TY - JOUR
T1 - Distributed and accumulated reinforcement arrangements
T2 - Evaluations of efficacy and preference
AU - Deleon, Iser G.
AU - Chase, Julie A.
AU - Frank-Crawford, Michelle A.
AU - Carreau-Webster, Abbey B.
AU - Triggs, Mandy M.
AU - Bullock, Christopher E.
AU - Jennett, Heather K.
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - We assessed the efficacy of, and preference for, accumulated access to reinforcers, which allows uninterrupted engagement with the reinforcers but imposes an inherent delay required to first complete the task. Experiment 1 compared rates of task completion in 4 individuals who had been diagnosed with intellectual disabilities when reinforcement was distributed (i.e., 30-s access to the reinforcer delivered immediately after each response) and accumulated (i.e., 5-min access to the reinforcer after completion of multiple consecutive responses). Accumulated reinforcement produced response rates that equaled or exceeded rates during distributed reinforcement for 3 participants. Experiment 2 used a concurrent-chains schedule to examine preferences for each arrangement. All participants preferred delayed, accumulated access when the reinforcer was an activity. Three participants also preferred accumulated access to edible reinforcers. The collective results suggest that, despite the inherent delay, accumulated reinforcement is just as effective and is often preferred by learners over distributed reinforcement.
AB - We assessed the efficacy of, and preference for, accumulated access to reinforcers, which allows uninterrupted engagement with the reinforcers but imposes an inherent delay required to first complete the task. Experiment 1 compared rates of task completion in 4 individuals who had been diagnosed with intellectual disabilities when reinforcement was distributed (i.e., 30-s access to the reinforcer delivered immediately after each response) and accumulated (i.e., 5-min access to the reinforcer after completion of multiple consecutive responses). Accumulated reinforcement produced response rates that equaled or exceeded rates during distributed reinforcement for 3 participants. Experiment 2 used a concurrent-chains schedule to examine preferences for each arrangement. All participants preferred delayed, accumulated access when the reinforcer was an activity. Three participants also preferred accumulated access to edible reinforcers. The collective results suggest that, despite the inherent delay, accumulated reinforcement is just as effective and is often preferred by learners over distributed reinforcement.
KW - accumulated reinforcement
KW - choice
KW - concurrent schedules
KW - delay
KW - distributed reinforcement
KW - tokens
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84902490046&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84902490046&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/jaba.116
DO - 10.1002/jaba.116
M3 - Article
C2 - 24782203
AN - SCOPUS:84902490046
SN - 0021-8855
VL - 47
SP - 293
EP - 313
JO - Journal of applied behavior analysis
JF - Journal of applied behavior analysis
IS - 2
ER -