|
| Examining Variables that Influence Choice and Relative Reinforcer Value in Applied Settings |
| Tuesday, June 1, 2004 |
| 10:30 AM–11:50 AM |
| Clarendon |
| Area: EDC/DDA; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Iser Guillermo DeLeon (Kennedy Krieger Institute) |
| Abstract: Learning Objectives
Participants will gain knowledge regarding the influence of several variables (e.g., open vs. closed economy, reinforcer choice, discrepant schedule requirements) on response allocation for asymmetrical reinforcers in children and individuals with developmental disabilities.
Participants will learn how to incorporate the results of preference assessments into educational programs for the benefit of individuals in applied settings.
Participants will learn how to systematically arrange reinforcement contingencies to maximize training effects for individuals in applied settings. |
| |
| The Effects of Open Versus Closed Economies on Response Rate |
| KELLY K. COLLINS (New England Center for Children), Richard B. Graff (New England Center for Children), Robert Haupt (New England Center for Children), William H. Ahearn (New England Center for Children) |
| Abstract: Four participants with developmental disabilities, ages 15 to 18, participated in a study to examine the effects of open and closed economies on response rates. Paired-stimulus preference assessments with 8 edible stimuli were conducted with each participant. The highest preference item for each participant was then used in 5-min reinforcer assessments, which involved simple vocational tasks. Interobserver agreement for both preference and reinforcer assessments were collected in 50% of sessions, and was 100%. Two participants received the reinforcer assessments in an ABCBC design; the order for the other participants was ACBCB. During Baseline (A), no programmed consequences were provided for responding on the task. In the closed economy (B), the participant did not have any access to the high-preference item for one week prior to reinforcer assessments. In the open economy (C), the participant received access to the high-preference item 3 times per day for one week prior to the reinforcer assessments. Responding increased in B and C phases for all participants. For 2 of 4 participants, clinically significant increases in response rate were noted when the economy was closed. |
| |
| Assessing Reinforcer Potency of High-Preference and Low-Preference Reinforcers under Increasing Schedule Requirements |
| BECKY PENROD (University of Nevada, Reno), Michele D. Wallace (University of Nevada, Reno), Edwin J. Dyer (University of Nevada, Reno) |
| Abstract: Paired stimulus (PS) preference assessments (Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, Hagopian, Owens, & Slevin, 1992) have been demonstrated to yield stronger differentiation among stimuli than single stimulus (SS) preference assessments (Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, & Page, 1985), thus, allowing high-preference (HP) and low-preference (LP) stimuli to be more easily seen. However, Roscoe, Iwata, and Kahng (1999) argued that HP stimuli might mask the absolute reinforcement effects associated with LP stimuli. They examined this possibility by comparing the reinforcing efficacy of HP and LP stimuli and found that they were both equally effective reinforcers. However, one possible limitation of their study was that they evaluated the reinforcing efficacy of HP and LP stimuli using a simple fixed-ratio (FR) 1 schedule. Hence, this study compared HP and LP reinforcers to determine if one would maintain more effortful responding than the other, with increasing schedule requirements. Results indicate that as the schedule requirement increases, responses drop in the LP condition, while responses in the HP condition remain at high levels. |
| |
| Assessment of Preference for Constant High-Quality Reinforcers Versus Varied Low-Quality Reinforcers |
| LEAH KOEHLER (University of Florida), Brian A. Iwata (University of Florida), Eileen M. Roscoe (New England Center for Children), Natalie Rolider (University of Florida), Laura E. O'Steen (University of Florida) |
| Abstract: The present study is a replication and extension of research by Bowman, Piazza, Fisher, Hagopian, and Kogan (1997), in which equivocal results were obtained when preference for a constant high-quality (HQ) reinforcer versus varied low-quality (LQ) reinforcers was assessed. In that study, initial preference rankings for the individual HQ and LQ stimuli often were similar and sometimes were identical. In the present study, we selected HQ and LQ stimuli whose preference rankings showed a greater degree of disparity. Participants with developmental disabilities were taught a repetitive, vocational response. A paired-stimulus preference assessment was conducted with each participant to identify one HQ reinforcer (selected on at least 80% of the trials) and three LQ reinforcers (each selected on 20% or fewer trials). Following initial training of the target response with a reinforcer not used during subsequent conditions, two comparisons were conducted under concurrent-reinforcement conditions. In the first comparison, preference for the HQ stimulus was established by comparing it with each of the LQ stimuli individually. In the second and main comparison, preference for the constant HQ stimulus versus varied LQ stimuli was assessed, and results showed a general pattern of preference for the HQ stimulus. Reliability assessment was conducted for all dependent measures using typical recording and calculation techniques. |
| |
| A Further Evaluation of the Reinforcing Value of Choice |
| JEFFREY H. TIGER (University of Kansas), Gregory P. Hanley (University of Kansas), Emma Hernandez (University of Kansas), Elizabeth C. Rusinko (University of Kansas) |
| Abstract: We extended previous research examining children’s preference for choice versus no choice conditions in a concurrent-chains arrangement. Study 1: Initial-link responding resulted in access to terminal links in which correct academic responses resulted in (a) 5 identical edibles from which the child could choose 1 (Choice), (b) one of the same edible (no choice), or (c) no edible. Varied patterns were observed across 6 children. Study 2: Correct responses in the terminal links resulted in a choice among a relatively greater quantity of identical edibles (GQ), a choice among a relatively smaller quantity of edibles (SQ), or no edibles. The number of edibles in GQ was then systematically increased. Although the same type and amount of reinforcement was delivered in the GQ and SQ conditions, responding towards the GQ condition was positively correlated with the increasing number of items. Study 3: Progressively increasing work requirements were programmed during Choice terminal links (fixed ratio [FR] 1 to FR 32) relative to No Choice terminal links (FR 1). Responding towards Choice maintained under relatively higher work requirements (e.g., FR 16); however, responding eventually switched to the No Choice condition. IOA was assessed in at least 20% of sessions and averaged 99%. |
|
| |