Unit 4: DeLeon on Preference/Reinforcer Assessments part 2 Flashcards
determinants of stimulus value
- repeated exposure
- stimulus-stimulus pairing
- contingency
found that pairing low preference stimuli with established reinforcers resulted in a temporary shift in choices allocated to the low preference stimulus.
Hanley, Iwata, Roscoe, Thompson, and Lindberg (2003)
found that provision of supplemental reinforcement for engagement with a less preferred activity resulted in a shift in preference in the direction of the low preference activity.
Hanley, Iwata, an Lindberg (1999)
variables that influence relative response allocation
- quality
- rate of reinforcement
- reinforcer magnitude
- delay to reinforcement
methods for incorporating different reinforcers
- stimulus variation
- daily-brief preference assessment
- pre-session selection
- within session (post-response) choice
relative response allocation between two concurrent response options should approximately equal the relative rate of reinforcement provided for those options.
the matching law
a procedure in which a different reinforcer is selected and delivered by the therapist each time a schedule requirement is met.
stimulus variation
conduct a brief preference assessment each day to determine the most effective reinforcer that day
daily brief preference assessment
ask the learner which reinforcer they would like to earn in the following instructional sessions.
pre-session selection
permit the learner to choose from a small array of reinforcers each time the schedule requirements are met.
within-session (post-response) choice
mechanisms that might account for choice modifying the potability of problem bx.
- can make general context less aversive (AO)
- provide “control”
- permit individuals to avoid (delay) non-preferred activities.
preference for the stimuli is held constant across conditions by “matching” the items delivered during no-choice sessions to those selected during the immediately preceding choice sessions
yoking arrangements in the study of choice
problems with yoking arrangements in the study of choice
preferences may change across brief time spans or as a function of exposure in preceding sessions
All participants exhibited similar rates of responding across choice and no-choice conditions. These findings indicate that for individuals with severe disabilities, access to choice may not improve task performance when highly preferred items are already incorporated into instructional programs.
Lerman, iwata, rainville, adelinis, crosland, and kogan (1997)
Data showed substantially more responding to the button associated with within-session choice than presession choice during concurrent-operant phases. This effect was not as apparent during single-operant phases, suggesting that a concurrent-operants procedure provided the more sensitive evaluation of within-session and presession choice effects.
Graff and Libby (1999)
Deprivation resulted in increased preference, whereas satiation resulted in decreased preference compared to control conditions.
Gottschalk, Libby, and graff (2000)
No consistent differences in responding between choice and no-choice components emerged during single-operant phases. During concurrent-schedule phases, however, all participants had substantially higher rates of responding to the button that led to a choice among reinforcers than to the button that did not lead to choice.
Geckler, Libby, graff, and Ahearn (2000)
An environmental event, operation, or stimulus condition that serves a reinforcer establishing and an evocative function.
Motivational operations
Momentarily alters the reinforcing effectiveness of other events
Reinforcer-establishing function
Momentarily alters the frequency of occurrence of the type of bx that produces those other events as a sequence.
Evocative function
Momentarily increases the reinforcing effectiveness of that stimulus
Momentarily increases the frequency of bx that produces the stimulus as a consequence
Stimulus deprivation
Momentarily decreases the reinforcing effectiveness of the stimulus
Momentarily decreases the frequency of bx that have produced the stimulus as a consequence
Stimulus satiation
Not natural in classroom
Tangible items disrupt ongoing bx
Health concerns with edibles
More costly
Arguments against the use of tangible and edible reinforcers
Arguments in favor of praise/social reinforcers
Natural in classroom
Does not interrupt responding
No cost other than caregiver effort
Takes little time
Less subject to satiation (generally)
Bxs developed using social reinforcers may be more easily maintained in generalization settings
May increase task interest
Found that the most effective method to establish praise as a reinforcer is by pairing a previously neutral stimulus with a primary reinforcer contingent upon a response, then removing the presentation of the primary reinforcer to determine whether the previously neutral stimulus had become a conditioned reinforcer (established response procedure)
Dozier (2007)
Found that praise for effort was more likely to result in continued engagement of a difficult task following initial failures.
Muller and dweck (1998)
“Demonstrated when people engage in an activity for its own sake”
Intrinsically motivated bx
“controlled by incentives that are not part of the activity”
extrinsically motivated bx
results suggest that extrinsic reinforcement decreased intrinsic motivation
Deci (1971)
types of rewards
- quality-dependent
- completion-dependent
- performance-independent
quality-dependent reward
reward for the quality of one’s performance relative to some standard
completion dependent reward
reward delivered for completing a task or solving a problem
performance-independent reward
reward delivered simply for taking part in an activity
meta-analysis on extrinsic rewards suggest that quality-dependent verbal rewards have a positive effect on self-reported intrinsic interest.
suggests that learned helplessness might account for what appears to be lessened intrinsic motivation following performance-independent rewards.
Eisenberger & Cameron’s (1996)
mechanisms that may account for lessened intrinsic motivation as a result of rewards
- satiation
- contrast effects
- learned helplessness phenomena (in performance-independent rewards)
advantages of token reinforcers
- can help mediate delays to reinforcement
- do not disrupt ongoing responding
- can be used with individuals that often have different preferences
- may be less sensitive to satiation
components of token systems
- tokens
- token training
- earn schedules
- bank (accumulation)
- exchange schedules
- exchange periods
- back-up reinforcers
found higher rates of responding during accumulated reinforcement conditions vs. distributed reinforcement conditions
DeLeon, Chase, Frank, et al. (under review)
In the context of within-subject reversal designs, the results showed consistently reduced levels of problem bx when the students were given opportunities to make choices among instructional tasks and reinforcers. Additional data showed no systematic differences in the rate of correct responding between the two conditions.
Dyer, Dunlap, and Winterling (1990)
indicated that the tokens were established as conditioned reinforcers that matched the reinforcer value of the primary reinforcers with which they had been paired.
conditioned reinforcer effectiveness decreased during satiation conditions.
increasing the number of backup reinforcers with which the token was paired, resulted in the effectiveness maintaining during satiation conditions.
Moher, Gould, Hegg, and Mahoney (2008)
results indicated little or no difference in reinforcement effects when stimuli were selected by subjects rather than experimenters.
smith, iwata, and shore (1995)
no differences were found for choice and no-choice conditions when the less preferred stimuli were used as reinforcers.
Waldron-Soler, Martella, Marchand-Martella, & Ebey (2000)
The results demonstrated that deprivation and satiation influenced the outcome of preference assessments of leisure items or toys.
McAdam, Klatt, Koffarnus, Dicesare, Solberg, Welch, and Murphy (2005)
results showed that each stimulus class functioned as reinforcement with different degrees of effectiveness during satiation versus deprivation conditions.
Vollmer and Iwata (1991)
Results showed that 4 participants’ response rates were higher during pre meal sessions than during post meal sessions. By contrast, pre- and post meal response rates were indistinguishable for the other 5 participants. These results indicate that the reinforcing efficacy of food may (but does not necessarily) diminish following meals and suggest that the influence of meal schedules should be examined on an individual basis when food is used as reinforcement during training sessions.
Zhou, Iwata, and Shore (2002)
