On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences

Wayne W. Fisher, Rachel H. Thompson, Cathleen C. Piazza, Kimberly Crosland, Deidre Gotjen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

68 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Research on the reinforcing effects of providing choice-making opportunities to individuals with developmental disabilities (i.e., allowing them to choose reinforcers or tasks) has produced inconsistent results, perhaps because the mechanisms underlying such effects remain unclear. Choice may produce a reinforcement effect because it is correlated with differential consequences (i.e., choice may increase one's access to higher preference stimuli), or it may have reinforcement value independent of (or in addition to) the chosen stimulus. In Experiment 1, we used a concurrent-operants arrangement to assess preference for a choice condition (in which participants selected one of two available reinforcers) relative to a no-choice condition (in which the therapist selected the same reinforcers on a yoked schedule). All 3 participants preferred the choice option. In Experiment 2, we altered the schedules so that the participant selected one of two lower preference reinforcers in the choice condition, whereas the therapist selected a higher preference stimulus for the participant either half or all of the time in the no-choice condition. Participants typically allowed the therapist to select reinforcers for them (i.e., they allocated responding to the no-choice condition) when it resulted in greater access to higher preference stimuli.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)423-438
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of applied behavior analysis
Volume30
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1997

Fingerprint

Appointments and Schedules
stimulus
Developmental Disabilities
therapist
reinforcement
Research
experiment
disability
Reinforcement (Psychology)
Stimulus
Values
Reinforcement
Experiment

Keywords

  • Choice
  • Concurrent operants
  • Developmental disabilities
  • Preference

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Philosophy
  • Applied Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences. / Fisher, Wayne W.; Thompson, Rachel H.; Piazza, Cathleen C.; Crosland, Kimberly; Gotjen, Deidre.

In: Journal of applied behavior analysis, Vol. 30, No. 3, 01.01.1997, p. 423-438.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fisher, Wayne W. ; Thompson, Rachel H. ; Piazza, Cathleen C. ; Crosland, Kimberly ; Gotjen, Deidre. / On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences. In: Journal of applied behavior analysis. 1997 ; Vol. 30, No. 3. pp. 423-438.
@article{46e3e4e08fee467fa8c8f71bc8548910,
title = "On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences",
abstract = "Research on the reinforcing effects of providing choice-making opportunities to individuals with developmental disabilities (i.e., allowing them to choose reinforcers or tasks) has produced inconsistent results, perhaps because the mechanisms underlying such effects remain unclear. Choice may produce a reinforcement effect because it is correlated with differential consequences (i.e., choice may increase one's access to higher preference stimuli), or it may have reinforcement value independent of (or in addition to) the chosen stimulus. In Experiment 1, we used a concurrent-operants arrangement to assess preference for a choice condition (in which participants selected one of two available reinforcers) relative to a no-choice condition (in which the therapist selected the same reinforcers on a yoked schedule). All 3 participants preferred the choice option. In Experiment 2, we altered the schedules so that the participant selected one of two lower preference reinforcers in the choice condition, whereas the therapist selected a higher preference stimulus for the participant either half or all of the time in the no-choice condition. Participants typically allowed the therapist to select reinforcers for them (i.e., they allocated responding to the no-choice condition) when it resulted in greater access to higher preference stimuli.",
keywords = "Choice, Concurrent operants, Developmental disabilities, Preference",
author = "Fisher, {Wayne W.} and Thompson, {Rachel H.} and Piazza, {Cathleen C.} and Kimberly Crosland and Deidre Gotjen",
year = "1997",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1901/jaba.1997.30-423",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "423--438",
journal = "Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis",
issn = "0021-8855",
publisher = "Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences

AU - Fisher, Wayne W.

AU - Thompson, Rachel H.

AU - Piazza, Cathleen C.

AU - Crosland, Kimberly

AU - Gotjen, Deidre

PY - 1997/1/1

Y1 - 1997/1/1

N2 - Research on the reinforcing effects of providing choice-making opportunities to individuals with developmental disabilities (i.e., allowing them to choose reinforcers or tasks) has produced inconsistent results, perhaps because the mechanisms underlying such effects remain unclear. Choice may produce a reinforcement effect because it is correlated with differential consequences (i.e., choice may increase one's access to higher preference stimuli), or it may have reinforcement value independent of (or in addition to) the chosen stimulus. In Experiment 1, we used a concurrent-operants arrangement to assess preference for a choice condition (in which participants selected one of two available reinforcers) relative to a no-choice condition (in which the therapist selected the same reinforcers on a yoked schedule). All 3 participants preferred the choice option. In Experiment 2, we altered the schedules so that the participant selected one of two lower preference reinforcers in the choice condition, whereas the therapist selected a higher preference stimulus for the participant either half or all of the time in the no-choice condition. Participants typically allowed the therapist to select reinforcers for them (i.e., they allocated responding to the no-choice condition) when it resulted in greater access to higher preference stimuli.

AB - Research on the reinforcing effects of providing choice-making opportunities to individuals with developmental disabilities (i.e., allowing them to choose reinforcers or tasks) has produced inconsistent results, perhaps because the mechanisms underlying such effects remain unclear. Choice may produce a reinforcement effect because it is correlated with differential consequences (i.e., choice may increase one's access to higher preference stimuli), or it may have reinforcement value independent of (or in addition to) the chosen stimulus. In Experiment 1, we used a concurrent-operants arrangement to assess preference for a choice condition (in which participants selected one of two available reinforcers) relative to a no-choice condition (in which the therapist selected the same reinforcers on a yoked schedule). All 3 participants preferred the choice option. In Experiment 2, we altered the schedules so that the participant selected one of two lower preference reinforcers in the choice condition, whereas the therapist selected a higher preference stimulus for the participant either half or all of the time in the no-choice condition. Participants typically allowed the therapist to select reinforcers for them (i.e., they allocated responding to the no-choice condition) when it resulted in greater access to higher preference stimuli.

KW - Choice

KW - Concurrent operants

KW - Developmental disabilities

KW - Preference

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031227839&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031227839&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-423

DO - 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-423

M3 - Article

C2 - 9316257

AN - SCOPUS:0031227839

VL - 30

SP - 423

EP - 438

JO - Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

JF - Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

SN - 0021-8855

IS - 3

ER -