Examination of the influence of contingency on changes in reinforcer value

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 543-558

  Deleon, Iser G ^a   Gregory, Meagan K ^b   Frank Crawford, Michelle A ^c   Allman, Melissa J ^a   Wilke, Arthur E ^d   Carreau Webster, Abbey B ^c   Triggs, Mandy M ^b  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b KENNEDY KRIEGER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY   (United States)

^d Center for Autism and Related Disorders   (United States)

Author keywords

noncontingent reinforcement; preference assessments; progressive ratio analysis; stimulus value

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR THERAPY; CHILD; DECISION MAKING; DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDER; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PAIRED ASSOCIATE LEARNING; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REINFORCEMENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BEHAVIOR THERAPY; CHILD; DECISION MAKING; DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PAIRED-ASSOCIATE LEARNING; REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84856195484     PISSN: 00218855     EISSN: 19383703     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-543     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Arantes, J., &, Grace, R. C., (2008). Failure to obtain value enhancement by within-trial contrast in simultaneous and successive discriminations. Learning & Behavior, 36, 1-11.
2. Birch, L. L., Zimmerman, S. I., &, Hind, H., (1980). The influence of social-affective context on the formation of children's food preferences. Child Development, 51, 856-861.
3. Clement, T. S., Feltus, J. R., Kaiser, D. H., &, Zentall, T. R., (2000). "Work ethic" in pigeons: Reward value is directly related to the effort or time required to obtain the reward. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 100-106.
4. DeLeon, I. G., Fisher, W. W., Rodriguez-Catter, V., Maglieri, K., Herman, K., &, Marhefka, J., (2001). Examination of relative reinforcement effects of stimuli identified through pretreatment and daily brief preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 463-473.
5. 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.
6. DeLeon, I. G., Iwata, B. A., Goh, H., &, Worsdell, A. S., (1997). Emergence of reinforcer preference as a function of schedule requirements and stimulus similarity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 439-449.
7. DeLeon, I. G., Williams, D. C., Gregory, M. K., &, Hagopian, L. P., (2005). Unexamined potential effects of the noncontingent delivery of reinforcers. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 5, 57-69.
8. 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.
9. Francisco, M. T., Borrero, J. C., &, Sy, J. R., (2008). Evaluation of absolute and relative reinforcer value using progressive-ratio schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 189-202.
10. Friedrich, A. M., &, Zentall, T. R., (2004). Pigeons shift their preference toward locations of food that take more effort to obtain. Behavioural Processes, 67, 405-415.
11. Glover, A. C., Roane, H. S., Kadey, H. J., &, Grow, L. L., (2008). Preference for reinforcers under progressive-and fixed-ratio schedules: A comparison of single and concurrent arrangements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 163-176.
12. Gottschalk, J. M., Libby, M. E., &, Graff, R. B., (2000). The effects of establishing operations on preference assessment outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 85-88.
13. Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., &, Roscoe, E. M., (2006). Some determinants of changes in preference over time. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 189-202.
14. Hanley, G. P., Tiger, J. H., Ingvarsson, E. T., &, Cammilleri, A. P., (2009). Influencing preschoolers' free-play activity preferences: An evaluation of satiation and embedded reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 33-41.
15. Hodos, W., (1961). Progressive ratio as a measure of reward strength. Science, 134, 943-944.
16. Johnson, A. W., &, Gallagher, M., (2011). Greater effort boosts the affective taste properties of food. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 278, 1450-1456.
17. Kacelnik, A., &, Marsh, B., (2002). Cost can increase preference in starlings. British Journal of Animal Behaviour, 63, 245-250.
18. Klein, E. D., Bhatt, R. S., &, Zentall, T. R., (2005). Contrast and the justification of effort. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 335-339.
19. Lohrmann-O'Rourke, S., &, Browder, D. M., (1998). Empirically based methods to assess the preferences of individuals with severe disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 103, 146-161.
20. 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.
21. McAdam, D. B., Klatt, K. P., Koffarnus, M., Dicesare, A., Solberg, K., Welch, C., et al., (2005). The effects of establishing operations on preferences for tangible items. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 107-110.
22. Mudford, O. C., Martin, N. T., Hui, J. K. Y., &, Taylor, S. A., (2009). Assessing observer accuracy in continuous recording of rate and duration: Three algorithms compared. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 527-539.
23. Northup, J., (2000). Further evaluation of the accuracy of reinforcer surveys: A systematic replication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 335-338.
24. Northup, J., George, T., Jones, K., Broussard, C., &, Vollmer, T. R., (1996). A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: The utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 201-212.
25. 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.
26. Singer, R. A., Berry, L. M., &, Zentall, T. R., (2007). Preference for a stimulus that follows a relatively aversive event: Contrast or delay reduction? Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 275-285.
27. Vasconcelos, M., Urcuioli, P. J., &, Lionello-Denolf, K. M., (2007). Failure to replicate the "work ethic" effect in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 383-399.
28. Zentall, T. R., (2008). Within-trial contrast: When you see it and when you don't. Learning & Behavior, 36, 19-22.
29. Zentall, T. R., &, Singer, R. A., (2007a). Within-trial contrast: Pigeons prefer conditioned reinforcers that follow a relatively more rather than a less aversive event. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88, 131-149.
30. Zentall, T. R., &, Singer, R. A., (2007b). Within-trial contrast: When is failure to replicate not a type I error. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 87, 401-494.
31. Zhou, L., Iwata, B. A., Goff, G. A., &, Shore, B. A., (2001). Longitudinal analysis of leisure-item preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 179-184.