The Effects of Magnitude and Quality of Reinforcement on Choice Responding During Play Activities

Abstract

Three boys with autism participated in a study of the effects of magnitude and quality of reinforcement on choice responding. Two concurrent response alternatives were arranged: (a) to play in an area where a peer or sibling was located, or (b) to play in an area where there was no peer or sibling. During one condition, the magnitude (i.e., duration of access to toys) or quality (level of preference) of reinforcement provided for both responses was equal. During the other condition, the magnitude or quality of reinforcement was relatively greater for choosing the play area where the peer or sibling was located than the area where the peer or sibling was not located. Results showed that after repeated exposure to the unequal magnitude or quality condition, the participant increasingly allocated his responses to the play area where the peer or sibling was located. For 2 participants, this pattern of responding was maintained in the subsequent equal magnitude or quality condition. Overall, the analysis suggests that the dimensions of magnitude and quality of reinforcement can be arranged to influence choice responding in favor of playing near a peer or sibling rather than playing alone.

Obtained Versus Programmed Reinforcement: Practical Considerations in the Treatment of Escape‐reinforced Aggression

“…Phase C was identical to B except that Abe's mother was instructed to deliver prompts more frequently (FT 10 s). Following the conclusion of this investigation, Abe participated in a published project designed to increase the amount of time he would spend near his mother and brother (Hoch, McComas, Johnson, Faranda, & Guenther, 2002). Figure 1 shows the rates of aggression and mands across phases.…”

Effects of reinforcer magnitude and distribution on preference for work schedules

“…Studies that have employed concurrent-operants schedules have demonstrated that magnitude, quality, schedule, delay to reinforcement, and response effort are important variables that influence choice (Fisher & Mazur, 1997;Hoch, McComas, Johnson, Faranda, & Guenther, 2002;Mace, Neef, Shade, & Mauro, 1996). Studies that have employed concurrent-operants schedules have demonstrated that magnitude, quality, schedule, delay to reinforcement, and response effort are important variables that influence choice (Fisher & Mazur, 1997;Hoch, McComas, Johnson, Faranda, & Guenther, 2002;Mace, Neef, Shade, & Mauro, 1996).…”

Multiple Microswitches for Persons with Multiple Disabilities: A Basic Procedure to Examine the Persons' Choice Behavior

“…They showed preference for one of the responses irrespective of which set of stimuli was available for it. This preference seemed to be ultimately modifiable by extending the set of stimuli made available for the other response (Hoch, McComas, Johnson, Faranda, & Guenther, 2002).…”