This study was designed to test the effectiveness of 2 different behavioral interventions: a high-probability request sequence and a differential reinforcement of alternative behaviors (DRA) procedure in a classroom setting. The aim of the interventions was to reduce the frequency of task refusal as well as increase the frequency of task compliance in adolescents in a general education setting. The study included 4 adolescents with the same teacher who were reported by their teacher as completing 50% or less of their course work since the beginning of the school year. The teacher implemented the interventions with the participants to test their potential effectiveness. Each student responded differently to the interventions. This was demonstrated using visual analysis of graphs as well as a comparison of descriptive statistics. Some were more compliant when the teacher implemented the high-probability request sequence; others demonstrated greater compliance with the DRA in place. Two participants also demonstrated higher levels of compliance beginning with placement of a camera (and operator) prior to the high-probability request sequence or the DRA implementation. These results indicate that each of these interventions may have the potential to increase compliance with classroom tasks for typically functioning adolescents through the mechanism of increased attention.

A variação comportamental coloca o organismo em contato com diferentes contingências, possibilitando o fortalecimento de comportamentos incialmente pouco prováveis. Entretanto, a literatura experimental sobre a aprendizagem de comportamentos de baixa probabilidade inicial influenciada por reforçamento da variação tem encontrado diferenças marcantes entre desempenhos de humanos e não humanos. Dentre as variáveis sugeridas como responsáveis por essas diferenças está o controle verbal pelas instruções fornecidas aos humanos que pode interagir com as contingências em vigor. Foram realizados dois experimentos visando o teste dessa variável. No Exp.1 foi analisado o efeito de instruções para descobrir o que deveria ser feito (ID), comparado ao de instruções mínimas (IM). A tarefa consistiu em sequências de quatro pressões em duas teclas (Q e P) de um computador, sendo a ordem dessas teclas na sequência o que diferenciou as 16 sequências possíveis. Após uma linha de base em que os participantes produziam reforços independente da configuração das sequências emitidas, todos foram expostos a duas contingências concorrentes: FR1 contingente à sequência menos emitida na fase anterior (sequência alvo - SA) ou reforçamento de sequências que variassem entre si dentre as 15 restantes. Dois grupos de estudantes universitários participaram desse experimento. Os participantes de um dos grupos (n=14) foram submetidos à instrução ID e os participantes do outro grupo (n=14) foram submetidos à instrução IM. Cada grupo foi subdividido em dois em função do padrão de variação apresentado na linha de base (alto ou baixo). Nenhuma diferença significante foi encontrada entre os grupos como função das instruções, mas o nível de variabilidade apresentado pelos participantes em linha de base se mostrou um preditor consistente da emissão de SAs. Hipotetizou-se que os reforços dispensados em FR 1 na linha de base poderiam ter fortalecido padrões que se mantiveram na fase seguinte, interferindo no eventual efeito das instruções. Para avaliar essa hipótese, foi realizado um segundo experimento, similar ao anterior, no qual foi excluída a fase de linha de base. Dezoito novos estudantes serviram como participantes sendo divididos em grupos ID e IM. Os resultados mostraram não haver diferenças significantes entre os grupos. Sugere-se que, nas condições testadas, a apresentação de vii instruções que especificam uma tarefa de descobrir a regra (ID) não constitui variável significativa na determinação do desempenho dos participantes humanos. Portanto, essa interpretação não parece ser adequada para justificar as diferenças entre humanos e não humanos submetidos a procedimentos aparentemente similares. São apresentadas sugestões de experimentos que poderão contribuir para o melhor entendimento do papel das variáveis envolvidas nessa diferença entre espécies / The behavioral variation puts the organism in contact with different contingencies, therefore strengthening unlikely behaviors. The experimental literature about learning of behaviors of low initial probability influenced by reinforcement of variation, however, has found striking differences between performances of humans and nonhumans. One of the variables suggested as responsible for these differences is the control by verbal instructions given to humans that can interact with the contingencies in place. Two experiments were conducted in order to test this variable. The Exp.1 analyzed the effect of instructions to \"find out what should be done\" (ID), compared to minimal instructions (IM). The task consisted of four presses sequences on two keyboard keys (P and Q), the order of these key presses in the sequence is what differentiated the 16 possible sequences. After a baseline in which the participants produced reinforcement regardless of the configuration of the sequences emitted, all of them were exposed to two competing contingencies: FR1 contingent to the least emitted sequence in the previous phase (target sequence - TS) or reinforcement for variation among the 15 remaining sequences. Two groups of students participated in this experiment. Participants in one group (n = 14) received instruction ID and participants in the other group (n=14) received instruction IM. Each group was subdivided into other two groups depending on the variation pattern shown at baseline (high or low). No significant differences were found between the groups as a function of the instructions, but the level of variability presented by participants at baseline proved to be a consistent predictor of emitting TSs. It was hypothesized that the reinforcements dispensed in FR 1 over baseline patterns could have strengthened the patterns which remained in the next phase, possibly interfering on the effect of the instructions. To assess this hypothesis, a second experiment, similar to the previous one, was performed in which the baseline phase was excluded. Eighteen new students served as participants and were divided into groups and IM and ID. The results showed no significant differences between groups. It is suggested that, under the conditions tested, the presentation of instructions that specify a task of \"discovering the rule\" (ID) is not a significant variable in determining the performance of human participants. Therefore, this interpretation does not seem adequate to explain the differences between human and nonhuman exposed to apparently similar procedures. Experiments that could ix contribute to a better understanding of the role of the variables involved in this difference between species were suggested

