مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد بازنگری خرافات – الزویر ۲۰۲۰

elsevier

 

مشخصات مقاله
ترجمه عنوان مقاله خرافات بازنگری شده: جنسیت، گونه ها و تقویت نابجا
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله Superstition revisited: Sex, species, and adventitious reinforcement
انتشار مقاله سال ۲۰۲۰
تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی ۱۴ صفحه
هزینه دانلود مقاله انگلیسی رایگان میباشد.
پایگاه داده نشریه الزویر
نوع نگارش مقاله
مقاله پژوهشی (Research Article)
مقاله بیس این مقاله بیس نمیباشد
نمایه (index) MedLine – Scopus – Master Journals List – JCR
نوع مقاله ISI
فرمت مقاله انگلیسی  PDF
ایمپکت فاکتور(IF)
۲٫۰۲۴ در سال ۲۰۱۹
شاخص H_index ۶۹ در سال ۲۰۲۰
شاخص SJR ۰٫۷۹۸ در سال ۲۰۱۹
شناسه ISSN ۰۳۷۶-۶۳۵۷
شاخص Quartile (چارک) Q2 در سال ۲۰۱۹
مدل مفهومی ندارد
پرسشنامه ندارد
متغیر ندارد
رفرنس دارد
رشته های مرتبط روانشناسی
گرایش های مرتبط روانشناسی عمومی
نوع ارائه مقاله
ژورنال
مجله  فرآیندهای رفتاری – Behavioural Processes
دانشگاه School of Behavior Analysis, Florida Institute of Technology, 150 W University Blvd, Melbourne, FL, 32901, USA
کلمات کلیدی رفتار خرافاتی، تقویت نابجا، تعویض انگیزه، سیستم های رفتاری، رفتارهای اشتها آور، برنامه های زمانی ثابت
کلمات کلیدی انگلیسی Superstitious behavior، Adventitious reinforcement، Stimulus substitution، Behavior systems، Appetitive behavior، Fixed-time schedules
شناسه دیجیتال – doi
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103979
کد محصول E14019
وضعیت ترجمه مقاله  ترجمه آماده این مقاله موجود نمیباشد. میتوانید از طریق دکمه پایین سفارش دهید.
دانلود رایگان مقاله دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی
سفارش ترجمه این مقاله سفارش ترجمه این مقاله

 

فهرست مطالب مقاله:
Abstract

۱- Introduction

۲- General method

۳- Experiment 1

۴- Experiment 2

۵- Experiment 3

۶- Experiment 4

۷- General discussion

References

بخشی از متن مقاله:

Abstract

Skinner’s (1948) ‘Superstition’ in the Pigeon paper proposed that accidental response-reward contingencies, via adventitious reinforcement, could operantly condition the behaviors of pigeons under fixed-time (response-independent) schedules of food delivery. Skinner likened the behavior of pigeons under these fixed-time schedules to the superstitious behavior of humans and proposed that both response patterns were the result of contiguous pairings of rewards following some response. Alternative explanations of superstitious behavior have included Staddon and Simmelhag’s (1971) stimulus substitution account and Timberlake and Lucas’s (1985) elicited species-typical appetitive behavior account. Under both these alternative explanations of superstitious behavior, observations of pigeons under fixed-time schedules revealed a lack of idiosyncratic responding, which is a critical element in Skinner’s explanation of superstitious behavior via adventitious reinforcement. The following study implemented 4 fixed-time schedule experiments to further study superstition. In Experiment 1, male and female pigeons were compared, which provided support for the disparity in response patterns observed in previous studies. Experiments 2–۴ examined the behavior of roller pigeons, ring-necked doves, and bantam chickens. In all the above studies, a lack of idiosyncratic responding and emergence of species-typical foraging behavior was observed. The results provide additional evidence that the ‘superstitious’ behavior that emerges in pigeons and other organisms under response-independent food schedules is the result of elicited species-typical food getting behaviors, and that these behaviors emerge as a result of frequent food deliveries in environments that support such foraging repertoires.

Introduction

Skinner (1948) applied the term “superstition” to stereotyped, idiosyncratic behaviors of pigeons that emerged when a wall hopper filled with grain was briefly presented for 2–۴ s on a Fixed-Time 15 s (FT-15 s) schedule. According to Skinner’s informal account, after less than an hour of exposure to such a schedule, six out of eight pigeons developed a dominant, idiosyncratic response during the inter-food interval. These responses included circling, pendulum movements of the neck and head, and head tossing. Skinner (1948) labeled these responses superstitious because they appeared in the absence of a programmed response contingency between the behavior and the reward. He compared them to the behavior of a bowler applying “body English” after they released the ball as if trying to guide the ball into the pins from a distance, and to people engaged in rituals that have been related to success at card games in the past. Three explanations have been used to account for the superstitious behavior of pigeons. Skinner (1948) argued that each contiguous pairing between a behavior and a reward increased the future probability of that response, thereby increasing the likelihood that the future presentations of the hopper would follow or overlap that response again. In other words, Skinner posited the existence of a feedback effect whereby an “accidental” reward contingency (i.e., adventitious reinforcement) increased the strength of any response it followed, and a feedforward loop whereby the increase in the reinforced response increased the likelihood it would be followed by food again. Although, several other investigators have reported similar behaviors in pigeons produced by FT schedules (Eldridge et al., 1988; Justice and Looney, 1990; Neuringer, 1970), none have directly tested Skinner’s model of how superstitious behavior arose as a function of the adventitious reward proximity (i.e., contiguity) and the resultant increase in the likelihood of more adventitiously reinforced responding. In most studies of superstition in pigeons, response-dependent fixed- or variable-interval (FI; VI) schedules are first introduced, and only one response topography is examined: key pecking.

ارسال دیدگاه

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد. بخش‌های موردنیاز علامت‌گذاری شده‌اند *