Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2016 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Silva, Carlos Henrique Santos da
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Micheletto, Nilza |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Psicologia Experimental: Análise do Comportamento
|
| Departamento: |
Psicologia
|
| País: |
BR
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/16765
|
Resumo: |
Based on Seligman & Maier´s (1967) experiment related to learned helplessness indicating that exposition to response independent shocks may produce learning disabilities of an operant response, several authors have concerned to produce same effects in appetitive context and they have presented results indicating interference on operant acquisition (Engberg et al., 1972; Welker, 1976; Oakes et al., 1982 & Job, 1988) or results which do not support interference on operant acquisition (Schwartz et al., 1974; Wheatley et al., 1977 & Beatty & Maki, 1979). The suggestion of the present experiment is that response cost required from operant may be a relevant variable to produce interference on responding after a non contingent appetitive stimuli exposition. Eighteen male Wistar rats were allocated in six different conditions: Contingent CRF (CCRF), Contingent FR (CFR), Non Contingent CRF (NCCRF), Non Contingent FR (NCFR), Control CRF (CTCRF) and Control FR (CTFR). In first phase, subjects in Contingent conditions could produce reinforcers (water) through nose poke response while subjects in Non Contingent conditions were yoked with Contingent subjects and appetitive stimuli were delivered independently of responding and subjects in Control conditions were not exposed. In second phase, all rats in CRF conditions could produce reinforcers through barpressing response reinforced on a continuous reinforcement and rats in FR conditions through the same response reinforced on FR 3. Data suggest subjects exposed to non contingent appetitive stimuli that required more time to task completion in Phase 2 (100 reinforcer acquisitions) indicated more marked interference when FR 3 was utilized instead CRF. Furthermore, interference was identified on Phase 2 in subjects who showed accidentally reinforced variability in Phase 1 unlike subjects who presented stereotypy on responding. Results are discussed based on temporal contiguity among non contingent events, interference / response competition, and aversive / appetitive context differences |
