Literature DB >> 16463528

Effects of stimulus variation on the reinforcing capability of nonpreferred stimuli.

Leah J Koehler1, Brian A Iwata, Eileen M Roscoe, Natalie U Rolider, Laura E O'Steen.   

Abstract

We examined the effects of stimulus (reinforcer) variation in several different contexts. In Study 1, we identified high-quality (HQ) and low-quality (LQ) stimuli based on results of a paired-stimulus assessment and examined their effects when available under concurrent-reinforcement schedules for 8 participants. No participants showed preference for the LQ stimuli when compared singly or in a varied arrangement to the HQ stimulus. In Study 2, we identified nonpreferred (NP) stimuli based on results of a single-stimulus assessment and examined their effects when available under single-reinforcement schedules for 3 participants. Results of Study 2 were mixed. One participant's data indicated that the varied presentation of NP stimuli produced a modest improvement in performance over that observed when the stimuli were presented singly. By contrast, a second participant's data showed no facilitative effect for the varied delivery of NP stimuli and that the inclusion of an HQ stimulus in the varied arrangement obscured the reinforcing effects of the HQ stimulus. The 3rd participant's data showed no effect for the varied delivery of NP stimuli but an apparent facilitative effect when an HQ stimulus was included in the varied arrangement, which was attributable solely to the presence of the HQ stimulus.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16463528      PMCID: PMC1309710          DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2005.102-04

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal        ISSN: 0021-8855


  11 in total

1.  Response-restriction analysis: II. Alteration of activity preferences.

Authors:  Gregory P Hanley; Brian A Iwata; Eileen M Roscoe; Rachel H Thompson; Jana S Lindberg
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2003

2.  Motivational influences on performance maintained by food reinforcement.

Authors:  Stephen T North; Brian A Iwata
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2005

3.  A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities.

Authors:  W Fisher; C C Piazza; L G Bowman; L P Hagopian; J C Owens; I Slevin
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1992

4.  Maximizing and matching on concurrent ratio schedules.

Authors:  R J Herrnstein; D H Loveland
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1975-07       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Assessment of preference for varied versus constant reinforcers.

Authors:  L G Bowman; C C Piazza; W W Fisher; L P Hagopian; J S Kogan
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1997

6.  Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences.

Authors:  I G DeLeon; B A Iwata
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1996

7.  Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences.

Authors:  C W Green; D H Reid; L K White; R C Halford; D P Brittain; S M Gardner
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1988

8.  Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals.

Authors:  G M Pace; M T Ivancic; G L Edwards; B A Iwata; T J Page
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1985

9.  Reinforcer variation: implications for motivating developmentally disabled children.

Authors:  A L Egel
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1981

10.  The effects of constant vs varied reinforcer presentation on responding by autistic children.

Authors:  A L Egel
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  1980-12
View more
  5 in total

1.  The effects of constant versus varied reinforcers on preference and resistance to change.

Authors:  Jessie-Sue Milo; F Charles Mace; John A Nevin
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Reinforcement magnitude: an evaluation of preference and reinforcer efficacy.

Authors:  Nicole M Trosclair-Lasserre; Dorothea C Lerman; Nathan A Call; Laura R Addison; Tiffany Kodak
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2008

3.  Effects of preference and reinforcer variation on within-session patterns of responding.

Authors:  Alice A Keyl-Austin; Andrew L Samaha; Sarah E Bloom; Megan A Boyle
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2012

4.  Further examination of factors that influence preference for positive versus negative reinforcement.

Authors:  Tiffany Kodak; Dorothea C Lerman; Valerie M Volkert; Nicole Trosclair
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2007

5.  The effects of the question "What is this?" on tact-training outcomes of children with autism.

Authors:  Nancy V Marchese; James E Carr; Linda A LeBlanc; Tiffany C Rosati; Samantha A Conroy
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2012
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.