4-Reinforcement arrangements in applied to settings ll: detriments of reinforcer efficacy Flashcards by Kathleen Dugan

Zhou, Iwata,
• examined Stability of preferences over TIME in 22 adults with IDD.
• Conducted PS preference assessments at point
1.
• repeated the PS preference assessments for leisure items at intervals ranging between 12 and 20 months apart
• examined Rank Order correlations between the first and second assessments.

Mean rank-order correlation = 0.11 across participants

***GREATER STABILITY for most participants when only the top 5 stimuli are considered
• Suggests highest preferences may be more STABLE
• Corresponds with informants ability to offer
accurate opinions about reinforcers

Stability of preferences

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Diagnosis: Do individuals with ASD display more stable preferences than individuals without similar diagnoses?

Stimulus type: Are food preferences more or less stable than non-food preferences?

Ciccone,: Examined rank-order correlation Coefficients for food only

Zhou: Leisure items only

Castillo,

Proportion and mean correlation for 1st vs. 2nd greater for edibles for all analyses

Findings: some validity that food preferences are more stable than non-food preferences
However, number of differences between the two studies: differing preference assessment, N, and interval between assessments

 What shall we make of these
differences?
 Why might food preferences be more
stable?
• Local and temporally extended satiation effects
for leisure items?
 Potentially, categories showing greater
stability may require less frequent assessment?
• However, there are dangers inherent in
adopting this stance…

Shifts in Preference and Stimulus Value

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

• Local and temporally extended satiation effects for leisure items?

 Potentially, categories showing greater stability may require less frequent assessment?
• However, there are dangers inherent in adopting this stance…

DeLeon
changes in preference associated with corresponding changes in the UTILITY of reinforcers?
Analysis
Conducted one lengthy Paired stimulus preference assessment before the study
Conducted brief MSWO PA before daily training sessions

•Utility of Frequent Assessment in Acquisition
-Sometimes helps; sometimes does not. Determining factor:
•Variable preferences!

 Why might food preferences be more stable?

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

 Zhou, Iwata, Goff, & Shore (2001):

 Examined stability of preferences over time

 22 adults with IDD

 Conducted PS preference assessments at point 1

 Repeated the PS preference assessments for leisure items at intervals ranging between 12 and 20 months apart

 Examined rank-order correlations between the
first and second assessments

**Greater stability for most participants when only the top 5 stimuli are considered:
• Suggests highest preferences may be more stable
• Corresponds with informants ability to offer accurate opinions about reinforcers

Shifts in Preference and Stimulus

Value

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

 Castillo, DeLeon, & Frank-Crawford (in preparation)
 3 preference assessments, 12 items
 Edible (N = 31) or nonedible (N = 38)
 Does stability at 1st vs. 2nd predict 2nd vs. 3rd
 Analyses:
• 3 out of 4: Did at least 3 of the top 4 remain
among the top 4?
• Top-ranked: Did stimulus ranked #1 stay #1?
• Correlation: Was the correlation of all ranked
0.7?
***Proportion and mean correlation for 1st vs. 2nd greater for edibles for all analyses

Shifts in Preference and Stimulus

Value

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

What shall we make of these differences?

 Why might food preferences be more stable?
• Local and temporally extended satiation effects
for leisure items?

 Potentially, categories showing greater stability may require less frequent assessment?
• However, there are dangers inherent in
adopting this stance…

Shifts in Preference and Stimulus

Value

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

 DeLeon et al. (2001):
 Are changes in preference associated with corresponding changes in the utility of reinforcers?
 Analysis
    Conducted one lengthy PS PA before 
the study 
Conducted brief MSWO PA before daily 
training sessions

Shifts in Preference and Stimulus

Value

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

How STABLE are preferences and reinforcer efficacy over time?

Are changes in preference associated with corresponding changes in the utility of reinforcers?

Shifts in Preference and Stimulus Value

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

 Zhou et al. (2001):
Mean rank-order correlation = 0.11 across participants

 However, greater stability for most participants when only the top 5 stimuli are considered:
• Suggests highest preferences may be more stable
• Corresponds with informants ability to offer accurate opinions about reinforcers

Xxxxxxx in Preference and Stimulus

Value

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Does stability differ according to:

 Diagnosis (ASD vs. non-ASD)?

 Stimulus type (food vs. non-food)?

