KENNEDY KRIEGER INSTITUTE AND JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2014 Summer;47(2):293-313. doi: 10.1002/jaba.116. Epub 2014 Apr 30.
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.
我们评估了累积强化物的效果和偏好,累积强化物允许不间断地接触强化物,但需要先完成任务才能获得强化物,从而产生固有的延迟。实验 1 比较了 4 名被诊断为智力障碍的个体在强化物分配(即每次反应后立即提供 30 秒的强化物)和累积(即完成多个连续反应后获得 5 分钟的强化物)时的任务完成率。对于 3 名参与者来说,累积强化物产生的反应率与分配强化物时的反应率相等或更高。实验 2 使用并行连锁安排来检验对每种安排的偏好。当强化物是活动时,所有参与者都更喜欢延迟的累积访问。3 名参与者也更喜欢食用强化物的累积访问。总体结果表明,尽管存在固有的延迟,但累积强化物同样有效,并且通常比分配强化物更受学习者的青睐。