Reinforcer Variation: Implications for Motivating Developmentally Disabled Children

Abstract

Motivating developmentally disabled children to participate in educational activities can be very difficult. This is especially true for children diagnosed autistic. Because there is some evidence to suggest that stimulus variation may influence motivation, the present study investigated the effects of constant vs. varied reinforcer presentation on correct responding and on-task behavior. Results from a reversal design showed declining trends in both correct responding and on-task behavior when the same reinforcer was consistently presented, whereas, varying the reinforcers produced significantly improved and stable responding. The results are discussed in relation to the literature on stimulus variation and its effects on responsivity.

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

“…First, as we have noted, providing such choices may accommodate shifts in preferences that occur over time. Second, in most cases, providing presession or within-session choices increases reinforcer variation, which can reduce or prevent satiation (e.g., Bowman, Piazza, Fisher, Hagopian, & Kogan, 1996;Egel, 1981). Third, providing choices may be reinforcing, which can add to the reinforcement value of the selected item (Catania & Sagvolden, 1980;.…”

The Relative Motivational Properties of Sensory and Edible Reinforcers in Teaching Autistic Children

“…Egel (1980) found that the scheduling of multiple edible reinforcers produced more bar press responses and faster responding than single edible reinforcers in 10 autistic children. Of greater relevance to our study, Egel (1981) found that multiple edibles produced more responses and higher percentages of correct responding and on-task behavior than single edibles in classroom discination tasks with three autistic children. Egel's (1981) subjects (range: 8-64) than in ours (range: 80-190).…”

“…Of greater relevance to our study, Egel (1981) found that multiple edibles produced more responses and higher percentages of correct responding and on-task behavior than single edibles in classroom discination tasks with three autistic children. Egel's (1981) subjects (range: 8-64) than in ours (range: 80-190). This difference may in turn be due to Egel's use of a more restrictive satiation criterion than ours (viz., three no-response trials vs. 50% no-response trials in two blocks of 10 trials), to the use of three teacher-nominated edibles as reinforcers instead of five empirically validated edibles, or to subject, task, or other procedural differences.…”

Effects of Stimulus Variation on the Reinforcing Capability of Nonpreferred Stimuli

“…Egel (1980) observed that the pre-sentation of varied reinforcers produced higher response rates than did the presentation of any one of the reinforcers singly. He subsequently extended those findings to classroom performance (Egel, 1981).…”

“…One of these factors is repeated exposure to the same reinforcer, which may result in performance decrements that often are attributed to satiation or habituation. Egel (1980Egel ( , 1981 conducted a series of studies showing that this problem may be alleviated by varying the stimuli that are delivered as reinforcers. Egel (1980) observed that the pre-sentation of varied reinforcers produced higher response rates than did the presentation of any one of the reinforcers singly.…”