Preference for Reinforcers Under Progressive‐ and Fixed‐ratio Schedules: A Comparison of Single and Concurrent Arrangements

Abstract

Progressive-ratio (PR) schedules were used to identify the break point (i.e., the last schedule value completed) for 2 reinforcers under single and concurrent schedules. After the respective break points were established, the same reinforcers were presented under concurrent fixed-ratio (FR) schedules that were yoked to the break points obtained with the PR schedules. Results suggested that the participants responded more for the high-preference item than for the low-preference item, regardless of the presentation arrangement (single or concurrent presentations). This pattern of responding was maintained when the reinforcers were presented under dissimilar FR schedules. The results suggest that responding for differentially preferred stimuli may vary as a function of differences in schedule requirements.

Correspondence Between Single Versus Daily Preference Assessment Outcomes and Reinforcer Efficacy Under Progressive‐ratio Schedules

“…Previous studies that examined the correspondence between preference and performance on PR schedules generally evaluated only the extreme ends of the preference continuum (Francisco et al, 2008; Glover et al, 2008; Penrod et al, 2008; Roane et al, 2001). In these studies, the reinforcing efficacy of the most preferred stimulus, or high‐ and low‐preference stimuli, was evaluated on PR schedules.…”

“…It remains unclear if all preference assessment formats perform equally well when it comes to the identification of effective reinforcers, as measured by performance on PR schedules. Although some studies have evaluated the correspondence between preference and reinforcer efficacy using PR schedules (e.g., DeLeon et al, 2009; Francisco et al, 2008; Glover, Roane, Kadey, & Grow, 2008; Penrod et al, 2008), most determined preference using PS assessments only. Less is known about how well preference, as measured by other assessment formats that are commonly used in clinical settings, corresponds with reinforcer efficacy, as measured by break points.…”

Translational Assessment of Reward and Motivational Deficits in Psychiatric Disorders

“…Participants continue to perform the operant response to obtain a reward before ultimately giving up, presumably because the cumulative effort required to obtain the reward eventually outweighs the perceived value of the reward. Importantly, several studies have validated the human procedures, in which more preferred rewards elicited greater breakpoints than less preferred rewards (Glover et al , 2008; Penrod et al , 2008; Roane et al , 2001; Trosclair-Lasserre et al , 2008). Most studies utilizing progressive ratio reinforcement schedules in humans have done so using drugs of abuse as reinforcers.…”

The role of context in the evaluation of reinforcer efficacy: Implications for the preference assessment outcomes

“…Across all participants, the stimuli selected more often were associated with increased levels of responding (i.e., in-square behavior) relative to stimuli that were selected less often. Likewise, Glover, Roane, Kadey, and Grow (2008) used a combination of progressive-ratio (PR) and fixed-ratio (FR) schedules of reinforcement to compare responding for stimuli that were selected frequently (highly preferred) or infrequently (less preferred) during a preference assessment. The results showed that all participants engaged in more responding (e.g., completing math worksheets) to access the highly preferred stimuli rather than the less preferred stimuli under both PR and FR schedules.…”