Rodríguez MRN, Carpio RCA

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 1728-1762
PDF size: 3196.51 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The prevalence of correct response percentages is considered to obey an operational view rewarding incorrect performance. This persistence is observed in different studies that carried out empirical evaluations of different variables that theoretically favor the formulation of general execution rules. In most studies, the fact that subjects correctly stated the execution rule did not necessarily imply correct performance in transference tests, likewise it was observed that participants could respond correctly without enunciating the matching criterion. This finding raises the possibility that formulating execution rules does not necessarily result in the occurrence of effective behavior. Consequently, this study’s aim was to evaluate the effects of the type of effectivity developed on the execution and the formulation of the execution rule, using a second-order conditional discrimination procedure. The results are discussed in the following terms: a) high percentages of correct responses obtained during training do not necessarily correlate with high percentages in transference tests; b) incorrect executions observed through the training can correlate with high percentages of correct responses in the transference tests; and c) it is questionable to state that all “Knowing That” must be understood as the result of “Knowing How”, which disagrees with that supported by Ribes (2000).

REFERENCES

1. Carpio, C., Pacheco, V., Canales, C., Morales, G., y Rodríguez-Medina, R. (2014).Comportamiento inteligente y creativo: efectos de distintos tipos deinstrucciones. Suma Psicológica, 21(1), 36-44.

2. Harlow, H. (1959). Learning set and error factor theory. En S. Koch (Ed.),Psychology: a study of a science. Nueva York: McGraw-Hill.

3. Hayes, S.C., Brownstein, A.J., Devany, J.M., Kohlenberg, B.S., y Shelby, J. (1987).Stimulus equivalence and the symbolic control of behavior. RevistaMexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 13(3), 361-374.

4. Hickman, H., Moreno, D., Tena, O., Plancarte, P., Arroyo, R., y Cepeda, M.L.(2008). Analysis of the correspondence between reporting and doing in atask of matching to sample. International Journal of Hispanic Psychology,1(1), 1-15.

5. Martínez, H., y Tonneau, F. (2002). Conducta humana compleja. En E. Ribes(Ed.), Psicología del aprendizaje (pp. 169-190). México: Editorial El ManualModerno.

6. Moreno, D., Cepeda, M.L., Hickman, H., Peñalosa, E., y Ribes, E. (1991). Efectodiferencial de la conducta verbal descriptiva de tipo relacional en laadquisición y transferencia de una tarea de discriminación condicional desegundo orden en niños. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta, 17,81-99.

7. Peña-Correal, T., Ordóñez, S., Fonseca, J. y Fonseca, L. (2012). La investigaciónempírica de la función sustitutiva referencial. En M. A. Padilla y R. Pérez-Almonacid (Eds.), La función sustitutiva referencial. Análisis histórico-crítico.Avances y perspectivas. New Orleans, University Press of the South.

8. Plancarte, P., Hickman, H., Tena, O., Moreno, D., Cepeda, M.L., y Larios, R.M.(2000). Correspondence of verbal descriptions and matching performance ofmexican children. Behavior Development Bulletin, 9, 26-29.

9. Ribes, E. (2000). Instructions, rules, and abstraction: a misconstrued relation.Behavior and Philosophy, 28, 41-55.

10. Ribes, E. (2016). Reflexiones sobre la investigación conductual delcomportamiento humano. En M.L. Cepeda (Ed.), Comportamiento humanocomplejo. Perspectivas conductuales (pp. 155-164). Mexico: Facultad deEstudios Superiores Iztacala, U.N.A.M.

11. Ribes, E., y Martínez, H. (1990). Interaction of contingencies and rule instructionsin the performance of human subjects in conditional discriminations. ThePsychological Record, 40, 465-586.

12. Ribes, E., y Serrano, M. (2006). Efectos de tres tipos de preentrenamiento en laadquisición y transferencia de una tarea de igualación de la muestra. Actacomportamentalia, 14(2), 145-169.

13. Ribes, E., Cepeda, M.L., Hickman, H., Moreno, D., y Peñalosa, E. (1992). Effectsof visual descriptions on the performance of human subjects in conditionaldiscrimination. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 10, 23-36.

14. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. NuevaYork: Appleton-Century.

15. Skinner, B.F. (1966). An operant analysis of problem solving. En B. Kleinmuntz(Ed.), Problem solving: Research, method and theory (pp. 225-257). NewYork: Wiley.

16. Skinner, B.F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement. A theoretical analysis. NewYork: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

17. Thorndike, E.L. (1911). Animal intelligence. Nueva York: Macmillan.