Advertisement

Translational and Applied Choice Research

Chapter
Part of the Autism and Child Psychopathology Series book series (ACPS)

Abstract

Basic research on choice responding has influenced applied research in many important ways; we highlights three such outgrowths in this chapter: (a) using choice preparations to predict high-quality reinforcers and activities to include in educational and habilitative programming, (b) understanding response allocation in multi-response environments (e.g., when will children choose to practice mathematics when the opportunity to play with their toys is available, or when a child with developmental disabilities will choose to engage in self-injurious behavior (SIB) to solicit attention rather than using a more socially appropriate communicative behavior), and (c) systematically providing access to a choice of stimuli or activities as reinforcers. This chapter focuses upon both current applied practice and the basic, applied, and translational research that has informed this area.

Keywords

Choice Preference Preference assessment Matching law Matching theory 

References

  1. Bannerman, D. J., Sheldon, J. B., Sherman, J. A., & Harchik, A. E. (1990). Balancing the right to habilitation with the right to personal liberties: The rights of people with developmental disabilities to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 79–89.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baum, W. M. (1974). On two types of deviation from the matching law: Bias and undermatching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 231–242.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Borrero, J. C., & Vollmer, T. R. (2002). An application of the matching law to severe problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 13–27. doi:10.1901/jaba.2002.35-13.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Borrero, J. C., Frank, M. A., & Hausman, N. L. (2008). Applications of the matching law. In W. O’Donohue & J. E. Fisher (Eds.), Cognitive behavior therapy: Applying empirically supported techniques in your practice (pp. 317–326). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Borrero, C. S., Vollmer, T. R., Borrero, J. C., Bourret, J. C., Sloman, K. N., Samaha, A. L., & Dallery, J. (2010). Concurrent reinforcement schedules for problem behavior and appropriate behavior: Experimental applications of the matching law. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93, 455–469.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowman, L. G., Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hagopian, L. P., & Kogan, J. S. (1997). Assessment of preference for varied versus constant reinforcers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 451–458. doi:10.1901/jaba.1997.30-451.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brigham, T. A., & Sherman, J. A. (1973). Effects of choice and immediacy of reinforcement on single response and switching behavior of children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 19, 425–435.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Call, N. A., Trosclair-Lasserre, N. M., Findley, A. J., Reavis, A. R., & Shillingsburg, M. A. (2012). Correspondence between single versus daily preference assessment outcomes and reinforcer efficacy under progressive-ratio schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 763–777. doi:10.1901/jaba.2012.45-763.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Carr, J. E., Nicolson, A. C., & Higbee, T. S. (2000). Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic context. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 353–357.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Catania, A. C., & Sagvolden, T. (1980). Preference for free choice over forced choice in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 34, 77–86.Google Scholar
  11. Cote, C. A., Thompson, R. H., Hanley, G. P., & McKerchar, P. M. (2007). Teacher report and direct assessment of preferences for identifying reinforcers for young children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 157–166. doi:10.1901/jaba.2007.40-157.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–533. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519.Google Scholar
  13. DiGennaro Reed, F. D., & Codding, R. S. (2014). Advancements in procedural fidelity assessment and intervention: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23, 1–18. doi:10.1007/s10864-013-9191-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DiGennaro Reed, F. D., & Reed, D. D. (2014). Evaluating and improving intervention integrity. In J. K. Luiselli (Ed.), Children and youth with autism spectrum disorder (ASD): Recent advances and innovations in assessment, education, and intervention. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dozier, C. L. (2013). On the concept of attention as a reinforcer for desirable behavior. Paper presented the annual meeting of the Mid-American Association for Behavior Analysis, Milwaukee, WIGoogle Scholar
  16. Dyer, K., Dunlap, G., & Winterling, V. (1990). The effects of choice-making on the problem behaviors of students with severe handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 515–524.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Egel, A. L. (1981). Reinforcer variation: Implications for motivating developmentally disabled children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 345–350. doi:10.1901/jaba.1981.14-345.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491–498.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Fryling, M. J., Wallace, M. D., & Yassine, J. N. (2012). Impact of treatment integrity on intervention effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 449–453. doi:10.1901/jaba.2012.45-449.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Geiger, K. B., LeBlanc, L. A., Dillon, C. M., & Bates, S. L. (2010). An evaluation of preference for video and in vivo modeling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 279–283.Google Scholar
  21. Graff, R. B., & Karsten, A. M. (2012). Evaluation of a self-instruction package for conducting stimulus preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 69–82. doi:10.1901/jaba.2012.45-69.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Green, C. W., Reid, D. H., White, L. K., Halford, R. C., Brittain, D. P., & Gardner, S. M. (1988). Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: Staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 31–43. doi:10.1901/jaba.1988.21-31.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & Lindberg, J. S. (1999). Analysis of activity preferences as a function of differential consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 419–435. doi:10.1901/jaba.1999.32-419.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., Lindberg, J. S., & Conners, J. (2003). Response-restriction analysis: I. Assessment of activity preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 47–58.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hanley, G. P., Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., & Maglieri, K. A. (2005). On the effectiveness of and preference for punishment and extinction components of function-based interventions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 51–65.Google Scholar
  26. Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & Roscoe, E. M. (2006). Some determinants of changes in preference over time. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 189–202.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Heal, N. A., & Hanley, G. P. (2007). Evaluating preschool children’s preferences for motivational systems during instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 249–261.Google Scholar
