Assessing preference for social interactions

On the Identification and Use of Social versus Nonsocial Reinforcers: A Review of Research Practices

Recent research has developed efficacious methods for identifying individualized social reinforcers and utilizing social reinforcers may be beneficial for several reasons. However, the relative likelihood of utilizing social versus nonsocial reinforcers in behavior-analytic research remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate how likely behavior analysts are to employ social versus nonsocial reinforcers in the context of research. We pursued this aim by evaluating the types of reinforcers utilized in research published during the past 9 years in five applied behavior-analytic journals. Results suggest that researchers in applied behavior analysis have been more likely to use individualized nonsocial reinforcers than individualized social reinforcers. Moreover, when social reinforcers were employed, they were much more likely to be generic and not individualized. These data suggest there is room for improvement in the types of programmed reinforcement contingencies we use in research and ways of facilitating such improvement are discussed. Implications and directions for future research evaluating current practices, demonstrating the utility of social reinforcers, and comparing the utility of social versus nonsocial reinforcers are also discussed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40614-024-00426-0.

Single- vs. combined-category preference assessments for edible, leisure, and social-interaction stimuli

A concern when conducting combined-category preference assessments is the potential for displacement effects, a shift in the preference ranking from highly preferred to moderately or less preferred for stimuli in two of three stimulus categories (e.g., edible, leisure, or social-interaction). In this study, we evaluated potential displacement effects in combined-category arrays of edible, leisure, and social-interaction stimuli for five individuals with autism. First, single-category paired-stimulus preference assessments were implemented to identify two highly preferred stimuli from each category. When these stimuli were included in a combined-category preference assessment, displacement effects were observed for three of five participants. During a subsequent reinforcer assessment, stimuli identified as less preferred in the combined-category preference assessment functioned as reinforcers for two participants. Additionally, although social interaction was not identified as highly preferred for three of the five participants, it functioned as a reinforcer for four participants.

A review of methods of assessing preference for social stimuli

Research on preference and reinforcer assessments has historically focused on the evaluation of edible and leisure reinforcers, but the identification and use of individualized social reinforcers may be beneficial for several reasons. Recently, many studies have evaluated methods of assessing preference for social stimuli. The procedures and outcomes across these studies have varied greatly, and the current state of evidence for methods of assessing preference for social stimuli remains unclear. Thus, we conducted a review to synthesize all previous research in this area, evaluate the evidence for the utility of this general methodology, and identify factors that may influence its utility. Our results suggest that social preference assessments are likely to produce results that correspond with reinforcer assessment hierarchies. Preference assessment modality was one factor that influenced utility; video-based preference assessments had greater correspondence with reinforcer assessments than did other modalities. Directions for future research and implications for the use of social preference assessments in research and practices are discussed.

Advancing Methods in Animal-Assisted Intervention: Demonstration of Starting Points in Clinical Practice for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Therapy animals have been frequently included in interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD); however, direct and systematic procedures such as assessing preference for and reinforcing efficacy of the animals are rarely conducted. Assessing preference for stimuli is valuable when determining how to make interventions for children with ASD most effective. We conducted paired-stimulus preference assessments and follow-up reinforcer assessments to determine if a therapy dog might be an effective reinforcer. We found one third of participants preferred the dog the least, one third of participants moderately preferred the dog, and one third of participants highly preferred the dog relative to other stimuli. Furthermore, we found preference predicted reinforcing efficacy for five of six participants. We suggest clinicians systematically conduct assessments to clearly identify the role of the therapy animal, to improve quality of, and demonstrate efficacy of interventions including animals for clinical populations.

Stimulus Preference Assessment Decision-Making System (SPADS): A Decision-Making Model for Practitioners

A stimulus preference assessment (SPA) is a fundamental tool used by practitioners to predict stimuli that function as reinforcers. The Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) requires that all certified behavior analysts and behavioral technicians be trained in SPA methodology (BACB, 2017). SPA procedures are used by nearly 9 out of 10 behavior analysts in the field (Graff & Karsten, 2012). Over the last 4 decades, there has been a litany of research on SPA procedures. Despite the universality of training, application, and research, discussions on the selection of SPA procedures have been sparse. Two peer-reviewed articles have focused on clinical decision making in the selection of SPA procedures. Karsten et al. (2011) introduced an in situ decision-making model, whereas Virues-Ortega et al. (2014) developed an a priori algorithm based on client and stimuli characteristics. The SPADS addresses the limitations of prior models by considering the effects of stimuli dimensions, client characteristics, relative administration times, and the outcomes agreement between two potentially efficacious, context-specfic SPA procedures.

