Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis logoLink to Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
. 1997 Fall;30(3):423–438. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-423

On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences.

W W Fisher 1, R H Thompson 1, C C Piazza 1, K Crosland 1, D Gotjen 1
PMCID: PMC1284060  PMID: 9316257

Abstract

Research on the reinforcing effects of providing choice-making opportunities to individuals with developmental disabilities (i.e., allowing them to choose reinforcers or tasks) has produced inconsistent results, perhaps because the mechanisms underlying such effects remain unclear. Choice may produce a reinforcement effect because it is correlated with differential consequences (i.e., choice may increase one's access to higher preference stimuli), or it may have reinforcement value independent of (or in addition to) the chosen stimulus. In Experiment 1, we used a concurrent-operants arrangement to assess preference for a choice condition (in which participants selected one of two available reinforcers) relative to a no-choice condition (in which the therapist selected the same reinforcers on a yoked schedule). All 3 participants preferred the choice option. In Experiment 2, we altered the schedules so that the participant selected one of two lower preference reinforcers in the choice condition, whereas the therapist selected a higher preference stimulus for the participant either half or all of the time in the no-choice condition. Participants typically allowed the therapist to select reinforcers for them (i.e., they allocated responding to the no-choice condition) when it resulted in greater access to higher preference stimuli.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (224.3 KB).

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. Brigham T. A., Sherman J. A. Effects of choice and immediacy of reinforcement on single response and switching behavior of children. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 May;19(3):425–435. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1973.19-425. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Catania A. C., Sagvolden T. Preference for free choice over forced choice in pigeons. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Jul;34(1):77–86. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.34-77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. 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]
  6. 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]
  7. Egel A. L. Reinforcer variation: implications for motivating developmentally disabled children. J Appl Behav Anal. 1981 Fall;14(3):345–350. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1981.14-345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fisher W. W., Piazza C. C., Bowman L. G., Amari A. Integrating caregiver report with systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification. Am J Ment Retard. 1996 Jul;101(1):15–25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. Herrnstein R. J., Loveland D. H. Maximizing and matching on concurrent ratio schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1975 Jul;24(1):107–116. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1975.24-107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Koegel R. L., Dyer K., Bell L. K. The influence of child-preferred activities on autistic children's social behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1987 Fall;20(3):243–252. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1987.20-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Lerman D. C., Iwata B. A., Rainville B., Adelinis J. D., Crosland K., Kogan J. Effects of reinforcement choice on task responding in individuals with developmental disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Fall;30(3):411–422. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-411. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Logue A. W., King G. R. Self-control and impulsiveness in adult humans when food is the reinforcer. Appetite. 1991 Oct;17(2):105–120. doi: 10.1016/0195-6663(91)90066-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Mazur J. E. Optimization theory fails to predict performance of pigeons in a two-response situation. Science. 1981 Nov 13;214(4522):823–825. doi: 10.1126/science.7292017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Neef N. A., Mace F. C., Shade D. Impulsivity in students with serious emotional disturbance: the interactive effects of reinforcer rate, delay, and quality. J Appl Behav Anal. 1993 Spring;26(1):37–52. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1993.26-37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. 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]
  19. Piazza C. C., Fisher W. W., Hagopian L. P., Bowman L. G., Toole L. Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Spring;29(1):1–9. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Schweitzer J. B., Sulzer-Azaroff B. Self-control: teaching tolerance for delay in impulsive children. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Sep;50(2):173–186. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1988.50-173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Smith R. G., Iwata B. A., Shore B. A. Effects of subject- versus experimenter-selected reinforcers on the behavior of individuals with profound developmental disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 1995 Spring;28(1):61–71. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Vaughn B. J., Horner R. H. Identifying instructional tasks that occasion problem behaviors and assessing the effects of student versus teacher choice among these tasks. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Summer;30(2):299–312. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-299. [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