RELATIVE VERSUS ABSOLUTE REINFORCEMENT EFFECTS: IMPLICATIONS FOR PREFERENCE ASSESSMENTS

Eileen M. Roscoe · Brian A. Iwata · SungWoo Kahng

146 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Behavioral and Psychological Studies Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues

Abstract

We compared results obtained in two previous studies on reinforcer identification (Fisher et al., 1992; Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, & Page, 1985) by combining methodologies from both studies. Eight individuals with mental retardation participated. During Phase 1, two preference assessments were conducted, one in which stimuli were presented singly (SS method) and one in which stimuli were presented in pairs (PS method). Based on these results, two types of stimuli were identified for each participant: High-preference (HP) stimuli were those selected on 75% or more trials during both preference assessments; low-preference (LP) stimuli were those selected on 100% of the SS trials but on 25% or fewer of the PS trials. During Phase 2, the reinforcing effects of HP and LP stimuli were evaluated in reversal designs under two test conditions: concurrent and single schedules of continuous reinforcement. Two response options were available under the concurrent-schedule condition: One response produced access to the HP stimulus; the other produced access to the LP stimulus. Only one response option was available under the single-schedule condition, and that response produced access only to the LP stimulus. Results indicated that 7 of the 8 participants consistently showed preference for the HP stimulus under the concurrent schedule. However, when only the LP stimulus was available during the single-schedule condition, response rates for 6 of the 7 participants were as high as those observed for the HP stimulus during the concurrent-schedule condition (1 participant showed no reinforcement effect). These results indicate that, although the concurrent-schedule procedure is well suited to the assessment of relative reinforcement effects (preference for one reinforcer over another), absolute reinforcement effects associated with a given stimulus may be best examined under single-schedule conditions.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 146 citations exist upstream.

References

1992A COMPARISON OF TWO APPROACHES FOR IDENTIFYING REINFORCERS FOR PERSONS WITH SEVERE AND PROFOUND DISABILITIES 1996EVALUATION OF A MULTIPLE‐STIMULUS PRESENTATION FORMAT FOR ASSESSING REINFORCER PREFERENCES 1985ASSESSMENT OF STIMULUS PREFERENCE AND REINFORCER VALUE WITH PROFOUNDLY RETARDED INDIVIDUALS 1998EVALUATION OF A BRIEF STIMULUS PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT 1997BASIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH ON CHOICE RESPONDING 1991ESTABLISHING OPERATIONS AND REINFORCEMENT EFFECTS 1981REINFORCER VARIATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR MOTIVATING DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN

Cited by

2008ON THE APPLIED USE OF PROGRESSIVE‐RATIO SCHEDULES OF REINFORCEMENT 2001EXAMINATION OF RELATIVE REINFORCEMENT EFFECTS OF STIMULI IDENTIFIED THROUGH PRETREATMENT AND DAILY BRIEF PREFERENCE ASSESSMENTS 2013Comparison of the predictive validity and consistency among preference assessment procedures: A review of the literature 2000EFFECTS OF NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT ON PROBLEM BEHAVIOR AND STIMULUS ENGAGEMENT: THE ROLE OF SATIATION, EXTINCTION, AND ALTERNATIVE REINFORCEMENT 2008REINFORCEMENT MAGNITUDE: AN EVALUATION OF PREFERENCE AND REINFORCER EFFICACY

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.