On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences.
Choice is only a reinforcer when it secures the better item—clients will gladly let you choose if your option pays more.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team set up a simple two-button test. One button let clients pick their reinforcer. The other button gave the same item, but the adult chose it.
They flipped the rules in each round. Sometimes the choice button delivered the better toy. Sometimes the no-choice side did.
All clients had developmental delays. Sessions moved fast so trends showed up quickly.
What they found
Clients pressed the choice button only when it gave the higher-value item. The second the no-choice side landed better stuff, they dropped the choice button.
The data say choice itself is not a treat. Choice is a tool that must lead to stronger pay-offs or clients will hand you the reins.
How this fits with other research
Duker et al. (1996) already showed that top-ranked items work hardest as reinforcers. Zigman et al. (1997) add the next layer: clients will dump the act of choosing if it blocks them from those top items.
Peterson et al. (2016) later tested kids with autism and found letting them pick the reinforcer BEFORE work can still lift responding. Their result looks opposite, but it is not. They kept the high-value item on the choice side, so the tool stayed useful.
Jimenez-Gomez et al. (2025) ran an automated version and proved future payoff odds, not just current ones, steer choice. Together the papers draw the same arrow: reinforcer quality drives the bus; choice is just the seat belt.
Why it matters
Stop selling choice as a feel-good prize. Check the value of what each option delivers. If the no-choice side has the better item, let it win and save time. If you want clients to keep choosing, lock the high-value reinforcer to that option. Run a quick paired-stimulus test first, then arrange the contingencies so the choice path stays the richer one.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before the session, rank two reinforcers; give the client choice only if the chosen side delivers the higher one.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Research on the reinforcing effects of providing choice-making opportunities to individuals with developmental disabilities (i.e., allowing them to choose reinforcers or tasks) has produced inconsistent results, perhaps because the mechanisms underlying such effects remain unclear. Choice may produce a reinforcement effect because it is correlated with differential consequences (i.e., choice may increase one's access to higher preference stimuli), or it may have reinforcement value independent of (or in addition to) the chosen stimulus. In Experiment 1, we used a concurrent-operants arrangement to assess preference for a choice condition (in which participants selected one of two available reinforcers) relative to a no-choice condition (in which the therapist selected the same reinforcers on a yoked schedule). All 3 participants preferred the choice option. In Experiment 2, we altered the schedules so that the participant selected one of two lower preference reinforcers in the choice condition, whereas the therapist selected a higher preference stimulus for the participant either half or all of the time in the no-choice condition. Participants typically allowed the therapist to select reinforcers for them (i.e., they allocated responding to the no-choice condition) when it resulted in greater access to higher preference stimuli.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1997 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1997.30-423