ArticleJournal of applied behavior analysis2008
Reinforcement magnitude: an evaluation of preference and reinforcer efficacy.
Article in Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- The extinction burst: Effects of alternative reinforcement magnitude.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2025Article
- The effect of magnitude on the displacement of leisure items by edible items.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2025Article
- Evolution of the substance use landscape: Implications for contingency management.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2025Review
- Updated Recommendations for Reinforcement Schedule Thinning following Functional Communication Training.Behavior analysis in practice · 2024Review
- The effects of large, small, and thinning magnitudes of alternative reinforcement on resurgence.Behavioural processes · 2022Article
- Adapting Direct Services for Telehealth: A Practical Tutorial.Behavior analysis in practice · 2021Article
- The Relevance of Operant Behavior in Conceptualizing the Psychological Well-Being of Captive Animals.Perspectives on behavior science · 2020Article
- Children with Autism show Atypical Preference for Non-social Stimuli.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Resurgence and alternative-reinforcer magnitude.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2017Article
- Reinforcement Learning in Autism Spectrum Disorder.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Review
- Correspondence between single versus daily preference assessment outcomes and reinforcer efficacy under progressive-ratio schedules.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2012Article
- On the applied use of progressive-ratio schedules of reinforcement.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2008Review
- Translational Assessment of Reward and Motivational Deficits in Psychiatric Disorders.Current topics in behavioral neurosciencesReview
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
Consideration of reinforcer magnitude may be important for maximizing the efficacy of treatment for problem behavior. Nonetheless, relatively little is known about children's preferences for different magnitudes of social reinforcement or the extent to which preference is related to differences in reinforcer efficacy. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the relations among reinforcer magnitude, preference, and efficacy by drawing on the procedures and results of basic experimentation in this area. Three children who engaged in problem behavior that was maintained by social positive reinforcement (attention, access to tangible items) participated. Results indicated that preference for different magnitudes of social reinforcement may predict reinforcer efficacy and that magnitude effects may be mediated by the schedule requirement.
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.