Literature DB >> 18595281

Preference for reinforcers under progressive- and fixed-ratio schedules: a comparison of single and concurrent arrangements.

Ashley C Glover1, Henry S Roane, Heather J Kadey, Laura L Grow.   

Abstract

Progressive-ratio (PR) schedules were used to identify the break point (i.e., the last schedule value completed) for 2 reinforcers under single and concurrent schedules. After the respective break points were established, the same reinforcers were presented under concurrent fixed-ratio (FR) schedules that were yoked to the break points obtained with the PR schedules. Results suggested that the participants responded more for the high-preference item than for the low-preference item, regardless of the presentation arrangement (single or concurrent presentations). This pattern of responding was maintained when the reinforcers were presented under dissimilar FR schedules. The results suggest that responding for differentially preferred stimuli may vary as a function of differences in schedule requirements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18595281      PMCID: PMC2408352          DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-163

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


  16 in total

1.  Further evaluation of low-ranked items in stimulus-choice preference assessments.

Authors:  C C Taravella; D C Lerman; S A Contrucci; H S Roane
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2000

2.  Assessing reinforcers under progressive schedule requirements.

Authors:  H S Roane; D C Lerman; C M Vorndran
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2001

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.  Replacing relative reinforcing efficacy with behavioral economic demand curves.

Authors:  Matthew W Johnson; Warren K Bickel
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Integrating caregiver report with systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification.

Authors:  W W Fisher; C C Piazza; L G Bowman; A Amari
Journal:  Am J Ment Retard       Date:  1996-07

6.  Emergence of reinforcer preference as a function of schedule requirements and stimulus similarity.

Authors:  I G DeLeon; B A Iwata; H L Goh; A S Worsdell
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1997

Review 7.  Basic and applied research on choice responding.

Authors:  W W Fisher; J E Mazur
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1997

8.  On the displacement of leisure items by food during multiple-stimulus preference assessments.

Authors:  S L Bojak; J E Carr
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1999

9.  Toward a functional analysis of self-injury.

Authors:  B A Iwata; M F Dorsey; K J Slifer; K E Bauman; G S Richman
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1994

10.  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
View more
  13 in total

1.  Examination of the influence of contingency on changes in reinforcer value.

Authors:  Iser G DeLeon; Meagan K Gregory; Michelle A Frank-Crawford; Melissa J Allman; Arthur E Wilke; Abbey B Carreau-Webster; Mandy M Triggs
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2011

2.  On the relation between reinforcer efficacy and preference.

Authors:  May S H Lee; C T Yu; Toby L Martin; Garry L Martin
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2010-03

Review 3.  Translational Assessment of Reward and Motivational Deficits in Psychiatric Disorders.

Authors:  Andre Der-Avakian; Samuel A Barnes; Athina Markou; Diego A Pizzagalli
Journal:  Curr Top Behav Neurosci       Date:  2016

4.  Evaluation of absolute and relative reinforcer value using progressive-ratio schedules.

Authors:  Monica T Francisco; John C Borrero; Jolene R Sy
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2008

Review 5.  On the applied use of progressive-ratio schedules of reinforcement.

Authors:  Henry S Roane
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2008

6.  The effects of differential reinforcement of unprompted responding on the skill acquisition of children with autism.

Authors:  Amanda M Karsten; James E Carr
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2009

7.  On the correspondence between preference assessment outcomes and progressive-ratio schedule assessments of stimulus value.

Authors:  Iser G DeLeon; Michelle A Frank; Meagan K Gregory; Melissa J Allman
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2009

8.  Consumption and response output as a function of unit price: manipulation of cost and benefit components.

Authors:  Xeres Delmendo; John C Borrero; Kenneth L Beauchamp; Monica T Francisco
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2009

9.  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

10.  Correspondence between single versus daily preference assessment outcomes and reinforcer efficacy under progressive-ratio schedules.

Authors:  Nathan A Call; Nicole M Trosclair-Lasserre; Addie J Findley; Andrea R Reavis; M Alice Shillingsburg
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2012
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.