Reading Check_Unit13

docx

School

University of Central Florida *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

524

Subject

Psychology

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by AgentPuppy3534

Report
AB541: Concepts & Principles II Reading Check (5 pts) Unit 13 Student: Readings: Rules: Hayes, Zettle & Rosenfarb (1989) Blakely & Schlinger (1987) Schlinger & Blakely (1987) Stimulus Equivalence: Sidman (2009) Sigurðard, Mackay & Green (2012) Stewart & McElwee (2013) Hall & Chase (1991) Instructions: Answer each question based on the assigned reading in your own words (except for definitions if quoted). The purpose of this is to think about the purpose of the reading, rather than to regurgitate a summary. 1. Explain how Blakely & Schlinger expanded their findings from the 1 st to their second publication in 1987. What did they add that was of relevance to our discussion and topic of this unit? ( 2 pts) In their first paper Blakely and Schlinger discussed how contingency-specifying stimuli (CSSs) can alter the functions of other events. They also suggested how an analysis on the function altering effects of CSSs has great implications when using the word rule and other rule governed behavior. In their second publication they discuss the implications first mentioned in their previous paper and make statements concerning the idea that rule should be reserved or only used for function altering CSS in behavior analysis. The addition of their implications and how using rule for only function altering CSS was one of the things we discussed in this unit. 2. Describe one of the types of rule-following behaviors according to Hayes’s publication. Explain the example they gave in your own words. (1 pt) Tracking is one of the rules following behaviors Hayes mentions in his publication alongside pliance and augmenting. Tracking however is the suggestion that one must follow a path to meet the end result. This is a rule governed behavior which is under the control of the evident correspondence between both the rule and how the world is organized. It is also highly sensitive to variables that may affect the correspondence between the rule and natural contingencies. The rule either given by a speaker or written down both affect tracking and not only spoken words constitute as rules necessary for tracking. The learning history of the listener and the natural consequences
AB541: Concepts & Principles II Reading Check (5 pts) Unit 13 Student: they face per other rule governed behaviors and events also shape their tracking. The example they gave was if a person wants to get to Reno they need to follow I-80. Here, being told to take the route I-80 until reaching Reno functions as a track, if the behavior (i.e., taking the roue I-80 ) of the rule-follower is under the control of an apparent correspondence between the rule and how to actually get to Reno. 3. How could the articles by Sidman & Siguroard be expanded into practice or future research? Give an example of how their findings are relevant to verbal behavior. (1 pt)i Sidman pointed out that much if what we humans have learned is not through experiencing things but instead through reading or representation likes statues and monuments etc. Which goes on to say that the research that has been conducted thus far on equivalence relations and behavior can be expanded upon to allow for other modalities of experience adding and influencing verbal behavior. That verbal behavior need not only be influenced by speakers or words. Sigurðardóttir et al. 2012 mention that some of the procedures used in their experiments can possibly be used in the future to help individuals who find difficulty with verbal instructions. Such as through the usage of semantic relations and contextually controlled linguistic classes. This would help expand verbal behavioral practices and the underlying rules and contingencies present within it. 4. How did Stewart, McElwee & Ming discuss Relational Frame Theory & how does it relate to stimulus equivalence? (1 pt) Stewart et al. 2013 states that all forms of RFT share a number of significant properties. Such as mutual entailment, combinatorial entailment and transformation of functions effect. These generative properties highly indicates that relational framing is a key operant that underlies language and cognition in humans. They introduced derived relational responding as a basis for the key role under language generativity. RFT also suggests that naming is a contextually controlled generalized response class, which is an important antecedent to the development of stimulus equivalence. Additionally, if a young client doesn’t have a repertoire of derived relations in accordance with equivalence then it’s possible to train them in doing so using multiple exemplar training.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help