Skip to main content
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis logoLink to Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
. 1997 Fall;30(3):451–458. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-451

Assessment of preference for varied versus constant reinforcers.

L G Bowman 1, C C Piazza 1, W W Fisher 1, L P Hagopian 1, J S Kogan 1
PMCID: PMC1284061  PMID: 9316258

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.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (150.9 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Amari A., Grace N. C., Fisher W. W. Achieving and maintaining compliance with the ketogenic diet. J Appl Behav Anal. 1995 Fall;28(3):341–342. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. CATANIA A. C. Concurrent performances: a baseline for the study of reinforcement magnitude. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Apr;6:299–300. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. DeLeon I. G., Iwata B. A. Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Winter;29(4):519–533. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. Egel A. L. The effects of constant vs varied reinforcer presentation on responding by autistic children. J Exp Child Psychol. 1980 Dec;30(3):455–463. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(80)90050-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. Fisher W. W., Thompson R. H., Piazza C. C., Crosland K., Gotjen D. On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Fall;30(3):423–438. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. HERRNSTEIN R. J. Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Jul;4:267–272. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1961.4-267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. 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]
  12. Vollmer T. R., Iwata B. A. Establishing operations and reinforcement effects. J Appl Behav Anal. 1991 Summer;24(2):279–291. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Vollmer T. R., Marcus B. A., LeBlanc L. Treatment of self-injury and hand mouthing following inconclusive functional analyses. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Summer;27(2):331–344. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-331. [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