Emergence of reinforcer preference as a function of schedule requirements and stimulus similarity

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 439-449

  DeLeon, Iser G ^b   Iwata, Brian A ^a   Goh, Han Leong ^b   Worsdell, April S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Behavioral economics; Preference; Reinforcer assessment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR THERAPY; DECISION MAKING; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MENTAL DEFICIENCY; MOTIVATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REINFORCEMENT;

ADULT; BEHAVIOR THERAPY; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL RETARDATION; MOTIVATION; REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE;

EID: 0031228519     PISSN: 00218855     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-439     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-533.
2. Fisher, 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 and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491-498.
3. Fuqua, R. W. (1984). Comments on the applied relevance of the matching law. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 381-386.
4. Green, L., & Freed, D. E. (1993). The substitutabiliry of reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 141-158.
5. Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of a response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267-272.
6. Hursh, S. R. (1980). Economic concepts for the analysis of behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 34, 219-238.
7. Lerman, D. C., Iwata, B. A., Rainville, B., Adelinis, J., Crosland, K., & Kogan, J. (1997). Effects of reinforcement choice on task responding in individuals with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 411-422.
8. Mace, F. C., McCurdy, B., & Quigley, E. A. (1990). A collateral effect of reward predicted by matching theory. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 197-205.
9. Neef, N. A., Mace, F. C., Shea, M. C., & Shade, D. (1992). Effects of reinforcer rate and reinforcer quality on time allocation: Extensions of matching theory to educational settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 691-699.
10. 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.
11. Smith, R. G., Iwata, B. A., & Shore, B. A. (1995). Effects of subject- versus experimenter-selected reinforcers on the behavior of individuals with profound developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 61-71.
12. Tustin, R. D. (1994). Preference for reinforcers under varying schedule arrangements: A behavioral economic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 597-606.
13. Windsor, J., Piche, L. M., & Locke, P. A. (1994). Preference testing: A comparison of two presentation methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 439-455.