Effects of experience on preference between forced and free choice

Preference between forced choice and free choice in concurrent-chain schedules of reinforcement was investigated in pigeons after exposure to particular combinations of terminal links. In Experiment 1, in which terminal links always ended with reinforcers, one of three pairs of terminal links was arranged as preexposure: (a) both terminal links had only one key (forced choice), (b) both terminal links had two keys (free choice), or (c) a combination of forced and free choice was arranged across sessions. In test sessions following the preexposure, pigeons' preferences rapidly shifted to the terminal links with which they had no recent experience. In Experiment 2, the same procedure was repeated except that each terminal link ended intermittently with reinforcers with a probability of .5 and there was no terminal-link arrangement with a combination of free and forced choice. Pigeons showed the same preference changes as in Experiment 1, but the preference changes did not appear immediately at the beginning of test sessions. These data suggest that recent previous experience was a more important determinant of preference than the difference between forced-choice and free-choice terminal links.     

ON THE RELATIVE REINFORCING EFFECTS OF CHOICE AND DIFFERENTIAL CONSEQUENCES

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.     

Relative preference for distinct reinforcers maintaining destructive behavior

The literature offers few recommendations for sequencing exposure to treatment conditions with individuals with multiply maintained destructive behavior. Identifying relative preference for the functional reinforcers maintaining destructive behavior may be one means of guiding that decision. The present study presents a preliminary attempt at developing a robust relative preference and reinforcer assessment for individuals with multiply maintained destructive behavior. Guided and free-choice trials were implemented in which participants chose between two multiple-schedule arrangements, each of which programmed signaled periods of isolated reinforcer availability and unavailability. Consistent participant choice and responding during free-choice trials was then used to thin the corresponding schedule of reinforcement. The results demonstrated a strong preference for one of the two functional reinforcers for all four participants, yet preferences differed across participants and were not well predicted by responding in prior analyses.     

EFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT CHOICE ON TASK RESPONDING IN INDIVIDUALS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

The effects of reinforcement choice on task performance were examined with 6 individuals who had been diagnosed with severe to profound mental retardation. Five highly preferred items were identified for each participant via stimulus preference assessments. Participants then were exposed to choice and no-choice conditions that were alternated within reversal and multielement designs. During choice sessions, participants were permitted to select between two preferred stimuli contingent on responding. During no-choice sessions, the therapist delivered a single item contingent on responding. Preference for the stimuli was held constant across conditions by yoking the items delivered during no-choice sessions to those selected during the immediately preceding choice sessions. All participants exhibited similar rates of responding across choice and no-choice conditions. These findings indicate that for individuals with severe disabilities, access to choice may not improve task performance when highly preferred items are already incorporated into instructional programs.     

Pigeons' preference for free choice: number of keys versus key area.

In concurrent-chains schedules, pigeons prefer terminal links that provide two keys correlated with reinforcers (free choice) over those that provide only one key (forced choice), terminal-link reinforcement rates being equal. With same-size keys, free choice provides a larger area available for pecking. Preferences were examined using terminal links that differed in key number only (one or two) or key size only (small and medium or medium and large), or that equated the area of the two free-choice keys with that of the forced-choice key. Medium (standard) keys were typically preferred to small keys, but indifference was typically obtained between medium and large keys. The size preference usually overrode free-choice preference with one medium key pitted against two small keys, but free-choice preference was reliably observed with one large key pitted against two medium keys. In other words, preferences were a joint function of key number and key area, implying that free-choice preference is not reducible to preference for larger key areas. Free-choice preference requires separate keys rather than larger areas; the relevant behavioral units are the discriminated operants correlated with each terminal-link key rather than classes defined by topographical features such as area or perimeter.     

Examination of relative reinforcement effects of stimuli identified through pretreatment and daily brief preference assessments.

Several brief preference assessments have recently been developed to identify reinforcers for individuals with developmental disabilities. One purported advantage of brief assessments is that they can be administered frequently, thus accommodating shifts in preference and presumably enhancing reinforcement effects. In this study, we initially conducted lengthy paired‐choice preference assessments and identified a hierarchy of preferred items for 5 individuals with developmental disabilities. Subsequently, brief multiple‐stimulus‐without‐replacement assessments using the same items were completed each day prior to work sessions. On days when results of the daily brief assessment differed from the one‐time lengthy assessment, the relative reinforcing effects of the top items from each assessment were compared in a concurrent‐schedule arrangement. The results revealed that when the two assessments differed, participants generally allocated more responses to the task associated with the daily top‐ranked item.     

