Parametric analysis of delayed primary and conditioned reinforcers

Abstract

We examined the effects of delayed reinforcement on the responding of individuals with intellectual disabilities. Three conditions were evaluated: (a) food reinforcement, (b) token reinforcement with a postsession exchange opportunity, and (c) token reinforcement with a posttrial exchange opportunity. Within each condition, we assessed responding given (a) a no-reinforcement baseline, (b) immediate reinforcement, and (c) delayed reinforcement, in which responses produced a reinforcer after 1 of 6 delays. Results suggest that delayed food produced greater response persistence than did delayed tokens.

A Comparison of Descriptive and Functional Analyses of Inappropriate Mealtime Behavior

“…That is, although 10-s intervals have been used in other descriptive research (e.g., Borrero et al 2010, Vollmer et al 2001), waiting 10 s to deliver a potential reinforcer during a functional analysis would likely be considered a therapist error as consequences are scheduled for immediate delivery. A 1-s interval was determined to be too small, as parents may respond quickly following IMB but not within 1 s. Although it may be the case that various interval sizes would yield different results (see Vollmer et al 2001), practitioners may be likely to select a specific interval when conducting such assessments in practice, and a reinforcement effect may be more likely with shorter delays (Leon et al, 2016). Also, from a practitioner standpoint, a small interval such as 5 s would likely be easier for data collectors using ABC forms, since an event could be scored/not scored and data collectors could move onto the next child response/caregiver response.…”

Examining the reinforcing value of stimuli within social and non-social contexts in children with and without high-functioning autism

“…The responding of children with developmental disabilities is no less susceptible to delays (e.g. Leon et al, 2016). The procedures of the present experiment imposed a delay to the reinforcer by requiring that the children wait to access the reinforcer after they had completed all their work.…”

Token reinforcement: Translational research and application

“…A more extensive parametric analysis of delayed reinforcement effects was conducted by Leon, Borrero, and DeLeon () in a token reinforcement context with three individuals with intellectual disabilities. Three conditions were compared: (a) delayed access to preferred food (no token, delayed food); (b) delayed access to tokens exchangeable for preferred food at the end of the session (delayed token, delayed exchange/food); and (c) immediate access to tokens exchangeable for preferred food at the end of each trial (immediate token, delayed exchange/food).…”

“…It is worth noting that the conditions that generated the strongest behavior (immediate tokens, delayed exchange) were also those in place in the Tarbox et al () study and in some conditions in the Leon et al () study, in which the student produced tokens but had to tolerate increasingly longer delays to the exchange period. These procedures could readily be adapted to include conditions like those used by Wolfe () to systematically identify the optimal arrangement of token‐production and exchange contingencies.…”

“…These procedures could readily be adapted to include conditions like those used by Wolfe () to systematically identify the optimal arrangement of token‐production and exchange contingencies. The procedures might also be expanded to include generalized tokens rather than the specific tokens used by Leon et al (). Identifying ways to enhance exchange delay tolerance has obvious applied significance; it has theoretical implications as well, bearing on fundamental issues such as the necessity of token–food pairings in maintaining token‐reinforced behavior.…”