":"739-761"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11582244/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Identification and Use of Social versus Nonsocial Reinforcers: A Review of Research Practices.\",\"authors\":\"Samuel L Morris, Katherine G Bridges\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40614-024-00426-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Recent research has developed efficacious methods for identifying individualized social reinforcers and utilizing social reinforcers may be beneficial for several reasons. However, the relative likelihood of utilizing social versus nonsocial reinforcers in behavior-analytic research remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate how likely behavior analysts are to employ social versus nonsocial reinforcers in the context of research. We pursued this aim by evaluating the types of reinforcers utilized in research published during the past 9 years in five applied behavior-analytic journals. Results suggest that researchers in applied behavior analysis have been more likely to use individualized nonsocial reinforcers than individualized social reinforcers. Moreover, when social reinforcers were employed, they were much more likely to be generic and not individualized. These data suggest there is room for improvement in the types of programmed reinforcement contingencies we use in research and ways of facilitating such improvement are discussed. Implications and directions for future research evaluating current practices, demonstrating the utility of social reinforcers, and comparing the utility of social versus nonsocial reinforcers are also discussed.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40614-024-00426-0.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44993,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Behavior Science\",\"volume\":\"47 4\",\"pages\":\"739-761\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11582244/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Behavior Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-024-00426-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Behavior Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-024-00426-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近的研究已经开发出了识别个性化社会性强化物的有效方法,出于多种原因,利用社会性强化物可能是有益的。然而,在行为分析研究中使用社会性强化物与非社会性强化物的相对可能性仍不清楚。本研究旨在评估行为分析师在研究中使用社会性强化物与非社会性强化物的可能性。为了实现这一目标,我们评估了过去 9 年中在 5 种应用行为分析期刊上发表的研究中使用的强化物类型。结果表明,应用行为分析研究人员更倾向于使用个体化的非社会性强化物,而不是个体化的社会性强化物。此外,在使用社会性强化物时,这些强化物更可能是通用的,而不是个性化的。这些数据表明,我们在研究中使用的程序化强化条件类型还有改进的余地,我们也讨论了促进这种改进的方法。此外,还讨论了评估当前做法、展示社会性强化物的效用以及比较社会性强化物与非社会性强化物的效用等未来研究的意义和方向:在线版本包含补充材料,可查阅 10.1007/s40614-024-00426-0。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On the Identification and Use of Social versus Nonsocial Reinforcers: A Review of Research Practices.

Recent research has developed efficacious methods for identifying individualized social reinforcers and utilizing social reinforcers may be beneficial for several reasons. However, the relative likelihood of utilizing social versus nonsocial reinforcers in behavior-analytic research remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate how likely behavior analysts are to employ social versus nonsocial reinforcers in the context of research. We pursued this aim by evaluating the types of reinforcers utilized in research published during the past 9 years in five applied behavior-analytic journals. Results suggest that researchers in applied behavior analysis have been more likely to use individualized nonsocial reinforcers than individualized social reinforcers. Moreover, when social reinforcers were employed, they were much more likely to be generic and not individualized. These data suggest there is room for improvement in the types of programmed reinforcement contingencies we use in research and ways of facilitating such improvement are discussed. Implications and directions for future research evaluating current practices, demonstrating the utility of social reinforcers, and comparing the utility of social versus nonsocial reinforcers are also discussed.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40614-024-00426-0.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Perspectives on Behavior Science
Perspectives on Behavior Science PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Behavior Science is an official publication of the Association for Behavior Analysis International. It is published quarterly, and in addition to its articles on theoretical, experimental, and applied topics in behavior analysis, this journal also includes literature reviews, re-interpretations of published data, and articles on behaviorism as a philosophy.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信