A preference analysis of reinforcer variation and choice

Hanratty et al. (2021) asked a simple question: do people want different rewards, or do they want to pick their rewards? They used a concurrent-chains setup. First, participants chose between two colored keys. Each key led to its own room. In one room, the computer gave varied prizes. In the other room, the same prizes were available, but the person could pick which one to get.

Adults and children with and without diagnoses took part. The team first made sure everyone liked the varied room. Then they added the choice room and watched where people went.

Once the choice room appeared, most participants switched. They left the varied prizes and moved to the room where they could choose. The preference was strong and steady across sessions.

The result was clear: variety feels good, but choosing feels better.

Rost (2018) saw the same flip earlier. College students only wanted choice when the prize was uncertain. When every response paid off for sure, they stopped caring about choice. Hanratty’s team kept the payoff certain and still saw a choice preference, showing the effect holds for kids and clinical participants too.

Richman et al. (2001) moved the idea into classrooms. They let students hand themselves tokens. Grades rose. The new lab data back up that classroom trick: if you give learners the reins, they work harder.

Deshais et al. (2019) added a group twist. First-graders could vote on which team reward to use. Most picked the random version they had voted for. Again, the desire for control shows up outside the lab.

Next time you set up a token board or prize box, add a quick choice phase. After the learner earns five tokens, lay out three reinforcers and say, “Pick one.” The data say most will stay motivated longer because they feel in charge. It takes thirty seconds and costs nothing.