A comparison between traditional economical and demand curve analyses of relative reinforcer efficacy in the validation of preference assessment predictions

Abstract

Objective: This single-case study examined the degree to which three formal preference assessments (i.e. paired-stimulus, multiple-stimulus without replacement and a free-operant procedure) successfully identified reinforcers from six edibles in a subsequent reinforcement assessment.

Methods: Economical analyses were conducted on the entire hierarchy of low-, moderate- and high-preferred edibles using both traditional (i.e. progressive-ratio breakpoint) and demand curve (P_max) accounts of reinforcer efficacy with the data obtained from three reinforcement assessment sessions for each edible.

Results: Across all three preference assessment types, accuracy in the identification of the top three reinforcers was 67%. The correlation between the traditional and demand curve metrics was highly significant, replicating previous research on the substitutability of these analyses. Conclusions: Moderate-preferred stimuli may serve as efficacious reinforcers in subsequent reinforcer assessments. Additionally, demand curve analyses can contribute to the assessment of reinforcer efficacy and subsequently the validation of preference assessments.

• Demand curve
• progressive ratio
• behavioral economics
• reinforcer assessment
• perference assessment