Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis logoLink to Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
. 2001 Summer;34(2):145–166. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-145

Assessing reinforcers under progressive schedule requirements.

H S Roane 1, D C Lerman 1, C M Vorndran 1
PMCID: PMC1284308  PMID: 11421308

Abstract

Recent research findings suggest that reinforcing stimuli may be differentially effective as response requirements increase. We extended this line of research by evaluating responding under increasing schedule requirements via progressive-ratio schedules and behavioral economic analyses. The differential effectiveness of preferred stimuli in treating destructive behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement also was examined. Results showed that one of two stimuli was associated with more responding under increasing schedule requirements for the 4 participants. Furthermore, stimuli associated with more responding under increasing schedule requirements generally were more effective in treating destructive behavior than stimuli associated with less responding. These data suggest that progressive-ratio schedules and behavioral economic analyses may be useful for developing a new technology for reinforcer identification. From a clinical perspective, these results suggest that two reinforcers may be similarly effective for low-effort tasks and differentially effective for high-effort tasks.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (221.2 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Baron A., Derenne A. Progressive-ratio schedules: effects of later schedule requirements on earlier performances. J Exp Anal Behav. 2000 May;73(3):291–304. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2000.73-291. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baron A., Mikorski J., Schlund M. Reinforcement magnitude and pausing on progressive-ratio schedules. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Sep;58(2):377–388. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.58-377. [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. Findley J. D. Preference and Switching under Concurrent Scheduling. J Exp Anal Behav. 1958 Apr;1(2):123–144. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1958.1-123. [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., 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]
  8. HODOS W., KALMAN G. Effects of increment size and reinforcer volume on progressive ratio performance. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Jul;6:387–392. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-387. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. HODOS W. Progressive ratio as a measure of reward strength. Science. 1961 Sep 29;134(3483):943–944. doi: 10.1126/science.134.3483.943. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hursh S. R. Behavioral economics. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 Nov;42(3):435–452. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1984.42-435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Mace F. C. Basic research needed for stimulating the development of behavioral technologies. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 May;61(3):529–550. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.61-529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Mazaleski J. L., Iwata B. A., Vollmer T. R., Zarcone J. R., Smith R. G. Analysis of the reinforcement and extinction components in DRO contingencies with self-injury. J Appl Behav Anal. 1993 Summer;26(2):143–156. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1993.26-143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Piazza C. C., Fisher W. W., Hagopian L. P., Bowman L. G., Toole L. Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Spring;29(1):1–9. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Piazza C. C., Fisher W. W., Hanley G. P., Hilker K., Derby K. M. A preliminary procedure for predicting the positive and negative effects of reinforcement-based procedures. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Summer;29(2):137–152. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Roane H. S., Lerman D. C., Kelley M. E., Van Camp C. M. Within-session patterns of responding during functional analyses: the role of establishing operations in clarifying behavioral function. Res Dev Disabil. 1999 Jan-Feb;20(1):73–89. doi: 10.1016/s0891-4222(98)00033-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. 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]
  19. Vollmer T. R., Iwata B. A., Zarcone J. R., Smith R. G., Mazaleski J. L. Within-session patterns of self-injury as indicators of behavioral function. Res Dev Disabil. 1993 Nov-Dec;14(6):479–492. doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(93)90039-m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. Vollmer T. R., Marcus B. A., Ringdahl J. E., Roane H. S. Progressing from brief assessments to extended experimental analyses in the evaluation of aberrant behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1995 Winter;28(4):561–576. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-561. [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