A multiple‐stimulus‐without‐replacement assessment for sexual partners: Purchase task validation

The team ran an MSWO with college students. They showed photos of possible dating partners and asked students to pick their favorites.

Next, students played a pretend shopping game. They could spend fake money to spend time with each partner. The game tested if the MSWO ranks matched the fake money bids.

The MSWO order lined up with the fake money bids. People paid more for partners they had ranked higher.

Still, each person had a unique pattern. The ranks were useful, but not perfect for every student.

Cox et al. (2015) also checked if a quick, no-access preference test works. Their video-based PS picked items that later worked as reinforcers. Both studies show you can trust a fast ranking even when the person does not receive the item right away.

Horner-Johnson et al. (2002) compared fake money to real money in a delay game. They found no big difference in choices. Jarmolowicz et al. (2016) now extend that idea to partner preference, showing fake money bids still reflect real likes.

Donahoe et al. (2000) remind us why good ranks matter. They used high-preference stimuli in NCR and problem behavior dropped. A solid MSWO gives you that high-preference item quickly.

You can borrow the MSWO logic for adult clients who use dating apps or social groups. A five-minute photo rank can guide which peer or social outing to program as a reinforcer. Always follow with a brief probe to be sure the rank holds for that person.