Reinforcer Choice as an Antecedent Versus Consequence During Skill Acquisition

Abstract

Providing a choice of reinforcers is a commonly used strategy with children with autism spectrum disorder; however, less is known about the differential effectiveness and efficiency of providing choices before or after responding during acquisition tasks. Therefore, we evaluated reinforcer choice using untaught targets prior to and following responding. Results showed faster acquisition of targets in the consequence condition for 2 of 3 participants. These data provide preliminary support that providing choice prior to responding may not result in the most efficient acquisition for some individuals.

An assessment of token value and effectiveness: A replication

“…Additionally, they found that three of four participants preferred the antecedent-choice condition. Gureghian et al (2019) replicated and extended Peterson et al (2016) by comparing antecedent and consequence choice during skill acquisition using an FR three-token system. Gureghian et al found faster skill acquisition for two of the three participants when using consequence choice.…”

Systematic Review of Procedures and Outcomes of Choice-Based Interventions with Children

“…Tiger et al observed higher rates of task completion in the choice-of-consequence condition for two of the three participants in the assessment using PR schedules, but they observed no difference in the assessment condition using FR schedules; this highlights the point that contextual variables (e.g., reinforcement schedule, response effort) can interact in meaningful ways during choice-based interventions. In addition, presenting the choice opportunity before the task was more effective for two participants in Peterson et al (2016), and presenting the choice opportunity following task completion was more effective for two participants in Gureghian et al (2020). However, there were also participants for whom no difference in responding was observed.…”

“…Other experiments incorporated choice-making opportunities into routines by providing options for participants to select the consequences for a specified response (e.g., completing an academic task). Eight experiments included a choice-of-consequence intervention (Elliot & Dillenburger, 2016;Gureghian et al, 2020;Northgrave et al, 2019;Peterson et al, 2016;Sran & Borrero, 2010;Sullivan & Roane, 2018;Tiger et al, 2010;Toussaint et al, 2016). Participants ranged from 3 to 15 years old.…”

“…Two participants completed tasks more often when reinforcer choice occurred pretrial rather than posttrial, and three of the four participants preferred the pretrial choice of consequence condition. Gureghian et al (2020) sought to replicate and extend Peterson et al (2016) by evaluating efficiency and effectiveness using unmastered targets. They used a token economy with fixed-ratio (FR) delivery and exchange schedules, which differed from Peterson et al (2016).…”