Using progressive ratio schedules to evaluate tokens as generalized conditioned reinforcers

Abstract

The properties of operant reinforcers are dynamic and dependent on a number of variables, such as schedule and effort. There has been sparse research on the generalized conditioned properties of token reinforcement. We evaluated leisure items, edible items, and tokens using a progressive ratio schedule with three children with diagnoses of ASD and developmental delays. The highest break points occurred during the token reinforcement condition for two out of three participants, but response rates tended to be higher with edibles. We then evaluated the effects of presession access to edibles on the break points of edible items and tokens with two participants. Break points decreased only in the edible reinforcement condition, and the participants chose to work for leisure items rather than edibles when presession access to edibles was in place. These findings suggest that the tokens functioned as generalized conditioned reinforcers.

Procedimentos para condicionar reforçadores para pessoas com TEA: revisão de literatura

“…Com relação aos autores que utilizaram pareamento de estímulos como procedimento de ensino (Dozier et al, 2012;Fiske et al, 2015;Russel et al, 2018;Moher et al, 2008), Moher et al (2008) realizaram três experimentos sobre o pareamento de reforçadores incondicionados com fichas (estímulos neutros), com duas crianças com TEA e uma com atraso no desenvolvimento. Um dos experimentos investigou se a ficha se tornaria um reforçador condicionado, o outro investigou se a saciedade dos reforçadores influenciaria nas respostas dos participantes e o outro investigou sobre a generalização da ficha enquanto reforçador condicionado.…”

Establishing praise as a conditioned reinforcer: Pairing with one versus multiple reinforcers

“…Russell, Ingvarsson, Haggar, and Jessel () extended this research using a progressive ratio schedule analysis to evaluate the reinforcing effectiveness of either edibles, leisure items, or tokens exchangeable for edible or leisure items. In Experiment 1, break points were higher for two of three participants with tokens as consequences.…”

“…Although there are procedures for conditioning praise as a reinforcer (Axe & Laprime, ; Dozier et al, ; Holth et al, ; Lovaas et al, ; Rodriguez & Gutierrez, ; Vandbakk et al, ) and there are procedures for establishing tokens and vocal stimuli as generalized conditioned reinforcers (Helton & Ivy, ; Moher et al, ; Russell et al, ), there are no published studies on establishing praise as a generalized conditioned reinforcer with children with autism. In addition, although there are supposed benefits of generalized compared with nongeneralized conditioned reinforcement, we found no studies comparing response rates under conditions of pairing with one versus multiple reinforcers.…”

Evaluating preference for and reinforcing efficacy of fruits and vegetables compared with salty and sweet foods

“…The progression is a fixed value under an arithmetic progression (e.g., fixed ratio [FR] 2, FR 4, FR 6, FR 8…) and multiplied (for example, doubled) under a geometric progression (e.g., FR 2, FR 4, FR 8, FR 16; Killeen, Posadas‐Sanchez, Johansen, & Thrailkill, ). These PR schedules have been used in clinical settings to identify the highest reinforcement schedule individuals will complete accessing a reinforcer (Goldberg et al, ; Roane, Lerman, & Vorndran, ; Russell, Ingvarsson, Haggar, & Jessel, ). The highest schedule completed is called the “breakpoint” and can be used to compare the relative reinforcing efficacy of two or more reinforcers.…”