Effects of stimulus variation on the reinforcing capability of nonpreferred stimuli

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 469-484

  Koehler, Leah J ^a   Iwata, Brian A ^a   Roscoe, Ełleen M ^b   Rolider, Natalie U ^a   O'Steen, Laura E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b NEW ENGLAND CENTER FOR CHILDREN   (United States)

Author keywords

Preference; Reinforcer variation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MENTAL DEFICIENCY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REINFORCEMENT; STIMULATION;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL RETARDATION; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICAL STIMULATION; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE;

EID: 33646116836     PISSN: 00218855     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2005.102-04     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Bowman, L. G., Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hagopian, L. P., & Kogan, J. S. (1997). Assessment of preference for varied versus constant reinforcers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 451-458.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Egel, A. L. (1981). Reinforcer variation: Implications for motivating developmentally disabled children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 345-350.
5. 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.
6. Green, C. W., Reid, D. H., White, L. K., Halford, R. C., Brittain, D. P., & Gardner, S. M. (1988). Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: Staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 31-43.
7. Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., Roscoe, E. M., Thompson, R. H., & Lindberg, J. S. (2003). Response-restriction analysis: II. Alteration of activity preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 59-76.
8. Herrnstein, R. J., & Loveland, D. H. (1975). Maximizing and matching on concurrent ratio schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 24, 107-116.
9. Ivancic, M. T. (2000). Stimulus preference and reinforcer assessment applications. In J. Austin, & J. E. Carr (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 19-38). Reno, NV: Context Press.
10. North, S. T., & Iwata, B. A. (2005). Motivational influences on performance maintained by food reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 317-333.
11. 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.
12. Roscoe, E. M., Iwata, B. A., & Kahng, S. (1999). Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: Implications for preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 479-493.