Construindo funções de estímulo no desenvolvimento de autodiscriminação e de classes de estímulos equivalentes
The first experiment of this study was conducted with 8 subjects and aimed to test if a simple discrimination procedure using contingency-specific responses was sufficient for the formation of equivalence classes. After a discrimination training with 3 distinct responses emitted to 3 sets of 3 stimu...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | tesis de maestría |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2010 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Recursos: | Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP) |
| Repositorio: | Repositório Institucional da PUC_SP |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.pucsp.br:handle/16883 |
| Acesso em linha: | https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/16883 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | Equivalência de estímulos Respostas diferenciais Transferência de função Estímulos compostos Stimulus equivalence Contingency-specific responses Transfer of function Compound stimuli CNPQ::CIENCIAS HUMANAS::PSICOLOGIA::PSICOLOGIA EXPERIMENTAL |
| Resumo: | The first experiment of this study was conducted with 8 subjects and aimed to test if a simple discrimination procedure using contingency-specific responses was sufficient for the formation of equivalence classes. After a discrimination training with 3 distinct responses emitted to 3 sets of 3 stimuli, tests for equivalence classes were conducted. Results were positive for 7 of the 8 participants and showed the emergence of 2 stimulus classes: 1) Class 1 (with stimuli A1, B1 ,C1 and response topography 1; 2) and Class 2 with stimuli A2, B2, C2 and R2, the response topography 2. These 7 participants were the subjects of Experiment 2 . Two successive tasks were presented on each trial. On Task 1 the participant formed a compound stimuli by choosing 2 equal or different stimuli. Correct choices were paired with B1 and B2 respectively (stimuli in the equivalence classes formed in experiment 1). In Task 2 subjects were supposed to choose either B1 pr B2 depending upon the kind of stimuli produced on Task 1. The purpose of Experiment 2 was to test if the responses of compounding stimuli made of equal or different parts would be included in the same equivalence classes of B1 and B2, and if the other members of the stimuli classes, including the responses (R1 and R2), would acquire the same function. After training tests were conducted to answer the following questions: 1) The other stimuli of the stimulus classes 1 and 2 acquired the functions of B1 and B2? 2) Stimuli A1, C1 and A2, C2 could control responses in Task 1 (stimuli compounding)? 3) Compounding equal or different stimuli could be evocative of the responses R1 and R2? 4) The task of stimulus composition would be evocative of the same stimulus choice with new stimuli, or else, the equal or different dimension of the stimulus composition could be a controlling variable in Task 2? Compounding equal or different stimuli formed by the new stimuli introduced in Task 1 would control the responses R1 and R2 respectively? Results showed that 6 subjects reached criterion on tests. Results showed that 2equivalence classes were formed: Class 1 consisting of A1, B1, C1, R1 and the response of compounding equal stimuli, and Class 2 consisting of A2, B2, C2, R2 and the response of compounding different stimuli. It was also found that the acquisition of a function by one member of a class transferred to other class members, indicating that the equivalence classes are also functional classes |
|---|