Reinforcer Choice as an Antecedent Versus Consequence During Skill Acquisition

Gureghian et al. (2020) asked a simple timing question. Should a child pick the reinforcer before the trial starts, or after the response?

They worked with three autistic kids in an ABA clinic. Using an alternating-treatments design, they compared antecedent choice (pick first, then work) against consequence choice (work first, then pick).

Two of the three children learned new skills faster when they chose the reinforcer after the response. The third child showed little difference between the two setups.

The team measured trials-to-criterion. Consequence choice cut the number of trials needed to master a task for the majority of learners.

van Timmeren et al. (2016) already showed that any reinforcer choice beats no choice for autistic kids. Gureghian et al. (2020) zooms in on when that choice happens, extending the earlier finding.

Carmichael et al. (1999) saw the same pattern years earlier in kids with developmental delay. Within-session (consequence-like) choice topped presession (antecedent) choice for response rates. The new study replicates that edge in skill acquisition with an autism sample.

Together the three papers form a tidy line: choice helps, and consequence-based choice helps most.

Next time you run a teaching program, let the learner pick the reinforcer after the correct response. You keep the power of choice, but you place it where it packs the biggest punch. No extra materials, no extra time—just a quick “Nice job, pick your prize” right after the target response.