Evaluating the Influence of Postsession Reinforcement on Choice of Reinforcers

Abstract

Factors that influence reinforcer choice have been examined in a number of applied studies (e.g., Neef, Mace, Shea, & Shade, 1992; Shore, Iwata, DeLeon, Kahng, & Smith, 1997; Tustin, 1994). However, no applied studies have evaluated the effects of postsession reinforcement on choice between concurrently available reinforcers, even though basic findings indicate that this is an important factor to consider (Hursh, 1978; Zeiler, 1999). In this bridge investigation, we evaluated the influence of postsession reinforcement on choice of two food items when task responding was reinforced on progressive‐ratio schedules. Participants were 3 children who had been diagnosed with developmental disabilities. Results indicated that response allocation shifted from one food item to the other food item under thinner schedules of reinforcement when no postsession reinforcement was provided. These findings suggest that the efficacy of instructional programs or treatments for problem behavior may be improved by restricting reinforcers outside treatment sessions.

Applied Implications of Reinforcement History Effects

“…Experimental analysis of these extraexperimental histories could be conducted, starting perhaps on inpatient treatment units where particular extraexperimental histories could be established to evaluate their effects on responding during experimental sessions. Preliminary research evaluating extraexperimental experiences has already begun (e.g., Kodak, Lerman, & Call, 2007;Roane, Call, & Falcomata, 2005). Applied reinforcement history research is particularly important because the results would have clear and immediate utility in the development of interventions for a variety of adaptive and problematic behaviors.…”

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.…”

On the Applied Use of Progressive‐ratio Schedules of Reinforcement

“…DeLeon, Fisher, Herman, and Crosland (2000) used PR schedules to increase the response requirements for aberrant behavior such that responding was eventually biased toward a concurrently available alternative response. Roane, Call, and Falcomata (2005) and Kodak, Lerman, and Call (2007) used PR schedules to assess responding under situations in which reinforcers were or were not freely available outside the experimental setting.…”

“…DeLeon et al (2000) included PR step sizes that progressed geometrically, but only after participants had earned three reinforcers at a particular schedule value. Finally, Kodak et al (2007) included response requirements that progressed arithmetically by two responses, but the PR requirements did not reset to the initial value at the beginning of each subsequent session. It is possible that such disparities across studies could influence the obtained results.…”

“…In the extant applied literature, PR schedules have been used as components of experiments that have replicated both basic and applied research and have helped to determine the generality of the hypothesized relation between response requirements and the relative efficacy or potency of reinforcers. For example, Roane et al (2005) and Kodak et al (2007) arranged experimental procedures to approximate two types of economic subsystems (open and closed economies). In both cases, PR schedules were used to evaluate responding when participants either did or did not receive supplemental (postsession) access to highly preferred reinforcers.…”