The relation between choosing and working prevocational tasks in two severely retarded young adults.
The job that follows a choice decides whether that choice grows or fades.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Two young adults with severe intellectual disability picked objects before work time. Each object was tied to a different job. One job was fun. The other job was dull.
The team watched what happened to their picking when the job that followed changed.
What they found
When the chosen object led to the fun job, the adults picked that object more often. When the same object led to the dull job, picking dropped.
The job that came after the choice, not the object itself, drove the next choice.
How this fits with other research
Geckeler et al. (2000) saw the same lift in responding when kids with autism could pick their reinforcer, but only when they could switch between two tasks at the same time. The boost disappears during single-response drills.
Deel et al. (2021) stretched the idea to activity schedules. Some kids with autism liked choosing the next activity; others did not. The 1980 study shows the reason: the work that follows the choice has to feel worth it.
Taber-Doughty (2005) adds a classroom twist. High-school students with ID learned faster when they picked the prompting style. Again, the chosen tool led to nicer work, so the choice stuck.
Why it matters
Before you offer a choice, check what task comes next. If the follow-up work is boring, the choice will lose its power. Pair chosen items with preferred jobs or add fun elements to the work. Re-check often—what is fun today can turn dull tomorrow.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Let your client pick an object, then assign a high-preference task right after—watch their picking rate climb.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This study investigated the relation between prevocational preference, as measured by the client's selection of a task object, and the work that followed that choice. After selecting a task object, the clients worked a task previously assessed to be more or less preferred than the one indicated by the object. The results indicated that when the selection represented a task that was less preferred than the one actually worked, choices for that object increased on subsequent trials. Conversely, when the selection represented a task that was more preferred than the task subject actually worked, choices for the object decreased on subsequent trials. The work that followed object choices reinforced or punished subsequent selections. These findings indicated that the clients' object choices were valid indicators of their preference for working different tasks. They were also consistent with Premack's principle that one class of responses may reinforce or punish a different class of responses for the same individual.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1980 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1980.13-177