Evaluating the effects of social interaction on the results of preference assessments for leisure items

The team ran three kinds of paired-stimulus preference assessments with six preschoolers.

Kids tried toys alone, with a playful adult, and in a mixed format that switched both ways.

An alternating-treatments design let the researchers compare ranks and later test which toys worked best as reinforcers.

Social play shuffled the toy list. Blocks that looked boring alone shot to the top when an adult joined.

The mixed assessment—half solitary, half social—best predicted which item would keep kids working during a later task.

Wunderlich et al. (2017) used the same alternating-treatments design to show that mixing trial types speeds learning. Kanaman now shows the same mixing logic helps preference screening.

Allison et al. (2008) built a toddler autism screener while Kanaman built a leisure-item screener; both give BCBAs new numbers to guide early-childhood decisions.

Papadopoulos et al. (2013) compared two IQ tools and warned that format changes scores. Kanaman echoes the warning: social context is a hidden format that can flip toy ranks.

If you run only solitary SPAs you may miss top reinforcers that shine during social play. Next assessment, insert five social trials beside five solitary ones and average the ranks. You will walk away with a shorter, surer reinforcer list—and fewer program stalls later.