A systematic review of procedures for establishing conditioned reinforcers
Response-stimulus pairing is your best bet when you need to make a new reinforcer matter to kids or adults with autism or ID.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Argueta et al. (2024) hunted for every paper that tried to turn a neutral item into a reinforcer for people with autism or ID.
They found 31 experiments and counted which method worked most often.
The three main tactics were response-stimulus pairing, stimulus-stimulus pairing, and observational discrimination training.
What they found
Only about half of the tries succeeded.
Response-stimulus pairing came out on top.
Stimulus-stimulus pairing and observational training followed behind.
How this fits with other research
Bergmann et al. (2021) showed that once a reinforcer is working, you can mess up 15 % of deliveries and still keep learning.
Argueta’s review fills the gap before that point: how to make the item powerful in the first place.
McQuaid et al. (2024) used edible praise to toilet-train an adult with ASD; their quick success likely rode on prior conditioning that Argueta shows is only 50-50.
Together the papers form a chain: condition first, then protect delivery integrity.
Why it matters
If you start a program and the reinforcer feels weak, switch to response-stimulus pairing first.
It gives the best odds of turning stickers, tokens, or praise into something the learner will work for.
Track the data; if gains stall after 15 % missed deliveries, tighten your timing.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one neutral token, deliver it right after the client’s correct response ten times in a row, then test if the token alone makes the next response happen faster.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
AbstractEstablishing conditioned reinforcers is often critical to treatment for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder or intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs). Although researchers have evaluated several procedures, methods and results vary across studies, making it difficult to draw conclusions about these procedures' general and relative effectiveness. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the overall and relative effectiveness of stimulus‐stimulus (S‐S) pairing, response‐stimulus (R‐S) pairing, and operant discrimination training (ODT) for establishing conditioned reinforcers for children on the autism spectrum or who have an IDD. Thirty‐one studies, including 12 theses and dissertations, met inclusion criteria. Eight studies evaluated S‐S pairing, 20 evaluated R‐S pairing, and nine evaluated ODT. Combined, S‐S pairing, R‐S pairing, and ODT were effective at establishing conditioned reinforcers in only half of all attempts. However, analysis indicated that R‐S pairing is the most effective procedure, followed by S‐S pairing and ODT, in that order.
Behavioral Interventions, 2024 · doi:10.1002/bin.2026