Accuracy of caregiver identification of demands for children with escape-maintained challenging behavior

BACKGROUND

Although stimulus preference assessments are widely used to identify reinforcers and to inform positive reinforcement conditions in a functional analysis (FA), direct assessments of potential negative reinforcers are not as commonly employed. Demands are often selected from caregiver report alone.

AIMS

The purpose of the current study is to (a) replicate the Demand Assessment for Individuals with Severe Disabilities (DAISD) indirect assessment interview for caregivers to identify demands that may evoke challenging behavior; (b), compare the correspondence of the DAISD in relation to an established direct assessment, the demand latency assessment (DLA); and (c) evaluate if the demands that caregivers identify as the most aversive are more likely to evoke challenging behavior and identify an escape function in an FA than those demands caregivers identify as least aversive and replicate validation of the DLA.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

This study evaluated caregiver accuracy at identifying demands most likely to evoke escape-maintained challenging behavior for four children with developmental disabilities. Caregiver-informed aversiveness hierarchies from the DAISD were compared to child-informed aversiveness hierarchies from the DLA. Functional analyses included separate escape conditions with DAISD and DLA most and least aversive demands.

OUTCOMES AND RESULTS

Although all caregivers identified at least eight demands, caregivers' accuracy with demand aversiveness was variable as indicated by (a) a false negative FA outcome for one of four participants with the caregiver-nominated most aversive demand; (b) higher rates of challenging behavior with the caregiver-nominated least aversive demand than most aversive for three of four participants; and (c) lack of a strong positive rank order correlation between caregiver- and child-hierarchies for all participants (range, -0.76 to .48). Compliance was not a strong predictive variable of challenging behavior with either assessment.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Results indicate that the DAISD interview is useful at identifying multiple demands presented in the natural environment, but should be followed up with direct assessment to determine demand aversiveness rather than used for caregivers to rank demand aversiveness.

Evaluating the function of social interaction for children with autism

Several researchers have assessed whether or not social interaction is reinforcing; however, few studies have evaluated methods of assessing whether social interactions function as reinforcing, neutral, or aversive stimuli. We extend this research by evaluating a new method of assessing the function of social interaction. Twenty-one children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) participated. Social interactions were found to function as reinforcers for 9 participants, neutral stimuli for 7 participants, and aversive stimuli for 5 participants. The method evaluated was found to be more efficient, may be more feasible, and was similarly as decisive as methods evaluated in previous research. Implications of this study and its methodology as well as future directions in this line of research are discussed.

Preference for and reinforcing efficacy of different types of attention in preschool children

It is unknown whether and to what extent common types of attention delivered in early childhood environments are preferred by and function as reinforcers for young children. We assessed children's preference for commonly delivered types of attention across 31 preschool-aged participants (Experiment 1). Next, we conducted a reinforcer assessment (Experiment 2) and a progressive-ratio assessment (Experiment 3) to (a) validate the results of the preference assessment and (b) determine the relative reinforcing efficacy of each type of attention. Results of Experiment 1 showed that most participants preferred conversation or physical interaction. Results of Experiment 2 validated the results of Experiment 1 showing preferred types of attention were more likely to function as reinforcers. Finally, although some types of attention functioned as reinforcers, results of Experiment 3 indicated these reinforcers only maintained responding under relatively dense schedules of reinforcement. Clinical implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Do Functional Analyses Probe Learning Histories, Or Create Them? An Exploratory Investigation

During functional analysis (FA), therapists arrange contingencies between potential reinforcers and problem behavior. It is unclear whether this fact, in and of itself, facilitates problem behavior's acquisition of new (false-positive) functions. If problem behavior can come under the control of contingencies contrived between it and known reinforcers for which there is no direct history, then outcomes of reinforcer analysis (RA) should perfectly predict FA outcomes. This study evaluated the degree to which RA outcomes corresponded with FA outcomes for eight participants referred to a university-based outpatient clinic for problem behavior. For 75% (6 of 8) of participants, correspondence was imperfect. These findings appear to support the construct validity of contemporary interpretations of FA data.

Response to name in children with autism: Treatment, generalization, and maintenance

Deficits in response to name (RTN) are an early indicator of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and RTN is a treatment goal in many early intervention curricula for children with ASD. However, little research has empirically evaluated methods for increasing RTN in children with ASD. We evaluated a series of conditions designed to increase RTN for 4 children with ASD using a multielement experimental design. The schedules of tangible reinforcement were thinned after mastery and generalization was tested across people and contexts. Tangible reinforcers were necessary to increase RTN for all 4 participants, and the schedule of reinforcement was successfully thinned with all participants after intervention. Generalization was also observed across people and experimental contexts.

