Arranging response requirements and the distribution of reinforcers: A brief review of preference and performance outcomes

Abstract

Recent research has demonstrated that some participants prefer to complete a larger series of responses in exchange for a longer duration of reinforcer access, rather than completing fewer tasks associated with smaller, but more frequent, reinforcer access. This review provides a summary of this line of research, examines variables contributing to participant preference and performance under different response-reinforcer arrangements, and discusses limitations and areas for future research.

Preferences for token exchange‐production schedules: Effects of task difficulty and token‐production schedules

“…Consistent with previous research (e.g., Ward‐Horner et al, ), accumulated exchange‐production schedules were more preferred than distributed schedules when participants earned tokens for completing easy academic demands. With difficult demands, accumulated schedules were still more preferred by two participants.…”

“…Although the accumulated exchange‐production schedules were associated with delays to reinforcement, they supported higher rates of work completion and were more preferred. These findings are consistent with other research suggesting accumulated exchange‐production schedules are more efficient and facilitate greater rates of work completion (Bukala, Hu, Lee, Ward‐Horner, & Fienup, ; Ward‐Horner, Cengher, Ross, & Fienup, ), and are more preferred relative to distributed exchange‐production schedules (e.g., Fienup, Ahlers, & Pace, ; Kocher, Howard, & Fienup, ).…”

“…Accordingly, task difficulty may influence some individuals' preferences for accumulated or distributed exchange‐production schedules. Considering that token‐reinforcement programs may be used in treatment contexts (e.g., classroom settings) associated with high‐effort tasks (e.g., difficult academic material or adult directives), future research should evaluate the generality of extant token exchange‐production schedule research (see Ward‐Horner et al, ) to applied contexts with increased response requirements. In addition to more challenging tasks, token‐reinforcement interventions in applied settings often use fairly lean token‐production schedules (e.g., Tarbox, Ghezzi, & Wilson, ).…”

“…Extant research (e.g., Lerman et al, ; Neef et al, ; Perrin & Neef, ) suggests that changes in task difficulty may affect individuals' preferences for delayed versus immediate schedules of reinforcement, indicating that accumulated exchange‐production schedules may not be as preferred when associated with more effortful work requirements (Ward‐Horner et al, ). The purpose of this study was to replicate and extend research by DeLeon et al () by evaluating participants' preferences for accumulated and distributed exchange‐production schedules under easy and difficult work requirements (Experiment 1).…”

Effects of Reinforcer Magnitude and Quality on Preference for Response-Reinforcer Arrangements in Young Children with Autism

“…Thus, far researchers have investigated the effects of response-reinforcer parameters (e.g., type and magnitude of reinforcer, and type of task) with a homogeneous group of participants (adolescents between the ages of 13 and 20 years old) that has generally preferred a continuous arrangement (Ward-Horner, Cengher, Ross, & Fienup, 2017 and prefer the discontinuous arrangement that results in shorter delays to reinforcer access (e.g., Dixon & Hayes, 1998). Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine preference and performance for response-reinforcer arrangements with younger participants and to examine the effects of reinforcer characteristics on preference and performance.…”