Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
by
Gerald David Lachter
1970
This manuscript has been read and accepted for the University
Committee in Psychology in satisfaction of the dissertation
requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
William N. Schoenfeld
Brett K. Cole
Donald E. Mintz______
Supervisory Committee
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Method
(1) Subjects
(2) Apparatus
(3) Procedure
Bibliography
Vita
1
Introduction
2. Ibid
2
rate of responding.
value less than unity but greater than zero, then the ratio
will be similar to the first, and also that they will both
Subjects
Apparatus
Procedure
detail below.
(1) Baseline
(39S)
n u 9 e o 1
I- - - - 1 r “ l r
i
i(-sdag) ifsibg) i
i pal i uaalg i paj i
I_ _ _ _ _ _ 1 I_ _ _ _ _ _ l
I
uaajfi j 8}ii|M |
I_ _ _ '__ 1
11103
12
value of 1.0.
13
following order.
line procedure.
5.00 [
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
(■aas/’dsaj) 31VH
2 4
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0 3 6 12 24 0 3 6 12
J (sec.)
16
responding (T=12, T = 2 4 ) .
rsj
18
1^0
(•D3S)J_
CjO
19
T =24
.90
R ATE (resp./sec.)
.70
.50
.30
.10
2 3 4 5 6
2 3 4 5 6
BLOCKS OF FIVE SESSIONS
21
T=24
1.80
1.00
.60
.20
1 2 3 4 5 6
T= 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCKS OF FIVE SESSIONS
22
70
.50
30
10
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
BL O C K S OF FIVE SESSIONS
23
of 60 seconds.
IS^T. The mean I s S ’ for the T=0 schedule during the baseline
.42
.30
.18
.06
:±
.70
.50
.30
.10
0 3 6
27
SESSIONS 21-25
RATE(resp./sec.)
0 3 6 12 24 0 3 6 12
T (sec.)
28
.70
.50
.30
.10
0 3 6 12 24 0 3 6 12
T (sec.)
29
the presence of the T=3 and T=6 stimuli, since the schedules
The PS^P data (Pig- 13) are consistent with the rate
apparent.
rsj
ho I
T (sec.)
co
32
3.00
2.00
1.00
RATE (resp. /sec.)
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0 3 6 12
T (sec.)
34
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
09
1.00
C/9
C/O
g 7.00
o-
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0 3 6 12 24 0 3 6 12
T (sec.)
35
120
LU
s
UJ
0 3 6 12
T (sec.)
reinforcement procedure resulted in a behavioral disruption
reinforcement procedure.
.35
.25
.15
.05
1 2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5 6
T =24
.45
RATE (resp./sec.)
.35
.25
.15
.05
.70
.50
.30
.10
2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 6
T= 3 T = 24
.90
“5co .70
\
s 50
LU
£ .30
QC
.10
1 2 3 4 5 1
2 3 4 5 6
BLOCKS OF FIVE SESSIONS
41
SESSIONS 6 -1 0 SESSIONS 21 - 25
.45
RATE (resp./sec.)
35
25
15
05
0 3 6 12 24 0 3 6 12
T (sec.)
42
SESSIONS 6 -1 0 SESSIONS 21 - 25
0 3 6 12
43
SESSIONS 6 -1 0 SESSIONS 2 1 -2 5
.90
RATE (resp./sec.)
.70
.50
.30
.10
SESSIONS 11-15
0 3 6 12 24 0 3 6 12
T (sec.)
44
SESSIONS 6 - 1 0 SESSIONS 2 1 -2 5
90
RATE (resp./sec.)
.70
50
30
.10
0 3 6 12 24 0 3 6 12
T(sec.)
The PS P functions are basically the same as those shown
(compare Figs. 13 and 26). However, the PS^P's for the 120
R
procedures. The IS T data again show a good correspondence
40
30
20
P O S T - S R PAUSE (sec.)
50
40
30
20
10
0 3 6 12
T (sec.)
47
o s i i i S g §
ho
,
T (sec.)
48
3.00
2.00
1.00
RATE (resp./sec.)
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
6 12 24 0 3 6 12
T (sec.)
49
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
P O S T - S " PAUSE (sec.)
1.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0 3 6 12 24 0 3 6 12
T (sec.)
50
ca
CO
CD
CD
cn
co
ro
baseline procedure (Figs. 31, 32, 33, 34). This is in
12 3
agreement with the previously cited findings ’ ’ as well
as with the results reported for the 60 and 120 second non
T=3, T = 6 ) , as shown in Figs. 35, 36, 57, and 38. The behavior
.21
.15
.09
.03
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCKS OF FIVE SESSIONS
53
50 T = 24
RATE (resp./sec.)
.40
.30
20
.10
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
BLOCKS OF FIVE SESSIONS
54
T = 24
1.80
RATE (resp./sec.)
1.40
1.00
.60
.20
2 3 4 5 6
2 3 4 5 6
BLOCKS OF FIVE SESSIONS
55
T =24
.90
RATE (resp./sec.)
.70
.50
.30
.10
2 3 4 5
.21
.15
.09
.03
0 3 6 12 24 0 3 6 12
T (sec.)
57
.50 SESSIONS 21 - 25
SESSIONS 6 - 1 0
RATE (resp./sec.)
.40
.30
20
10
0 3 6 12 24 0 3 6 12
T (sec.)
58
SESSIONS SESSIONS 2 1 - 2 5
1.80
RATE (resp./sec.)
1.40
1.00
0 3 6 12 24 0 3 6 12
T (sec.)
59
SESSIONS 21 -2 5
SESSIONS 6 -1 0
.90
RATE (resp./sec.)
.70
50
30
.10
0 3 6 12 24 0 3 6 12
T (sec.)
60
co
61
elevated above the baseline recovery values, but as was the case
2. Ibid
3.00
2.00
1.00
RATE (resp./sec.)
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0 3 6 12 24 0 3 6 12
T (sec.)
64
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1 i.oo
GO
U-l
C/3
<c
Q-
e
c /3
I
2a. 7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0 3 6 12 24 0 3 6 12
T (sec.)
65
120
MEAN I N T E R - S R TIME(sec.)
60
240
120
60
0 3 6 12 24 0 3 6 12
T (sec.)
66
of extinction.
3
Wilson has shown that resistance to extinction varies
2. Ibid
1 2
may be viewed as having certain discriminative properties. ’
of the PS1^. The stronger the control, the shorter the PS^T3,
extent upon the behavior with which the procedure makes contact.
12 3
sponding. ’ ’ The mixing of contingent and non-contingent
R
of reinforcement (P). The mean IS T (T/P) for each schedule was
as follows:
R
T = 0 indeterminate (mean IS T is a function of both rate of
T = 5 30 seconds
T = 6 60 seconds
T = 12 120 seconds
T = 24 240 seconds
and a P of 0.10.
(T=0, T=3, T = 6 ) .
Vita
Gerald David Lachter was born May 3, 1941 in the Bronx, N.Y.,
and received his Bachelor of Arts degree from C.W. Post College