RESUMO
This experiment investigated whether noncontingent appetitive stimuli exposure has effects in a subsequent response acquisition with different efforts. On the first phase, rats were exposed to contingent events to nose poke response, noncontingent events, or no exposition. On the second phase, the bar press response of the animals was continuously reinforced or submitted to a FR3 schedule. The time and number of reinforcers to response acquisition varied among subjects, and none relation was identified between first phase exposition with response acquisition of different efforts on phase 2. The longest time in response acquisition identified in some subjects occurred due to competitive responses on the first phase followed by appetitive stimuli. Possibilities for future studies and possible implications for the applied context are discussed.
Este experimento investigou se a exposição a estímulos apetitivos não contingentes tem efeitos sobre a aquisição de respostas de diferentes custos. Na fase 1, ratos foram expostos a eventos contingentes às respostas de focinhar, eventos não contingentes ou não foram expostos. Na fase 2, a resposta de pressão à barra dos animais foi reforçada continuamente ou em esquema FR 3. O tempo e o número de reforçadores para aquisição de respostas variaram entre os sujeitos, não sendo identificada relação entre a exposição na fase 1 e o custo da resposta a ser adquirida na fase 2. O maior tempo para aquisição da resposta ocorreu possivelmente por causa de respostas competitivas acidentalmente seguidas por estímulos apetitivos na fase 1. Discutem-se possibilidades para estudos futuros e possíveis implicações para o contexto aplicado.
Este experimento investigó si la exposición a estímulos apetitivos no contingentes tiene efectos en la adquisición de respuestas a diferentes costos. En la fase 1 se expusieron ratones a eventos contingentes a las respuestas del hocico, eventos no contingentes o no fueron expuestos. En la fase 2 la respuesta de presión a palanca de los sujetos se reforzó continuamente o en FR 3. El tiempo y el número de reforzadores para adquirir respuestas variaron entre los sujetos de las diferentes condiciones sin que se identificara ninguna relación entre la exposición de la fase 1 y el costo de la respuesta a ser adquirida. El tiempo más largo para obtener la respuesta de algunos sujetos posiblemente se debió a respuestas competitivas que, en la fase 1, fueron seguidas por estímulos apetitivos. Se discuten posibilidades para estudios futuros y posibles implicaciones para el contexto aplicado.
Assuntos
Desamparo Aprendido , Agendamento de ConsultasRESUMO
The effects of the response-reinforcer dependency on resistance to change were studied in three experiments with rats. In Experiment 1, lever pressing produced reinforcers at similar rates after variable interreinforcer intervals in each component of a two-component multiple schedule. Across conditions, in the fixed component, all reinforcers were response-dependent; in the alternative component, the percentage of response-dependent reinforcers was 100, 50 (i.e., 50% response-dependent and 50% response-independent) or 10% (i.e., 10% response-dependent and 90% response-independent). Resistance to extinction was greater in the alternative than in the fixed component when the dependency in the former was 10%, but was similar between components when this dependency was 100 or 50%. In Experiment 2, a three-component multiple schedule was used. The dependency was 100% in one component and 10% in the other two. The 10% components differed on how reinforcers were programmed. In one component, as in Experiment 1, a reinforcer had to be collected before the scheduling of other response-dependent or independent reinforcers. In the other component, response-dependent and -independent reinforcers were programmed by superimposing a variable-time schedule on an independent variable-interval schedule. Regardless of the procedure used to program the dependency, resistance to extinction was greater in the 10% components than in the 100% component. These results were replicated in Experiment 3 in which, instead of extinction, VT schedules replaced the baseline schedules in each multiple-schedule component during the test. We argue that the relative change in dependency from Baseline to Test, which is greater when baseline dependencies are high rather than low, could account for the differential resistance to change in the present experiments. The inconsistencies in results across the present and previous experiments suggest that the effects of dependency on resistance to change are not well understood. Additional systematic analyses are important to further understand the effects of the response-reinforcer relation on resistance to change and to the development of a more comprehensive theory of behavioral persistence.