On the relation between preference and resistance to change.
Preference and resistance to change are two views of the same reinforcer strength—track both before you trust an item.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Ladouceur et al. (1997) worked with pigeons in a lab.
Birds pecked two keys. One key paid off more often than the other.
The team watched two things: which key the bird preferred and how long the bird kept pecking when food stopped.
What they found
The key that paid more was both liked more and harder to stop.
Preference and staying power rose together in a smooth curve.
The two measures tracked the same underlying reinforcer strength.
How this fits with other research
Cohen (1986) tested the same staying-power idea, but used drugs instead of extinction. Drugs did not mirror food-disruption results, so the rule does not hold for every disruptor.
Laugeson et al. (2014) added free-food signals before extinction. The signals did not change how long birds kept pecking, so Pavlovian cues may not drive the staying power that R et al. captured.
Ivancic et al. (1996) worked with people who have profound disabilities. High preference alone sometimes failed to produce any response, reminding us that the pigeon link may not always transfer to humans.
Why it matters
When you pick reinforcers, measure both how much the client wants it and how long they keep working when it thins. If the two do not line up, probe further before you trust the item. Try plotting both numbers on one graph—look for the smooth curve R et al. saw.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After your next paired-stimulus preference test, run a brief extinction probe: stop delivering the top two items for one minute and count how many times the client still tries—note if the most-liked item also lasts the longest.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Nevin (1979) noted that preference in concurrent chains and resistance to change in multiple schedules were correlated, in that both measures were affected similarly by variations in parameters of reinforcement such as rate, immediacy, and magnitude. To investigate the relationship between preference and resistance to change directly, we used a within‐session procedure that arranged concurrent chains in one half of the session and a multiple schedule in the other half. The same variable‐interval schedules served as terminal links in concurrent chains and as the components of the multiple schedule, and were signaled by the same stimuli. After performances had stabilized, responding in the multiple schedule was disrupted by delivering response‐independent reinforcement during the blackout periods between components. Both preference in concurrent chains and relative resistance to change of multiple‐schedule responding were well described as power functions of relative reinforcement rate, as predicted by current quantitative models (Grace, 1994; Nevin, 1992b). In addition, unsystematic variation in preference and resistance to change was positively correlated, which suggests that preference and resistance to change are independent measures of a single construct. That construct could be described as the learning that occurs regarding the prevailing conditions of reinforcement in a distinctive stimulus situation.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 1997 · doi:10.1901/jeab.1997.67-43