Preference among array sizes for backup reinforcers: An evaluation of “choice overload” in token economies.

Abstract

Token economies for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) might work best when tokens are exchangeable for multiple and varied backup reinforcers, which can be displayed in a token store. Prior research with typically developing populations has reported that large array sizes and presentation methods can produce “choice overload” effects, which include choice avoidance, postchoice preference reversals, and other negative collateral effects, leading some to suggest that care must be taken to avoid such effects when working with children with ASD. However, choice overload has not been directly evaluated within token economies for individuals with ASD. Additionally, it is unknown whether choices in the context of a token economy are consistent with preferences displayed during preference assessments. We examined preference for array size across 4 presentation formats and when a work requirement preceded array selection. Results indicated that, overall, participants selected the large array condition most often across all presentation formats. Furthermore, two of three participants selected the large array condition most often, regardless of whether a work requirement proceeded array selection. Overall, we found minimal evidence of choice overload in this population.

Comparison of synchronous reinforcement and accumulated reinforcement for increasing on‐task behavior in preschoolers

“…Although participants had a history with tokens in their preschool classrooms, the degree to which those tokens were trained, the procedural fidelity of their implementation, and whether exposure to a token economy in the classroom setting generalized to sessions are unknown. The absence of formal token training is important to note; however, this practice is not inconsistent with those reported in practice in clinical and instructional settings (Fernandez et al, 2023). Tokens may not have functioned as conditioned reinforcers such that their delivery bridged the delay between engaging in on‐task behavior and reinforcer delivery.…”