Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2011 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Bernardes, Luiz Antonio
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Micheletto, Nilza |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Psicologia Experimental: Análise do Comportamento
|
| Departamento: |
Psicologia
|
| País: |
BR
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/16625
|
Resumo: |
The purpose of this work was to identify the variables that could or couldn‟t contribute to the emission of children responses that would produce larger and delayed reinforcers. This was made in order to answer the following question: which responses children emit while they were waiting for larger and delayed reinforcers? Does it occur chaining or stereotyped behaviors during the waiting period? Are there any relations between what is done and the waiting time so that it would facilitate the waiting period? Can a hand puppet work as an audience to the participants so that it could extend the chain of public events and diminish the chain of covert events? Those children that were waiting in pairs or using a puppet waited for longer periods in order to receive larger and delayed reinforcers? The experimental design was based on the Mischel‟s, Ebbesen e Zeiss (1972) study. Fifteen children participated in the study divided in three experimental conditions: alone , hand puppet and peers . They should wait for 15 minutes so that they would obtain two chocolates. If they didn‟t wait, they should ring a bell and the experimenter would return and the children/child would gain the chocolate that was close to her. The results showed that four of the 15 children didn‟t wait for the whole time. The children emitted 14 categories of responses and the more frequent categories were similar for all of them. In the condition alone it was observed a smaller variation on the distribution of the responses between the categories and a smaller number of responses per minute. The condition hand puppet was the only one in which all the participants waited. However, only one participant emitted public oral verbal responses, which doesn‟t allow the experimenter to say that the hand puppet enhancing the emission of these verbal responses. Otherwise, the report of one of the participants does not allow us to discard it entirely as an audience. The standard of the observed responses on the hand puppet condition was similar to the alone condition, but with a higher average of responses per minute. For the peers condition was possible to observe that an interlocutor facilitated the waiting and enhanced the number of responses in new categories. This condition presented the higher average of responses per minute. The results indicated that oral verbal responses were emitted almost exclusively in this condition. The categorized verbal operants most common were tacts and mands about the experimental condition and unrelated subjects . Stereotypy was observed in only one participant (P5). The low variability in the 'alone' condition and greater variability in the other conditions have revealed that more complex environments allowed the participants to respond into new categories. The children who had longer waiting times were the ones with the most responses per minute and/or responded in as many categories as possible |
