Metacontigencies are defined by functional relations between interlocking behavioral
contingencies (IBCs) and an aggregate product, which selects not the individual behavior, but
the IBCs. IBCs can also be maintained by supporting contingencies, which, in this case,
operate on individual contingencies that take part of the interlock and are disposed by another
individual, group or a controlling agency. This is a theoretical proposition conveyed in a
behavior-analytical literature, with no empirical evidence. The present study had the objective
of evaluating the effects of supporting contingencies and metacontingencies on installing and
maintaining IBCs. Twelve undergraduate students participated in the study, divided equally
into four experimental groups. Groups 1 and 2 participated in Experiment 1, and groups 3 and
4 participated in Experiment 2. Each group was exposed to a gamble game with tokens worth
R$ 0,10 each. Yellow, orange and brown tokens were used in Groups 1 and 2; yellow, orange,
brown, purple and pink tokens were used in Groups 3 and 4. Each session had 30 rounds, each
composed by one bet of each of the three participants, which alternated the initial bet of each
round. Groups 1 and 2 were exposed to conditions A (supporting contingencies) and B
(metacontingencies). The experimental design of Group 1 was B/A/A+B/B; Group 2 was
exposed to a single phase on condition B. Both groups had the IBCs selected and no
differences between the performances of the groups were identified. In the Experiment 2, the
IBCs’s complexity was raised aiming to evaluate differences in the effects of supporting
contingencies and metacontingencies on the selection of IBCs. Groups 3 and 4 were exposed
to conditions A’ and B’, which were identical to conditions A and B, except for the colors of
tokens used and for the complexity of the IBCs. Group 3 was exposed to two phases with the
following conditions: B’/A’. Group 4 was exposed only to condition B’. In both groups the
IBCs were not selected. The results indicate that no significant differences between the
performances of groups exposed to metacontingencies and those exposed to supporting
contingencies was observed. In Experiment 1, where the IBCs were selected, the
performances of Groups 1 and 2 were similar. In Experiment 2, the complexity of IBCs was
increased; however the results show that in both groups, IBCs were not selected. Future
studies could replicate the presented experimental design, controlling the complexity of IBCs
to an intermediate level, with the objective to evaluate if supporting contingencies and
metacontingencies perform different roles on the selection of IBCs.
|
