Preference for Reinforcers Under Varying Schedule Arrangements: A Behavioral Economic Analysis

Tustin, R. Don

doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-597

Cited by 78 publications

(133 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

117

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A common criticism of recent studies on stimulus preference and reinforcer assessment methods is that the dependent measures involved simple free-operant responses that were not socially meaningful and required little effort (e.g., switch pressing; Fisher & Mazur, 1997;Tustin, 1994). The current results show that preferences identified via a structured interview (the RAISD) and a simple choice response (naming or touching one stimulus from an array) identified stimuli that maintained responding on vocational (envelope stuffing, towel folding) and academic (reading, solving addition problems) tasks.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examination of Relative Reinforcement Effects of Stimuli Identified Through Pretreatment and Daily Brief Preference Assessments

DeLeon

Fisher

Rodriguez-Catter

et al. 2001

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several brief preference assessments have recently been developed to identify reinforcers for individuals with developmental disabilities. One purported advantage of brief assessments is that they can be administered frequently, thus accommodating shifts in preference and presumably enhancing reinforcement effects. In this study, we initially conducted lengthy paired-choice preference assessments and identified a hierarchy of preferred items for 5 individuals with developmental disabilities. Subsequently, brief multiplestimulus-without-replacement assessments using the same items were completed each day prior to work sessions. On days when results of the daily brief assessment differed from the one-time lengthy assessment, the relative reinforcing effects of the top items from each assessment were compared in a concurrent-schedule arrangement. The results revealed that when the two assessments differed, participants generally allocated more responses to the task associated with the daily top-ranked item.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examination of Relative Reinforcement Effects of Stimuli Identified Through Pretreatment and Daily Brief Preference Assessments

DeLeon

Fisher

Rodriguez-Catter

et al. 2001

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a more recent study on reinforcer substitutability in humans, Tustin (1994) examined relative preference for reinforcers shown by individuals with developmental disabilities under several different FR schedules. In three case studies, it was demonstrated that (a) changes in FR schedules can have different effects on response rate and reinforcement rate associated with different reinforcers, (b) preference for one reinforcer available on a rich schedule over another reinforcer available on a leaner schedule can be abolished by altering (thinning) the rich schedule, and (c) preference for one reinforcer over another under identical schedules can be altered as a function of the schedule value.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of Reinforcer Substitutability Using Object Manipulation and Self‐injury as Competing Responses

Shore

Iwata

DeLeon

et al. 1997

J of App Behav Analysis

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of reinforcer substitutability proposes a continuum of interactions among reinforcers in a given situation. At one end of this continuum, reinforcers are substitutable, with one reinforcer being readily traded for another. We conducted an analysis of reinforcers that were substitutable with those produced by self-injurious behavior (SIB). Three individuals with profound developmental disabilities, whose SIB appeared to be maintained by automatic reinforcement, participated. Results of three experiments showed that (a) object manipulation and SIB were inversely related when leisure materials and SIB were concurrently available, with participants showing almost complete preference for object manipulation; (b) attempts to reduce SIB using the preferred objects as reinforcers in differential reinforcement contingencies were unsuccessful for all 3 participants; and (c) participants' preferences for SIB or object manipulation systematically changed when reinforcer cost (the amount of effort required to obtain the object) was varied. Results of the three experiments illustrate the importance of examining interactions among concurrently available reinforcers when conducting reinforcer assessments.DESCRIPTORS: stereotypy, self-injurious behavior, reinforcer substitutability, differential reinforcement of other behavior Although considerable research has shown that many behavior problems are maintained by social reinforcement, such as attention from caregivers

show abstract

“…A pigeon or rat responding under a food reinforcement schedule or a human subject in a behavioral intervention (Borrero, Francisco, Haberlin, Ross, & Sran, 2007;Donaldson, DeLeon, Fisher, & Kahng, 2014;Henley, DiGennaro Reed, Reed, & Kaplan, 2016;Reed & Martens, 2011;Reed, Niileksela, & Kaplan, 2013;Roane, Falcomata, & Fisher, 2007;Tustin, 1994) is a consumer who is paying for reinforcement with behavior. Schedules of reinforcement are statements of price and income.…”

Section: Operant Behavioral Economicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial: Retrospections, Prospections and New Paths for Behavioral Science

Hantula

2017

BEHAV ANALYST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preference for Reinforcers Under Varying Schedule Arrangements: A Behavioral Economic Analysis

Cited by 78 publications

References 33 publications

Examination of Relative Reinforcement Effects of Stimuli Identified Through Pretreatment and Daily Brief Preference Assessments

Examination of Relative Reinforcement Effects of Stimuli Identified Through Pretreatment and Daily Brief Preference Assessments

An Analysis of Reinforcer Substitutability Using Object Manipulation and Self‐injury as Competing Responses

Editorial: Retrospections, Prospections and New Paths for Behavioral Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About