Indexador

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Winett and Winkler aptly criticized the “appropriate” behaviors that behavior modifiers have chosen to change. However, after reviewing 14 Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis articles concerning behavior modification in the classroom, they made the sweeping over‐generalization that “as currently practised, behavior modification has done very little to change the deplorable state of our schools.” Finally, they suggest a free classroom in which learning is accompanied by “singing, laughing, and whistling.” A number of studies not mentioned by Winett and Winkler are here presented to illustrate the innovative ways in which behavior modification has been utilized to change the complexion of classrooms from the elementary school to the college level. A straw‐man model child as purportedly seen by behavior modifiers was built by Winett and Winkler, but this author could not find one instance in the literature where the teacher or behavior modifier desired the behavior thus depicted by the straw‐man model child. Furthermore, this author questions the desirability of the “informal” or “free” classroom approach for children with marked social and academic problems. Nonetheless, the general admonition of Winett and Winkler should definitely by taken seriously—namely the behavior modifier should seriously question the behaviors he is being asked to change. Finally, a possible integration of reinforcement principles and some aspects of the informal school are discussed.

Two monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were trained to press a key after onset of a tone and to release it after a 1‐sec fixed foreperiod terminated by a light. The effects of imposing temporal contingencies on key release reaction times were determined by reinforcing only those releases whose latencies from the light fell within a “payoff band”, two time limits 50 msec apart located at some delay following the light. Over several days this delay was first gradually decreased, shortening the interval between light and payoff band, and then gradually increased again. For each delay, the median reaction time and a measure of variability were obtained from the latency distribution. For both animals, median latency could be decreased to 180 msec with the variability remaining small. Moving the payoff band still closer to the light resulted in further decrease in median latency but an abrupt increase in variability. This is in agreement with a model for simple reaction time derived from human research which suggests that this increased variability results from the inclusion of high‐variability foreperiod time estimations in the latency distribution. These results indicate that interpretation of monkey response latencies as “minimal reaction times” requires examination of temporal reinforcement contingencies and variability of latencies.

The current research methods of behavioral economics are characterized by inadequate empirical foundations. Psychologists involved in the experimental analysis of behavior with their research strategies and their experimental technology, particularly that of the Token Economy, can assist in providing empirical foundations for behavioral economics. Cooperative research between economists and psychologists to this end should be immediately fruitful and mutually beneficial.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.