Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis logoLink to Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
. 2002 Summer;35(2):171–181. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-171

The effects of magnitude and quality of reinforcement on choice responding during play activities.

Hannah Hoch 1, Jennifer J McComas 1, LeAnn Johnson 1, Nicky Faranda 1, Shayna L Guenther 1
PMCID: PMC1284373  PMID: 12102136

Abstract

Three boys with autism participated in a study of the effects of magnitude and quality of reinforcement on choice responding. Two concurrent response alternatives were arranged: (a) to play in an area where a peer or sibling was located, or (b) to play in an area where there was no peer or sibling. During one condition, the magnitude (i.e., duration of access to toys) or quality (level of preference) of reinforcement provided for both responses was equal. During the other condition, the magnitude or quality of reinforcement was relatively greater for choosing the play area where the peer or sibling was located than the area where the peer or sibling was not located. Results showed that after repeated exposure to the unequal magnitude or quality condition, the participant increasingly allocated his responses to the play area where the peer or sibling was located. For 2 participants, this pattern of responding was maintained in the subsequent equal magnitude or quality condition. Overall, the analysis suggests that the dimensions of magnitude and quality of reinforcement can be arranged to influence choice responding in favor of playing near a peer or sibling rather than playing alone.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (130.5 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. CATANIA A. C. Concurrent performances: a baseline for the study of reinforcement magnitude. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Apr;6:299–300. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Carr J. E., Bailey J. S., Ecott C. L., Lucker K. D., Weil T. M. On the effects of noncontingent delivery of differing magnitudes of reinforcement. J Appl Behav Anal. 1998 Fall;31(3):313–321. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1998.31-313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. DeLeon I. G., Fisher W. W., Rodriguez-Catter V., Maglieri K., Herman K., Marhefka J. M. Examination of relative reinforcement effects of stimuli identified through pretreatment and daily brief preference assessments. J Appl Behav Anal. 2001 Winter;34(4):463–473. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dixon M. R., Cummings A. Self-control in children with autism: response allocation during delays to reinforcement. J Appl Behav Anal. 2001 Winter;34(4):491–495. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Herrnstein R. J. On the law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):243–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hollard V., Davison M. C. Preference for qualitatively different reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Nov;16(3):375–380. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1971.16-375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lerman D. C., Kelley M. E., Van Camp C. M., Roane H. S. Effects of reinforcement magnitude on spontaneous recovery. J Appl Behav Anal. 1999 Summer;32(2):197–200. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mace F. C., Neef N. A., Shade D., Mauro B. C. Effects of problem difficulty and reinforcer quality on time allocated to concurrent arithmetic problems. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Spring;29(1):11–24. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. Neef N. A., Lutz M. N. A brief computer-based assessment of reinforcer dimensions affecting choice. J Appl Behav Anal. 2001 Spring;34(1):57–60. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-57. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Neef N. A., Shade D., Miller M. S. Assessing influential dimensions of reinforcers on choice in students with serious emotional disturbance. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Winter;27(4):575–583. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  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]

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

RESOURCES