Examining the Generality of Children's Preference for Contingent Reinforcement via Extension to Different Responses, Reinforcers, and Schedules

Abstract

Studies that have assessed whether children prefer contingent reinforcement (CR) or noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) have shown that they prefer CR. Preference for CR has, however, been evaluated only under continuous reinforcement (CRF) schedules. The prevalence of intermittent reinforcement (INT) warrants an evaluation of whether preference for CR persists as the schedule of reinforcement is thinned. In the current study, we evaluated 2 children's preference for contingent versus noncontingent delivery of highly preferred edible items for academic task completion under CRF and INT schedules. Children (a) preferred CR to NCR under the CRF schedule, (b) continued to prefer CR as the schedule of reinforcement became intermittent, and (c) exhibited a shift in preference from CR to NCR as the schedule became increasingly thin. These findings extend the generality of and provide one set of limits to the preference for CR. Applied implications, variables controlling preferences, and future research are discussed.

How should periods without social interaction be scheduled? Children's preference for practical schedules of positive reinforcement

“…We reported negative contingency strengths for every child in the delayed conditions; this may seem inconsistent with findings from studies that involve descriptive assessments for which the presence of a dependency was unknown before the analysis (e.g., Borrero & Borrero, 2008;Lerman & Iwata, 1993;Samaha et al, 2009;Thompson & Iwata, 2007). As in previous research (Luczynski & Hanley, 2010), we used a 5-s time window for defining temporal contiguity. As in previous research (Luczynski & Hanley, 2010), we used a 5-s time window for defining temporal contiguity.…”

Differential reinforcement of other behavior increases untargeted behavior

“…A post hoc contingency‐strength analysis was conducted using procedures described by Luczynski and Hanley (, ). The contingency‐strength analysis provided a quantitative description of possible contingencies that were not experimentally arranged during the delivery of reinforcers on an interval basis (i.e., for the other response during the DRO and for both target and other response during FT probes).…”

Addressing Instructional Avoidance With Tier II Supports

“…An effective intervention must address this function by increasing the reinforcer (payoff) for reading and/or decreasing reinforcement for talking with peers. Because different activities are reinforcing for different individuals and because the context may affect what is reinforcing at a given time (Heal & Hanley, 2007;Luczynski & Hanley, 2010;McGinnis, Houchins-Juárez, McDaniel, & Kennedy, 2010;Northup, Fusilier, Swanson, Roane, & Borrero, 1997), educators must consider the function of behavior when matching a student to an available Tier II intervention. One way that the function of a behavior can be determined is through a functional behavior assessment (C. M. Anderson & Scott, 2009;Asmus, Vollmer, & Borrero, 2002;Bloom, Iwata, Fritz, Roscoe, & Carreau, 2011).…”