Association for Behavior Analysis International

Several recent studies have compared the relative effects of, and preferences for, reinforcer arrangements that provided either a) immediate, but discontinuous, access to a reinforcer following a small response requirement (i.e., distributed reinforcement) or b) delayed, but continuous (or uninterrupted), access to the same total quantity of the reinforcer following a larger response requirement (i.e. accumulated reinforcement). Most (but not all) comparisons have revealed that learners prefer, and work more efficiently, under the accumulated reinforcement condition despite the inherent delay to first contact with the reinforcer. The studies in this symposium extend our understanding of these effects in multiple contexts and under multiple conditions. The themes collectively explored include implications for varying applied contexts (e.g., feeding disorders, skill acquisition, problem behavior); effects of effort permutations (e.g., task difficulty, task mastery), and effects of schedule requirements (e.g., reinforcer production schedules, token exchange-production schedules). Collectively, the studies contribute to our understanding of the determinants of choice and preference and advance our knowledge of best practices for individualized learning arrangements.

Intermediate

We evaluated preference for and efficacy of distributed and accumulated response-reinforcer arrangements during discrete-trial teaching for unmastered tasks. During the distributed arrangement, participants received 30-s access to a reinforcer after each correct response. During accumulated arrangements, access was accrued throughout the work period and delivered in its entirety upon completion of the work requirement. Accumulated arrangements were assessed with and without the use of tokens. In Experiment 1, four of five participants preferred one of the accumulated arrangements and preference remained unchanged across mastered and unmastered tasks for all 5 participants. Four individuals participated in Experiment 2 and we conducted replications with new target stimuli with three of these individuals (for a total of seven analyses). Target stimuli were mastered more quickly in one of the accumulated arrangements in six of the seven analyses. Partial correspondence between preference and efficacy outcomes was obtained for two of the three individuals for whom both experiments were conducted. These results support prior research indicating that many learners with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities prefer accumulated reinforcement and that accumulated arrangements can be as effective as distributed arrangements in teaching new skills.