|Experimental Data from Cultural Lab of Universidade de Brasilia: Inequality of Individual Reinforcer, Metacontingencies Concurrents and Nature of Individual and Cultural Consequences.
|Monday, May 26, 2014
|2:00 PM–3:50 PM
|W176a (McCormick Place Convention Center)
|Area: EAB/CSE; Domain: Basic Research
|Chair: April M. Becker (The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center)
|Discussant: April M. Becker (The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center)
The culture as field of basic research has grown since the first experiment designed by Vichi. In this symposium, three works of experimental metacontingencies manipulating some variables typical of operant research. Inequality of individual reinforcers with the same culture consequence was manipulated into a PDG with three person. The results show interaction of individual and cultural consequences, being easier to select Interlocking Behavior Contingencies (IBC) and their aggregate product (AP) when the IBCs produced equality of reinforcement. The second study manipulated concurrency of metacontingencies using CDG. For one IBC-AP the consequence cultural was always 60, for other IBC-AP unit the magnitude of cultural consequence changes in each condition. The results demonstrated more frequency of IBC-AP that produced greater cultural consequences with overmatching. The third work manipulated the quality of cultural consequences. Two groups, one with cultural consequences traded for money and the other group with cultural consequences traded for school material for poor children of a public school. Both groups show cultural selection, but the IBCs of group with culture consequence for other was more sensitive to extinction and change their choices more quick. The three studies show the effect of cultural consequences on unit IBC-AP.
CANCELLED: Communication and Inequity of Reinforcers in an Experimental Study of Metacontingency
|CLARISSA NOGUEIRA (Universidade de Brasilia), Laercia Abreu Vasconcelos (University of Brasilia)
This study consisted on a 2x2 factorial design in which the manipulated IVs were: communication Communication and No Communication and inequity between reinforcers Relative Inequity and Absolute Inequity. In each trial, all three participants of the group had to choose between two cards (X and Y) simultaneously. The combination of the cards chosen generated individual points according to the following equations: X = n x 4 / Y = X + 7, where n is the number of participants choosing X. There were also group points (60 points for the group) which were generated by the group each time the target combination of responses were produced. For the groups with Relative Inequity, the group points were produced each time one of the participants chose X and the other two participants chose Y. For the groups with Absolut Inequity, the group points were produced only when participant 1 chose X and participants 2 and 3 chose Y. The participants of the groups with Communication were allowed to talk to each other for 20 seconds between blocks of ten trials. The participants of the groups with No Communication were not allowed to talk to each other during the experiment. All the groups went through an ABA design. In Condition A, only the individual points were produced and it lasted for 50 trials. In Condition B, the group points were introduced and it lasted until the stability criterion was met or for a maximum of 400 trials. The stability criterion was the production of the target combination in 80% of the last 10 trials. There were three groups with Communication and Relative Inequity (CM.RI), three groups with Communication and Absolute Inequity (CM.AI), three groups with No Communication and Relative Inequity (NC.RI) and three groups with No Communication and Absolute Inequity (NC.AI). The results indicate that the inequity of reinforcers is an important variable on the selection of the target combination of responses and that the Relative Inequity facilitated the selection of this combination even in groups with No Communication. When averages are compared, the groups with Relative Inequity were the groups with the least number of trials for the stability criterion to be met (average of 58,5 trials) when compared to the groups with Absolute Inequity (average of 290,3 trials), the groups with Communication (average of 128,2 trials) and the groups with No Communication (average of 220,6 trials). Only two groups didn`t meet the stability criterion.
The Interaction of Different Kinds of Cultural and Individual Consequences on Culture Selection
|FÁBIO HENRIQUE BAIA (Universidade de Rio Verde), Laercia Abreu Vasconcelos (University of Brasilia)
The aim of this study was to investigate if the difference of quality and nature of individual and cultural consequences could influence on cultural selection in metacontingencies. The participants was 18 undergrad students distributed in two groups, the group Goods for themselves and group Goods for the others. Each group had eight generations, each one composed by dyads. At the end of each generation, the oldest participant left the experiment and was switched by a nave participant. The Goods for themselves group received as individual and cultural consequence points changed for money. The Goods for the others received individual points traded by photocopies and as cultural consequence points traded by school material which was donated to a undergrad project. There were two phases. On acquisition phase individual consequences were available. On extinction phase one generation was exposed only to individual consequences and the other generation was exposed to none of the consequences. The results indicate to operant selection and culturants on acquisition phase in a similar way to both groups. On extinction phase, is noticeable more sensitiveness of Good for the others group to withdrawn of cultural consequences. More culturant variability was found in Good for the others group when the cultural consequences were suspended. These results indicate that individual consequences and cultural consequences of different kinds and nature may influence on operant and cultural selection. These data suggest implications to metacontingency concept.
Concurrent Metacontingencies with Different Magnitude of Cultural Consequences
|DYEGO DE CARVALHO COSTA (Universida de Brasilia; Universidade Estadual do Piaui), Laercia Abreu Vasconcelos (University of Brasilia)
It was manipulated two different metacontingencies using the Common Dilemma Game as tool and fishing as scenario. Three groups of three person had to choose one of three cards (red, yellow and green). The combination of cards was the IBC e sum card's points was the AP. Initially for the AP 45 was contingent 60 points as cultural consequence. To AP 15, six conditions were manipulated each one with different values of cultural consequence, with proportion of magnitudes 45/15 varying from 0,33, 0,66, 1, 1,5, 2 and 4. The experiment was consisted of two phases, in the phase "Without resources" the combinations don't make any impact on environment and in phase ("With resources" there was a initial number of resources that was used by card's choices. This variable named resource produced matching at the proper conditions and high frequency for the AP 15 that produced the smaller impact on environment. In conditions with proportion above 1,5 the distribution was greater than 1,5 for 15. This pattern of choices is similar to overmatching at choice's field. Even when the values switched, this pattern was demonstrated as well. The same procedure is being replicated with concurrencies of VI scheduled.