XxxxxxShifts in Preference and Stimulus

Value

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Zhou, Iwata:
STABILITY of preferences over time
•22 adults with IDD
•Conducted PS preference assessments at point 1

Repeated the PS preference assessments for leisure items at intervals ranging between 12 and 20 months apart
Examined RANK-order correlations between the first and second assessments

CONCLUSIONS:

Greater STABILITY for most participants when only the top 5 stimuli are considered:
- Suggests highest preferences may be more stable

•Corresponds with informants ability to offer accurate opinions about reinforcers

Stability:

Shifts in Preference and Stimulus
Value

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

MOMENTARY Capacity to support responses that produce it

2. UTILITY in producing LONG- term Behavior change

Effectiveness of a Reinforcer

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Pairing less preferred activity with established reinforcers through contingent delivery
Pairing less preferred activity with established reinforcers through non contingent delivery

Hanley, Iwata: Examined choices between activities in a CONCURRENT Chain.
•First link determined subsequent activity and then differing arrangement/schedules in the subsequent activity.
•They measured a proportion of selections as a function of reinforcement delivered for engagement – not choosing – in the less preferred activity. Does this impact choices?’s

Edible reinforcement and NCR music while doing dishes

Can we make something preferred when it was not already By

Hanley: Shifting activity preferences

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Hanley, Iwata :
• Selected one high preferred and one low preferred activity, measured relative Response Allocation.

In conditioning procedure, established reinforcers were delivered on FT schedules during access to low preferred.

No reinforcement during access to high preferred.

Each arranged for three, five minute sessions, followed by tests Sessions (no consequence for either activity)

CONCLUSIONS:

Enhancing an activity with SUPPLEMENTAL CONTINGENT reinforcement can SHIFT choices towards that activity
Non-contingent PAIRING of an activity with ESTABLISHED preferred stimuli can SHIFT choices toward that ACTIVITY

Effects seem to be TRANSIENT (do not persist after discontinuation of the Pairing procedures)

Determinants of Stimulus Value

Continuing research- Hanley

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Examined affects of SATIATION and CONDITIONING on Preference RANKS.

Conducted INITIAL preference assessment then a SATIATION condition for HIGH preference stimulus

Free access for 2 to 3 hours per day, and conditioning for a low preference stimuli, pairing the stimulus with continuous attention and continue with availability I prefer edibles, five, one minute trials per day. Exposure for the control stimuli was 51 minute child per day.

Hanley Iwata Roscoe

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

DELAY to reinforcement: widely studied in context of

treating problem behavior
Research on Temporal discounting
Self control.

Are conditioned reinforcers less susceptible to adverse affects of delay?

Determinants of Stimulus Value:

Delay

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Leon Examined the effects of Delayed reinforcement with primary and conditioned reinforcer.
Three Conditions:
1. Baseline – no Reinforcement
2. FR 1 no delay (responses produced a reinforcer immediately)
3. FR1 increasing delay
(responses produced a reinforcer following 1 of 5 delays)
Assessed delayed of food, delayed tokens, and immediate tokens with a delayed exchange

CONCLUSIONS:
• delayed FOOD produced the greatest Persistence

• Delayed TOKENS produced most RAPID decreases in responding,

   - Token delivery with a delayed EXCHANGE opportunity equaled or exceeded Effects of delayed food.

Conditioned reinforcers less susceptible to adverse affects of delay.. depends on when they are OWNED and EXCHANGED

Determinants of Stimulus Value:

Delay

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Effects relative response allocation

Matching law (ML): Organisms will distribute behavior among concurrently available
alternatives in same proportion that reinforcers
distributed among those alternatives

In humans, the ML obtains for
 Problem behavior
 Academic responding
 Communicative behavior

Leon, Deleon: Rate of reinforcement:

Determinants of Stimulus Value

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

higher preference = better ______

Studies have compared responding for
reinforcers of varying preference
•However, as noted earlier, HP and LP stimuli sometimes support SIMILAR RATES of responding

Research on amount of work completed for stimuli of varying preference assessed via Progressive Ratio schedules

Higher preference, better quality reinforcers:
- More Potent reinforcers

Quality of reinforcement

Determinants of Stimulus Value:
Leon, Deleon

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Can vary according to:

Quantity
Intensity
Duration

Mixed results examining effects of ____

Some suggest a positive relation between magnitude and responding

Other suggest no relation

Function of schedule of reinforcement?

