{"title":"On the Identification and Use of Social versus Nonsocial Reinforcers: A Review of Research Practices.","authors":"Samuel L Morris, Katherine G Bridges","doi":"10.1007/s40614-024-00426-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent research has developed efficacious methods for identifying individualized social reinforcers and utilizing social reinforcers may be beneficial for several reasons. However, the relative likelihood of utilizing social versus nonsocial reinforcers in behavior-analytic research remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate how likely behavior analysts are to employ social versus nonsocial reinforcers in the context of research. We pursued this aim by evaluating the types of reinforcers utilized in research published during the past 9 years in five applied behavior-analytic journals. Results suggest that researchers in applied behavior analysis have been more likely to use individualized nonsocial reinforcers than individualized social reinforcers. Moreover, when social reinforcers were employed, they were much more likely to be generic and not individualized. These data suggest there is room for improvement in the types of programmed reinforcement contingencies we use in research and ways of facilitating such improvement are discussed. Implications and directions for future research evaluating current practices, demonstrating the utility of social reinforcers, and comparing the utility of social versus nonsocial reinforcers are also discussed.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40614-024-00426-0.</p>","PeriodicalId":44993,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Behavior Science","volume":"47 4","pages":"739-761"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11582244/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Behavior Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-024-00426-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Recent research has developed efficacious methods for identifying individualized social reinforcers and utilizing social reinforcers may be beneficial for several reasons. However, the relative likelihood of utilizing social versus nonsocial reinforcers in behavior-analytic research remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate how likely behavior analysts are to employ social versus nonsocial reinforcers in the context of research. We pursued this aim by evaluating the types of reinforcers utilized in research published during the past 9 years in five applied behavior-analytic journals. Results suggest that researchers in applied behavior analysis have been more likely to use individualized nonsocial reinforcers than individualized social reinforcers. Moreover, when social reinforcers were employed, they were much more likely to be generic and not individualized. These data suggest there is room for improvement in the types of programmed reinforcement contingencies we use in research and ways of facilitating such improvement are discussed. Implications and directions for future research evaluating current practices, demonstrating the utility of social reinforcers, and comparing the utility of social versus nonsocial reinforcers are also discussed.
Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40614-024-00426-0.
期刊介绍:
Perspectives on Behavior Science is an official publication of the Association for Behavior Analysis International. It is published quarterly, and in addition to its articles on theoretical, experimental, and applied topics in behavior analysis, this journal also includes literature reviews, re-interpretations of published data, and articles on behaviorism as a philosophy.