RESUMEN
Under various feedback conditions, 38 college undergraduates were asked to rearrange abstract graphic characters on a computer screen, placing them in arbitrarily designated "correct" sequences. Two sets of seven horizontally arrayed stimuli were used. In Experiment 1, subjects in Group 1 learned to arrange the first set under Selection Feedback in which a "+" appeared above each character after it was selected in the correct order and to arrange the second set under Order Feedback in which a correct response produced a copy of the character in its correct ordinal position at the top of the screen. For Group 2 the order of these conditions was reversed. In Experiment 2, for subjects in Group 3, correct responses produced neither of these types of feedback. Subjects in Group 4 received Order Feedback only until the first set was correctly ordered once. Order Feedback was more effective than Selection Feedback during initial acquisition of the first set but not during maintenance; no differences were found for the second set. Only 2 of 9 subjects successfully put the characters in correct sequential order under the No Feedback condition. When, in Experiment 2, Order Feedback was eliminated after the first correctly arranged sequence, the steady-state criteria were met more slowly than in Experiment 1.
RESUMEN
Thirty-one college undergraduates learned to touch abstract stimuli on a computer screen in arbitrarily designated "correct" sequential orders. Four sets of seven stimuli were used; the stimuli were arrayed horizontally on the screen in random sequences. A correct response (i.e., touching first the stimulus designated as first) resulted in that stimulus appearing near the top of the screen in its correct sequential position (left to right), and remaining there until the end of the trial. Incorrect responses (i.e., touching a stimulus out of sequence) terminated the trial. New trials displayed either the same sequence as the one on which an error had occurred (same-order correction procedure), or a new random sequence (new-order correction procedure). Whenever all responses occurred in the correct sequence, the next trial displayed a new random sequence. Each phase ended when five consecutive correct response sequences occurred. Initially, the same-order correction procedure increased control by the position as well as by the shape of the stimuli; also, it produced more errors, more total trials, more trials to mastery, and more individual patterns of reacquisition than were produced by the new-order procedure.
RESUMEN
Considerable debate has occurred among behavior analysts about the value of cognitive language for labels or descriptions of phenomena in the analysis of behavior. That value is difficult to assess, however, until a clearer understanding of the definitions of those terms is obtained. To begin that process, this article demonstrates through a series of examples what children mean when they use typical cognitive expressions. One conclusion possible from the results of such an analysis is that cognitive terms describe nothing more than behavior in context, a very behavioral idea. Cognitive expressions may be more suitable to a behavioral analysis than to one derived from the current computer metaphor of cognitive science. The usefulness of these more accurately defined cognitive expressions for the scientific language of behavior analysis is discussed.
RESUMEN
This article examines two criteria for a definition of applied behavior analysis. The criteria are derived from a 19th century attempt to establish medicine as a scientific field. The first criterion, experimental determinism, specifies the methodological boundaries of an experimental science. The second criterion, philosophic doubt, clarifies the tentative nature of facts and theories derived from those facts. Practices which will advance the science of behavior are commented upon within each criteria. To conclude, the problems of a 19th century form of empiricism in medicine are related to current practices in applied behavior analysis.
RESUMEN
Aggressive and self-injurious behaviors of four retarded children were reduced by combining various techniques with the differential reinforcement of other behaviors (DRO). In one study, aggressive responses of a severely retarded child were reduced when DRO was combined with a 30-sec timeout. In a second study, various aggressive classroom behaviors were reduced when the child was told "no" for an inappropriate response but earned puzzle pieces for periods of time when inappropriate responses resulted did not occur. Exchangeable tokens were given to a third subject for every 15 min in which aggressive responding did not occur, while each inappropriate response resulted in the loss of all tokens accrued. Responding was decreased to a level far below baseline. For a fourth child, self-injurious responses were followed by "no", and intervals of time in which no self-injurious responding occurred earned candy. The rate of this behavior reduced significantly. In each case, the DRO procedure combined with the other techniques proved to be manageable for the teacher and successful in reducing the inappropriate behavior.