PDF (Español (España))
FLIP
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
Acta Colombiana de Psicología complies with international intellectual property and copyright laws, and particularly with Article No. 58 of the Political Constitution of Colombia, Law No. 23 of 1982, and the Agreement No. 172 of September 30, 2010 (Universidad Católica de Colombia Intellectual Property Regulation).
Authors retain their copyright and grant to the Acta Colombiana de Psicología the right of first publication, with the work registered under Creative Commons attribution license, which allows third parties to use the published material, provided they credit the authorship of the work and the first publication in this Journal.
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to explore if the provision of explicit instructions prior to contingency contact, the degree of instructional specificity, as well as the instructional history of the subjects, affect the sensitivity to the change of contingencies. 20 undergraduate students were assigned to one of five experimental groups that were different both in the type of received instruction (i.e. specific, generic and/or minimum) and in the maintenance or change of the instruction between conditions, using a first order matching-to-sample task. In the first condition, the correct relation during all sessions was one of similarity, whereas in the second phase, during the second half of each session’s trials the relation criterion (i.e. contingency) was modified without previous warning from similarity to difference (i.e. the Comparative Stimuli did not share any of the characteristics of the Sample Stimulus). Unlike a previous study by Ortiz et al. (in press), the results showed that providing contact with the instructions produced higher insensitivity indexes, as well as greater differences between groups, an indication that the description given prior to the contact with the contingencies of the task could acquire an instructional function.
References
Baron, A. y Galizio, M. (1983). Instructional control of human operant behavior. The Psychological Record, 33, 495-520.
Buskist, W.F. y Miller, H.L. (1986). Interaction between rule and contingencies in the control of human fixed-interval performance. The Psychological Record, 36, 109-116.
Galizio, M. (1979). Contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior: instructional control of human loss avoidance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 53-70.
Goldiamond, I. (1966). Perception, language, and conceptualization rules. En: B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.). Problem solving: Research, method and theory. New York: John Wiley and Sons (Pp.183-224).
Guerrero-Radillo, A. y Ortiz, G. (2007). El papel de la retroalimentación y la ausencia o presencia de instrucciones en la elaboración de descripciones en tareas de discriminación condicional. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 10, 1, 5-13.
Hojo, R. (2002). Effects of instructional accuracy on a discrimination task. The Psychological Record, 52, 4, 493-507.
Kantor, J.R. (1924). Principles of Psychology, vol. 1. Granville, OH: The Principia Press.
LeFrancois, J.R., Chase, P.N. y Joyce, J.H. (1988). The effects of a variety of instructions on human fixed-interval performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 383-393.
Martínez, H., Ortiz, G. y González, A. (2002). Precisión instruccional, retroalimentación y eficacia: Efectos sobre el entrenamiento y transferencia en una tarea de discriminación condicional en adultos. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 8, 7-33.
Martínez, H., Ortiz, G. y González, A. (2007). Efectos diferenciales de instrucciones y consecuencias en ejecuciones de discriminación condicional humana. Psicothema, 19, 1, 14-22.
Mattews, B.A., Shimooff, E., Catania, A.C. y Sagvolden, T. (1977). Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity to ratio and interval contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27, 453-467.
Michael, J. (1984). Verbal behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 42, 3, 363-376.
Newman, B., Buffington, D. M. y Hemmes, N. S. (1995). The effects of schedules of reinforcement on instruction following. The Psychological Record, 45, 3, 463-476.
Ortiz, G., De la Rosa E., Padilla R., Pulido E. y Vélez H. (en prensa). Efecto de la especificidad e historia instruccional en la insensibilidad al cambio contingencial en tareas de igualación de la muestra de primer orden en humanos. Acta Comportamentalia.
Ortiz, G., González, A. y Rosas, M. (en revisión). Una taxonomía para el análisis de descripciones pre y post contacto con arreglos contingenciales. Acta Colombiana de Psicología.
Ortiz, G., González, A., Rosas, M. y Alcaraz, F. (2006). Efectos de la precisión instruccional y la densidad de retroalimentación sobre el seguimiento, la elaboración y transmisión de descripciones en tareas de discriminación condicional. Acta Comportamentalia, 14, 2, 103-130.
Pfeiffer-Flores, E. (2004). O conceito de regra na linguagem cotidiana e na Análise Experimental do Comportamento. Estudos de Psicologia, 9, 2, 279-283.
Podlesnik, A. C. y Chase, P. N. (2006). Sensitivity and strength: effects of instructions on resistance to change. The Psychological Record, 56, 2, 303-321.
Ribes, E. y López F. (1985). Teoría de la conducta un análisis de campo y paramétrico. México: Trillas.
Skinner, B.F. (1966). An operant analysis of problem solving. En: B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.). Problem solving: Research, method and theory. New York: John Wiley and Sons. (Pp. 225-257).
