The Impact of Stimulus Presentation and Size on Preference

An Erratum to this article was published on 28 November 2016

Abstract

The impact of stimulus size and presentation on choice during a preference assessment was investigated using a modified multiple-stimulus without replacement (MSWO) technique. Stimuli were either presented with a uniform magnitude, as determined by mass, or in a manner consistent with caregiver report of reinforcer consumption. While both assessment procedures identified the same top three preferred items in three out of five cases, greater variability in the preference rank of less preferred items was observed between assessments.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforce preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–533.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. DeLeon, I. G., Chase, J. A., Frank-Crawford, M. A., Carreau-Webster, A. B., Bullock, C. E., & Jennett, H. K. (2014). Distributed and accumulated reinforcement arrangements: evaluations of efficacy and preference. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. DeLeon, I. G., Frank, M. A., Gregory, M. K., & Allman, M. J. (2009). On the correspondence between preference assessment outcomes and progressive-ratio schedule assessments of stimulus value. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 729–733.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. DeRosa, N. M., & Roane, H. S. (2015). Preference and demand characteristics of reinforcement: practical extensions. In F. D. DiGennaro Reed & D. D. Reed (Eds.), Autism service delivery: bridging the gap between science and practice. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., & Amari, A. (1996). Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforce identification. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 15–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 249–255.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Reed, D. D., Kaplan, B. A., & Becirevic, A. (2015). Basic research on the behavioral economics of reinforcer value. In F. D. DiGennaro Reed & D. D. Reed (Eds.), Autism service delivery: bridging the gap between science and practice. New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Reed, D. D., Niileksela, C. R., & Kaplan, B. A. (2013). Behavioral economics: a tutorial for behavior analysis in practice. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 6, 34–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Steinhilber, J., & Johnson, C. (2007). The effects of brief and extended stimulus availability on preference. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 767–772.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Wiggins, B., Muldoon, M., & Cavanaugh, J. (1985). Evaluation of reinforcer preferences for profoundly handicapped students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 173–178.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Whelan, R., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Dymond, S. (2006). The transformation of consequential functions in accordance with the relational frames of more-than and less-than. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 86, 314–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James W. Moore.

Ethics declarations

All aspects of the study complied with the ethical guidelines set forth by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict(s) of interest.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40617-016-0162-8.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moore, J.W., Radley, K.C., Dart, E.H. et al. The Impact of Stimulus Presentation and Size on Preference. Behav Analysis Practice 10, 172–177 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-016-0148-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Preference assessment
  • Choice
  • Reinforce magnitude
  • Caregiver report