Skip to main content
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis logoLink to Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
. 2000 Winter;33(4):533–544. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-533

Preference for unreliable reinforcement in children with mental retardation: the role of conditioned reinforcement.

J S Lalli 1, B C Mauro 1, F C Mace 1
PMCID: PMC1284277  PMID: 11214029

Abstract

We examined the effects of conditioned reinforcement on children's choice between reliable (100%) and unreliable (50%) reinforcement under various stimulus conditions in a concurrent-chains procedure. The study was conducted across three experiments. Experiments 1 and 2 were conducted under conditions similar to basic laboratory work and consisted of participants selecting from one of two black boxes (placed on a table) that were correlated with different reinforcement schedules. In Experiment 3, we assessed a participant's preference for unreliable reinforcement during conditions in which the target responses were aggression and mands. Results of the three experiments showed that the participants preferred unreliable reinforcement under certain conditions. Findings are discussed regarding the role of specific stimuli (i.e., items correlated with a reinforcement schedule, adult reactions) as conditioned reinforcers and how they may influence children's preference for a response (e.g., aggression, self-injury) that produces reinforcement on a leaner schedule than a socially desirable response (e.g., mands).

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (145.5 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Belke T. W., Spetch M. L. Choice between reliable and unreliable reinforcement alternatives revisited: Preference for unreliable reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Nov;62(3):353–366. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.62-353. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Dunn R., Spetch M. L. Choice with uncertain outcomes: conditioned reinforcement effects. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Mar;53(2):201–218. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Iwata B. A. Applied implications of theory and research on the nature of reinforcement. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Spring;27(1):183–193. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Iwata B. A., Dorsey M. F., Slifer K. J., Bauman K. E., Richman G. S. Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Summer;27(2):197–209. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kendall S. B. Preference for intermittent reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974 May;21(3):463–473. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. 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]
  7. 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]
  8. Spetch M. L., Belke T. W., Barnet R. C., Dunn R., Pierce W. D. Suboptimal choice in a percentage-reinforcement procedure: effects of signal condition and terminal-link length. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Mar;53(2):219–234. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.53-219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Vollmer T. R., Borrero J. C., Lalli J. S., Daniel D. Evaluating self-control and impulsivity in children with severe behavior disorders. J Appl Behav Anal. 1999 Winter;32(4):451–466. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-451. [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