Reinforcer choice as an antecedent versus consequence

Abstract

Four children with autism received opportunities to choose among several preferred stimuli either immediately before or after task responding. The response requirement for reinforcement systematically increased within each session. Two children engaged in higher levels of responding when reinforcement choice was provided as an antecedent to task completion, and 3 of the 4 children showed a preference for the antecedent choice condition.

Reinforcer Choice as an Antecedent Versus Consequence During Skill Acquisition

“…The antecedent and consequence choice conditions were similarly effective for Olivia. This finding is similar to the results for two participants from Peterson et al (2016), who demonstrated similar patterns of responding during the antecedent and consequence choice conditions. Similar levels of responding across conditions may have occurred because the token exchange schedule was a fixed ratio 3.…”

“…Teachers commonly provide choice among reinforcers during instruction for learners with autism spectrum disorder (ASD; Howell, Dounavi, & Storey, 2018;Peterson, Lerman, & Nissen, 2016). Two approaches for doing so are for a teacher to provide a choice of reinforcer prior to (antecedent choice) or following (consequence choice) a response requirement.…”

“…Antecedent choice may be advantageous because it may function as an establishing operation or be discriminative for task responding. Consequence choice may be advantageous because it can capture momentary fluctuations in preference and choice itself may function as a reinforcer (Peterson et al, 2016;Toussaint, Kodak, & Vladescu, 2016). Peterson et al (2016) evaluated maintenance task response persistence during antecedent and consequence choice conditions as the response requirement increased (i.e., progressiveratio schedule) with four participants with ASD.…”

“…Consequence choice may be advantageous because it can capture momentary fluctuations in preference and choice itself may function as a reinforcer (Peterson et al, 2016;Toussaint, Kodak, & Vladescu, 2016). Peterson et al (2016) evaluated maintenance task response persistence during antecedent and consequence choice conditions as the response requirement increased (i.e., progressiveratio schedule) with four participants with ASD. Two participants showed higher levels of responding during the antecedent choice condition, whereas no difference in responding across conditions was observed for the other two participants.…”

Coal Is Not Black, Snow Is Not White, Food Is Not a Reinforcer: The Roles of Affordances and Dispositions in the Analysis of Behavior

“…Hayes and Fryling are more sympathetic to the evocative function of MOs-induction of response classes in the context of an S D that is pertinent to a consequence R C resonating with the organism's state, O. Both classic (Berridge, Robinson, & Aldridge, 2009) and recent (Peterson, Lerman, & Nissen, 2016) research supports this view. In later threads of the strand of behavior, presentation of the reinforcer itself becomes a very important part of the context (e.g., .…”