Reinforcement uncertainty enhances preference for choice in humans

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.     

Establishing preference for unreliable reinforcement in adults with dual diagnoses

We evaluated the choice responding of three adults dually diagnosed with developmental and psychiatric disabilities using concurrent schedules of reinforcement. Specifically, participants were given a choice between a response option resulting in reliable reinforcement and a response option resulting in unreliable reinforcement. Our primary purpose was to shift preference from reliable to unreliable reinforcement via the systematic presentation of stimuli during delay intervals. A second purpose was to evaluate the effectiveness of intervening stimuli in shifting preference at differing delay-to-reinforcement intervals. Preference for unreliable reinforcement was first examined in the absence of stimulus presentations during delays, at three different delay values. Next, we aimed to establish preference for unreliable reinforcement by presenting pictures of reinforcers during delays preceding unreliable reinforcement. Preference was again examined at three different delay values. In the absence of stimulus presentations during delays, participants were shown to prefer reliable reinforcement, particularly at the longer delay value. When stimuli were presented during the delays, two of the three participants preferred unreliable reinforcement, particularly the longer the delay value. These results suggest that the presentation of intervening stimuli during delays may help facilitate tolerance for unreliable reinforcement.     

Preference Assessment for Dimensions of Reinforcement to Inform Token Economies Targeting Problem Behavior

The purpose of the current two-experiment study was to examine the use of a preference assessment for dimensions of reinforcement to inform an effective token economy arrangement. Three participants diagnosed with developmental disabilities who engaged in negatively reinforced problem behavior participated in this study. During Experiment 1, a preference assessment for four dimensions of reinforcement (i.e., quality, immediacy, magnitude, and rate) occurred to inform a more- and less-preferred token economy arrangement. During Experiment 2, a treatment evaluation compared these two token economy arrangements. Results for all three participants showed lower rates of problem behavior under the more-preferred token economy arrangement compared to the less-preferred token economy arrangement. Rates of task completion were higher under the more-preferred token economy arrangement for one of the three participants. Results are discussed in terms of their practical implications for clinicians and educators implementing token economies to manage problem behavior.     

Quinine pellets as an inferior good and a Giffen good in rats.

In Experiment 1, 4 rats earned their daily food ration by choosing between two levers. One lever delivered two regular and one quinine-adulterated food pellets, and the other delivered two regular and four quinine pellets. A 20-s intertrial interval separated successive choices. Sessions began with 10 forced trials during which only one lever, selected with p = .5 and cued by a light above it, could deliver its reinforcer. Forced trials were followed by 30 or 150 trials, depending on the condition, during which choices to either lever could be reinforced. Over this range, absolute choice of the four-quinine, two-regular-pellet lever was inversely related to the number of free-choice trials, establishing this reinforcer as an inferior good. In Condition 1 of Experiment 2, the prior design was altered in two ways: (a) one lever delivered four quinine pellets, and the other lever delivered one standard pellet; and (b) sessions ended after 140 free-choice trials. When the number of free-choice trials was reduced to 100 (Condition 2), all 3 rats increased their preference for quinine pellets, confirming their status as an inferior good. In the next several conditions, the number of quinine pellets provided for selecting its associated lever was varied between three and four. Preference for the quinine-pellet alternative was inversely related to the number of pellets it provided, a result defining it as a Giffen good. These findings are not accommodated readily by extant choice models and complicate the search for a unitary model of choice.     

ASSESSMENT OF PREFERENCE FOR EDIBLE AND LEISURE ITEMS IN INDIVIDUALS WITH DEMENTIA

We conducted 2 studies on reinforcer preference in patients with dementia. Results of preference assessments yielded differential selections by 14 participants. Unlike prior studies with individuals with intellectual disabilities, all participants showed a noticeable preference for leisure items over edible items. Results of a subsequent analysis with 3 participants showed reinforcement effects when highly preferred items were delivered as consequences.     

Caregiver preference for reinforcement‐based interventions for problem behavior maintained by positive reinforcement

Social validity of behavioral interventions typically is assessed with indirect methods or by determining preferences of the individuals who receive treatment, and direct observation of caregiver preference rarely is described. In this study, preferences of 5 caregivers were determined via a concurrent‐chains procedure. Caregivers were neurotypical, and children had been diagnosed with developmental disabilities and engaged in problem behavior maintained by positive reinforcement. Caregivers were taught to implement noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA), and differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO), and the caregivers selected interventions to implement during sessions with the child after they had demonstrated proficiency in implementing the interventions. Three caregivers preferred DRA, 1 caregiver preferred differential reinforcement procedures, and 1 caregiver did not exhibit a preference. Direct observation of implementation in concurrent‐chains procedures may allow the identification of interventions that are implemented with sufficient integrity and preferred by caregivers.     

