The effects of varied versus constant high-, medium-, and low-preference stimuli on performance.

Wine et al. (2009) asked a simple question: is it better to give the same top-choice item every time, or to mix in other items?

They worked with neurotypical adults in a lab. The task was a computer job. The pay-off was snacks or small prizes the person had already picked as high, medium, or low preference.

Using an alternating-treatments design, they compared three plans: always the top item, a rotating set of high-preference items, and a rotating set that mixed high, medium, and low items.

The single best item beat every combo. Constant high-preference reinforcement pushed the highest work output.

Switching among high-preference items gave the same results as mixing in medium ones. Variety added no extra boost.

Duker et al. (1996) showed the same thing earlier: top items from a choice test always work best. Byron’s lab data echo that rule with tighter experimental control.

Peterson et al. (2016) seems to disagree. They found that letting kids pick right before work raised responding. But they tested WHEN to give choice, not whether to rotate items. The studies ask different questions, so both can be true.

Goldberg et al. (2023) extends the idea to children with autism. They warn that items can drop in rank when categories are mixed, yet still work as reinforcers. Byron’s finding still holds: once you know the single top item, stay with it unless data say otherwise.

You can stop over-thinking rotation schedules. Run a quick preference assessment, lock onto the clear winner, and deliver it every time the client earns reinforcement. This saves prep minutes and keeps performance high. Re-check preferences weekly, but don’t swap just for variety’s sake—there’s no gain.