Literature DB >> 9316258

Assessment of preference for varied versus constant reinforcers.

L G Bowman1, C C Piazza, W W Fisher, L P Hagopian, J S Kogan.   

Abstract

One method that has been demonstrated to improve the effectiveness of reinforcement is stimulus (reinforcer) variation (Egel, 1980). Egel found that bar pressing increased and responding occurred more rapidly during varied reinforcement than during constant reinforcement when identical stimuli were used across phases for 10 individuals with autism. The purpose of the current investigation was to assess the preferences of 7 individuals for varied presentation of slightly lower quality stimuli relative to constant access to the highest quality stimulus. Varied presentation was preferred over constant reinforcer presentation with 4 participants, and the opposite was true for 2 participants. One participant did not demonstrate a preference. These results suggest that stimulus variation may allow less preferred reinforcers to compete effectively with a more highly preferred reinforcer for some individuals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9316258      PMCID: PMC1284061          DOI: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-451

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


  13 in total

1.  Concurrent performances: a baseline for the study of reinforcement magnitude.

Authors:  A C CATANIA
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1963-04       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  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

3.  Achieving and maintaining compliance with the ketogenic diet.

Authors:  A Amari; N C Grace; W W Fisher
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1995

4.  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

5.  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

6.  A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment.

Authors:  S A Mason; G G McGee; V Farmer-Dougan; T R Risley
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1989

7.  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

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

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

9.  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

10.  Establishing operations and reinforcement effects.

Authors:  T R Vollmer; B A Iwata
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1991
View more
  12 in total

1.  A comparison of presession and within-session reinforcement choice.

Authors:  R B Graff; M E Libby
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1999

2.  Examination of relative reinforcement effects of stimuli identified through pretreatment and daily brief preference assessments.

Authors:  I G DeLeon; W W Fisher; V Rodriguez-Catter; K Maglieri; K Herman; J M Marhefka
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2001

Review 3.  Operant variability: evidence, functions, and theory.

Authors:  Allen Neuringer
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2002-12

Review 4.  Dynamic changes in reinforcer effectiveness: theoretical, methodological, and practical implications for applied research.

Authors:  Eric S Murphy; Frances K McSweeney; Richard G Smith; Jennifer J McComas
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2003

5.  Varying response effort in the treatment of pica maintained by automatic reinforcement.

Authors:  Cathleen C Piazza; Henry S Roane; Kris M Keeney; Bobbi R Boney; Kimberly A Abt
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2002

6.  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

7.  The effects of varied versus constant high-, medium-, and low-preference stimuli on performance.

Authors:  Byron Wine; David A Wilder
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2009

8.  An evaluation of the value of choice with preschool children.

Authors:  Jeffrey H Tiger; Gregory P Hanley; Emma Hernandez
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2006

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

Authors:  Leah J Koehler; Brian A Iwata; Eileen M Roscoe; Natalie U Rolider; Laura E O'Steen
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2005

10.  Systematic assessment of food item preference and reinforcer effectiveness: Enhancements in training laboratory-housed rhesus macaques.

Authors:  Allison L Martin; Andrea N Franklin; Jaine E Perlman; Mollie A Bloomsmith
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 1.777

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.