ArticleJournal of applied behavior analysis2005
Effects of stimulus variation on the reinforcing capability of nonpreferred stimuli.
Article in Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolution of the substance use landscape: Implications for contingency management.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2025Review
- The effects of the question "What is this?" on tact-training outcomes of children with autism.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2012Article
- Effects of preference and reinforcer variation on within-session patterns of responding.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2012Article
- The effects of constant versus varied reinforcers on preference and resistance to change.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2010Article
- Reinforcement magnitude: an evaluation of preference and reinforcer efficacy.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2008Article
- Further examination of factors that influence preference for positive versus negative reinforcement.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We examined the effects of stimulus (reinforcer) variation in several different contexts. In Study 1, we identified high-quality (HQ) and low-quality (LQ) stimuli based on results of a paired-stimulus assessment and examined their effects when available under concurrent-reinforcement schedules for 8 participants. No participants showed preference for the LQ stimuli when compared singly or in a varied arrangement to the HQ stimulus. In Study 2, we identified nonpreferred (NP) stimuli based on results of a single-stimulus assessment and examined their effects when available under single-reinforcement schedules for 3 participants. Results of Study 2 were mixed. One participant's data indicated that the varied presentation of NP stimuli produced a modest improvement in performance over that observed when the stimuli were presented singly. By contrast, a second participant's data showed no facilitative effect for the varied delivery of NP stimuli and that the inclusion of an HQ stimulus in the varied arrangement obscured the reinforcing effects of the HQ stimulus. The 3rd participant's data showed no effect for the varied delivery of NP stimuli but an apparent facilitative effect when an HQ stimulus was included in the varied arrangement, which was attributable solely to the presence of the HQ stimulus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.