Too much reinforcement, too little behavior: assessing task interspersal procedures in conjunction with different reinforcement schedules with autistic children.
Save edible reinforcers for brand-new tasks—kids still learn even when mastered tasks earn only praise.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Five preschoolers with autism tried a learning game. New tasks earned candy right away. Mastered tasks earned praise only.
The team mixed one new task with three easy ones. They watched if kids still picked up the new skill.
What they found
All five kids learned their new tasks. They kept working even when candy stopped for the easy parts.
Saving edibles for new work did not slow learning.
How this fits with other research
Knutson et al. (2019) later asked, 'Why mix in easy tasks at all?' They tried 0:1 ratios—only new tasks—and kids learned even faster. Their result updates the 1992 view: interspersal works, but skipping it can work better.
Bacon-Prue et al. (1980) had already shown that mixing old spelling words with new ones helped kids with intellectual disability. Charlop et al. (1992) stretched the same idea to autism and edible rewards.
Rapp et al. (2016) looked back at all task-interspersal studies. They said evidence is thin and urged more tests. The 1992 paper is one of the bricks in that small wall.
Why it matters
You can guard against satiation by giving the good stuff only for acquisition trials. If a child starts to refuse easy tasks, drop the ratio to 0:1 and teach new skills straight. Either way, you now know that praise alone can keep maintenance responding alive.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →This week, give candy only on acquisition trials; use praise or tokens for mastered tasks and track if learning speed stays the same.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Task interspersal procedures have been quite effective in increasing autistic children's motivation to learn. These procedures have typically demonstrated that the inclusion of reinforced maintenance tasks (previously learned tasks) increases responding to new acquisition tasks because more reinforcers, in general, are available. However, studies have not specifically addressed the effects of various schedules of reinforcement, used in conjunction with task interspersal procedures, upon response acquisition. In the present study, a multiple baseline design across subjects was used to assess different reinforcement schedules. Five autistic children participated in learning sessions, during which trials of an acquisition task were interspersed with trials of three maintenance tasks. Correct responses to acquisition tasks were continuously reinforced throughout all conditions, while the reinforcement schedule for competent performance of maintenance tasks differed systematically. Results indicated that all children learned the new tasks when food reinforcers were presented only for acquisition tasks. Results are discussed in terms of behavioral contrast and improving the effectiveness of motivation-enhancing procedures for autistic children.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1992 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1992.25-795