Discriminative control of choice by reinforcers in children and adults

Jimenez-Gomez et al. (2025) asked a simple question. Do reinforcers work because they strengthen behavior, or because they tell us what is likely to happen next?

They ran a single-case lab study with both kids and adults. Everyone picked between two screens. The chance of getting a prize changed from trial to trial.

The team watched which screen people chose. They wanted to see if choices followed the probability of future rewards.

Both children and adults matched their choices to the upcoming odds. If the left screen paid off 70 % of the time, they picked left about 70 % of the time.

The results showed that reinforcers act like traffic signals, not fuel. They guide next moves instead of just making the last move stronger.

The finding backs up an old idea. Shearn et al. (1997) argued that reinforcers change antecedent control, not just response strength. The new data give that theory real-time proof.

Peterson et al. (2016) showed that letting kids pick their reinforcer BEFORE work boosts responding. Both studies treat reinforcers as cues that set the occasion for future success.

Zigman et al. (1997) seemed to disagree at first. They saw that people dropped choice when it led to worse items. The clash disappears once you see both papers measure the same thing: choices follow the SIGNAL of better consequences, not the act of choosing itself.

Think of reinforcement as information, not candy. When you set up a token board or a praise schedule, you are also teaching the client what is coming next. Make that signal clear: tie each reinforcer to a predictable future payoff. If the payoff odds change, tell the learner with words or visual cues. This small shift can cut problem behavior that stems from unclear expectations.