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.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (176.8 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- 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]
- 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]
- Fuqua R. W. Comments on the applied relevance of the matching law. J Appl Behav Anal. 1984 Fall;17(3):381–386. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1984.17-381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Green Leonard, Freed Debra E. The substitutability of reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Jul;60(1):141–158. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.60-141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Hursh S. R. Economic concepts for the analysis of behavior. J Exp Anal Behav. 1980 Sep;34(2):219–238. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1980.34-219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Mace F. C., McCurdy B., Quigley E. A. A collateral effect of reward predicted by matching theory. J Appl Behav Anal. 1990 Summer;23(2):197–205. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Neef N. A. Effects of reinforcer rate and reinforcer quality on time allocation: Extensions of matching theory to educational settings. J Appl Behav Anal. 1992 Fall;25(3):691–699. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-691. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- 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]
- Tustin R. D. Preference for reinforcers under varying schedule arrangements: A behavioral economic analysis. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Winter;27(4):597–606. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Windsor J., Piché L. M., Locke P. A. Preference testing: a comparison of two presentation methods. Res Dev Disabil. 1994 Nov-Dec;15(6):439–455. doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(94)90028-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]