Emergence of Reinforcer Preference as a Function of Schedule Requirements and Stimulus Similarity

Abstract

Tustin (1994) recently observed that an individual's preference for one of two concurrently available reinforcers under low schedule requirements (concurrent fixed-ratio [FR] 1) switched to the other reinforcer when the schedule requirements were high (concurrent FR 10). We extended this line of research by examining preference for similar and dissimilar reinforcers (i.e., those affecting the same sensory modality and those affecting different sensory modalities). Two individuals with developmental disabilities were exposed to an arrangement in which pressing two different panels produced two different reinforcers according to progressively increasing, concurrent-ratio schedules. When two dissimilar stimuli were concurrently available (food and a leisure item), no clear preference for one item over the other was observed, regardless of the FR schedules in effect (FR 1, 2, 5, 10, and 20). By contrast, when two similar stimuli were concurrently available (two food items), a clear preference for one item emerged as the schedule requirements were increased from FR 1 to FR 5 or FR 10. These results are discussed in terms of implications for conducting preference assessments and for selecting reinforcers to be used under training conditions in which response requirements are relatively high or effortful.

Basic and Applied Research on Choice Responding

“…Based on these findings, DeLeon et al (1997) suggested that increased schedule requirements may magnify small differences in preference between similar but not dissimilar stimuli. This is because stimuli that share physical characteristics (e.g., food items) are more likely to share functional properties as well (e.g., hunger reduction).…”

“…However, two recent applied investigations (DeLeon, Iwata, Goh, & Worsdell, 1997;Tustin, 1994) based on principles of behavioral economics illustrate how schedule density may affect an individual's preferences for two concurrently available reinforcers. However, two recent applied investigations (DeLeon, Iwata, Goh, & Worsdell, 1997;Tustin, 1994) based on principles of behavioral economics illustrate how schedule density may affect an individual's preferences for two concurrently available reinforcers.…”

Recent Developments in Behavioral Intervention Informed by Basic Research

“…Correspondingly, investigations with persons with developmental disabilities have concerned the relative effectiveness of reinforcers as a function of their unit price or related economic variables (DeLeon, Iwata, Goh, & Worsdell, 1997;Delmendo, Borrero, Beauchamp, & Francisco, 2009;Kodak, Lerman, & Call, 2007;Reed et al, 2009;Roane, Call, & Falcomata;2005). Among other contributions, behavioral economic analyses have provided a systematic means for investigating and quantifying relative value among qualitatively dissimilar reinforcers, sometimes by examining these relations when the reinforcers are concurrently available.…”

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

“…Differential reinforcement . Behavioral assessment A progressive ratio (PR) schedule of reinforcement is defined by an increasing response requirement for reinforcer delivery over successive sessions (DeLeon et al 1997), or trial-by-trial basis within a single session (Hodos 1961;Roane 2008). For instance, when a child emits a predetermined number of responses (e.g., hand raising five times in a classroom), a reinforcer is delivered (e.g., teacher calls on child).…”

“…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).…”