On the Identification and Use of Social versus Nonsocial Reinforcers: A Review of Research Practices

The authors read every article in five major ABA journals. They looked at how researchers chose reinforcers. They counted how often studies used food, toys, or social praise. They also noted when teams picked reinforcers that matched each child.

The review covered years of published work. It did not test new kids. Instead, it mapped what the field actually does when it sets up rewards.

Most studies reach for edibles or generic praise. Few teams test if a child prefers a high-five, a joke, or a shared smile. The field likes easy, one-size-fits-all rewards.

Individualized social reinforcers are rare. Researchers rarely ask, "What social thing does this one kid truly enjoy?"

Morris et al. (2021) already gave us a quick test. Their tool sorts social interaction into reinforcer, neutral, or aversive for each child. The new review says we forget to use such tools.

Petrovic et al. (2016) showed a fix. When kids watched a peer pick a social game over candy, they later chose the game too. The scoping review reminds us to actually run that shift instead of staying with edibles.

Kennedy (1992) found that only one in five old studies checked social validity. Huntington et al. (2024) show we still skip consumer voices. Together these papers paint the same picture: we plan rewards around staff convenience, not child voice.

If you keep using M&Ms or "nice job" for every kid, you may miss stronger, naturally available rewards. Take five minutes to probe what social event lights up each learner. Run the Morris et al. (2021) assessment. Try the peer-model trick from Petrovic et al. (2016). You might fade food faster and keep kids engaged with real people.