Evaluation of some components of choice making.

The team looked at whether kids with autism always like getting choices. They gave each child two set-ups: one where the child picked the reinforcer, and one where the adult picked. They then swapped which set-up gave the better toy or snack.

By flipping the value of the items, they could see if the kids truly wanted to choose, or just wanted the better prize.

Some kids preferred the choice condition, others did not. When the no-choice side suddenly held the better candy, most kids moved to that side. Their preference shifted with the quality of the item, not with the act of choosing.

The study found mixed results: choice itself was not a universal reinforcer.

Drifke et al. (2019) extends this idea. They showed that you can teach neurotypical preschoolers to love choice by first pairing every choice with a higher-quality reinforcer. Once that history was built, the kids kept picking the choice side even when pay-offs later equalized.

Dougherty et al. (1994) is an earlier echo. Adults with severe disabilities worked harder when they could choose, but only if the chosen task was also their preferred task. Again, reinforcer quality trumped the mere chance to choose.

Together the papers tell one story: choice helps only when it historically leads to better stuff. If it does not, clients may opt for the simpler, richer route.

Before you add “choice” to a behavior plan, run a quick assessment. Put the same high-value item on both the choice and no-choice sides and see where the client goes. If they stay on the choice side, you have a green light. If they jump to the better prize, teach a history where choice reliably delivers the best reinforcers, then re-test. Follow Drifke’s lead: pair choice with top items first, fade later. This keeps your intervention lean and actually motivating.