Assessment of preference for varied versus constant reinforcers

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 451-458

  Bowman, Lynn G ^a   Piazza, Cathleen C ^b   Fisher, Wayne W ^b   Hagopian, Louis P ^b   Kogan, Jeffrey S ^b  

^a KENNEDY KRIEGER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Concurrent operants; Paired choice; Reinforcer assessment; Stimulus variation

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; AUTISM; CHILD; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HABITUATION; HUMAN; MALE; MENTAL DEFICIENCY; MOTIVATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REINFORCEMENT; RETT SYNDROME;

ADOLESCENT; ATTENTION; AUTISTIC DISORDER; CHILD; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HABITUATION, PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGIC; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL RETARDATION; MOTIVATION; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); RETT SYNDROME; TOKEN ECONOMY;

EID: 0031225705     PISSN: 00218855     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-451     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Amari, A., Grace, N. C., & Fisher, W. W. (1995). Achieving and maintaining compliance with the ketogenic diet. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 341-342.
2. Catania, A. C. (1963). Concurrent performances: A baseline for the study of reinforcement magnitude. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 299-300.
3. Catania, A. C. (1980). Freedom of choice: A behavioral analysis. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 14, pp. 97-145). New York: Academic Press.
4. DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-532.
5. Egel, A. L. (1980). The effects of constant vs. varied reinforcer presentation on responding by autistic children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 455-463.
6. Egel, A. L. (1981). Reinforcer variation: Implications for motivating developmentally disabled children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 345-350.
7. Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., & Amari, A. (1996). Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 15-25.
8. Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe to profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491-498.
9. Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., Piazza, C. C., Crosland, K. A., & Gotjen, D. (1997). On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 423-438.
10. Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267-272.
11. Mason, S. A., McGee, G. G., Farmer-Dougan, V., & Risley, T. R. (1989). A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 171-179.
12. Michael, J. (1993). Establishing operations. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 191-206.
13. Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 249-255.
14. Vollmer, T. R., & Iwata, B. A. (1991). Establishing operations and reinforcement effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 279-291.
15. Vollmer, T. R., Marcus, B. A., & LeBlanc, L. (1994). Treatment of self-injury and hand mouthing following inconclusive functional analyses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 331-344.