The value of choice as a reinforcer for typically developing children

Brandt, Julie A. Ackerlund; Dozier, Claudia L.; Juanico, Jessica F.; Laudont, Courtney; Mick, Bretta R.

doi:10.1002/jaba.199

Cited by 17 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, for most participants, the child choice was selected more frequently than the experimenter choice. This interpretation is similar to that of Ackerlund Brandt et al ().…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

Applying mixed‐effects modeling to single‐subject designs: An introduction

DeHart

Kaplan

2019

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavior analysis and statistical inference have shared a conflicted relationship for over fifty years. However, a significant portion of this conflict is directed toward statistical tests (e.g., t‐tests, ANOVA) that aggregate group and/or temporal variability into means and standard deviations and as a result remove much of the data important to behavior analysts. Mixed‐effects modeling, a more recently developed statistical test, addresses many of the limitations of more basic tests by incorporating random effects. Random effects quantify individual subject variability without eliminating it from the model, hence producing a model that can predict both group and individual behavior. We present the results of a generalized linear mixed‐effects model applied to single‐subject data taken from Ackerlund Brandt, Dozier, Juanico, Laudont, & Mick, 2015, in which children chose from one of three reinforcers for completing a task. Results of the mixed‐effects modeling are consistent with visual analyses and importantly provide a statistical framework to predict individual behavior without requiring aggregation. We conclude by discussing the implications of these results and provide recommendations for further integration of mixed‐effects models in the analyses of single‐subject designs.

show abstract

“…Additionally, for most participants, the child choice was selected more frequently than the experimenter choice. This interpretation is similar to that of Ackerlund Brandt et al ().…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

Applying mixed‐effects modeling to single‐subject designs: An introduction

DeHart

Kaplan

2019

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By contrast, our procedures involved conducting two assessment probes following every 150 conditioning trials (10 sessions of 15 trials each). Cumulatively, our participants experienced more conditioning trials, but tended to show preference shifts within the first four probe sessions (i.e., following fewer conditioning trials than those of Ackerlund Brandt et al, ). Several of our participants' data displayed trends during our assessment, suggesting that increased conditioning experience strengthened choice or no‐choice preference, but differences in the number of conditioning trials alone could not account for the differences between our data and Ackerlund Brandt et al’s data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…Of the six children in Tiger et al, three demonstrated a choice preference, two were ambivalent, and one demonstrated a no‐choice preference. Of the 11 children in Ackerlund Brandt et al (), six demonstrated a choice preference during baseline and five demonstrated ambivalence; none demonstrated a preference for no‐choice conditions. In our current study, four participants demonstrated a choice preference during baseline and one demonstrated ambivalence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Shifting preferences for choice‐making opportunities through histories of differential reinforcer quality

Drifke

Tiger

Gifford

2018

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children of both typical and atypical cognitive development tend to prefer contexts in which their behavior results in a choice of reinforcers rather than a single reinforcer, even when the reinforcer accessed is identical across conditions. The origin of this preference has been attributed speculatively to behavioral histories in which choice making tends to be associated with differentially beneficial outcomes. Few studies have evaluated this claim, and those that have, have yielded mixed results. We provided five preschool‐aged children experiences in which choice‐making and no‐choice contexts were differentially associated with higher preference and larger magnitude reinforcers, and we assessed changes in their preference for choice and no‐choice contexts in which outcomes were equated. These conditioning experiences resulted in consistent and replicable shifts in child preference, indicating that preference for choice is malleable through experience.

show abstract

“…Researchers have studied the value of choice by measuring preference between conditions that allow choice‐making opportunities to conditions that do not. Humans (e.g., Ackerlund Brandt, Dozier, Foster Juanico, Laudont, & Mick, ; Fisher, Thompson, Piazza, Crosland, & Gotjen, ; Hori & Shimazaki, ; Karsina, Thompson, & Rodriguez, ; Karsina, Thompson, Rodriguez, & Vanselow, ; Rost, Hemmes, & Alvero, ; Schmidt, Hanley, & Layer, ; Suzuki, , ; Tiger, Hanley, & Hernandez, ) and nonhumans (e.g., Catania, ; Catania & Sagvolden, ; Cerutti & Catania, ; Suzuki, ; Voss & Homzie, ) often prefer situations that permit selection among multiple stimuli when the alternative is a forced‐ or restricted‐choice arrangement. From a behavior analytic perspective, it would be unsurprising if subjects preferred making choices because they resulted in a larger magnitude of reinforcement, for example.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reinforcement uncertainty enhances preference for choice in humans

Rost

2018

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under concurrent-chains schedules of reinforcement, participants often prefer situations that allow selection among alternatives (free choice) to situations that do not (forced choice). The present experiment examined the effects of reinforcement probability on choice preferences. Preferences for free versus forced choice were measured under a condition in which participants' choices were always reinforced (reinforcement probability of 1.0) and a condition in which outcomes were uncertain (reinforcement probability of 0.5). Forty-four college students participated and preferences were examined under a concurrent-chains schedule of reinforcement. Participants preferred free choice under uncertain reinforcement, but a bias toward free choice was not observed when reinforcement was certain. These results align with previous findings of preference for free choice under conditions of uncertainty, but suggest that preference may be dependent upon probabilistic reinforcement contingencies in the terminal links of the concurrent-chains arrangement. Thus, reinforcement probability is an important variable to consider when conducting similar studies on the value of choice.

show abstract

The value of choice as a reinforcer for typically developing children

Cited by 17 publications

References 36 publications

Applying mixed‐effects modeling to single‐subject designs: An introduction

Applying mixed‐effects modeling to single‐subject designs: An introduction

Shifting preferences for choice‐making opportunities through histories of differential reinforcer quality

Reinforcement uncertainty enhances preference for choice in humans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About