Effects of Problem Difficulty and Reinforcer Quality on Time Allocated to Concurrent Arithmetic Problems

Abstract

Students with learning difficulties participated in two studies that analyzed the effects of problem difficulty and reinforcer quality upon time allocated to two sets of arithmetic problems reinforced according to a concurrent variable-interval 30-s variable-interval 120-s schedule. In Study 1, high- and low-difficulty arithmetic problems were systematically combined with rich and lean concurrent schedules (nickels used as reinforcers) across conditions using a single-subject design. The pairing of the high-difficulty problems with the richer schedule failed to offset time allocated to that alternative. Study 2 investigated the interactive effects of problem difficulty and reinforcer quality (nickels vs. program money) upon time allocation to arithmetic problems maintained by the concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Unlike problem difficulty, the pairing of the lesser quality reinforcer (program money) with the richer schedule reduced the time allocated to that alternative. The magnitude of this effect was greatest when combined with the low-difficulty problems. These studies have important implications for a matching law analysis of asymmetrical reinforcement variables that influence time allocation.

The Effects of Magnitude and Quality of Reinforcement on Choice Responding During Play Activities

“…These findings have encouraged applied researchers to examine the influence of various dimensions of reinforcement and the matching law in clinical and educational settings. Several investigations have been conducted with students diagnosed with severe emotional, behavioral, and learning disorders on the effects of response effort and reinforcement rate, quality, and delay on allocation to concurrently available academic tasks (Dixon & Cummings, 2001;Mace, Neef, Shade, & Mauro, 1996;Neef & Lutz, 2001;Neef, Mace, & Shade, 1993;Neef, Mace, Shea, & Shade, 1992;Neef, Shade, & Miller, 1994). Among the dimensions studied was quality of reinforcement, defined as stimuli that were reliably selected as highly preferred in stimulus preference assessments.…”

Blending functional communication training and choice making to improve task engagement and decrease problem behaviour

“…The behaviour selected is typically the behaviour that: (1) is reinforced on the densest schedule (Horner & Day, 1991;Neef, Mace, Shea, & Shade, 1992); (2) results in the highest quality of reinforcement (Neef et al, 1992;Peck et al, 1996); (3) results in the greatest amount of reinforcement Martens, 1990;Martens, Halperin, Rummel, & Kilpatrick, 1990;Martens & Houk, 1989;Martens, Lochner, & Kelly, 1992); or (4) has the shortest delay to reinforcement (Horner &Day, 1991: Neef, Mace, &Shade, FCT andChoice Making 259 1993). In addition, the response that requires the least amount of effort to display is more likely to occur than a response that requires more effort (Horner & Day, 1991;Mace, Neef, Shade, & Mauro, 1996;Richman et al, 2001). These dimensions of reinforcement may also interact to affect which behaviour will be displayed (Neef & Lutz, 2001;Neef et al, 1992;Neef, Shade, & Miller, 1994).…”

Academic Remediation: Educational Applications of Research on Assignment Preference and Choice

“…Several applied studies have demonstrated that when students are given a choice between two tasks, they distribute their time between these tasks at a rate equivalent to the rate of reinforcement provided for these tasks (Mace, McCurdy, & Quigley, 1990;Mace, Neef, Shade, & Mauro, 1996;Martens & Houk, 1989;Martens, Lochner, & Kelly, 1992;Neef, Mace, & Shade, 1993;Neef, Mace, Shea, & Shade, 1992). This match between a respondent's behavior and the level of reinforcement provided is described by Herrnstein's (1961) Matching Law.…”

“…For another student, reinforcement delay influenced choice behavior more than quality or rate of reinforcement. In a similar study, Mace et al (1996) investigated the interaction between reinforcer quality, rate, and problem or assignment difficulty. Results show that choice behaviors were more influenced by quality and rate of reinforcement than assignment difficulty.…”