Assessing Reinforcers Under Progressive Schedule Requirements

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.

Evaluating the Influence of Postsession Reinforcement on Choice of Reinforcers

“…Finally, the PR schedule used in the current investigation only approximated the schedule-thinning strategies typically used in clinical settings. The nonresetting PR schedule permitted a rapid evaluation of reinforcer substitutability and is more similar to applied approaches to schedule thinning compared to traditional (resetting) PR schedules (e.g., Roane, Lerman, & Vorndran, 2001). However, future research is needed to determine if similar results would be obtained when the reinforcement schedule is faded more gradually.…”

Using a Progressive Ratio Schedule of Reinforcement as an Assessment Tool to Inform Treatment

“…After delivery of the reinforcer, subsequent response requirements can increase a variety of ways, including stepwise (e.g., increasing the number of responses from 5 to 6, then 7, then 8, and so forth), algorithmic (e.g., additively or geometrically), response topography (e.g., specific target response either occurs or stops occurring), session-termination criteria (e.g., specific amount of time elapses between responses, or after a total amount of time elapses within the session), and the amount of reinforces delivered (see also Roane, 2008 for similar overview). Stepwise increases in response requirements have been useful in identifying preference for stimuli used as reinforcers across increased response requirements (Tustin 1994;DeLeon et al 1997), and reinforcer efficacy across differentiated response requirements (Roane et al 2001).…”

On distinguishing progressively increasing response requirements for reinforcement

“…These arrangements have been used, for example, in basic behavioral research to assess the relative efficacy of different reinforcer magnitudes (Hodos, 1961) and intensities (Hodos, 1965), in drug self-administration studies to examine the relative abuse liability of drugs (see Stafford, LeSage, & Glowa, 1998, for a review), and by applied behavior analysts to identify stimuli to be used as reinforcers in function-based treatments (e.g., Roane, Lerman, & Vorndran, 2001). These latter two applications have resulted in the development of other progressively increasing arrangements that deviate from the schedules originally investigated in basic research.…”