The effects of establishing operations on preferences for tangible items.

Lindens Neurobehavioral Stabilization Program.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (Impact Factor: 1.19). 02/2005; 38(1):107-10. DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2005.112-03
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Researchers have demonstrated that both deprivation and satiation can affect the outcome of preference assessments for food. In the current study, paired-stimulus preference assessments for tangible items were conducted under three conditions: control, deprivation, and satiation. Three persons with developmental disabilities and 3 typically developing preschool children served as participants. The results demonstrated that deprivation and satiation influenced the outcome of preference assessments of leisure items or toys.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Some researchers have reported difficulties in identifying preferred items for individuals with severe intellectual and physical disabilities (SIPD), in part because these individuals often do not possess the motor skills needed to select and manipulate the items included within the assessments. The purpose of the current study was to address three research questions: a). Would differences in preference patterns occur between assessments that required an individual with SIPD to perform a motor response that was difficult for them to emit versus assessments that used an augmentative device (i.e., press a large microswitch) to activate the toy? b). Would teaching the specific skills needed to activate a toy result in an increase in toy engagement during preference assessment probes? and c) Would teaching the participant a motor response to directly activate the toy result in a shift in preference? Data were collected within a multielement (across conditions) design. The results of this study showed that (a) differences in preference patterns were observed when different motor responses were required to show preference between items, (b) acquisition of specific motor skills to activate a toy resulted in an increase in toy engagement during preference assessment probes that required direct toy manipulation, and (c) acquisition of motor skills also resulted in a shift in preference towards directly manipulating items versus activating items via microswitches.
    Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 10/2014; 26(5). · 0.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Handbook of Early Intervention in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1st edited by Tarbox, J, Dixon, D.R., Sturmey, P, Matson, J.L, 01/2014: chapter Reinforcement arrangements for learners with autism spectrum disorder: pages 261-292; Springer., ISBN: 978-1-4939-0400-6
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this paper, we examine several common everyday meanings of choice, propose behavioral definitions of choice, choosing, and preference, and recommend ways for behavioral researchers to talk consistently about these concepts. We also examine the kinds of performance in the contexts of various procedures that might be appropriately described as a preference for choice. In our view, the most appropriate procedure for demonstrating preference for choice as a consequence is a concurrent chains method, in which choice is a reinforcer for an approach response. The single-stimulus procedure, however, is more appropriate for demonstrating preference for choice as an antecedent.
    The behavior analyst today. 01/2006; 7(2):234-241.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 21, 2014