Motivational influences on performance maintained by food reinforcement

In Study 1, we examined the independent effects of reinforcer consumption during sessions and meal consumption prior to sessions on performance maintained by food reinforcement. Nine individuals with developmental disabilities participated. On alternate days, a preferred edible item was delivered during (a) seven sessions conducted before lunch (repeated-reinforcement condition) versus (b) one session each conducted before and after lunch (pre- and postmeal conditions). Results for 7 of 9 participants showed decreased response rates across sessions in the repeated-reinforcement condition; results for 3 of 9 participants showed decreased rates during postmeal relative to premeal conditions. Two participants who did not show a decrement in responding during either comparison participated in Study 2, in which reinforcer consumption during sessions, combined with meal consumption prior to sessions, also had no effect on their performance. In Study 3, we determined whether (a) choice of reinforcers, (b) increased break time between sessions, (c) varied reinforcers, or (d) intermittent reinforcement schedules mitigated the satiation effects observed for the 7 participants in Study 1. Presession choice of reinforcers resulted in maintained performance for 2 of 6 participants exposed to this condition. Varied reinforcement resulted in maintained performance for only 1 of 5 participants exposed to this condition. Neither the increased break between sessions nor the intermittent reinforcement schedule was effective in maintaining performance for the participants who were exposed to these conditions.     

选择、自我表达与选择扩散效应

自我表达会影响西方人的态度, 产生选择扩散效应。国外相关的跨文化研究发现东方人不存在该效应。通过4个实验研究中国文化下自我表达对选择态度的影响, 发现选择方式(主动、被动)和自我表达形式(直接、间接)对选择态度产生影响。无论是自己的主动选择还是强加的被动选择, 直接的自我表达会增加对所获对象的喜爱程度, 表现为对获得性的肯定。研究者认为, 两种选择方式下不同的心理加工过程导致了这种获得性：直接表达使个人态度暴露在外, 进行主动选择时要对他人的给予做出肯定回应; 而进行被动选择时, 人们要减缓因利益受损可能导致的失调, 同时中国文化下的面子策略也使人们增加对所获对象的喜爱程度。不过, 间接的自我表达对选择态度的影响不明显。研究者认为, 多个影响因素的相互消长使选择态度得以维持。     

Effects of Rate of Reinforcement and Rate of Change on Choice Behaviour in Transition

In two experiments with pigeons, a single variable-interval schedule assigned reinforcers to two response keys on a percentage basis. The percentage of reinforcers assigned to each key was changed every few sessions, and subjects' choice responses were recorded before and after each change. In Experiment 1, the overall rate of reinforcement was varied across conditions. The pigeons' choice responses adapted more quickly to a change in the reinforcement percentages when the overall reinforcement rates were higher, but acquisition rates varied by only about a factor of 3, whereas reinforcement rates were varied by about a factor of 9. In Experiment 2, the reinforcement percentages changed about every 8 sessions in Phases 1 and 3, but every 1 or 2 sessions in Phase 2. Pigeons' choice responses adapted to a change in reinforcement percentages more quickly in Phase 2 than in Phases 1 and 3. The results from both experiments pose difficulties for several prominent models of transitional choice behaviour. The results suggest that each successive reinforcer has more impact on a subject's subsequent choice behaviour when the overall rate of reinforcement is lower and when the reinforcement contingencies have changed frequently in the recent past.     

Self-control in children with autism: response allocation during delays to reinforcement.

This study examined the use of a progressive‐delay schedule of reinforcement to increase self‐control and decrease disruptive behavior in children with autism. When initially given the choice between an immediate smaller reinforcer and a larger delayed reinforcer, all participants chose the smaller reinforcer. When access to the larger reinforcer required either no activity or engaging in a concurrent task during the delay, all participants demonstrated both self‐control and preference for a response requirement. Disruptive behavior decreased during delays that required a concurrent task compared to sessions without an activity requirement.     

