On the relation between reinforcer efficacy and preference

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 95-100

  Lee, May H S ^a   Yu, C T ^a   Martin, Toby L ^a   Martin, Garry L ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Developmental disabilities; Preference; Reinforcer assessment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDER; FEMALE; FOOD PREFERENCE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REINFORCEMENT;

ADULT; CONDITIONING, OPERANT; DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; FEMALE; FOOD PREFERENCES; HUMANS; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 79952117774     PISSN: 00218855     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2010.43-95     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Ayllon, T., & Azrin, N. H. (1968). Reinforcer sampling: A technique for increasing the behavior of mental patients. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 13-20.
2. Bojak, S. L., & Carr, J. E. (1999). On the displacement of leisure items by food during multiple-stimulus preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 515-518.
3. DeLeon, I. G., Frank, M. A., Gregory, M. K., & Allman, M. J. (2009). On the correspondence between preference assessment outcomes and progressive-ratio schedule assessments of stimulus value. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 729-733.
4. DeLeon, I. G., Iwata, B. A., & Roscoe, E. M. (1997). Displacement of leisure reinforcers by food during preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 475-484. (Pubitemid 127457978)
5. 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.
6. Glover, A. C., Roane, H. S., Kadey, H. J., & Grow, L. L. (2008). Preference for reinforcers under progressiveand fixed-ratio schedules: A comparison of single and concurrent arrangements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 163-176.
7. Roscoe, E. M., Iwata, B. A., & Kahng, S. W. (1999). Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: Implications for preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 479-493.
8. Taravella, C. C., Lerman, D. C., Contrucci, S. A., & Roane, H. S. (2000). Further evaluation of lowranked items in stimulus-choice preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 105-108.