Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis logoLink to Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
. 1999 Summer;32(2):161–173. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-161

A comparison of presession and within-session reinforcement choice.

R B Graff 1, M E Libby 1
PMCID: PMC1284175  PMID: 10396769

Abstract

Single- and concurrent-operants procedures were used to evaluate the effects of two reinforcement conditions on the free-operant responding of 3 individuals with developmental disabilities and 1 with attention deficit disorder. In the presession choice condition, prior to each session the participant chose one item from an array of three different highly preferred stimuli. This item was delivered by the experimenter on each reinforcer delivery during that session. In the within-session choice condition, each reinforcer delivery consisted of placing an array of three different highly preferred stimuli in front of the participant, who was allowed to select one. Only one of the two reinforcement conditions was in effect for any particular session in single-operant phases. Buttons associated with each reinforcement condition were present, and the participant could allocate responses to one or the other in concurrent-operants phases. Data showed substantially more responding to the button associated with within-session choice than presession choice during concurrent-operants phases. This effect was not as apparent during single-operant phases, suggesting that a concurrent-operants procedure provided the more sensitive evaluation of within-session and presession reinforcer choice effects.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (153.9 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Bowman L. G., Piazza C. C., Fisher W. W., Hagopian L. P., Kogan J. S. Assessment of preference for varied versus constant reinforcers. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Fall;30(3):451–458. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-451. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  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. Dinsmoor J. A. The role of observing and attention in establishing stimulus control. J Exp Anal Behav. 1985 May;43(3):365–381. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-365. [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. 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]
  9. Fisher W. W., Mazur J. E. Basic and applied research on choice responding. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Fall;30(3):387–410. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. 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]
  11. 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]
  12. Foster-Johnson L., Ferro J., Dunlap G. Preferred curricular activities and reduced problem behaviors in students with intellectual disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Fall;27(3):493–504. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Lancioni G. E., O'Reilly M. F., Emerson E. A review of choice research with people with severe and profound developmental disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 1996 Sep-Oct;17(5):391–411. doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(96)00025-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. 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]
  16. McIlvane W. J., Stoddard T. Acquisition of matching - to - sample performances in severe retardation: learning by exclusion. J Ment Defic Res. 1981 Mar;25(Pt 1):33–48. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.1981.tb00091.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Mithaug D. E., Mar D. K. The relation between choosing and working prevocational tasks in two severely retarded young adults. J Appl Behav Anal. 1980 Spring;13(1):177–182. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1980.13-177. [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. Peck S. M., Wacker D. P., Berg W. K., Cooper L. J., Brown K. A., Richman D., McComas J. J., Frischmeyer P., Millard T. Choice-making treatment of young children's severe behavior problems. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Fall;29(3):263–290. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Saunders K. J., Spradlin J. E. Conditional discrimination in mentally retarded adults: the effect of training the component simple discriminations. J Exp Anal Behav. 1989 Jul;52(1):1–12. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1989.52-1. [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. Soraci S. A., Jr, Deckner C. W., Baumeister A. A., Carlin M. T. Attentional functioning and relational learning. Am J Ment Retard. 1990 Nov;95(3):304–315. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. 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]
  24. 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]
  25. Zygmont D. M., Lazar R. M., Dube W. V., McIlvane W. J. Teaching arbitrary matching via sample stimulus-control shaping to young children and mentally retarded individuals: a methodological note. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Jan;57(1):109–117. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.57-109. [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