Magnitude of reinforcement

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Trosclair

Preference assessment: Concurrent operant arrangement used to assess the participants’ preferences for two different reinforcer magnitudes (i.e., small vs. large or medium vs. large) and no reinforcement

Progressive Ratio analysis conducted to assess reinforcer EFFICACY

may play an important role when THINNING schedules of reinforcement

Magnitude

effects of different reinforcer magnitudes on preference and reinforcer efficacy

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

An environmental event, operation, or
stimulus condition that serves the following 2 functions

Reinforcer establishing function:
Momentary alters the reinforcing effectiveness of other events
Evocative function: Momentarily alters the frequency of occurrence of the type of behaviors that produces those other events as a consequence

Motivating Operation (EO):

Determinants of Stimulus Value:
Motivating Operations

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Momentarily increases the reinforcing
effectiveness of that stimulus.

Momentarily increases the frequency of behavior that produce the stimulus as a consequence

Stimulus deprivation

Determinants of Stimulus Value:
Motivating Operations

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Momentarily decreases the reinforcing
effectiveness of the stimulus

Momentarily decreases the frequency of behaviors that have produced the stimulus as a consequence

 Stimulus satiation

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Gottschalk): Deprivation and satiation effects with food on preference assessment OUTCOMES: • Control: Regulated (premeasured) access for 24 hr before assessment * Deprivation: 48 hour deprivation for one stimulus at a time; regulated access for others * Satiation: 10 min free access before assessment; regulated access for other  Paired-stimulus preference assessment following manipulations ***SATIATION can influence preference RANK

Determinants of Stimulus Value: | Motivating Operations

Can influence preference RANK CAN similarly influence PERFORMANCE -Depends upon the specific OPERATION and the person

Satiation Determinants of Stimulus Value: Motivating Operations

Zhou, Iwata): Deprivation and satiation for food reinforcers under less contrived arrangements  Deprivation: 30-min before lunch  Satiation: 30-min after lunch  No additional exposure, unlike Vollmer & Iwata (1992)

Determinants of Stimulus Value: | Motivating Operations

Conclusions on motivating operations: Zao, Vollmer • Can influence preference assessment results •May influence reinforcer VALUE but not necessarily under NATURALISTIC conditions • More interesting examples may not involve deprivation or satiation, but CONDITIONED establishing operations -Transitive CEO manipulated to enhance motivation for mands in response chains Are there different “kinds” of satiation? Are the sorts of changes in deprivation/satiation correlated with normal life enough to shift response patterns? Vollmer Examined rates of SIMPLE responses under conditions of deprivation satiation

Deprivation/Satiation Determinants of Stimulus Value: Motivating Operations

Can the effectiveness of a reinforcer be influenced by the nature of other, qualitatively different reinforcers in the environment? Behavioral economics: -Imports principles of microeconomics to the study of OPERANT behavior

Determinants of stimulus value: behavioral economics

Investigation of choice under conditions of asymmetrical reinforcers Investigation of consumption under various conditions of constraint Once the parallels are drawn and validated, opens the door to relations heretofore only considered by economists

Why behavioral economics in IDD?

Commodities:  Econ: Goods and services  B. Econ: Reinforcers Unit Price:  Econ: $ paid per unit of commodity  B. Econ: Number of responses “paid” per unit of reinforcer Consumption:  Econ: Total quantity of a commodity consumed, typically at the population level  B. Econ: Total amount of a reinforcer obtained per unit time, typically at the individual level

Behavioral Economics – Some | Terms

Population Demand Curve

See Co instructor material

Individual Demand Curve

Co instructions

Sensitivity to price. That is the Extent to which changes in unit price influence consumption of the commodity Changes in price produce larger than proportional changes in consumption E. G., 1% increase in price produces greater than 1% decrease in consumption Stimuli with equivalent initial consumption (Under low-cost conditions), May have very different demand profiles

Elasticity of Demand

Changes in price produce less than proportional changes in consumption. E.g.., One percent increase in price produces less than 1% decrease in consumption

Inelasticity

Influences: • Constraints on income regarding luxury goods versus necessary goods. -Demand for a luxury goods is made elastic -Eg, Demand for gasoline at four dollars a gallon is relatively any elastic; -Demand for a Coca-Cola at four dollars a can would not be * Open versus closed economics * Closed economy: * Greater defense of consumption Nature of available alternatives.