The development of stimulus control over tics: A potential explanation for contextually-based variability in the symptoms of Tourette syndrome

Research has demonstrated that providing reinforcement for tic-free intervals can decrease tic frequency in controlled analogue settings. The aim of the current study was to determine whether reinforcement could be used to create stimulus control over tic expression. Ten children with chronic tic disorders (including Tourette syndrome) completed four discrimination training sessions. Each session consisted of three exposures to each of three, 5 min conditions presented in a random order. In one condition, participants were reinforced for tic absence on a 10-s fixed interval schedule in the presence of a purple light. In a second condition, participants were instructed to suppress their tics, but were not reinforced for doing so in the presence of an orange light. In a third condition, participants were instructed not to suppress their tics in the presence of two non-illuminated lights. Confirming findings from other studies, results showed that reinforcing tic suppression reduced tic frequency to a greater extent than only providing instructions to suppress. To test for stimulus control, a fifth session was conducted following the aforementioned discrimination training sessions. The fifth session consisted of three exposures to each of three 5 min conditions presented in a random order. In one condition, a purple light was illuminated. In a second condition, an orange light was illuminated. In a third condition, neither light was illuminated. Across all three conditions, instructions to suppress (or not suppress) tics were not provided, and reinforcers for successful suppression were not delivered. Results indicated that in the presence of the purple light, tics were significantly lower than when neither light was illuminated. These findings provide preliminary support for the idea that a history of differential reinforcement in various contexts may play a role explaining variability in tic symptom expression.     

Preference for unreliable reinforcement in children with mental retardation: the role of conditioned reinforcement

We examined the effects of conditioned reinforcement on children's choice between reliable (100%) and unreliable (50%) reinforcement under various stimulus conditions in a concurrent-chains procedure. The study was conducted across three experiments. Experiments 1 and 2 were conducted under conditions similar to basic laboratory work and consisted of participants selecting from one of two black boxes (placed on a table) that were correlated with different reinforcement schedules. In Experiment 3, we assessed a participant's preference for unreliable reinforcement during conditions in which the target responses were aggression and mands. Results of the three experiments showed that the participants preferred unreliable reinforcement under certain conditions. Findings are discussed regarding the role of specific stimuli (i.e., items correlated with a reinforcement schedule, adult reactions) as conditioned reinforcers and how they may influence children's preference for a response (e.g., aggression, self-injury) that produces reinforcement on a leaner schedule than a socially desirable response (e.g., mands).     

EFFECTS OF SUBJECT- VERSUS EXPERIMENTER-SELECTED REINFORCERS ON THE BEHAVIOR OF INDIVIDUALS WITH PROFOUND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

Results from a number of studies have shown that individuals with profound developmental disabilities often show differential approach behavior to stimuli presented in a variety of formats, and that such behavior is a reasonably good predictor of reinforcement effects when these “preferred” stimuli are used subsequently in a contingent arrangement. Recent data suggest that reinforcement effects may be enhanced further by allowing individuals to select, just prior to training sessions, which (of several) preferred stimuli would be used as reinforcers, but whether this method is superior to one based on selection by a teacher or therapist has not been adequately addressed. We compared the effects of these two methods of reinforcer selection on rates of responding on a free-operant task, using stimuli previously identified as potential reinforcers. Results obtained with 4 subjects indicated little or no difference in reinforcement effects when stimuli were selected by subjects rather than experimenters. Implications of these results with respect to choice and its relation to reinforcement are discussed.     

Development and maintenance of choice in a dynamic environment

Four pigeons were exposed to a concurrent procedure similar to that used by Davison, Baum, and colleagues (e.g., Davison & Baum, 2000, 2006) in which seven components were arranged in a mixed schedule, and each programmed a different left∶right reinforcer ratio (1∶27, 1∶9, 1∶3, 1∶1, 3∶1, 9∶1, 27∶1). Components within each session were presented randomly, lasted for 10 reinforcers each, and were separated by 10-s blackouts. These conditions were in effect for 100 sessions. When data were aggregated over Sessions 16-50, the present results were similar to those reported by Davison, Baum, and colleagues: (a) preference adjusted rapidly (i.e., sensitivity to reinforcement increased) within components; (b) preference for a given alternative increased with successive reinforcers delivered via that alternative (continuations), but was substantially attenuated following a reinforcer on the other alternative (a discontinuation); and (c) food deliveries produced preference pulses (immediate, local, increases in preference for the just-reinforced alternative). The same analyses were conducted across 10-session blocks for Sessions 1-100. In general, the basic structure of choice revealed by analyses of data from Sessions 16-50 was preserved at a smaller level of aggregation (10 sessions), and it developed rapidly (within the first 10 sessions). Some characteristics of choice, however, changed systematically across sessions. For example, effects of successive reinforcers within a component tended to increase across sessions, as did the magnitude and length of the preference pulses. Thus, models of choice under these conditions may need to take into account variations in behavior allocation that are not captured completely when data are aggregated over large numbers of sessions.