A variação comportamental coloca o organismo em contato com diferentes contingências, possibilitando o fortalecimento de comportamentos incialmente pouco prováveis. Entretanto, a literatura experimental sobre a aprendizagem de comportamentos de baixa probabilidade inicial influenciada por reforçamento da variação tem encontrado diferenças marcantes entre desempenhos de humanos e não humanos. Dentre as variáveis sugeridas como responsáveis por essas diferenças está o controle verbal pelas instruções fornecidas aos humanos que pode interagir com as contingências em vigor. Foram realizados dois experimentos visando o teste dessa variável. No Exp.1 foi analisado o efeito de instruções para descobrir o que deveria ser feito (ID), comparado ao de instruções mínimas (IM). A tarefa consistiu em sequências de quatro pressões em duas teclas (Q e P) de um computador, sendo a ordem dessas teclas na sequência o que diferenciou as 16 sequências possíveis. Após uma linha de base em que os participantes produziam reforços independente da configuração das sequências emitidas, todos foram expostos a duas contingências concorrentes: FR1 contingente à sequência menos emitida na fase anterior (sequência alvo - SA) ou reforçamento de sequências que variassem entre si dentre as 15 restantes. Dois grupos de estudantes universitários participaram desse experimento. Os participantes de um dos grupos (n=14) foram submetidos à instrução ID e os participantes do outro grupo (n=14) foram submetidos à instrução IM. Cada grupo foi subdividido em dois em função do padrão de variação apresentado na linha de base (alto ou baixo). Nenhuma diferença significante foi encontrada entre os grupos como função das instruções, mas o nível de variabilidade apresentado pelos participantes em linha de base se mostrou um preditor consistente da emissão de SAs. Hipotetizou-se que os reforços dispensados em FR 1 na linha de base poderiam ter fortalecido padrões que se mantiveram na fase seguinte, interferindo no eventual efeito das instruções. Para avaliar essa hipótese, foi realizado um segundo experimento, similar ao anterior, no qual foi excluída a fase de linha de base. Dezoito novos estudantes serviram como participantes sendo divididos em grupos ID e IM. Os resultados mostraram não haver diferenças significantes entre os grupos. Sugere-se que, nas condições testadas, a apresentação de vii instruções que especificam uma tarefa de descobrir a regra (ID) não constitui variável significativa na determinação do desempenho dos participantes humanos. Portanto, essa interpretação não parece ser adequada para justificar as diferenças entre humanos e não humanos submetidos a procedimentos aparentemente similares. São apresentadas sugestões de experimentos que poderão contribuir para o melhor entendimento do papel das variáveis envolvidas nessa diferença entre espécies / The behavioral variation puts the organism in contact with different contingencies, therefore strengthening unlikely behaviors. The experimental literature about learning of behaviors of low initial probability influenced by reinforcement of variation, however, has found striking differences between performances of humans and nonhumans. One of the variables suggested as responsible for these differences is the control by verbal instructions given to humans that can interact with the contingencies in place. Two experiments were conducted in order to test this variable. The Exp.1 analyzed the effect of instructions to \"find out what should be done\" (ID), compared to minimal instructions (IM). The task consisted of four presses sequences on two keyboard keys (P and Q), the order of these key presses in the sequence is what differentiated the 16 possible sequences. After a baseline in which the participants produced reinforcement regardless of the configuration of the sequences emitted, all of them were exposed to two competing contingencies: FR1 contingent to the least emitted sequence in the previous phase (target sequence - TS) or reinforcement for variation among the 15 remaining sequences. Two groups of students participated in this experiment. Participants in one group (n = 14) received instruction ID and participants in the other group (n=14) received instruction IM. Each group was subdivided into other two groups depending on the variation pattern shown at baseline (high or low). No significant differences were found between the groups as a function of the instructions, but the level of variability presented by participants at baseline proved to be a consistent predictor of emitting TSs. It was hypothesized that the reinforcements dispensed in FR 1 over baseline patterns could have strengthened the patterns which remained in the next phase, possibly interfering on the effect of the instructions. To assess this hypothesis, a second experiment, similar to the previous one, was performed in which the baseline phase was excluded. Eighteen new students served as participants and were divided into groups and IM and ID. The results showed no significant differences between groups. It is suggested that, under the conditions tested, the presentation of instructions that specify a task of \"discovering the rule\" (ID) is not a significant variable in determining the performance of human participants. Therefore, this interpretation does not seem adequate to explain the differences between human and nonhuman exposed to apparently similar procedures. Experiments that could ix contribute to a better understanding of the role of the variables involved in this difference between species were suggested