Influences elasticity of demand

Consumption of a reinforcer is NOT dependent on responding within earning context. (supplemental access to a reinforcer is provided outside of the earning context)

Open economy:

Consumption of a reinforcer is entirely Dependent on responding within earning context – no supplemental access

Closed economy:

less elastic curves – under closed economics than open economics

Greater defense of consumption

Demand is more elastic when SUBSTITUTABLE reinforcers are concurrently available  Substitutable reinforcers: Reinforcers that share important functional properties -E.g., two food items

Nature of available alternatives What Influences Elasticity of Demand?

How is Reinforcer affectedness influenced by the nature of other qualitatively different reinforcers in the environment? Does the finding hold in persons with IDD? Demand curves very with Similarity of alternatives. Consumption declines more rapidly as : - Price Increases when the alternative is functionally similar. - As delay increases When alternative is functionally similar

Elasticity of Demand

Clinical implications of: Consumption declining more rapidly as : - Price Increases when the alternative is functionally similar. - As delay increases When alternative is functionally similar Typical course of intervention for a severe problem behavior in IDD is: 1. Assessment to identify the Functional reinforcer 2. Differential reinforcement – Provide functional reinforcer for alternative behavior - Extinction relation between problem behavior and functional reinforcer is disrupted , 3. Schedule thinning for practicality Provide DISSIMILAR reinforcer

Elasticity of demand- Clinical Implications

does the amount of work the person has to complete to earn a reinforcer influence the subsequent effectiveness of that reinforcer

Determinants of stimulus value: contingency

Contingency and Stimulus Value “..such are the Tempers and dispossissions of Seamen in general that whatever you give them out of the common way, altho it be ever so much for their good yet it will not go down with them and you will hear nothing but murmurrings gainest the man that first invented it; but the Moment they see their superiors set a Value upon it, it becomes the finest stuff in the World and the inventor an honest fellow.” - Captain James Cook , April, 1769 " The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.“ -Thomas Paine, The Crisis, 1776

Ugh!

Clement et al. (2000): Assessed effects of past effort on the current value of SDassociated with identical reinforcers What about the effects of past effort on the current value the reinforcer itself? Or on the value of different reinforcers? Pre-test -Stimulus preference assessment – choose middle 4 -Progressive-ratio assessment ``` Manipulations (4 weeks)  Constant FR1  Escalating FR  Time-based, noncontingent delivery ie. free stuff)  Restricted ``` Post-Test  Repeat pre-tests  Measure difference scores DeLeon et al. (2011): Free reinforcers lose value more rapidly than earned reinforcers Are interventions that involve contingent reinforcers more durable than interventions that involve noncontingent reinforcers? The loss of earned reinforcers are more potent than the loss of free reinforcers?

Contingency and Stimulus Value

Variable effects: • Contingent stimuli do not always increase in value and greater effort is not related to greater increase in value Consistent effects: •. Noncontingent delivery may devalue stimuli more rapidly • Did contingency at least help to preserve value against what might be a natural decline? • Is the decrement sufficient to impact clinical intervention?

Contingency and Stimulus Value

 “…reinforcers need not be consumed following each completion of a schedule requirement but rather can be accumulated, then collected and consumed later.” McFarland & Lattal (2001) JEAB  We want kids to accumulate reinforcers  Does not interrupt ongoing behavior  Requires fewer teacher resources  But…the inherent delay What promotes accumulation?  Consumption cost (Yankelevitz et al., 2008)  Interest for savings? The nature of the reinforcer? Continuity?

