The nature of reinforcer as a modulating variable of effects of history of reinforcement on the human behavior / A natureza do reforçador como uma variável moduladora dos efeitos da história de reforço sobre o comportamento de seres humanos

AUTOR(ES)
DATA DE PUBLICAÇÃO

2004

RESUMO

In the present study it was investigated how the nature of reinforcer affects the human behavior on FI reinforcement schedule under different histories of reinforcement. College students were initially exposed to one of three reinforcement schedules: FR 40, DRL 20 s or FI 10 s for 15 minutes each. A computer software, ProgRef, was used to program contingencies of reinforcement. So, if the subject gave a click on the left button of mouse, a number correspondent to the number of reinforced response pop out on the monitor screen. That number was equivalent to points, and some students could exchange their points for photocopies (Condition 1), other for money (Condition 2), and other could not exchange for anything (Condition 3). Later, students whose behaviors have been reinforced in FR and DRL schedules (histories) went to a FI 10 s reinforcement schedule and the ones who had already been exposed to the FI 10 s had their FI parameter altered to 5, 20 or 30 s during three sessions of 15 min each. Before being exposed to histories of responding in FR or DRL, Condition 3-Points participants were exposed to five Extinction sessions after being exposed to FI 10 s sessions. All students exposed to FR had high rates of responding, independently of the nature of reinforcer. When the contingencies changed from FR to FI, response rates remained high in the Conditions 1 and 2 (Photocopies and Money), but it deeply decreased in the Condition 3. Students exposed to DRL history presented a low rate of response under both DRL and FI contingencies, independently of the nature of reinforcement. Despite this behavioral persistence effect, the IRT decreased when contingency changed from DRL 20 s to FI 10 s. This suggests that the pattern responding was also under controlling of contingency of reinforcement current. The nature of reinforcer affected the students’ behavior in FI 10 s even then had no previous experimental history. A high rates of responses was produced by students in the Condition 2-Money while a low rates of responses was produced by most students in the Condition 3-Points. The nature of reinforcer also influenced the students’ behaviors pattern as FI value changed from 10 to 5, 20 or 30 s. Results show that students’ behaviors pattern changed as FI value was altered as in the sequence before in the Conditions 1 and 3. However, it did not change at the same way as FI value was altered in the Condition 2. As contingencies of reinforcement, in the Condition 3, were altered from FI to extinction schedules, subjects’ behaviors under FR and DRL schedules showed a different pattern. Taken as a whole the results suggests that: first, participants’ behavior seemed to be controlled either by reinforcement history or by contingency of reinforcement; Second, the nature of reinforcement may be produced both high and low rates of response under FI – both after FR contingency exposure and when FI is programmed from the beginning (i.e., with no previous experimental history to no other reinforcement contingency). The results of the present study are in agreement to most those studies carried out with human and non-human responding under reinforcement schedules and suggest that the discrepancies between the behavior of humans and non-humans on schedules of reinforcement maybe attributed to both conditioning history and procedural differences between human and non-human research procedures. Also, the results here presented suggest that the nature of reinforcer is an important variable to modulate the effects of experimental history on the human behaviors.

ASSUNTO(S)

psicologia experimental experimental psychology behaviorism reinforcement schedules esquemas de reforço behaviorismo

ACESSO AO ARTIGO

Documentos Relacionados