Is Any Human Behavior Schedule-Induced?

Overskeid, Geir

doi:10.1007/bf03399605

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As researchers isolate specific functions for other automatically reinforced habit behaviors, it may become useful to classify such behavior according to the determined function. Finally, research is necessary to determine the extent to which the basic literature on schedule-induced behavior (Falk, 1994;Foster, 1978;Overskeid, 1992) and the passage of time (Haight & Killeen, 1991) are relevant to patterns of habit behaviors exhibited by humans.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Functional Analysis of Hair Pulling

Rapp

Miltenberger

Galensky

et al. 1999

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We experimentally assessed the functions of hair pulling and hair manipulation of a 19‐year‐old woman (Kris) with moderate mental retardation and cerebral palsy. In Phase 1 a functional analysis revealed that Kris pulled and manipulated hair for the greatest amount of time in the alone condition, suggesting that the behaviors were maintained by some form of automatic reinforcement (Vaughan & Michael, 1982). In Phase 2 we assessed the nature of the sensory stimulation that maintained hair pulling by providing continuous access to previously pulled or cut hair and, thereafter, by having Kris wear a rubber glove. The results suggested that hair pulling was maintained by digital‐tactile stimulation (automatic positive reinforcement). These findings are discussed, and recommendations for further analyses of automatically reinforced habit behaviors are provided.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Functional Analysis of Hair Pulling

Rapp

Miltenberger

Galensky

et al. 1999

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Os estudos teórico-metodológicos dividem-se entre aqueles que, com base em problemas examinados, questionam a generalidade do fenômeno (Overskeid, 1992;Haydu & Silva, 1997), e aqueles que reafirmam a adequação dos estudos como demonstrações válidas do comportamento adjunto em animais e humanos (Pellon, 1990;Falk, 1994;Falk, 1998;Falk & Kupfer, 1998).…”

Section: Comentários Finaisunclassified

Comportamento adjunto: controvérsias e contribuições teóricas

Santarem

1999

Psic.: Teor. e Pesq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMO -A área de investigação sobre comportamento adjunto, cujas pesquisas tiveram início na década de 60, é extensa e controvertida. O presente trabalho analisa as interpretações mais importantes do fenômeno, e mostra que diversas caracterís-ticas apresentadas como próprias do comportamento adjunto também estão presentes em outros comportamentos. Falk interpretou o comportamento adjunto como atividade deslocada, Staddon como comportamento induzido por esquema, Timberlake como parte de um sistema comportamental pré-programado, e Wetherington questionou a existência de uma terceira classe de comportamento. Conclui-se que as tentativas de sistematização têm se mostrado incompletas devido à diversidade de topografias de comportamentos adjuntos e a sua dependência de variáveis tanto do esquema como da espécie e do ambiente.Palavras-chave: comportamento adjunto; polidipsia; comportamento induzido por esquema; estímulo não contingente.Adjunctive Behavior: Controversial Issues and Theoretical Contributions ABSTRACT -Dated from the sixties, the research field of adjunctive behavior is extensive and controversial. This review presents an analysis of the main theoretical interpretations of the phenomenon, and demonstrates that many of the features considered to be characteristic of adjunctive behavior are also present in non adjunctive behavior. Falk has interpreted adjunctive behavior as displaced activity, Staddon as schedule-induced behavior, Timberlake as a part of a pre-programmed behavioral system, and Wetherington has called into question the existence of a third class of behavior. It is concluded that all theoretical approaches appear to be incomplete due to the diversity of adjunctive behavior topographies and to their dependence on species and environmental variables, besides schedule parameters.Key words: adjunctive behavior; polydipsia; schedule-induced behavior; non contingent stimulus.A área de pesquisa sobre comportamento adjunto é extensa e controvertida. Diante da diversidade de comportamentos adjuntos observados sob esquemas contingentes e não contingentes, surgiram diferentes interpretações teóri-cas. O objetivo deste artigo é apresentar as mais importantes contribuições teóricas e as principais controvérsias ainda hoje não resolvidas na área. Após breve histórico, serão revistas as principais características do comportamento adjunto, destacando-se seu aspecto consensual ou controverso. A seguir serão expostas e analisadas as posições de Falk, Staddon, Timberlake e a crítica de Wetherington. Breve HistóricoEm 1961, condicionando respostas de pressão à barra em sujeitos ratas mantidas sob privação alimentar (70% a 80% do peso ad libitum), Falk verificou que os animais foram capazes de ingerir grandes quantidades de líquido de uma garrafa com água que ficara permanentemente disponí- a descartar definitivamente a hipótese de polidipsia fisiológi-ca, ao mesmo tempo que outros comportamentos foram estudados, como por exemplo: agredir em pombos, lamber jatos de ar em ratos, correr em uma roda de atividade em...

