Preference for Alternative Communication Modality Based on Reinforcer Quality and Availability.
Teens pick the AAC tool that gives the best stuff fastest, not the one that looks or sounds the coolest.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Cariveau et al. (2022) worked with one high-school student who had autism and an intellectual disability.
They set up two AAC devices: a speech-generating iPad and a Big Mac switch that played short audio clips.
Using a concurrent-chains setup, the teen first picked a device, then used it to ask for snacks or toys.
Across phases, the team changed which device gave the better or faster reinforcer.
What they found
The student always picked the device that delivered the bigger, quicker payoff.
When the iPad gave better snacks, he chose the iPad.
When the switch became the faster route to candy, he switched.
Looks and sounds did not matter—only reinforcer quality and speed controlled his choice.
How this fits with other research
Petursdottir et al. (2023) extends this idea. They tell clinicians to stop asking “topography or selection?” and instead test unit size, array size, and stimulus match to speech. Tom’s data show reinforcer value is another variable to add to that list.
Grant (1989) first showed pigeons prefer one response form over another even when delays are equal. Tom et al. replicate this with a teen and AAC: the form that worked best won, not the one that looked or sounded coolest.
Hartley et al. (2015) seems to disagree. They found autistic preschoolers use photos better than abstract icons, hinting that looks do matter. The gap is age and task: Calum tested picture comprehension in little kids; Tom tested device choice driven by payoff in a teen. Both can be true—iconicity helps understanding, but reinforcer value drives preference.
Why it matters
Before you buy shiny new AAC apps, run a five-minute concurrent-chains test. Put the reinforcer the child wants most behind each device and see which one they actually pick. If the old iPad with fast candy delivery wins, you just saved the district a thousand dollars and gave the student a voice that works.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Tape two devices to the table, load one with fast, high-quality reinforcers, and let the student choose five times—buy the winner.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Preference for augmentative or alternative communication (AAC) systems has received growing interest in work with individuals with developmental disabilities. An individual may choose a modality based on technological (e.g., auditory-output) or aesthetic features of a system; however, it is ideal that functional features (i.e., effectiveness in producing a reinforcer) affect preference to a much greater extent. Prior research has treated preference as a static variable and may commonly report a lack of preference for a modality or control by irrelevant features of the assessment (e.g., position of the modality in an array). The current study assessed the preference for AAC modalities of a teenager with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability using a concurrent-chains procedure. This study extended prior research by including additional methods to ensure accurate assessment of preference (i.e., a control condition) and a reinforcer manipulation to determine whether preference was controlled by non-functional (e.g., aesthetic) or functional (i.e., reinforcer quality and availability) variables. Preference was found to be functionally related to reinforcer availability, including when rapidly alternated between modalities. Moreover, the participant consistently allocated responding away from the control condition. Implications for self-determination and suggestions for future research on preference for AAC systems are considered.
Behavior modification, 2022 · doi:10.1177/0145445521992308