Laboratory research has shown that when subjects are given a choice between fixed-ratio and bi-valued mixed-ratio schedules of reinforcement, preference typically emerges for the mixed-ratio schedule even with a larger ratio requirement. The current study sought to replicate and extend these findings to children's math problem completion. Using an ABCBC reversal design, four fourth-grade students were given the choice of completing addition problems reinforced on either a fixed-ratio 5 schedule or one of three mixed-ratio schedules; an equivalent mixed-ratio (1, 9) schedule, a mixed-ratio (1, 11) schedule with a 20% larger ratio requirement, and an equally lean mixed-ratio (5, 7) schedule without the small fixed-ratio 1 component. This was followed by a reversal back to the preceding phase in which preference for the mixed-ratio schedule had been observed, and a final reversal back to the mixed-ratio (5, 7) phase. Findings were consistent with previous research in that all children preferred the mixed-ratio (1, 9) schedule over the equivalent fixed-ratio 5 schedule. Preference persisted for the leaner mixed-ratio (1, 11) schedule for three of the four children. Indifference or preference for the fixed-ratio 5 alternative was observed in phases containing the mixed-ratio (5, 7) schedule. These results extend previous research on risky choice to children's math problem completion and highlight the importance of a small ratio component in the emergence of preference for bi-valued mixed-ratio schedules. Implications of these results for arranging reinforcement to increase children's academic responding are discussed.

No abstract

Issues: The International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IASSIDD) is an international group of researchers, clinicians, students, parents, and self-advocates that promotes worldwide research and exchange of information on intellectual and developmental disabilities. IASSIDD recently developed a policy statement regarding their opposition to the use of contingent electric skin shock (CESS) with individuals with challenging behavior and intellectual and developmental disabilities. To support the policy, the available literature was reviewed to evaluate the efficacy, side effects, generalization, and long-term effectiveness of the procedure as an intervention for challenging behavior. Findings: The review provides a history that demonstrates that, although CESS can decrease the frequency of challenging behavior, it comes at a cost in terms of physical and emotional side effects, and questions remain regarding the long-term effectiveness of the procedure. In addition, we raise several ethical and methodological issues that make the research on the use of CESS even more concerning. Conclusions: Although research continues in some countries, these studies are now rare. In fact, in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration has just banned the use of such devices with individuals with self-injury and aggression. It is hoped that, because there are many other forms of treatment that have shown to be effective for severe challenging behavior, we can completely avoid the use of CESS.

Research examining preference for variable over fixed delays to reinforcement (i.e., risky choice) may have implications for mitigating the effects of fidelity errors during functional communication training (FCT). Using a reversal design, we assessed the choices of four children diagnosed with a developmental disability to engage in problem behavior or a functional communication response when concurrent signaled variable or fixed reinforcement delays were programmed for each response. We present results for the two children who demonstrated risk sensitivity by allocating more responding toward the variable delay alternative across phases. Despite these findings, a final treatment phase including extinction for problem behavior was needed to consistently reduce problem behavior to zero for both children. These results provide a preliminary demonstration of risk sensitivity in children and are discussed in relation to FCT and risky choice research.