Comparing stimulus preference and response force in a conjugate preparation

Davis et al. (2021) asked adults to squeeze a hand dynamometer while pictures appeared on a screen.

Each squeeze made the picture grow bigger. The team recorded how hard each squeeze was.

They compared the force scores with the items the same adults had already called "high-preference" in a quick verbal check.

The pictures that people said they loved were the same pictures that got the hardest squeezes.

The match held for most participants, so the short force task confirmed the verbal list.

Sheridan et al. (2024) ran almost the same squeeze test but compared the force ranks to a VMSWO instead of a verbal report. Their results matched too, showing the method works with different comparison baselines.

Duker et al. (1996) showed that items picked in a choice assessment later worked as reinforcers. Davis adds a faster way to spot those items: just watch how hard someone squeezes.

Huntington et al. (2022) showed that who gives the assessment can change social preference ranks. Davis kept the assessor the same and focused on object pictures, so their clean match may hinge on keeping that variable steady.

You can now check a client’s toy or snack list in under two minutes. Have them squeeze a cheap hand dynamometer while each picture pops up. If the strongest squeeze lines up with what they already said they like, you can trust the list and move on to teaching. If the squeeze data disagree, pause and probe further before picking reinforcers.