Michelle Dawson posts

Post published on Bluesky on 31 Oct 2024 11:25

Bluesky DOI work crossref Extract quoted in the post Question asked by Dawson in the post External link integrated into the post

In recent ABA papers, 39% of preference assessments used edible reinforcers? link.springer.com/article/10.1... "edible reinforcers may have deleterious effects on the health and well-being of individuals participating in the research as well as those receiving services based on that research"

View on Bluesky

Structured cited links

1 cited resource

DOI work Fetched Post crossref

Samuel L. Morris, Katherine G. Bridges (2024). On the Identification and Use of Social versus Nonsocial Reinforcers: A Review of Research Practices. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 47(4), 739-761. Springer Science and Business Media LLC.

Publication date
29 Oct 2024
Identifier
10.1007/s40614-024-00426-0
Authors
Samuel L. Morris, Katherine G. Bridges
Source
Perspectives on Behavior Science
Details
47(4), 739-761
Reference type
article
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Metadata source
crossref

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Study authors in this cited reference