The effects of magnitude and quality of reinforcement on choice responding during play activities.
Handing bigger or better goodies on the peer side pulls kids with autism into social play and the habit can stick.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Three boys with autism, could pick either solitary play or play near a sibling.
The researchers made the peer side pay better: more cookies, cooler toys, or both.
They flipped the rules across days to see if bigger or better rewards moved the choice.
What they found
When peer play paid more, all three boys chose the peer side almost every time.
Two boys kept picking peers even after the prizes were later made equal.
Bigger and better both worked; combining them worked fastest.
How this fits with other research
Lowe et al. (1995) got typical classmates to run PRT drills; huge social gains followed.
Kourassanis-Velasquez et al. (2019) later showed that a short peer-training film plus feedback also lifts joint attention.
These studies extend Hannah’s core idea: boost the payoff for peer contact and autistic kids come closer.
Wanchisen et al. (1989) gives the tool box—run a 2-minute presession choice to spot the very items that pack the punch Hannah used.
Why it matters
You can nudge a child toward peers in one afternoon by handing better stuff on the peer side. Start with a quick preference check, pile the top picks there, then thin the loot once the child hangs around. Two of three kids kept playing anyway—cheap insurance against lonely recess time.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Put the child’s highest-ranked toy or snack on the peer side only for the first 10 min of play; fade to equal later.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Three boys with autism participated in a study of the effects of magnitude and quality of reinforcement on choice responding. Two concurrent response alternatives were arranged: (a) to play in an area where a peer or sibling was located, or (b) to play in an area where there was no peer or sibling. During one condition, the magnitude (i.e., duration of access to toys) or quality (level of preference) of reinforcement provided for both responses was equal. During the other condition, the magnitude or quality of reinforcement was relatively greater for choosing the play area where the peer or sibling was located than the area where the peer or sibling was not located. Results showed that after repeated exposure to the unequal magnitude or quality condition, the participant increasingly allocated his responses to the play area where the peer or sibling was located. For 2 participants, this pattern of responding was maintained in the subsequent equal magnitude or quality condition. Overall, the analysis suggests that the dimensions of magnitude and quality of reinforcement can be arranged to influence choice responding in favor of playing near a peer or sibling rather than playing alone.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2002 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2002.35-171