Language preference and reinforcing efficacy of praise in bilingual children with disabilities

We conducted a stimulus preference assessment to identify preference for praise delivered in English versus Spanish for bilingual students. Next, a concurrent-operant reinforcer assessment was used to evaluate the reinforcer efficacy of praise in each language. Participants showed limited to no preference for one language over another. One participant showed a slight preference for Spanish praise and Spanish praise functioned as a slightly more potent reinforcer. If a participant did not prefer a specific language of praise (i.e., undifferentiated preference or equal percentage of approaches), both languages were considered to be similarly reinforcing.

Using Pictures Depicting App Icons to Conduct an MSWO Preference Assessment on a Tablet Device

Identifying preferred content on tablet devices may be important when using such devices in programming. This study included six adults with disabilities and examined using laminated picture cards depicting application (app) icons to conduct multiple-stimulus without replacement (MSWO) preference assessments of iPad content. Following identification of preference hierarchies, we conducted reinforcer assessments to validate preference assessment results by demonstrating that selected apps functioned as reinforcers. We identified preference hierarchies for all participants, and the highest preferred app functioned as a reinforcer for a vocational task in five out of six participants' reinforcer assessments.

Relative preferences for edible and leisure stimuli in children with autism

Prior researchers have reported a tendency for individuals with developmental disabilities to select edible items more often than leisure items when those items are presented together in stimulus preference assessments. However, children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), with whom many behavior analysts currently practice, are underrepresented in this body of literature. We conducted a replication of prior research with 26 children with ASD. Results indicated that edible items were more likely than leisure items to rank highly in our preference assessments, in concurrence with prior research. However, leisure items were also selected more often overall than in prior research, and significant individual variation was observed. These results suggest that preference assessments containing both edible and leisure stimuli can yield useful information for behavior analysts providing services to children with ASD, and the degree of preference for edible items noted in prior work may not be reflected in this contemporary population.

Further Evaluation of a Practitioner Model for Increasing Eye Contact in Children With Autism

Cook et al. recently described a progressive model for teaching children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to provide eye contact with an instructor following a name call. The model included the following phases: contingent praise only, contingent edibles plus praise, stimulus prompts plus contingent edibles and praise, contingent video and praise, schedule thinning, generalization assessments, and maintenance evaluations. In the present study, we evaluated the extent to which modifications to the model were needed to train 15 children with ASD to engage in eye contact. Results show that 11 of 15 participants acquired eye contact with the progressive model; however, eight participants required one or more procedural modifications to the model to acquire eye contact. In addition, the four participants who did not acquire eye contact received one or more modifications. Results also show that participants who acquired eye contact with or without modifications continued to display high levels of the behavior during follow-up probes. We discuss directions for future research with and limitations of this progressive model.

An Investigation of a Video-Based Preference Assessment of Social Interactions

We examined the use of a paired-stimulus, video-based preference assessment (VPA) to identify high- and low-preference social interactions for three children with autism spectrum disorder. We conducted two VPAs with each participant: one with access to the interaction contingent on each selection and one without access. We also conducted a concurrent-operant reinforcer assessment to evaluate the accuracy of the VPAs in identifying reinforcers. For two participants, the VPAs corresponded strongly and the results of the reinforcer assessment suggest that the high-preference interaction produced more of the target response than the low-preference interaction. For the other participant, the VPAs identified different high- and low-preference interactions, and the results of the reinforcer assessment suggest that the VPA without access may have been more accurate in identifying a reinforcer.

A quantitative review of overjustification effects in persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities

The overjustification hypothesis suggests that extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic rewards are common in strengthening behavior in persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities; we examined overjustification effects in this context. A literature search yielded 65 data sets permitting comparison of responding during an initial no-reinforcement phase to a subsequent no-reinforcement phase, separated by a reinforcement phase. We used effect sizes to compare response levels in these two no-reinforcement phases. Overall, the mean effect size did not differ from zero; levels in the second no-reinforcement phase were equally likely to be higher or lower than in the first. However, in contrast to the overjustification hypothesis, levels were higher in the second no-reinforcement phase when comparing the single no-reinforcement sessions immediately before and after reinforcement. Outcomes consistent with the overjustification hypothesis were somewhat more likely when the target behavior occurred at relatively higher levels prior to reinforcement.