Unit 4: DeLeon on Preference/Reinforcer Assessments part 2

Question 1

determinants of stimulus value

Answer 1

• repeated exposure
• stimulus-stimulus pairing
• contingency

Question 2

found that pairing low preference stimuli with established reinforcers resulted in a temporary shift in choices allocated to the low preference stimulus.

Answer 2

Hanley, Iwata, Roscoe, Thompson, and Lindberg (2003)

Question 3

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.

Answer 3

Hanley, Iwata, an Lindberg (1999)

Question 4

variables that influence relative response allocation

Answer 4

• quality
• rate of reinforcement
• reinforcer magnitude
• delay to reinforcement

Question 5

methods for incorporating different reinforcers

Answer 5

• stimulus variation
• daily-brief preference assessment
• pre-session selection
• within session (post-response) choice

Question 6

relative response allocation between two concurrent response options should approximately equal the relative rate of reinforcement provided for those options.

Answer 6

the matching law

Question 7

a procedure in which a different reinforcer is selected and delivered by the therapist each time a schedule requirement is met.

Answer 7

stimulus variation

Question 8

conduct a brief preference assessment each day to determine the most effective reinforcer that day

Answer 8

daily brief preference assessment

Question 9

ask the learner which reinforcer they would like to earn in the following instructional sessions.

Answer 9

pre-session selection

Question 10

permit the learner to choose from a small array of reinforcers each time the schedule requirements are met.

Answer 10

within-session (post-response) choice

Question 11

mechanisms that might account for choice modifying the potability of problem bx.

Answer 11

• can make general context less aversive (AO)
• provide “control”
• permit individuals to avoid (delay) non-preferred activities.

Question 12

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

Answer 12

yoking arrangements in the study of choice

Question 13

problems with yoking arrangements in the study of choice

Answer 13

preferences may change across brief time spans or as a function of exposure in preceding sessions

Question 14

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.

Answer 14

Lerman, iwata, rainville, adelinis, crosland, and kogan (1997)

Question 15

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.

Answer 15

Graff and Libby (1999)

Question 16

Deprivation resulted in increased preference, whereas satiation resulted in decreased preference compared to control conditions.

Answer 16

Gottschalk, Libby, and graff (2000)

Question 17

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.

Answer 17

Geckler, Libby, graff, and Ahearn (2000)

Question 18

An environmental event, operation, or stimulus condition that serves a reinforcer establishing and an evocative function.

Answer 18

Motivational operations

Question 19

Momentarily alters the reinforcing effectiveness of other events

Answer 19

Reinforcer-establishing function

Question 20

Momentarily alters the frequency of occurrence of the type of bx that produces those other events as a sequence.

Answer 20

Evocative function

Question 21

Momentarily increases the reinforcing effectiveness of that stimulus

Momentarily increases the frequency of bx that produces the stimulus as a consequence

Answer 21

Stimulus deprivation

Question 22

Momentarily decreases the reinforcing effectiveness of the stimulus

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

Answer 22

Stimulus satiation

Question 23

Not natural in classroom

Tangible items disrupt ongoing bx

Health concerns with edibles

More costly

Answer 23

Arguments against the use of tangible and edible reinforcers

Question 24

Arguments in favor of praise/social reinforcers

Answer 24

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

Question 25

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)

Answer 25

Dozier (2007)

Question 26

Found that praise for effort was more likely to result in continued engagement of a difficult task following initial failures.

Answer 26

Muller and dweck (1998)

Question 27

“Demonstrated when people engage in an activity for its own sake”

Answer 27

Intrinsically motivated bx

Question 28

“controlled by incentives that are not part of the activity”

Answer 28

extrinsically motivated bx

Question 29

results suggest that extrinsic reinforcement decreased intrinsic motivation

Answer 29

Deci (1971)

Question 30

types of rewards

Answer 30

• quality-dependent
• completion-dependent
• performance-independent

Question 31

quality-dependent reward

Answer 31

reward for the quality of one’s performance relative to some standard

Question 32

completion dependent reward

Answer 32

reward delivered for completing a task or solving a problem

Question 33

performance-independent reward

Answer 33

reward delivered simply for taking part in an activity

Question 34

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.

Answer 34

Eisenberger & Cameron’s (1996)

Question 35

mechanisms that may account for lessened intrinsic motivation as a result of rewards

Answer 35

• satiation
• contrast effects
• learned helplessness phenomena (in performance-independent rewards)

Question 36

advantages of token reinforcers

Answer 36

• 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

Question 37

components of token systems

Answer 37

• tokens
• token training
• earn schedules
• bank (accumulation)
• exchange schedules
• exchange periods
• back-up reinforcers

Question 38

found higher rates of responding during accumulated reinforcement conditions vs. distributed reinforcement conditions

Answer 38

DeLeon, Chase, Frank, et al. (under review)

Question 39

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.

Answer 39

Dyer, Dunlap, and Winterling (1990)

Question 40

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.

Answer 40

Moher, Gould, Hegg, and Mahoney (2008)

Question 41

results indicated little or no difference in reinforcement effects when stimuli were selected by subjects rather than experimenters.

Answer 41

smith, iwata, and shore (1995)

Question 42

no differences were found for choice and no-choice conditions when the less preferred stimuli were used as reinforcers.

Answer 42

Waldron-Soler, Martella, Marchand-Martella, & Ebey (2000)

Question 43

The results demonstrated that deprivation and satiation influenced the outcome of preference assessments of leisure items or toys.

Answer 43

McAdam, Klatt, Koffarnus, Dicesare, Solberg, Welch, and Murphy (2005)

Question 44

results showed that each stimulus class functioned as reinforcement with different degrees of effectiveness during satiation versus deprivation conditions.

Answer 44

Vollmer and Iwata (1991)

Question 45

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.

Answer 45

Zhou, Iwata, and Shore (2002)