学位プログラム名: 京都大学大学院思修館 / 京都大学 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(総合学術) / 甲第24056号 / 総総博第25号 / 新制||総総||4(附属図書館) / 京都大学大学院総合生存学館総合生存学専攻 / (主査)教授 山敷 庸亮, 教授 寶 馨, 教授 池田 裕一, 佐藤 達彦 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Philosophy / Kyoto University / DFAM

In an increasingly interconnected, and electricity-reliant world, households are asked to build up their resilience to crises. Local, distributed electricity production within a microgrid with capability to operate disconnected from the larger grid has been shown to be an effective tool for increasing power system resilience in the past. The energy production of local renewable sources is, however, not sufficient in meeting normal household energy demand. This thesis explores whether the forming of communities can be utilised to reduce energy demand and as a result, increase the resiliency of both the community and urban environments. The analysis of household energy use and the subsequently developed toolbox provide insights into energy use both under normal societal function and during a crisis. Through living and cooking together as a community, significant energy-efficiency gains were possible, exceeding those reasonably achieved within each individual household. Community was further determined to be important in the planning and development of more resilient combinations of renewable energy, going beyond solar power. When implemented in theoretical scenarios, energy communities at a building and block level could provide sufficient energy for the households’ most immediate needs without major sacrifices of wellness. The scheme proposed is argued to require not only monetary investments, but also larger societal shifts. Producing sufficient quantities of electricity within urban environments will mean a large change in how cities are experienced. Public understanding and acceptance for such a change is likely to be necessary. Through the implementation, the role of the municipality would go from action-taking to mostly laying the groundwork for the formation of communities, as well as advising these as they achieve higher household resilience. Most critically, however, there is a need for the broader population to embrace working together in communities.

No description available.