PREFERENCE FOR REINFORCERS UNDER PROGRESSIVE- AND FIXED-RATIO SCHEDULES: A COMPARISON OF SINGLE AND CONCURRENT ARRANGEMENTS

Progressive‐ratio (PR) schedules were used to identify the break point (i.e., the last schedule value completed) for 2 reinforcers under single and concurrent schedules. After the respective break points were established, the same reinforcers were presented under concurrent fixed‐ratio (FR) schedule...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of applied behavior analysis 2008, Vol.41 (2), p.163-176
Main Authors: Glover, Ashley C., Roane, Henry S., Kadey, Heather J., Grow, Laura L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Aggression - psychology
Autism
Autistic Disorder - psychology
Autistic Disorder - therapy
Behavior Disorders
Behavior Modification
Behavior Therapy - methods
Child
Choice Behavior
concurrent schedules
Counseling Techniques
Developmental disabilities
Experiments
fixed ratio
Humans
Intellectual disabilities
Intellectual Disability - psychology
Intellectual Disability - therapy
Investigations
Male
Mental Retardation
Motivation
Outcomes of Treatment
Positive Reinforcement
Preferences
progressive ratio
Reinforcement Schedule
Response rates
Responses
Schedules
Scheduling
Social Behavior Disorders - psychology
Social Behavior Disorders - therapy
Social Environment
Stimuli
Token Economy
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Progressive‐ratio (PR) schedules were used to identify the break point (i.e., the last schedule value completed) for 2 reinforcers under single and concurrent schedules. After the respective break points were established, the same reinforcers were presented under concurrent fixed‐ratio (FR) schedules that were yoked to the break points obtained with the PR schedules. Results suggested that the participants responded more for the high‐preference item than for the low‐preference item, regardless of the presentation arrangement (single or concurrent presentations). This pattern of responding was maintained when the reinforcers were presented under dissimilar FR schedules. The results suggest that responding for differentially preferred stimuli may vary as a function of differences in schedule requirements.
ISSN:0021-8855
1938-3703
DOI:10.1901/jaba.2008.41-163