Modification of a response bias through differential amount of reinforcement.
Paying more tokens for one choice moves stimulus control faster than changing the cue itself.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team used a simple computer game with neurotypical children. Kids pressed one key for a short line and another key for a long line.
At first both keys paid the same number of tokens. Then the game paid more tokens for one key. The researchers flipped the rule back and forth four times.
What they found
When the bigger token pile moved to the other key, the children’s choices moved with it. The line length no longer controlled the response.
Even after the tokens went back to equal, two children kept favoring the key that once paid more. The bias stuck for a while.
How this fits with other research
Reberg et al. (1979) ran the same bias test with pigeons. They got the same swing in choices by changing grain pay-outs. The pattern holds across species.
Allison (1976) moved the idea into a real classroom. Math problems paid tokens the same way. Attending and accuracy rose just like the lab game.
Robinson et al. (1981) added a twist: when one child gave himself tokens, untreated classmates also worked harder. The bias spread through the room.
Why it matters
You can shift stimulus control without changing the teaching cue. Just change the token amount. This gives you a quick dial when a learner gets stuck on the wrong feature. Try paying five tokens for the correct mand and one for the echoic next session. Watch the mand rate climb.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one target response and double the tokens you give for it for one day; graph if the child’s rate shifts toward that response.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A procedure is described for assessing response bias to either the form or color dimension of a compound standard stimulus. Responding was assessed under conditions of equal reinforcement (three tokens) for responding to either the form or color dimension. Under these conditions, the four male subjects (aged 7 to 11 yr) differentially responded to the form dimension. After a bias was assessed, the number of tokens delivered contingent upon form responses was reduced. After a reversal in differential responding, the equal-reinforcement condition was reintroduced. Two of the subjects returned to their initial response bias when equal reinforcement for either dimensional response was reintroduced, and two maintained the reversal established during the differential-reinforcement phase. For the latter two subjects, differential reinforcement was again imposed, in favor of form. This partial replication reinstated their original pattern of response bias.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1967 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1967.10-375