Billets de Michelle Dawson

Billet publié sur Bluesky le 31/10/2024 11:25

Bluesky Publication avec DOI crossref Extrait cité dans le billet Question posée par Dawson dans le billet Lien intégré au billet

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"

Voir sur Bluesky

Liens cités structurés

1 ressource citée

Publication avec DOI Récupéré Publication 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.

Date de publication
29/10/2024
Identifiant
10.1007/s40614-024-00426-0
Auteurs
Samuel L. Morris, Katherine G. Bridges
Source
Perspectives on Behavior Science
Détails
47(4), 739-761
Type de référence
article
Éditeur
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Source de métadonnées
crossref

Résumé

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.

Auteur·ices de l’étude dans cette référence citée