An Evaluation of the Effects of Varying Magnitudes of Reinforcement on Variable Responding Exhibited by Individuals With Autism.
Bigger edible reinforcers can lift communicative variability in kids with autism, so test portion size when you need flexible language.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team used a Lag 1 schedule with kids with autism. A Lag 1 schedule means the child must use a different word or sign each time to earn the reinforcer.
They kept the schedule the same but changed the size of the edible reinforcer. Some trials gave a small piece, other trials gave a big piece. They used an alternating-treatments design so each child got both sizes in mixed order.
What they found
Bigger edible reinforcers made the kids produce more varied communication responses. The large-magnitude condition created higher response variability than the small-magnitude condition.
This result goes against earlier basic animal work that suggested large reinforcers lead to rigid, stereotypic responding.
How this fits with other research
Cox et al. (2015) also tested reinforcer size with kids with autism. They found kids liked big edibles more, but the size did not speed up skill acquisition. Voss et al. (2019) now show size can matter when the goal is flexible communication, not just faster learning.
Milo et al. (2010) showed that rotating different edible items keeps kids responding longer. H et al. extend this idea: not only variety, but also bigger portions can boost responding when you require novel responses each time.
Together the papers say: check what you want. If you need faster acquisition, size may not help. If you need varied language, bigger edibles can help.
Why it matters
When you run mand training or intraverbal programs that require novel responses, try increasing the edible portion before adding more prompts. Start with a small versus large comparison in your next Lag 1 session and track how many new forms the child uses. You might get more creative language without extra teaching steps.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a quick alternating-treatments probe: deliver a large edible for each new mand and a small edible for the next session; count how many different mands occur in each condition.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Interventions aimed at increasing communicative response variability hold particular importance for individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Several procedures have been demonstrated in the applied and translational literature to increase response variability. However, little is known about the relationship between reinforcer magnitude and response variability. In the basic literature, Doughty, Giorno, and Miller evaluated the effects of reinforcer magnitude on behavioral variability by manipulating reinforcer magnitude across alternating relative frequency threshold contingencies, with results suggesting that larger reinforcers induced repetitive responding. The purpose of this study was to translate Doughty et al.'s findings to evaluate the relative effects of different magnitudes of reinforcement on communicative response variability in children with ASD. A Lag 1 schedule of reinforcement was in place during each condition within an alternating treatments design. Magnitudes of reinforcement contingent on variable communicative responding were manipulated across the two conditions. Inconsistent with basic findings, the results showed higher levels of variable communicative responding associated with the larger magnitude of reinforcement. These outcomes may have potential implications for interventions aimed at increasing response variability in individuals with ASD, as well as future research in this area.
Behavior modification, 2019 · doi:10.1177/0145445519855615