Literature DB >> 9378681

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

I G DeLeon1, B A Iwata, H L Goh, A S Worsdell.   

Abstract

Tustin (1994) recently observed that an individual's preference for one of two concurrently available reinforcers under low schedule requirements (concurrent fixed-ratio [FR] 1) switched to the other reinforcer when the schedule requirements were high (concurrent FR 10). We extended this line of research by examining preference for similar and dissimilar reinforcers (i.e., those affecting the same sensory modality and those affecting different sensory modalities). Two individuals with developmental disabilities were exposed to an arrangement in which pressing two different panels produced two different reinforcers according to progressively increasing, concurrent-ratio schedules. When two dissimilar stimuli were concurrently available (food and a leisure item), no clear preference for one item over the other was observed, regardless of the FR schedules in effect (FR 1, 2, 5, 10, and 20). By contrast, when two similar stimuli were concurrently available (two food items), a clear preference for one item emerged as the schedule requirements were increased from FR 1 to FR 5 or FR 10. These results are discussed in terms of implications for conducting preference assessments and for selecting reinforcers to be used under training conditions in which response requirements are relatively high or effortful.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9378681      PMCID: PMC1284068          DOI: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-439

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


  13 in total

1.  Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement.

Authors:  R J HERRNSTEIN
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1961-07       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.  Effects of reinforcer rate and reinforcer quality on time allocation: Extensions of matching theory to educational settings.

Authors:  N A Neef
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1992

4.  Effects of reinforcement choice on task responding in individuals with developmental disabilities.

Authors:  D C Lerman; B A Iwata; B Rainville; J D Adelinis; K Crosland; J Kogan
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1997

5.  A collateral effect of reward predicted by matching theory.

Authors:  F C Mace; B McCurdy; E A Quigley
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1990

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.  Effects of subject- versus experimenter-selected reinforcers on the behavior of individuals with profound developmental disabilities.

Authors:  R G Smith; B A Iwata; B A Shore
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1995

8.  Preference testing: a comparison of two presentation methods.

Authors:  J Windsor; L M Piché; P A Locke
Journal:  Res Dev Disabil       Date:  1994 Nov-Dec

9.  Comments on the applied relevance of the matching law.

Authors:  R W Fuqua
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1984

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
  19 in total

1.  Effects of noncontingent reinforcement on problem behavior and stimulus engagement: the role of satiation, extinction, and alternative reinforcement.

Authors:  L P Hagopian; J L Crockett; M van Stone; I G DeLeon; L G Bowman
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.  Preference for fluent versus disfluent work schedules.

Authors:  Daniel M Fienup; Ashley A Ahlers; Gary Pace
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2011

4.  Three variations of translational research: comments on critchfield (2011).

Authors:  Timothy R Vollmer
Journal:  Behav Anal       Date:  2011

5.  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

6.  A preliminary analysis of adaptive responding under open and closed economies.

Authors:  Henry S Roane; Nathan A Call; Terry S Falcomata
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2005

7.  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

8.  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

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

Authors:  Ashley C Glover; Henry S Roane; Heather J Kadey; Laura L Grow
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2008

Review 10.  On the applied use of progressive-ratio schedules of reinforcement.

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

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.