The present study researched the effects of the reinforcement history under DRL or FRschedules upon the response under FI schedule and the possible implications of theconsummatory response in these schedules.Twelve university students from different courses, except from the Psychologyschool, took part in this research. The subjects were set in 4 groups andsubmitted to six sessions with 40 reinforcements each. Members of 2 groupswere initially exposed to a FR 40 and the members of the other two groups to aDRL 20-sec. Later on, all participants were exposed to three sessions of FI 10-sec. One consummatory response was made a requirement in the sixsessions only for the participants of one of the two groups exposed to a FR 40and for the participants of one of the two groups exposed to DRL 20- sec. Thesubjects presenting a history of reinforcement under FR (with or without aconsummatory response) showed a high rate response standard and relativelyconstant during the third session exposed to FR 40. All the participants, exceptone, kept a performance at a high rate of responses when exposed to a FIschedule. Nevertheless, two participants of the FR 40 Group withconsummatory response showed a trend to decreasing the response ratethroughout the FI exposition sessions, suggesting that the consummatoryresponse may have contributed to the reduction of the response rates. Theparticipants presenting a history of reinforcement in DRL (with and withoutconsummatory response) showed response standard at low and constant rateduring the third session of exposition to DRL 20-sec. These participants kepthaving a performance at low rate of responses when exposed to FI, howeverthe response rate increased remarkably. For those participants members of theGroup with no consummatory response, suggesting that the consummatoryresponse may have contributed to the increase of the response rate for thegroups with DRL history. Concerning the effects of the history, observing thefinal performance in FI 10-sec. from the participants with a history ofreinforcement under FR and from the participants with a history ofreinforcement under DRL, one can see that the general response rate washigher for those participants with a history of FR than for those with areinforcement history under DRL. These results suggest that the participants?behavior along the third session under FI 10-sec. was under the control of thecurrent contingencies and showed effects of the reinforcement history