研究规则支配选择的程序:初步数据。

IF 0.7 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Analysis of Verbal Behavior Pub Date : 2024-05-28 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1007/s40616-024-00206-6
David Ruiz Méndez
{"title":"研究规则支配选择的程序:初步数据。","authors":"David Ruiz Méndez","doi":"10.1007/s40616-024-00206-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study was to model a situation that induced choice between following two incompatible rules, each associated with a different rate of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, eight undergraduate students were exposed to a two-component multiple schedule (training). In each component, there was a concurrent variable interval (VI)-extinction (EXT) schedule. Participants were given two rules that instructed them to respond to the VI alternative in the presence of different discriminative stimuli. The side of the VI schedule changed in each component and offered a different reinforcer rate according to the discriminative stimuli in the operation. When both discriminative stimuli were concurrently presented (test), participants favored the alternative previously instructed by the rule, which was associated with the greatest reinforcer rate, whereas indifference was observed in the absence of discriminative stimuli. Experiment 2 tested the effects of reinforcement rate using the same procedure without providing rules. During training, participants gradually developed a preference for the VI alternatives. In the choice test phase, participants favored the alternative associated with the stimuli with the highest reinforcer rate when both discriminative stimuli were present. Unsystematic preference was observed in the absence of discriminative stimuli. Two alternative explanations were provided for the findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":51684,"journal":{"name":"Analysis of Verbal Behavior","volume":"40 2","pages":"280-305"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11925829/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Toward a Procedure to Study Rule-Governed Choice: Preliminary Data.\",\"authors\":\"David Ruiz Méndez\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40616-024-00206-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The aim of this study was to model a situation that induced choice between following two incompatible rules, each associated with a different rate of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, eight undergraduate students were exposed to a two-component multiple schedule (training). In each component, there was a concurrent variable interval (VI)-extinction (EXT) schedule. Participants were given two rules that instructed them to respond to the VI alternative in the presence of different discriminative stimuli. The side of the VI schedule changed in each component and offered a different reinforcer rate according to the discriminative stimuli in the operation. When both discriminative stimuli were concurrently presented (test), participants favored the alternative previously instructed by the rule, which was associated with the greatest reinforcer rate, whereas indifference was observed in the absence of discriminative stimuli. Experiment 2 tested the effects of reinforcement rate using the same procedure without providing rules. During training, participants gradually developed a preference for the VI alternatives. In the choice test phase, participants favored the alternative associated with the stimuli with the highest reinforcer rate when both discriminative stimuli were present. Unsystematic preference was observed in the absence of discriminative stimuli. Two alternative explanations were provided for the findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51684,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Analysis of Verbal Behavior\",\"volume\":\"40 2\",\"pages\":\"280-305\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11925829/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Analysis of Verbal Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-024-00206-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analysis of Verbal Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-024-00206-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是建立一个情景模型,诱导在遵循两个不相容的规则之间做出选择,每个规则都有不同的强化率。在实验1中,8名大学生被暴露在一个双组分的多重计划(训练)中。在每个成分中,有一个并发的可变间隔(VI)-灭绝(EXT)计划。参与者被给予两个规则,指导他们在不同的区别性刺激下对VI选项做出反应。根据手术中不同的判别性刺激,各成分的侧位会发生变化,并提供不同的强化率。当同时呈现两种区别性刺激时(测试),参与者更倾向于先前由规则指示的选择,这与最大的强化率相关,而在没有区别性刺激时观察到冷漠。实验2采用相同的方法测试增强率的效果,但不提供规则。在培训过程中,参与者逐渐形成了对VI替代品的偏好。在选择测试阶段,当两种选择性刺激同时存在时,被试更倾向于选择强化率最高的刺激物。在没有区别性刺激的情况下,观察到非系统偏好。对于这些发现,有两种不同的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Toward a Procedure to Study Rule-Governed Choice: Preliminary Data.

The aim of this study was to model a situation that induced choice between following two incompatible rules, each associated with a different rate of reinforcement. In Experiment 1, eight undergraduate students were exposed to a two-component multiple schedule (training). In each component, there was a concurrent variable interval (VI)-extinction (EXT) schedule. Participants were given two rules that instructed them to respond to the VI alternative in the presence of different discriminative stimuli. The side of the VI schedule changed in each component and offered a different reinforcer rate according to the discriminative stimuli in the operation. When both discriminative stimuli were concurrently presented (test), participants favored the alternative previously instructed by the rule, which was associated with the greatest reinforcer rate, whereas indifference was observed in the absence of discriminative stimuli. Experiment 2 tested the effects of reinforcement rate using the same procedure without providing rules. During training, participants gradually developed a preference for the VI alternatives. In the choice test phase, participants favored the alternative associated with the stimuli with the highest reinforcer rate when both discriminative stimuli were present. Unsystematic preference was observed in the absence of discriminative stimuli. Two alternative explanations were provided for the findings.

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
Analysis of Verbal Behavior
Analysis of Verbal Behavior PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
20.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (TAVB) is an official publication of the Association for Behavior Analysis International.  The Mission of the journal is to support the dissemination of innovative empirical research, theoretical conceptualizations, and real-world applications of the behavioral science of language. The journal embraces diverse perspectives of human language, its conceptual underpinnings, and the utility such diversity affords. TAVB values contributions that represent the scope of field and breadth of populations behavior analysts serve, and Is the premier publication outlet that fosters increased dialogue between scientists and scientist-practitioners.  Articles addressing the following topics are encouraged: language acquisition, verbal operants, relational frames, naming, rule-governed behavior, epistemology, language assessment and training, bilingualism, verbal behavior of nonhumans, research methodology, or any other topic that addresses the analysis of language from a behavior analytic perspective.
×
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