Indexador

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

In three studies, reinforcing low rates of responding reduced inappropriate behaviors. In the first study, the talking‐out behavior of one TMR student was reduced when the teacher allowed 5 min of free time for a talk‐out rate less than 0.06 per minute. In a second study, the talking‐out behavior of an entire TMR class was reduced when reinforcement was delivered for a response rate less than 0.10 per minute. In a third study, successively decreasing DRL limits were used to reduce off‐task verbalizations of an entire high school business class. In each case, the DRL procedure proved manageable for the teacher and successful in reducing misbehavior.

Three experiments demonstrated the development and generalized use of a singular and plural declarative sentence in a child initially lacking sentence form responses. In each experiment, an adult(s) served as a language model(s), and consequences (sweets) were provided for imitation of the model. During training trials, an item(s) was displayed first to the model(s) then to the subject; these displays were accompanied by requests to label the item(s). Generalization was assessed by a number of probe trials that were periodically interspersed among training trials. During these trials, the subject was requested to label the displayed item(s) without any preceding labelling response from the model. Using these procedures, generalized use of a singular sentence (“That is one ———”) resulted in Experiment I, and generalized use of a plural sentence (“These are two ———”) resulted in Experiment II. In Experiment III, two models (a singular and a plural sentence model) were made available to the subject but imitation of only one model was reinforced during any one condition. Results indicated the subject labelled probe (generalization) items with the same sentence form that was modelled and reinforced during training trials.

Two retardates, manifesting hand gestures and minimal instructional control, were trained by imitative reinforcement procedures to imitate a response that was in contrast to gesturing. Next, with the contrast response continuing to be imitatively reinforced, gesturing was reduced by nonimitative reinforcement procedures; while providing facial and gesture cues, the adult said, “Do not do this”. Imitative and nonimitative procedures were found to have the same effects on the contrast response as on the gesturing response, such that imitative procedures increased both responses, whereas nonimitative procedures decreased both. Nonperformance of gesturing was further maintained when (1) explicit verbal directions for nongesturing were superimposed upon the demonstrational‐facial‐verbal cues as these collective stimuli were faded out and (2) food reinforcers for nongesturing were gradually removed while social consequences continued to be administered.

Pigeons were trained to respond in non‐differential reinforcement pre‐discrimination training, with a multiple variable‐interval 1‐min variable‐interval 1‐min schedule. Each bird then received discrimination training with a multiple variable‐interval 1‐min variable‐time 1‐min schedule. Thus, discrimination training was between response‐dependent (variable‐interval) and response‐independent (variable‐time) schedules with the rate of reinforcement equated. In Experiment I, only three sessions of non‐differential reinforcement preceded discrimination training and for half the birds, a 0° line was correlated with the response‐dependent schedule; for the remaining birds the 0° line was correlated with the response‐independent schedule. Post‐discrimination gradients of excitatory stimulus control were obtained from the former group, while the latter group showed little evidence of post‐discrimination stimulus control by the 0° line. Differential responding to the variable‐time schedule was not accompanied by behavioral contrast to the variable‐interval schedule. In Experiment II, 20 sessions of non‐differential reinforcement preceded discrimination training and the 0° line was correlated with variable‐time reinforcement for each bird. Differential responding to the 0° line was accompanied by negative induction to the variable‐interval schedule and by inhibitory stimulus control about the 0° line during a post‐discrimination generalization test.

The effects of drugs were studied in pigeons whose responses were punished with electric shock during one component of a multiple fixed‐interval 5‐min fixed‐interval 5‐min schedule of food presentation. Most of the drugs analyzed for rate‐dependent effects increased low rates of both punished and unpunished responding, while increasing higher rates less, or decreasing them; however, low rates of punished responding sometimes were increased more by pentobarbital, diazepam, and chlordiazepoxide than were matched rates of unpunished responding. In contrast, d‐amphetamine and chlorpromazine usually increased low rates of unpunished responding more than matched rates of punished responding. These two drugs also decreased high rates of unpunished responding less than they decreased high rates of punished responding. Thus, the effects of drugs on punished responding depend on the control rate of punished responding; however, the rate‐dependent effects of drugs on punished responding are not always the same as they are for unpunished responding.

The effects of d‐amphetamine on punished responding were studied in two experiments. In Experiment I, pigeons responded under a multiple fixed‐ratio 30 response fixed‐interval 5‐min schedule of food presentation with 60‐sec limited holds in both components. Each response was punished with electric shock, the intensity of which was varied systematically. In Experiment II, another group of pigeons responded under a multiple fixed‐interval 5‐min fixed‐interval 5‐min schedule of food presentation with 40‐sec limited holds. Each response was punished with shock during one component, and every thirtieth response was punished in the other component. d‐Amphetamine increased overall rates of punished responding only rarely under any of the punishment conditions; however, response rates within the fixed‐interval when rates were low were increased by d‐amphetamine when the shock intensity was low (Experiment I), or when responses produced shock intermittently (Experiment II). The data suggest that the effects of d‐amphetamine on punished responding depend on the control rate of responding, the punishment intensity, the punishment frequency, and the schedule of food presentation.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.