Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2005 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Oliveira, Bianca Faisal Lemos de |
| 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/16836
|
Resumo: |
This study was a replication of two studies: Simonassi, Tourinho and Silva (2001), and Alves (2003). Its aim was to investigate the influences that non-verbal behavior can have over verbal behavior and vice-versa. 25 subjects were divided into 5 groups. They were asked to perform three different tasks: 1) matching to sample exercise; 2) answer YES or NO to the question Do you know how to solve this task? and 3) describe how they were doing to solve the matching to sample task. The matching to sample exercises that were followed by the question Do you know how to solve this task? occurred in 40 trials for all participants. The differences among the groups consisted on the moment when they were asked to describe the contingency: group GR all all trials; group GR 10 from the tenth trial on; group GR20 on the tenth trial and from the twentieth on; group GR30 on the tenth, twentieth and from the thirtieth trial on; and group GR40 asked to describe the contingency only in trials number 10, 20, 30 and 40. The results were analyzed in terms of the following objectives: 1) analyze the moment (measured by the number of trials) in which the description of the contingency takes place; 2) if correct answers to the matching to sample increase the frequency before the description of the contingency; 3) what happens to the frequency of emission of correct matching to sample answers to subjects who did not describe the contingency; 4) analyze step-by-step the descriptions of the contingency to see if there is fragmentary description; and 5) to check if the answer Yes or No to the question Do you know how to solve this task? can influence the precision of the description and the moment in which the correct descriptions are emitted. The results showed that the correct matching to sample answers happened independently of corrected verbal descriptions about the contingency. The correct descriptions of the contingency, like the Yes responses that occurred before the correct descriptions were related to the correct matching to sample responses, not only to the amount of correct answers but related to the regularity of these answers. The results demonstrated that the groups in which the subjects showed more regularity on correct matching to sample, groups GR 30 e GR 40 were the groups in which subjects described with higher frequency the correct contingency. Moreover, the subjects that presented regularity in correct matching to sample earlier than others, started to describe the contingency before. For some subjects, the number of opportunities to describe the contingency seems to have contributed for a correct elaboration of the contingency, from the comparison of the published described contingency and the consequences Correct and Incorrect programmed for the matching task. The results presented by the subjects of the groups GR all and GR 10 and for some subjects from the groups GR 20 , GR 30 and GR 40 , that emitted incorrect and fragmented descriptions before the correct descriptions, corroborate this hypothesis. On the other hand, the results showed that the groups in which the contingency solicitation occurred less often, groups GR 30 and GR 40 were the groups that a higher number of subjects described the contingency correctly. Probably, a programmed contingency that asked all the subjects the information response YES or NO for the question about the solution of the exercise may have collaborated in a elaboration of the contingency in a covert way. From the results of some subjects of the groups GR 20 , GR30 and GR40 that described correctly the contingency in the first available opportunity, it was possible to infer that the correct description of the contingency had already been elaborated even before the first published description response |
