Search

Five individuals with autism or other developmental disabilities participated in paired-stimulus preference assessments during repeated baseline probes. All subjects initially showed a pronounced bias by typically selecting the stimulus placed in either the left or right position. Biased responding for 3 subjects was eliminated when training trials were conducted in which a stimulus of known lesser quality was presented as one of the choices. Reinforcer-quality training was unsuccessfiil for 2 subjects, as was a condition in which reinforcer magnitude was modified to favor unbiased responding. These subjects' biased responding was eliminated only when a correction procedure (repetition of error trials) was implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Study 1, we examined the independent effects of reinforcer consumption during sessions and meal consumption prior to sessions on performance maintained by food reinforcement. Nine individuals with developmental disabilities participated. On alternate days, a preferred edible item was delivered during (a) seven sessions conducted before lunch (repeated-reinforcement condition) versus (b) one session each conducted before and after lunch (pre- and postmeal conditions). Results for 7 of 9 participants showed decreased response rates across sessions in the repeated-reinforcement condition; results for 3 of 9 participants showed decreased rates during postmeal relative to premeal conditions. Two participants who did not show a decrement in responding during either comparison participated in Study 2, in which reinforcer consumption during sessions, combined with meal consumption prior to sessions, also had no effect on their performance. In Study 3, we determined whether (a) choice of reinforcers, (b) increased break time between sessions, (c) varied reinforcers, or (d) intermittent reinforcement schedules mitigated the satiation effects observed for the 7 participants in Study 1. Presession choice of reinforcers resulted in maintained performance for 2 of 6 participants exposed to this condition. Varied reinforcement resulted in maintained performance for only 1 of 5 participants exposed to this condition. Neither the increased break between sessions nor the intermittent reinforcement schedule was effective in maintaining performance for the participants who were exposed to these conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies the putative behavioral history effects and aggression maintained by escape from therapists. Cause of differentially higher rates of aggression; Effect of positive reinforcement for compliance and the absence of aggression in sessions; Limitations of the study.