The Effects of Establishing Operations on Preference Assessment Outcomes

Gottschalk, Jennifer; Libby, Myrna E.; Graff, Richard B.

doi:10.1901/jaba.2000.33-85

Cited by 56 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Responding decreased in both the ediblereinforcement and token-reinforcement conditions when participants were given unlimited pre-session access to the HP-edible. These results replicate and extend the research by Gottschalk et al (2000) who showed that preferences for edible items increased under deprivation and decreased under satiation conditions. In the current study, similar results were observed for both edibles and tokens, demonstrating empirically that AOs affect non-generalized conditioned reinforcers similarly to primary reinforcers.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Tokens that are sensitive to MOs are, by definition, non-generalized conditioned reinforcers. These results replicate and extend the research by Gottschalk et al (2000), in which it was demonstrated that preferences for edible items increased under deprivation and decreased under satiation conditions. Experiment 3 sought to identify the number of backup reinforcers with which a token must be paired in order to make the token insensitive to AO effects, that is, the number of pairings sufficient to establish the token as a generalized conditioned reinforcer.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Gottschalk, Libby, and Graff (2000) directly evaluated the effects of MOs in preference assessments by systematically manipulating access to edible items during preference assessment. In one condition, a control or standard assessment condition, the participant had equal access to all items prior to assessment.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Non‐generalized and generalized conditioned reinforcers: establishment and validation

Moher

Gould

Hegg

et al. 2008

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conditioned reinforcers, or tokens, are frequently used in clinical settings; however, little applied research has focused on establishing and validating their effectiveness. Following pairing of a novel token with an edible reinforcer in the present study, preference and reinforcer assessments verified that the tokens functioned as conditioned reinforcers. Results indicated that the tokens were established as conditioned reinforcers that matched the reinforcer value of the primary reinforcers with which they had been paired. The effects of motivating operations (MOs) on the effectiveness of these conditioned reinforcers were then evaluated. Conditioned reinforcer effectiveness decreased during satiation conditions. Subsequently it was found that increasing the number of backup reinforcers with which the token was paired resulted in the effectiveness maintaining during satiation conditions.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Non‐generalized and generalized conditioned reinforcers: establishment and validation

Moher

Gould

Hegg

et al. 2008

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is likely followed by what is traditionally referred to as a rekindling after a conflict and might have a positive effect on the quality of interactions. Concurrently, the victim experiences deprivation of interacting with the offender that not only increases the likelihood he or she will forgive, but also reduces the response requirements for sufficient apologies (for a related applied example, see Gottschalk, Libby, & Graff, 2000). Therefore, apologetic response forms that were extinguished during conflict might be reinforced following time apart.…”

Section: Deprivation (Time Without Interaction)mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Behavioral Analysis of Apologies, Forgiveness, and Interpersonal Conflict

Toney

Hayes

2017

Behav. Soc. Iss.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Episodes of conflict can be among the most distressful experiences while interacting with others or within a relationship. There are a number of behaviors that occur to compose a conflict, however there are two behaviors that serve to restore a relationship following a conflict, those of apologizing and forgiving. While substantial attention has been provided to the issues of interpersonal conflict, apologizing, and forgiving from more traditional approaches, these accounts contrast with the views of behavior analysis in a number of ways. When the behaviors involved in interpersonal conflict are assessed from a behavioranalytic perspective, many of these traditional views are directly challenged. Furthermore, we find that the manner in which conflicts are normally resolved within relationships may be contributing to harmful patterns of interacting. The present paper aims to provide a thorough behavioral analysis of the operating contingencies and behaviors that occur during episodes of interpersonal conflict. With such an understanding, suggestions are made based on behavioral principles and procedures as to how resolution may be more readily achieved and further conflict may be avoided. KEYWORDS: conflict, apology, forgiveness, relationships, behavior analysis Relationships of every kind can be complicated and at times difficult for the individuals involved. While the majority of interactions within a relationship ideally are positive, it is almost unavoidable to experience a conflict of some sort. Individuals disagree, argue, insult, or cause pain to the other, all of which are likely distressing to those involved. These interactions can result in an array of unpleasant circumstances, such as avoidance, retaliation, or even the termination of a relationship. However, the behaviors of apologizing and forgiving serve to restore the relationship following a conflict; therefore, an examination seems warranted.The behaviors of apologizing and forgiving have become common features of our repertoires. The types of situations in which we engage in one or the other can vary greatly, such as when we abruptly walk in front of an individual at a grocery store to more substantial offenses as when a leader apologizes to a nation for wrongful action in war. These behaviors also occur across various types of relationships; a parent demands her child apologize to a sibling, and a partner proclaims to a spouse, "I deserve an apology." Being such common behaviors, apologizing and forgiving have received a great deal of attention from traditional fields. However, these accounts pose an array of differences when compared to those of behavior analysis. These differences, in general, pertain to the treatments of emotion, the emphasis on the form rather than the function of the responses involved, and the treatment of one independent individual's behavior.

show abstract

“…Each session ended in a reinforcer condition and the entire procedure was repeated three times in order to ensure reliability (DeLeon, et al, 2009). Gottschalk, Libby and Graff (2000) have shown that stimuli which had previously been demonstrated as being least preferred may function as reinforcers in subsequent circumstances; thus the pool of games available as reinforcers remained consistent among trials in order to minimize possible confounds impacting internal validity. A frequency count was taken for each time the child elected to engage in TO or WN and the mean break points for each subject were calculated across repeated conditions…”

Section: Progressive Ratio Punishmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring The Development of Social Responses in Children with Callous and Unemotional Traits: An Examination of The Impact of Hypothesized Reinforcing and Aversive Stimuli

Maharaj¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Effects of Establishing Operations on Preference Assessment Outcomes

Cited by 56 publications

References 4 publications

Non‐generalized and generalized conditioned reinforcers: establishment and validation

Non‐generalized and generalized conditioned reinforcers: establishment and validation

A Behavioral Analysis of Apologies, Forgiveness, and Interpersonal Conflict

Exploring The Development of Social Responses in Children with Callous and Unemotional Traits: An Examination of The Impact of Hypothesized Reinforcing and Aversive Stimuli

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About