» Articles » PMID: 20190915

Do Children Prefer Contingencies? An Evaluation of the Efficacy of and Preference for Contingent Versus Noncontingent Social Reinforcement During Play

Overview
Specialty Social Sciences
Date 2010 Mar 2
PMID 20190915
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Discovering whether children prefer reinforcement via a contingency or independent of their behavior is important considering the ubiquity of these programmed schedules of reinforcement. The current study evaluated the efficacy of and preference for social interaction within differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) and noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) schedules with typically developing children. Results showed that 7 of the 8 children preferred the DRA schedule; 1 child was indifferent. We also demonstrated a high degree of procedural fidelity, which suggested that preference is influenced by the presence of a contingency under which reinforcement can be obtained. These findings are discussed in terms of (a) the selection of reinforcement schedules in practice, (b) variables that influence children's preferences for contexts, and (c) the selection of experimental control procedures when evaluating the effects of reinforcement.

Citing Articles

Choice versus no choice: Practical considerations for increasing choices.

Kim J, Morris C, Ellsworth M, Liu X, Seacord N J Appl Behav Anal. 2024; 58(1):100-117.

PMID: 39532823 PMC: 11803352. DOI: 10.1002/jaba.2920.


Bridging the gap between laboratory and applied research on response-independent schedules.

Ingvarsson E, Fernandez E J Appl Behav Anal. 2022; 56(1):55-77.

PMID: 36440664 PMC: 10099982. DOI: 10.1002/jaba.965.


Minimizing Escalation by Treating Dangerous Problem Behavior Within an Enhanced Choice Model.

Rajaraman A, Hanley G, Gover H, Staubitz J, Staubitz J, Simcoe K Behav Anal Pract. 2022; 15(1):219-242.

PMID: 35340377 PMC: 8854458. DOI: 10.1007/s40617-020-00548-2.


An Application of the Group-Oriented Concurrent-Chains Arrangement.

Vargo K, Becknell K Behav Anal Pract. 2020; 12(2):310-319.

PMID: 31976236 PMC: 6745576. DOI: 10.1007/s40617-018-00286-6.


Noncontingent reinforcement for the treatment of severe problem behavior: An analysis of 27 consecutive applications.

Phillips C, Iannaccone J, Rooker G, P Hagopian L J Appl Behav Anal. 2017; 50(2):357-376.

PMID: 28177118 PMC: 8793041. DOI: 10.1002/jaba.376.


References
1.
Hanley G, Iwata B, Thompson R . Reinforcement schedule thinning following treatment with functional communication training. J Appl Behav Anal. 2001; 34(1):17-38. PMC: 1284294. DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-17. View

2.
Hart B, Reynolds N, Baer D, Brawley E, Harris F . Effect of contingent and non-contingent social reinforcement on the cooperative play of a preschool child. J Appl Behav Anal. 1968; 1(1):73-6. PMC: 1310977. DOI: 10.1901/jaba.1968.1-73. View

3.
Vollmer T, Iwata B, Zarcone J, Smith R, Mazaleski J . The role of attention in the treatment of attention-maintained self-injurious behavior: noncontingent reinforcement and differential reinforcement of other behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1993; 26(1):9-21. PMC: 1297716. DOI: 10.1901/jaba.1993.26-9. View

4.
Durand V . Functional communication training using assistive devices: recruiting natural communities of reinforcement. J Appl Behav Anal. 1999; 32(3):247-67. PMC: 1284191. DOI: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-247. View

5.
Vollmer T, Ringdahl J, ROANE H, Marcus B . Negative side effects of noncontingent reinforcement. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997; 30(1):161-4. PMC: 1284036. DOI: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-161. View