The application of the technique of the continuous reinforcement then was completed when we evidence the too much increase of the frequency that the animal pressured the bar to get water in relation to the base line and the reduction of the frequency of the other classrooms of behavior, as we can see below in the graphical Reinforcement: Moreover, we can evaluate that as the time of the reinforcing increases greater is the frequency of the behavior, stronger is the linking between R-C. We can visualize this in the Fa/min graph Reinforcement of the behavior-target, as below: The following stage age to verify the answers that happen in the extinguishing of the behavior to pressure the bar. The animal was initially ‘ ‘ relembrado’ ‘ of the conditional behavior to pressure the bar. Zendesk is actively involved in the matter. Made this we stop to strengthen and we register the frequency of the observed behaviors and the results follow in the Fa/min graph Extinguishing I, below: Soon after the beginning of the extinguishing of the reinforcement, we identify a variability in the behaviors as to bite the bar and if to coar sufficiently. We verify that with the time it had a return to the line behaviors base of the animal, where p.ex.

‘ ‘ farejar’ ‘ it was of bigger frequency. The next stage was to come back to always strengthen it (with the same behavior of to pressure the bar to drink). Only that now it would need to arrive to pressure the bar for 10 times before obtaining the water (the reinforcement). We initiate with the frequency of 2, 4, 6 and thus successively up to 10 (repeating for 5 times each frequency). This frequency was reached to the end of this practical. In last the practical one ‘ was made; ‘ lembrana’ ‘ of the necessity of the repetition of the behavior for 10 times it stops later initiating the extinguishing process, the results are evidenced in graphical Extinguishing II to follow: The amount of times that the rat pressured the bar appears in the graph of extinguishing II, why in first the 2 minutes, the animal uncontrollable tried to get reinforcement (15 followed times), however after these initial minutes it did not present plus this behavior. However, it started to reveal behaviors that had not been presented until then, as to arrepiar for. Conclusion the results gotten in this work, present coherence with the theory studied, therefore they demonstrate the possibility empirically of, through a programmed consequence, to obtain shape one definitive behavior.

Valley to stand out that behaviors are not mathematical equations and that, in the mannering theories, we always deal with increases or reductions of ‘ ‘ probabilidades’ ‘ of them to occur and not with air-tight certezas, therefore we do not have to forget individual and cultural the idiosyncrasies, that lead each subject to recognize of differentiated form reinforcements and punishment. A punitive consequence for a citizen, can be stiffener for another one and vice versa. Protected the idiosyncratic limitations, the present work became very useful, in the measure where it supplied instruments the performance of the psychologist, as facilitador in the construction or improvement of auto-they esteem, autoconfiana and of adjusted mannering repertoires to the socialization of the individuals.