Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: implications for preference assessments.

E M Roscoe1, B A Iwata, S Kahng

  • 1University of Florida 32611, USA.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
|January 21, 2000
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Regulatory Mechanisms of Soft Palate Development and Malformations.

Journal of dental research·2019
Same author

The ABA humanitarian awards for outstanding achievement in pursuit of the right to effective treatment.

The Behavior analyst·2012
Same author

Behavior analysis and public policy.

The Behavior analyst·2012
Same author

Task force on the right to effective treatment: Executive council liaison commentary.

The Behavior analyst·2012
Same author

The right to effective behavioral treatment.

The Behavior analyst·2012
Same author

The development and adoption of controversial default technologies.

The Behavior analyst·2012

This study compared preference assessment methods for individuals with mental retardation. Results show that while concurrent schedules reveal relative preference, single schedules better assess absolute reinforcement effects of low-preference stimuli.

Area of Science:

  • Behavioral Psychology
  • Applied Behavior Analysis
  • Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research

Background:

  • Previous studies (Fisher et al., 1992; Pace et al., 1985) utilized different methodologies for reinforcer identification.
  • Understanding stimulus preference is crucial for effective behavioral interventions.
  • Individuals with mental retardation often require tailored approaches to preference assessment.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the efficacy of single-stimulus (SS) and paired-stimulus (PS) preference assessment methods.
  • To evaluate the reinforcing effects of high-preference (HP) and low-preference (LP) stimuli under different reinforcement schedules.
  • To determine the best methodology for assessing relative versus absolute reinforcement effects.

Main Methods:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Eight individuals with mental retardation participated.
  • Phase 1 involved SS and PS preference assessments to identify HP and LP stimuli.
  • Phase 2 used reversal designs under concurrent and single schedules of reinforcement to evaluate stimulus reinforcing effects.

Main Results:

  • Under concurrent schedules, 7 of 8 participants preferred the HP stimulus.
  • Under single schedules, response rates for the LP stimulus were comparable to HP stimulus rates under concurrent schedules for 6 of 7 participants.
  • One participant did not show a reinforcement effect for the LP stimulus under single schedules.

Conclusions:

  • Concurrent-schedule procedures effectively assess relative reinforcement effects (i.e., preference between stimuli).
  • Single-schedule procedures are better suited for examining absolute reinforcement effects of a given stimulus.
  • Combined methodologies offer a comprehensive approach to reinforcer identification and evaluation in individuals with mental retardation.