Reinforcer Accumulation

```  Much of our knowledge of reinforcer effectiveness is built on providing brief access to reinforcers following small numbers of responses  Is this really what kids want? ```

Continuity and Stimulus Value

Procedures that interrupt continuity might alter the quality of the reinforcer, thus discounting its effectiveness (Hackenberg & Pietras, 2000) The effectiveness of some reinforcers (e.g., video) might partly depend on uninterrupted access  Is the individual willing to “pay” to preserve continuity?

Continuity

DeLeon,  Does continuity matter?  Experiment 1: Do delayed, accumulated reinforcers (mediated by tokens) support rates of responding equivalent to distributed reinforcement? Experiment 2: Do children with IDD prefer to accumulate access to activities and food?

Continuity and Stimulus Value

Experiment 1 Efficacy ABAB Reinforcer Assessment -A = No reinforcement BL -B = Multi-element comparison of  Distributed reinforcement: Delivery of a brief period of access each time a small response requirement is met  Accumulated reinforcement: Delivery of all reinforcement at the same time following the completion of a larger response requirement -Measure: Rates of simple free-operant responses Highest mean rates of responding observed in accumulated reinforcement condition -Added value in arranging accumulated reinforcement? -Handling Costs”?

Continuity and Stimulus Value:

Is demand for delayed, accumulated access more or less elastic as an equal amount of immediate, but distributed access? Is demand for delayed, accumulated access more or less elastic as an equal amount of immediate, but distributed access? Conclusions about Accumulation  Accumulated access, mediated through tokens… -Supports faster work -Supports greater overall quantity of work -Is preferred by learners  Why do we care? “Dissimilar” reinforcers may produce more “durable” TX when (1)Problem behavior is reinforced, 2)Reinforcement of appropriate behavior thinned Tokens exchanged for accumulated activities: 1) Have same desirable qualities as edibles (2) May produce similar therapeutic effects (3) Lack “undesirable qualities

Continuity and Stimulus Value: | Amount of Work

Accumulated access, mediated through tokens…  Supports faster work  Supports greater overall quantity of Work  Is preferred by learners  Is it really about continuity

Conclusions about Accumulation | 

Individuals may prefer continuity with work as well! Conclusions about Accumulation  Accumulated access, mediated through tokens… -Supports faster work -Supports greater overall quantity of work - Is preferred by learners The real utility of tokens are as generalized-conditioned reinforcers…

Reinforcer Accumulation Continuity and Stimulus Value

Can varying reinforcers or providing choice-of reinforcers produce beneficial effects?  Several methods for incorporating different reinforcers -Frequent preference assessment (e.g., DeLeon et al., 2001) -Stimulus variation -Pre-session selection -Post-response reinforcer choice

Determinants of Stimulus Value: | Variation and Choice

Arranges for rotation of different reinforcers following responding  Found to increase response rate and decrease interresponse time  May be preferred even if the varied reinforcers are of lesser preference but still moderately preferred  Stimulus variation appears to have some effect but only in so far as the stimuli that are being presented are moderately to highly preferred Effect of stimulus variation seems to be idiosyncratic across individuals Moderately to highly preferred stimuli seem to have some effect on response rate and IRT

Stimulus variation:

Pre-session selection  Ask the learner which reinforcer they would like to earn in the following instructional session Within-session (post-response) choice -Permit the learner to choose from a small array of reinforcers each time the schedule requirement is me

Determinants of Stimulus Value: | Choice

• Yoking studies suggest no effects of choice • The problem with yoking procedures  Although they approximate a method of control for momentary fluctuations in preference,  They are not perfect because preferences may change across brief time spans or as a function of exposure in preceding sessions How, then, to perfectly isolate the effects of choice?

Determinants of Stimulus Value: Choice

Smith:  No effect of choice in single operant Tiger et al. (2006): Preference for choice in concurrent choice Conclusions:  Choice may be preferable but not always beneficial  Is it a case of a slight effect that would show up under very sensitive arrangements, but not insensitive arrangements?

Determinants of Stimulus Value: | Choice

Choice Geckeler, Libby, ``` Examined response rates during choice and no-choice conditions on FR schedules (FR 20 to FR 30)  Evaluated under single-operant schedule  Evaluated under concurrent schedule  Two identical responses available  Could work on either one ```

Determinants of Stimulus Value: | Choice

Determinants of Stimulus Value: Choice Things we know less about when considering choice of reinforcement  Are there situations in which choice may be aversive?  Are choice effects sufficient to override other inequities in concurrent reinforcement arrangements?  Choice effects in single-operant schedules when preference levels are unknown?  Choice under PR schedules?  Does it matter in acquisition?

Things we know less about when considering choice of reinforcement

 In formal terms, of course, this never happens  Reinforcement is defined by its effect on the response upon which it is made contingent – it increases responding So, assuming the contingency was executed with fidelity, no change in responding may result from  Contrived external contingencies where contingencies were not needed (e.g., detrimental effects of extrinsic reinforcement on intrinsic motivation)  Procedural “mismatches” between the response and its outcome

What if “Reinforcement” Doesn’t | Work?

The stimulus used was not a reinforcer  It was perhaps chosen arbitrarily or based upon conventional wisdom, but never directly evaluated for its reinforcing efficacy  E.g., this may happen often with social praise  Preference and/or reinforcer assessment should be used to systematically determine or at least to estimate the likely effectiveness of the stimulus as a reinforcer before it is incorporated into the relevant context The stimulus was not a reinforcer under the specific conditions in which it was arranged  The item delivered contingent upon the target response was insufficiently effective relative to that response  It may have been tested for reinforcer effectiveness under separate (perhaps less stringent) conditions and found effective, but efficacy did not extend to current conditions  Important to test reinforcer effects under conditions that approximate the conditions of their use in the relevant context

Procedural Mismatches

The stimulus used was no longer a reinforcer under these conditions  It was once a reinforcer under these conditions, but effectiveness has since been altered by some other event -E.g., satiation, developmental changes  The use of ineffective stimuli in the relevant context can be avoided by repeated preference assessments across time A response-reinforcer contingency was arranged but was not contacted  E.g., the requisite performance was too difficult or too effortful to meet reinforcement requirements, so it rarely occurred  Smaller, less stringent steps may be needed to shape and bring the behavior into contact with the contingency The stimulus followed the wrong response  E.g., trying to increase on-task behavior by arranging contingencies for sitting at one’s desk does not mean one will actually do the work  The reinforcer must depend directly on the behavior of interest rather than on other behavior that is incidentally correlated with it

Procedural Mismatches

Assuming that the contingency was executed with fidelity, a decrease in responding may result from

Overjustification Punishment: Time-out from preferred activity Discriminative properties of reinforcers: -Reinforcer evokes incompatible behavior Responding?

Frank-Crawford et al. (2012): Delivery of the food disrupted engagement not because it decreased motivation to engage with the stimulus, but rather because food functioned as a discriminative stimulus in the presence of which requests for edible stimuli had historically been reinforced

What if “Reinforcement” Decreases Responding?

Not STATIC

Preferences Determinants of preferences and reinforcer Effectiveness

The requirements for reinforcement are increased systematically, usually after each reinforcer.

Under Progressive Ratio (PR) schedules

Can influence preference Rank

Satiation MO’s Effectiveness on reinforcer value

DISSIMILAR reinforcers are more Durable when: * Problem behavior continues to be reinforced * Reinforcement of appropriate behavior is PROGRESSIVELY Thinned

Reinforcer value – IDD

Free reinforcers lose value more rapidly than earned reinforcers

DeLeon et al. (2011):

(economics) Demand curves vary with similarity of alternatives Consumption declined more rapidly as price increases when alternative is functionally similar.

Findings in persons with IDD Elasticity

Vary with similarity of alternatives Consumption declines more rapidly as delay increases when alternative is functionally similar

Demand curves IDD– elasticity of demand

1. Available alternatives | 2. Substitutable reinforcers

Influences elasticity of demand

Dissimilar reinforcers are more Durable when:

* Problem behavior continues to be reinforced * Reinforcement of appropriate behavior is progressively THINNED (Clinical implications – elasticity)

Can WEAKEN the effectiveness of behavioral arrangements Decrease VALUE of a reinforcer

Delays to reinforcement:

Discounted more STEEPLY Then conditioned reinforcers.

Primary, directly CONSUMABLE Reinforcers

Less susceptible to adverse affects of delay.. depends on when they are OWNED and EXCHANGED

Conditioned reinforcers

Difficult to quantify it because Of it’s dynamic: - CHANGES as a function of a number • Can have value Enhancing Effects (mere exposure) through: -Learning how to extract reinforcement? -Explains displacement of leisure items by food? -Reinforced engagement? - (Long-term satiation)

Reinforcer effectiveness

Food preferences more stable than non-food preferences However, number of differences between the two studies: differing preference assessment, N, and interval between assessments

Stimulus Preference Value

Associated with corresponding changes in UTILITY of reinforcers Utility of Frequent Assessment in Acquisition -Sometimes helps; sometimes does not. Determining factor: •Variable preferences!

Changes in food preferences

substitutable reinforcers are ...

Reinforcers that are similar

Can also mean changes in the EFFECTIVENESS of stimuli, Time not necessarily the relevant independent variable

Changes in preferences

Demand is more elastic when

substitutable reinforcers are concurrently available