show abstract

“…In a study of human schedule-induced behavior, however, the issue is controversial. For example, Overskeid (1992) concluded, on the basis of methodological problems, that there was not sufficient empirical support to argue for any human schedule-induced behavior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Response Stereotypy in Humans Maintained by Response‐Contingent Events

Ono

1997

Jpn Psychol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human subjects exposed to a particular schedule of reinforcement will frequently show response stereotypy, even at an early stage of a session (Schwartz, 1982). The stereotypy, however, will not be revealed if we focus only on the response rate of the subject, but can be revealed by topographic analysis such as response sequences, or by descriptions of the rules stated by the subjects (Heltzer & Vyse, 1994). Very little has been studied on response stereotypy itself in the analysis of human behavior.The present study examines what kind of stereotyped behavior could develop under response-dependent schedules of reinforcement, and we discuss whether the stereotyped behavior can be regarded as superstitious behavior through the investigation of its cause, that is, why and how the stereotyped behavior comes to appear.Because Skinner (1948) defined superstitious behavior in terms of behavior generated by response-independent schedules of reinforcement, subsequent studies on superstitious behavior have mainly used those contingencies (Davis & Hubbard, 1972;Eldridge, Pear, Torgrud, & Evers, 1988;Fenner, 1980;Justice & Looney, 1990;Ono, 1987;Staddon & Simmelhag;1971;Timberlake & Lucas, 1985;Wagner & Morris, 1987). Some researchers have however demonstrated that superstitious behavior can develop under other contingencies (Blue, Sherman, & Pierrel, 1971;Bruner & Revusky, 1961;Catania & Cutts, 1963;Herrnstein, 1966;Kello, Innis, & Staddon, 1975;Kieffer, 1965; Morse & Skinner, Japanese Psychological Research 1997, Volume 39, No. 4, 277-290 Response stereotypy in humans maintained by response-contingent events KOICHI ONO 1 Department of Psychology, Komazawa University, Komazawa, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 154, JapanAbstract: The present study examined stereotyped behaviors developed during human performances that were generated by response-dependent intermittent schedules of reinforcement. Thirty university students were assigned to either fixed-interval 30-s or fixed-ratio 30-s schedules in which points or monetary reinforcers were produced only by presses on the number keys of a 41-key computer keyboard. Behavior patterns developed by all subjects were classified into four categories: optimal, random, unique, and general stereotypes. The general stereotypes category was further subdivided into five idiosyncratic types: connection, order, shift, repeat, and restriction. Analysis of the data demonstrated the role of contiguity: Whatever behavior happened to precede reinforcers was repeated even though reinforcers did not depend on that behavior. These findings support the argument that much of idiosyncratic and stereotyped human behavior is produced and maintained by contingencies of reinforcement, rather than schedule-induced or adjunctive behavior.Key words: response stereotypy, superstitious behavior, response-dependent contingency, key press, university students. 1957; Ono, 1994;Starr & Staddon, 1982;Zeiler, 1970).Concurrent superstition, in which responses in one class are maintained by reinforcers produced by concu...

show abstract

Is Any Human Behavior Schedule-Induced?

Cited by 8 publications

References 48 publications

A Functional Analysis of Hair Pulling

A Functional Analysis of Hair Pulling

Comportamento adjunto: controvérsias e contribuições teóricas

Response Stereotypy in Humans Maintained by Response‐Contingent Events

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About