Animal trainers use shaping to teach many behaviors. However, during shaping, the organism may engage in behaviors other than the target behavior or approximations to the target behavior. If the animal is engaged in other behaviors, the rate of reinforcement may decrease and the trainer may resort to what is sometimes referred to as a “desperation click.” That is, the trainer delivers one reinforcer for a behavior that is not a successive approximation to the target response. Anecdotal reports from trainers suggest that sometimes the animal continues to repeat this other behavior that received only one reinforcer, even in the absence of further reinforcement for that behavior. This study compared whether, during a one minute extinction period, participants spent more time engaged in a behavior that had been reinforced only once after a brief period of no reinforcement or in a behavior that had been reinforced multiple times. Participants, who were university students, played a tabletop game that involved touching and manipulating small objects. Five conditions were repeated twice for each participant: reinforcement for interacting with a training object alone, reinforcement for interacting with a training object with other objects present, reinforcement for interacting with a target object, one reinforcer for interacting with a third object immediately following a brief period of no reinforcement, and reinforcement for interacting with any object. Results from this study show that a desperation click situation can be reliably produced in a controlled setting. When participants received one reinforcer for interacting with a new object following a period of no reinforcement, they interacted with the new object for a longer or equal amount of time as compared to an object that had a history of reinforcement.

The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate the effects of a conflicting instruction on FR-5 performances by an ABABC design. After all four college students were consistently pressing 1-5-3 followed by sound-clips, the schedule value changed to FR-5 (A). Then they were presented with the written instruction "Press 426" (B) in addition to the previous condition. In the last condition (C), 1-5-3 responses were then scheduled for extinction in three participants and the reinforcer was changed from sound-clips to points for one participant. The results showed that unlike previous experiments, instructions did not override the scheduled contingencies. Instruction-following occurred only when there were no other contingencies (i.e., extinction of 1-5-3) or the scheduled reinforcer for FR-5 performances was weak.

The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate the effects of alternative contingencies on instruction following by an ABA design. Three college students consistently pressed keys 1-5-3 and 4-8-6 in the presence of the written instruction "Press 153" or "Press 486." During condition A, the contingencies for following and not following the instruction were the same: CON FR5 FR5 and CON FR20 FR20. During condition B, the contingencies for following and not following the instruction were different: CON FR20 FR5. For one participant, the schedule of reinforcement was then changed to FR30. The results showed that subjects followed instructions when the schedule of reinforcement was the same for instruction following and not following.

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2017-03-24T11:46:39Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Luiza Mulin Vaz.pdf: 1857515 bytes, checksum: 90cfcee01d5a7a029b76227041d9a0a8 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-03-24T11:46:39Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Luiza Mulin Vaz.pdf: 1857515 bytes, checksum: 90cfcee01d5a7a029b76227041d9a0a8 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-03-17 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES / Behavioral analysts have been concerned with evaluating the effect of different learning histories over the sensitivity to the change of contingencies. The present research has investigated the effect of three variables over the sensitivity to the change of contingencies: (1) learning histories, by rules or contingencies; (2) the degree of instructional specificity (general instruction and specific instruction); and (3) maintenance or change of the instruction between phases. Twenty participants were assigned to one of five experimental groups, that were different by the acquirement of repertoire in Phase 1: two groups were exposure to general instruction; other two groups were exposure to specific instruction and one group were exposure to learning by contingencies (minimum instruction). In Phase 2, block 1, the same type of instruction was maintained for three groups; for the other two groups, the instruction was shifted to a minimum instruction. In Phase 2, block 2, the reinforcement contingency was modified without any previous warning. In both phases, a first order matching-to-sample task procedure was programmed in the computer. In Phase 1, was reinforced to choose one of the comparison stimuli that shared the property “equal in shape or in color” with the sample stimulus. This phase contained three sessions, of 36 trials each. Phase 2 contained three sessions, each divided into two blocks. Block 1 corresponded to the first 10 trials and Block 2 corresponded to the following 26 trials. In each block, a contingency would take effect. In blocks 1, there was instruction presentation and the contingency in effect was the same one of the Phase 1 (correct relation was the property: “equal in shape or in color”). In blocks 2, there was no instruction presentation and was reinforced to choose one of the comparison stimuli that did not shared any property with the sample stimulus. This change of contingencies occurred without previous warning. The results showed that the group exposed to learning by contingencies and one of the groups exposed to general instruction showed the most sensitivity when the contingencies were shifted. While one of the groups exposed to specific instruction showed insensitivity when the contingencies were shifted. This result indicates that learning histories by contingencies and by general instruction promotes the sensitivity to the change of contingencies. In the other hand, the learning history by specific instruction produces less sensitivity to the change of contingencies. In general, the groups that were exposed to minimal instruction in Phase 2 (blocks 1) showed more sensitivity to the change of contingencies when compared to the groups that were exposed to general or specific instruction between the two phases / Analistas do comportamento têm se preocupado em avaliar o efeito de diferentes histórias de aprendizagem sobre a sensibilidade a mudanças nas contingências. A presente pesquisa teve o objetivo de investigar o efeito de algumas variáveis na sensibilidade à mudança nas contingências, sendo elas: (1) histórias de aprendizagem, por regras ou por contingências; (2) histórias de aprendizagem por regras mais ou menos específicas (instrução geral e instrução específica); e (3) manutenção ou mudança no tipo de instrução apresentada nas diferentes fases. Vinte participantes foram alocados em cinco grupos experimentais, definidos de acordo com a forma de aquisição do repertório na Fase 1: aprendizagem por instrução geral (dois grupos); aprendizagem por instrução específica (dois grupos); e aprendizagem por contingências – instrução mínima (um grupo). Na Fase 2, bloco 1, o mesmo tipo de instrução foi mantido para três grupos; para os outros dois grupos, a instrução foi alterada para mínima. Na Fase 2, bloco 2, ocorreu mudança não-sinalizada das contingências. Nas duas fases, a tarefa consistiu em um procedimento de escolha de acordo com o modelo e foi realizada no computador. Na Fase 1, era reforçada a resposta de clicar sobre o estímulo comparação igual ou em forma ou em cor ao estímulo modelo. Essa fase conteve três sessões, de 36 tentativas cada. A Fase 2 conteve três sessões, cada uma dividida em dois blocos. O bloco 1 correspondia às primeiras 10 tentativas e o Bloco 2 correspondia às 26 tentativas seguintes. Em cada bloco, uma contingência entrava em vigor. Nos blocos 1, havia apresentação de instrução e era reforçada a resposta de clicar sobre o estímulo comparação igual em forma ou em cor ao estímulo modelo. Nos blocos 2, não havia instrução e era reforçada a resposta de clicar sobre o estímulo comparação diferente do estímulo modelo. Essa mudança de contingência foi realizada sem qualquer sinalização. Os resultados mostraram que o grupo em que a aquisição do repertório se deu pelas contingências e um dos grupos em que a aquisição de deu por instrução geral foram os que ficaram mais sensíveis à mudança nas contingências, enquanto um dos grupos em que a aquisição do repertório se deu por instrução específica apresentou insensibilidade à mudança nas contingências. Esse resultado indica que, quando há mudança nas contingências, histórias de aprendizagem por contingências e por instrução geral favorecem a mudança no responder; já a aprendizagem por instrução específica torna o responder pouco sensível a mudança. Em geral, os grupos que receberam instrução mínima na Fase 2 (blocos 1) mostraram-se mais sensíveis à mudança nas contingências, quando comparados aos grupos que receberam instrução geral ou específica nas duas fases