Indexador

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Na Análise do Comportamento, estudos na área de controle de estímulos investigam como determinadas respostas se tornam mais prováveis na presença de certos estímulos antecedentes. O objetivo desse artigo é apresentar três processos operantes em que a resposta pode ficar sob controle de novos estímulos sem necessidade de aprendizagem direta: generalização de estímulos, leitura recombinativa e relações derivadas. Generalização de estímulos foi definido como um processo em que após uma história de condicionamento operante a classe de respostas reforçada sob controle de um determinado estímulo antecedente passa a ser emitida diante de novos estímulos que compartilham propriedades físicas em comum ou semelhantes ao Sd. Leitura recombinativa se refere ao fenômeno em que respostas textuais ficam sob controle de unidades menores do que uma palavra (letras, sílabas) e que quando tais unidades são recombinadas, formando novos estímulos, as respostas mantêm-se adequadas à nova condição de estímulos. Já as relações derivadas são identificadas quando respostas relacionais são emitidas diante de novas configurações arbitrárias de estímulos e sob controle de dicas contextuais. Discute-se as semelhanças e diferenças entre os três processos, destacando o quanto contribuem para a complexidade e amplitude do repertório humano, bem como sua importância para o planejamento de intervenções.Palavras-chave: controle de estímulos; generalização de estímulos; leitura recombinativa; equivalência de estímulos; teoria das molduras relacionais.

AbstractResurgence is a temporary increase in a previously suppressed target behavior following a worsening in reinforcement conditions. Previous studies have examined how higher rates or magnitudes of alternative reinforcement affect suppression of the target behavior and subsequent resurgence. However, there has been no investigation of the effects of higher versus lower qualities of alternative reinforcement on resurgence. Using a three‐phase resurgence preparation with rats, the present experiments examined the effects of an alternative reinforcer that was of higher (Experiment 1) or lower (Experiment 2) quality than the reinforcer that had previously maintained the target behavior. The results of both experiments showed greater reductions in target behavior with a higher quality alternative reinforcer and larger increases in target responding when a higher quality alternative reinforcer was removed. Along with prior findings with higher rates and magnitudes of alternative reinforcement, these findings suggest that variations in reinforcer dimensions that increase the efficacy of alternative reinforcement also tend to increase resurgence when alternative reinforcement is removed. The results are discussed in terms of the resurgence as choice in context model and in terms of potential clinical implications.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Abstract Resurgence is a transient recovery of a previously extinguished target response following a worsening of reinforcement conditions for an alternative response. Laboratory studies with nonhuman animals typically assess resurgence in free‐operant situations where subjects can freely emit responses. The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether resurgence would be observed in a discrete‐trial procedure where only a single response could occur in each trial, using rats as subjects. The experiment consisted of three phases, and each session ended after 200 trials. All trials began with the insertion of target and alternative levers and ended once a response was emitted. In Phase 1, both target and alternative responses were reinforced with a probability of .25. In Phase 2, the target response was extinguished while still reinforcing the alternative response with a probability of .25. Finally, resurgence was tested by placing the alternative response on extinction. All rats showed robust resurgence in this highly constrained discrete‐trial situation. We also found that the latencies of resurged target responses differed from those in Phase 1. Overall, the present discrete‐trial procedure could produce reliable resurgence as with typical free‐operant procedures and has several potential benefits for studying resurgence.

AbstractBasic and retrospective translational research has shown that the magnitude of resurgence is determined by the size of the decrease in alternative reinforcement, with larger decreases producing more resurgence. However, this finding has not been evaluated prospectively with a clinical population. In Experiment 1, five participants experienced a fixed progression of reinforcement schedule‐thinning steps during treatment of their destructive behavior. Resurgence occurred infrequently across steps and participants, and when resurgence did occur, its clinical meaningfulness was often minimal. In Experiment 2, five new participants experienced these same schedule‐thinning steps but in a counterbalanced order. Resurgence occurred most often and was generally largest with larger decreases in alternative reinforcement programmed earlier in the evaluation. Large decreases in alternative reinforcement may be more problematic clinically when they occur earlier in treatment. Whether larger transitions can be recommended in the clinic following the success of smaller ones will require additional research.

AbstractResurgence refers to the relapse of a target behavior following the worsening of a source of alternative reinforcement that was made available during response elimination. Most laboratory analyses of resurgence have used a combination of extinction and alternative reinforcement to reduce target behavior. In contingency‐management treatments for alcohol use disorder, however, alcohol use is not placed on extinction. Instead, participants voluntarily abstain from alcohol use to access nondrug alternative reinforcers. Inasmuch, additional laboratory research on resurgence following voluntary abstinence is warranted. The present experiment evaluated resurgence of rats' ethanol seeking following voluntary abstinence produced by differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO). Lever pressing produced ethanol reinforcers during baseline phases. During DRO phases, lever pressing continued to produce ethanol and food reinforcers were delivered according to resetting DRO schedules. Ethanol and food reinforcers were suspended during resurgence test phases to evaluate resurgence following voluntary abstinence. Lever pressing was elevated during baseline phases and occurred at near‐zero rates during DRO phases. During the resurgence test phases, lever pressing increased, despite that it no longer produced ethanol. The procedure introduced here may help researchers better understand the variables that affect voluntary abstinence from ethanol seeking and resurgence following voluntary abstinence.

AbstractFunctional analysis methods allow clinicians to determine the variable(s) that maintain destructive behavior. Previous reviews of functional analysis outcomes have included large samples of published and unpublished data sets (i.e., clinical samples). The purpose of this review was to conduct a large retrospective consecutive controlled case series of clinical functional analyses. We sought to identify the prevalence of differentiation, procedural modifications for undifferentiated and differentiated cases, and identified function(s) of destructive behavior. In addition, we extended the existing literature by determining whether functional analysis differentiation and function varied when single or multiple behavior topographies were consequated in the functional analysis. We discuss our findings considering previously published functional analysis reviews, provide avenues for future research, and offer suggestions for clinical practice.

AbstractThis article summarizes a review of the book The Supervisor's Guidebook: Evidence‐Based Strategies for Promoting Work Quality and Enjoyment Among Human Service Staff (2nd edition) by Reid, Parsons, and Green. We describe the book's organization and content. In addition, strengths and areas for improvement are noted. The book provides rich, relevant content to guide supervisory practices within a participative, evidence‐based approach that could be applied in various human service settings.