Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis logoLink to Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
. 1995 Spring;28(1):61–71. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-61

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

R G Smith 1, B A Iwata 1, B A Shore 1
PMCID: PMC1279786  PMID: 7706151

Abstract

Results from a number of studies have shown that individuals with profound developmental disabilities often show differential approach behavior to stimuli presented in a variety of formats, and that such behavior is a reasonably good predictor of reinforcement effects when these "preferred" stimuli are used subsequently in a contingent arrangement. Recent data suggest that reinforcement effects may be enhanced further by allowing individuals to select, just prior to training sessions, which (of several) preferred stimuli would be used as reinforcers, but whether this method is superior to one based on selection by a teacher or therapist has not been adequately addressed. We compared the effects of these two methods of reinforcer selection on rates of responding on a free-operant task, using stimuli previously identified as potential reinforcers. Results obtained with 4 subjects indicated little or no difference in reinforcement effects when stimuli were selected by subjects rather than experimenters. Implications of these results with respect to choice and its relation to reinforcement are discussed.

Full text

PDF
61

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bambara L. M., Ager C., Koger F. The effects of choice and task preference on the work performance of adults with severe disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Fall;27(3):555–556. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-555. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bannerman D. J., Sheldon J. B., Sherman J. A., Harchik A. E. Balancing the right to habilitation with the right to personal liberties: the rights of people with developmental disabilities to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap. J Appl Behav Anal. 1990 Spring;23(1):79–89. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dunlap G., dePerczel M., Clarke S., Wilson D., Wright S., White R., Gomez A. Choice making to promote adaptive behavior for students with emotional and behavioral challenges. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Fall;27(3):505–518. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dyer K., Dunlap G., Winterling V. Effects of choice making on the serious problem behaviors of students with severe handicaps. J Appl Behav Anal. 1990 Winter;23(4):515–524. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ferrari M., Harris S. L. The limits and motivating potential of sensory stimuli as reinforcers for autistic children. J Appl Behav Anal. 1981 Fall;14(3):339–343. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1981.14-339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fisher W., Piazza C. C., Bowman L. G., Hagopian L. P., Owens J. C., Slevin I. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 1992 Summer;25(2):491–498. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Green C. W., Reid D. H., White L. K., Halford R. C., Brittain D. P., Gardner S. M. Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. J Appl Behav Anal. 1988 Spring;21(1):31–43. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1988.21-31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kennedy C. H., Haring T. G. Teaching choice making during social interactions to students with profound multiple disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 1993 Spring;26(1):63–76. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1993.26-63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Mason S. A., McGee G. G., Farmer-Dougan V., Risley T. R. A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment. J Appl Behav Anal. 1989 Summer;22(2):171–179. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1989.22-171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Pace G. M., Ivancic M. T., Edwards G. L., Iwata B. A., Page T. J. Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. J Appl Behav Anal. 1985 Fall;18(3):249–255. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1985.18-249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Parsons M. B., Reid D. H., Reynolds J., Bumgarner M. Effects of chosen versus assigned jobs on the work performance of persons with severe handicaps. J Appl Behav Anal. 1990 Summer;23(2):253–258. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Wacker D. P., Berg W. K., Wiggins B., Muldoon M., Cavanaugh J. Evaluation of reinforcer preferences for profoundly handicapped students. J Appl Behav Anal. 1985 Summer;18(2):173–178. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1985.18-173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES