Indexador

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

The relative magnitude and relative frequency of reinforcement for two concurrent interresponse times (1.5 to 2.5 sec and 3.5 to 4.5 sec) were simultaneously varied in an experiment in which pigeons obtained grain by pecking on a single key. Visual discriminative stimuli accompanied the two time intervals in which reinforcements were arranged by a one‐minute variable‐interval schedule. The resulting interresponse times of each of three pigeons fell into two groups; “short” (1.0 to 2.5 sec) and “long” (3.0 to 4.5 sec). Steady‐state relative frequencies of these interresponse times were orderly functions of both reinforcement variables. The combined effects of both independent variables were well summarized by a linear function of one variable, relative access to food. Unlike corresponding two‐key concurrent variable‐interval schedules, the present schedule did not produce an equality between the relative frequency of an operant and either the relative magnitude or the relative frequency of reinforcement of that operant. A tentative account is provided for this difference between one‐key and two‐key functions.

Differential consequences were used to increase obedience and decrease aggressive behavior in a four‐and‐one‐half year old boy. Treatment was conducted in the child's home by his mother.

Two pigeons were trained to peck a key under several multiple variable‐interval variable‐interval schedules of reinforcement; different numbers of reinforcements were scheduled in two components of equal duration which were correlated with red and green illumination of the response key respectively. The results showed: (1) that the total number of responses in a session was proportional to the one‐sixth power of the total number of reinforcements delivered in that session; and (2) that the ratio of responses between the two components was equal to the one‐third power of the ratio of reinforcements between them. This latter exponent may be regarded as reflecting the sensitivity of the distribution of responses between the components to the distribution of reinforcements. It was suggested that the effects of a number of complex schedules of reinforcement could be summarized by different values of this exponent.