摘要：We used response-restriction (RR) assessments to identify the preferences of 7 individuals with mental retardation for a variety of vocational and leisure activities. We subsequently increased their engagement in nonpreferred activities using several procedures: response restriction per se versus a Premack-type contingency (Study 1), supplemental reinforcement for engagement in target activities (Study 2), and noncontingent pairing of reinforcers with nonpreferred activities (Study 3). Results indicated that preferences are not immutable and can be altered through a variety of relatively benign interventions and that the results of RR assessments may be helpful in determining which types of procedures may be most effective on an individual basis. Full Text The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (241K). Selected References These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article. Amari A, Grace NC, Fisher WW. Achieving and maintaining compliance with the ketogenic diet. J Appl Behav Anal. 1995 Fall; 28 (3):341–342. [ PubMed ] Bannerman DJ, Sheldon JB, Sherman JA, Harchik AE. Balancing the right to habilitation with the right to personal liberties: the rights of people with developmental disabilities to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap. J Appl Behav Anal. 1990 Spring; 23 (1):79–89. [ PubMed ] Bernstein Daniel J, Ebbesen Ebbe B. Reinforcement and substitution in humans: a multiple-response analysis. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Nov; 30 (3):243–253. [ PubMed ] Charlop MH, Kurtz PF, Casey FG. Using aberrant behaviors as reinforcers for autistic children. J Appl Behav Anal. 1990 Summer; 23 (2):163–181. [ PubMed ] Fisher WW, Piazza CC, Bowman LG, Amari A. Integrating caregiver report with systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification. Am J Ment Retard. 1996 Jul; 101 (1):15–25. [ PubMed ] Green G, Striefel S. Response restriction and substitution with autistic children. J Exp Anal Behav. 1988 Jul; 50 (1):21–32. [ PubMed ] Hanley GP, Iwata BA, Lindberg JS. Analysis of activity preferences as a function of differential consequences. J Appl Behav Anal. 1999 Winter; 32 (4):419–435. [ PubMed ] Hanley Gregory P, Iwata Brian A, Lindberg Jana S, Conners Juliet. Response-restriction analysis: I. Assessment of activity preferences. J Appl Behav Anal. 2003 Spring; 36 (1):47–58. [ PubMed ] Hanley GP, Iwata BA, Thompson RH, Lindberg JS. A component analysis of "stereotypy as reinforcement" for alternative behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 2000 Fall; 33 (3):285–297. [ PubMed ] Hoch Hannah, McComas Jennifer J, Johnson LeAnn, Faranda Nicky, Guenther Shayna L. The effects of magnitude and quality of reinforcement on choice responding during play activities. J Appl Behav Anal. 2002 Summer; 35 (2):171–181. [ PubMed ] Horner RD, Keilitz I. Training mentally retarded adolescents to brush their teeth. J Appl Behav Anal. 1975 Fall; 8 (3):301–309. [ PubMed ] Konarski EA., Jr Effects of response deprivation on the instrumental performance of mentally retarded persons. Am J Ment Defic. 1987 Mar; 91 (5):537–542. [ PubMed ] Konarski Edward A, Johnson Moses R, Crowell Charles R, Whitman Thomas L. Response deprivation and reinforcement in applied settings: A preliminary analysis. J Appl Behav Anal. 1980 Winter; 13 (4):595–609. [ PubMed ] Lyons Charles A, Cheney Carl D. Time reallocation in a multiresponse environment: Effects of restricting response classes. J Exp Anal Behav. 1984 May; 41 (3):279–289. [ PubMed ] McEntee JE, Saunders RR. A response-restriction analysis of stereotypy in adolescents with mental retardation: implications for applied behavior analysis. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Fall; 30 (3):485–506. [ PubMed ] Mitchell William S, Stoffelmayr Bertram E. Application of the Premack principle to the behavioral control of extremely inactive schizrophrenics. J Appl Behav Anal. 1973 Fall; 6 (3):419–423. [ PubMed ] Neuringer Allen J. Superstitious key pecking after three peck-produced reinforcements. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar; 13 (2):127–134. [ PubMed ] PREMACK D. Toward empirical behavior laws. I. positive reinforcement. Psychol Rev. 1959 Jul; 66 (4):219–233. [ PubMed ] PREMACK D. Reversibility of the reinforcement relation. Science. 1962 Apr 20; 136 :255–257. [ PubMed ] Salzberg Bernard H, Wheeler Andrew J, Devar Linda Taylor, Hopkins BL. The effect of intermittent feedback and intermittent contingent access to play on printing of kindergarten children. J Appl Behav Anal. 1971 Fall; 4 (3):163–171. [ PubMed ]
