Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis logoLink to Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
. 1999 Winter;32(4):479–493. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-479

Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: implications for preference assessments.

E M Roscoe 1, B A Iwata 1, S Kahng 1
PMCID: PMC1284210  PMID: 10641302

Abstract

We compared results obtained in two previous studies on reinforcer identification (Fisher et al., 1992; Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, & Page, 1985) by combining methodologies from both studies. Eight individuals with mental retardation participated. During Phase 1, two preference assessments were conducted, one in which stimuli were presented singly (SS method) and one in which stimuli were presented in pairs (PS method). Based on these results, two types of stimuli were identified for each participant: High-preference (HP) stimuli were those selected on 75% or more trials during both preference assessments; low-preference (LP) stimuli were those selected on 100% of the SS trials but on 25% or fewer of the PS trials. During Phase 2, the reinforcing effects of HP and LP stimuli were evaluated in reversal designs under two test conditions: concurrent and single schedules of continuous reinforcement. Two response options were available under the concurrent-schedule condition: One response produced access to the HP stimulus; the other produced access to the LP stimulus. Only one response option was available under the single-schedule condition, and that response produced access only to the LP stimulus. Results indicated that 7 of the 8 participants consistently showed preference for the HP stimulus under the concurrent schedule. However, when only the LP stimulus was available during the single-schedule condition, response rates for 6 of the 7 participants were as high as those observed for the HP stimulus during the concurrent-schedule condition (1 participant showed no reinforcement effect). These results indicate that, although the concurrent-schedule procedure is well suited to the assessment of relative reinforcement effects (preference for one reinforcer over another), absolute reinforcement effects associated with a given stimulus may be best examined under single-schedule conditions.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (314.8 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. 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]
  2. Cuvo A. J., Lerch L. J., Leurquin D. A., Gaffaney T. J., Poppen R. L. Response allocation to concurrent fixed-ratio reinforcement schedules with work requirements by adults with mental retardation and typical preschool children. J Appl Behav Anal. 1998 Spring;31(1):43–63. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1998.31-43. [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. DeLeon I. G., Iwata B. A., Goh H. L., Worsdell A. S. Emergence of reinforcer preference as a function of schedule requirements and stimulus similarity. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Fall;30(3):439–449. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-439. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. 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]
  6. 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]
  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. Graff R. B., Libby M. E. A comparison of presession and within-session reinforcement choice. J Appl Behav Anal. 1999 Summer;32(2):161–173. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-161. [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. Roane H. S., Vollmer T. R., Ringdahl J. E., Marcus B. A. Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment. J Appl Behav Anal. 1998 Winter;31(4):605–620. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1998.31-605. [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]

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

RESOURCES