  28. Heal, N. A., & Hanley, G. P. (2011). Embedded prompting may function as embedded punishment: Detection of unexpected behavioral processes within a typical preschool teaching strategy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 127–131.Google Scholar
  29. Heal, N. A., Hanley, G. P., & Layer, S. A. (2009). An evaluation of the relative efficacy of and children’s preferences for teaching strategies that differ in amount of teacher directedness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 123–143.Google Scholar
  30. Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267–272.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243–266.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Horner, R. H., & Day, H. M. (1991). The effects of response efficiency on functionally equivalent competing behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 719–732.Google Scholar
  33. Horner, R. H., Sprague, J. R., O’Brien, M., & Heathfield, L. T. (1990). The role of response efficiency in the reduction of problem behaviors through functional equivalence training: A case study. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 91–97.Google Scholar
  34. Kelley, M. E., Lerman, D. C., & Van Camp, C. M. (2002). The effects of competing reinforcement schedules on the acquisition of functional communication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 59–63.Google Scholar
  35. Koehler, L. J., Iwata, B. A., Roscoe, E. M., Rolider, N. U., & O’Steen, L. E. (2005). Effects of stimulus variation on the reinforcing capability of nonpreferred stimuli. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 469–484.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lerman, D. C., Tetreault, A., Hovanetz, A., Strobel, M., & Garro, J. (2008). Further evaluation of a brief, intensive teacher-training model. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 243–248. doi:10.1901/jaba.2008.41-243.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Luczynski, K. C., & Hanley, G. P.(2009). Do children prefer contingencies? An evaluation of the efficacy of and preference for contingent versus noncontingent social reinforcement during play. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 511–525.Google Scholar
  38. Luczynski, K. C., & Hanley, G. P. (2010). Examining the generality of children’s preference for contingent reinforcement via extension to different responses, reinforcers, and schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 397–409.Google Scholar
  39. Martens, B. K. & Houk, J. L. (1989). The application of Herrnstein’s law of effect to disruptive and on-task behavior of a retarded adolescent girl. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 17–27.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Mason, S. A., McGee, G. G., Farmer-Dougan, V., & Risley, T. R. (1989). A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 171–179.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. McDowell, J. J. (1981). On the validity and utility of Herrnstein’s hyperbola in applied behavior analysis. In C. M. Bradshaw, E. Szabadi, & C. F. Lowe (Eds.), Quantification of steady-state operant behaviour. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North-Holland.Google Scholar
  42. McDowell, J. J. (2013). On the theoretical and empirical status of the matching law and matching theory. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1000–1028. doi:10.1037/a0029924CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Neef, N. A., Mace, F. C., Shea, M. C., & Shade, D. (1992). Effects of reinforcer rate and reinforcer quality on time allocation: Extensions of matching theory to educational settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 691–699. doi:10.1901/jaba.1992.25-691.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Neef, N. A., Shade, D., & Miller, M. S. (1994). Assessing influential dimensions of reinforcers on choice in students with serious emotional disturbance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 575–583. doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-575.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference assessment and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 249–255. doi:10.1901/jaba.1985.18-249.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Pence, S. T., St. Peter, C. C., & Tetreault, A. S. (2012). Increasing accurate preference assessment implementation through pyramidal training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 345–359. doi:10.1901/jaba.2012.45-345.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Powell, S., & Nelson, B. (1997). Effects of choosing academic assignments on a student with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 181–183.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Reed, D. D., & Kaplan, B. K. (2011). The matching law: A primer for practitioners. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 4(2), 15–24.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Reed, D. D., & Martens, B. K. (2008). Sensitivity and bias under conditions of equal and unequal academic difficulty. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 39–52. doi:10.1901/jaba.2008.41-39.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Slocum, S. K., & Tiger, J. H. (2011). An assessment of the efficiency of and child preference for forward and backward chaining. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 793–805. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-793.Google Scholar
  51. Solberg, K. M., Hanley, G. P., Layer, S. A., & Ingvarsson, E. T. (2007). The effects of reinforcer pairing and fading on preschoolers’ snack selections. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 633–644.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Thompson, R. H., Fisher, W. W., & Contrucci, S. A. (1998). Evaluating the reinforcing effects of choice in comparison to reinforcement rate. Research In Developmental Disabilities, 19, 181–187.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Thompson, R. H., McKerchar, P. M., & Dancho, K. A. (2004). The effects of delayed physical prompts and reinforcement on infant sign language acquisition. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 379–383.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Thompson, R. H., Cotnoir-Bichelman, N. M., McKerchar, P. M., Tate, T. L., & Dancho, K. A. (2007). Enhancing early communication through infant sign training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 15–23. doi:10.1901/jaba.2007.40-15.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Tiger, J. H., & Hanley, G. P. (2006). Using reinforcer pairing and fading to increase the milk consumption of a preschool child. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 399–403.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Hernandez, E. (2006). An evaluation of the value of choosing with preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 1–16. doi:10.1901/jaba.2006.39-1.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Tiger, J. H., Toussaint, K. A., & Roath, C. T. (2010). An evaluation of the value of choice-making opportunities in single-operant arrangements: Simple fixed- and progressive-ratio schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 519–524. doi:10.1901/jaba.2010.43-519.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Voss, S. C., & Homzie, M. J. (1970). Choice as a value. Psychological Reports, 26, 912–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhou, L., Iwata, B. A., Goff, G. A., & Shore, B. A. (2001). Longitudinal analysis of leisure-item preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 179–184. doi:10.1901/jaba.2006.163-04.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Applied Behavioral ScienceUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations