Distributed and accumulated reinforcement arrangements: Evaluations of efficacy and preference

Abstract

We assessed the efficacy of, and preference for, accumulated access to reinforcers, which allows uninterrupted engagement with the reinforcers but imposes an inherent delay required to first complete the task. Experiment 1 compared rates of task completion in 4 individuals who had been diagnosed with intellectual disabilities when reinforcement was distributed (i.e., 30-s access to the reinforcer delivered immediately after each response) and accumulated (i.e., 5-min access to the reinforcer after completion of multiple consecutive responses). Accumulated reinforcement produced response rates that equaled or exceeded rates during distributed reinforcement for 3 participants. Experiment 2 used a concurrent-chains schedule to examine preferences for each arrangement. All participants preferred delayed, accumulated access when the reinforcer was an activity. Three participants also preferred accumulated access to edible reinforcers. The collective results suggest that, despite the inherent delay, accumulated reinforcement is just as effective and is often preferred by learners over distributed reinforcement.

The Impact of Stimulus Presentation and Size on Preference

“…For example, data obtained across methods suggest that qualitative differences inherent in magnitude or continuity can influence value. This extends previous literature exploring factors that can impact reinforcer value (DeLeon et al, 2014;Steinhilber & Johnson, 2007). Future research should explore comparisons of the Bnatural value^of a stimulus versus the Boptimal value.^In other words, does the difference in magnitude of a stimulus in the context of intervention sessions and how the individual consumes the stimulus in the natural environment matter?…”

“…More recently, DeLeon et al (2014) found that participants demonstrated a preference for accumulated reinforcers, rather than equally distributed amounts. From a practical standpoint, this raises a potential issue regarding the manner in which stimuli are presented during a preference assessment.…”

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

“…Several studies have shown that, under certain conditions, participants prefer to complete a larger set of responses followed by longer duration of access to a reinforcer instead of completing several smaller sets of responses followed by brief reinforcer access that result in the same overall amount of work and reinforcement (Bukala, Hu, Lee, Ward-Horner, & Fienup, 2015;DeLeon et al, 2014;Fienup, Ahlers, & Pace, 2011;Ward-Horner, Pittenger, Pace, & Fienup, 2014). For instance, Fienup et al (2011) provided a participant a choice to complete either 120 math problems consecutively followed by 18 min of reinforcer access (continuous arrangement) or six sets of 20 math problems with each set followed by 3 min of reinforcer access (discontinuous arrangement).…”

“…There have been several replications of Fienup et al (2011) that have largely focused on variables influencing preference and performance for response-reinforcer arrangements with older participants who generally preferred a continuous arrangement (e.g., DeLeon et al, 2014;Kocher, Howard, & Fienup, 2015;Ward-Horner et al, 2014). For instance, DeLeon et al (2014) investigated the effects of the type of reinforcer on preference by providing access to edible and activity reinforcers.…”

“…For instance, DeLeon et al (2014) investigated the effects of the type of reinforcer on preference by providing access to edible and activity reinforcers. The researchers found that three out of four participants preferred the continuous arrangement regardless of type of reinforcer, and one participant preferred the continuous arrangement when the reinforcer was an activity but did not demonstrate a preference when the reinforcer was an edible.…”