Effects of reinforcer choice measured in single-operant and concurrent-schedule procedures.

Three children with autism worked on two kinds of tasks. Some tasks let them pick a reinforcer before starting. Others gave the same item every time.

The team used single-operant trials first. Then they switched to concurrent schedules where two responses were possible at once. They counted how many times each child pressed a button under each setup.

Choice helped only when two buttons were active together. Kids pressed much more if they could pick their reward first.

During single-response tasks, choice made little difference. The boost showed up only under concurrent conditions.

Wing (1981) also saw better work when reinforcers changed, but that study used simple DTT trials. The new data say the choice bonus needs competing responses, not just variety.

Deel et al. (2021) later taught kids to choose entire activities. Some children liked choice schedules, others did not. That personal fit echoes the current finding: choice works only in the right context.

Fantino (1969) showed pigeons divide time by expected wait for food. The 2000 study mirrors this: kids allocate effort the same way when reinforcer choice is on the line.

Before you add choice, check the task structure. If the child can do only one action, picking the reward may not help. Build in two clear options—like two buttons, two pictures, or two work boxes—then let the child choose the payoff. You should see faster, steadier responding right away.