Evaluating the reinforcing effects of choice in comparison to reinforcement rate.

One school-age boy played two computer games side-by-side. One game let him pick the color of the fish he earned. The other game gave the same fish, but the computer chose the color.

Both games paid off with real prizes. The twist: the no-choice game sometimes gave 40 times more prizes than the choice game. The team watched which game the boy kept playing.

The boy stayed on the choice game almost the whole time. Even when the no-choice game gave 40-times more candy, he still wanted to pick the fish color himself.

Choice acted like a super-reinforcer. It beat a 4 000% drop in how often prizes showed up.

Morris et al. (1990) saw the same power of choice with three students who had severe disabilities. When the students could pick tasks or reinforcers, their hitting and screaming dropped. Both studies show choice works as an antecedent fix, but Willemsen-Swinkels et al. (1998) prove it can win even when it slashes payoff rate.

Thomas (1974) found humans ignore the matching law that pigeons follow. We don’t pick the richest schedule like birds do. Willemsen-Swinkels et al. (1998) push that idea further: for kids, the chance to choose can matter more than the payoff rate itself.

Todorov et al. (1984) showed pigeons care most about how often food comes, not how big each piece is. The boy in H et al. flipped that rule: he took far fewer prizes as long as he got to choose.

You can trade some reinforcement rate for student choice and still keep behavior strong. Next time a client bolts from table work, try letting them pick the pen color, the order of tasks, or the flavor of edible. You might run fewer trials per minute, but the learner may stay put longer and problem behavior can drop. Start small: offer two options during the hardest task of the day and track what happens.