JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2016, 49, 15 NUMBER 4 (SUMMER)

ARRANGING RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS AND THE DISTRIBUTION

OF REINFORCERS: A BRIEF REVIEW OF PREFERENCE AND
PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES
JOHN C. WARD-HORNER
EVERGREEN CENTER

MIRELA CENGHER
QUEENS COLLEGE AND THE GRADUATE CENTER, CUNY

ROBERT K. ROSS
BEACON ABA SERVICES, INC.

AND

DANIEL M. FIENUP
QUEENS COLLEGE AND THE GRADUATE CENTER, CUNY

Recent research has demonstrated that some participants prefer to complete a larger series of
responses in exchange for a longer duration of reinforcer access, rather than completing fewer tasks
associated with smaller, but more frequent, reinforcer access. This review provides a summary of this
line of research, examines variables contributing to participant preference and performance under dif-
ferent response-reinforcer arrangements, and discusses limitations and areas for future research.
Key words: continuous, discontinuous, preference, performance, response-reinforcer
arrangements

Recent research indicates that some partici-
pants with disabilities prefer to complete an
entire series of responses followed by continuous
reinforcer access, rather than dividing the
response-reinforcer components into smaller
units. For instance, Fienup, Ahlers, and Pace
(2011) provided a participant with a choice
between two arrangements, both of which
included six 20-problem math worksheets and a
total of 18 min of reinforcer access. Researchers
presented the participant with cards (initial
link stimuli) displaying the associated response-
reinforcer arrangement, and selection of one
card led to a terminal link in which the
We thank Joe Vedora for his feedback on early revi-
sions of this manuscript.
Correspondence can be sent to John C. Ward-Horner,
Evergreen Center, 345 Fortune Blvd., Milford, MA
01757 (e-mail: jward-horner@evergreenctr.org).
doi: 10.1002/jaba.350
participant completed math problems and con-
sumed reinforcers. In one arrangement, research-
ers provided 3 min of reinforcer access after
completion of each worksheet (discontinuous
arrangement1). In the other, researchers pro-
vided 18 min of reinforcer access after com-
pletion of all six worksheets (continuous
arrangement1). The participant preferred the
continuous arrangement despite the require-
ment of completing 120 math problems
before accessing the reinforcer.
1
The research literature has been inconsistent in the use
of labels for different response-reinforcer arrangements:
The terms uent, accumulated, and continuous have been
used to describe the completion of all response require-
ments prior to continuous reinforcer access, and the terms
disuent, distributed, and discontinuous have been used to
describe completion and consumption of several smaller
response-reinforcer units. We used the terms continuous
arrangements and discontinuous arrangements to refer to the
different response-reinforcer arrangements.

2016 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

1
2 JOHN C. WARD-HORNER et al.

Table 1
Procedural and Qualitative Variables That May Inuence Preference and Performance

Reinforcer Characteristics Response Characteristics Participant Characteristics Instructions

Type of reinforcer (edible, social, activity) Acquisition vs. maintenance Age/developmental level Rules regarding
contingencies
Continuity of access Free vs. restricted operant Cognitive functioning Contingency-shaped
(higher/lower) behavior
Empirically derived, positive (edible, social, Small vs. large Negatively reinforced
activity) vs. negative reinforcers Easy vs. difcult problem behavior
High vs. low preference stimuli High vs. low preference response Self control vs. impulsive
Long vs. short exchange delay
Sufcient duration to complete the activity
Conditioned reinforcers (tokens vs. no
tokens)
Components of token systems:
-Token-production schedule
-Exchange-production schedule
-Token-exchange schedule

The outcome of Fienup et al. (2011) raises
important questions regarding the variables that
inuence preference for different response-
reinforcer arrangements. For example, clearer
understanding of these variables may lead to
the selection of different response-reinforcer
arrangements for different types of tasks and
reinforcers (e.g., acquisition vs. maintenance
tasks; activity-based vs. edible reinforcers). There
is a growing body of applied research examining
variables that may affect preference for and
performance under various response-reinforcer
arrangements (Bukala, Yao Hu, Lee, Ward-Hor-
ner, & Fienup, 2015; DeLeon et al., 2014;
Kocher, Howard, & Fienup, 2015; Ward-Hor-
ner, Pittenger, Pace, & Fienup, 2014). This
paper provides a review of these studies and dis-
cusses variables (see Table 1) that likely inuence
preference and performance.
Prior Research
DeLeon et al. (2014) examined whether
reinforcer type inuenced preference for and
performance under continuous and discontinu-
ous arrangements. DeLeon et al. hypothesized
that longer-duration access to activity reinfor-
cers may increase their value by allowing ample
time to progress through pivotal stages of the
activity (e.g., reading an entire book chapter
vs. reading a few paragraphs), whereas the value
of edible reinforcers may be less dependent
upon continuity of access. In their second
experiment, the researchers compared preference
for continuous and discontinuous arrangements
when the reinforcer was an activity vs. an edible.
Three participants preferred the continuous
arrangement regardless of type of reinforcer and
one participant was indifferent when the rein-
forcer was an edible. For all participants, task
duration was shorter in the continuous arrange-
ment when the reinforcer was an activity,
whereas task duration was shorter in the discon-
tinuous arrangement for two of the four partici-
pants when the reinforcer was a food item2.
Bukala et al. (2015) extended this line of
research by evaluating different aspects of par-
ticipant performance under continuous and dis-
continuous arrangements. In comparison to
DeLeon et al. (2014), Bukala et al. measured
overall session and transition durations in
2
DeLeon et al. (2014) also included an evaluation of
the effects of tokens and delays to exchanging tokens, but
the presence and absence of tokens did not affect prefer-
ence and the effects of exchange delays were inconsistent.
 RESPONSE-REINFORCER ARRANGEMENTS
addition to task duration. Overall session dura-
tion was the total time to complete tasks, con-
sume reinforcers, and transition between tasks
and reinforcers. Task duration was the time
between the rst instruction and completion of
the last response, and transition duration was
the remaining time after task duration and rein-
forcement time was subtracted from overall ses-
sion duration. Overall session duration was
found to be shorter during the continuous
arrangement for two of the three participants,
with shorter transition durations for one partic-
ipant and with shorter task durations for the
other participant. Bukala et al. also found that
all participants preferred the continuous
arrangement.
Ward-Horner et al. (2014) attempted to
clarify the role of continuity of reinforcer
access by directly manipulating the overall
amount of reinforcement (i.e., the magnitude
of continuity of access) in the continuous
arrangement, while holding all aspects of the
discontinuous arrangement constant. Speci-
cally, for one participant, the researchers
decreased the duration of reinforcer access for
the continuous arrangement, so that it was
80%, 60%, or 20% of the overall duration
available for the discontinuous arrangement.
Ward-Horner et al. found that the participant
preferred the continuous arrangement when
the magnitude of reinforcement equaled 100%
or 80% of the magnitude of the discontinuous
arrangement; however, when the magnitude
was reduced to 60% or 20%, preference
switched to the discontinuous arrangement.
This outcome suggests that greater continuity
of reinforcer access alone may be insufcient
to inuence preference.
The preference and performance outcomes
described thus far are based on responses already
in the participants repertoire (i.e., maintenance
tasks). Because maintenance tasks do not require
learning, the less frequent reinforcer delivery
inherent to continuous arrangements may have
been a critical variable inuencing preference
3
and performance. Therefore, Kocher et al.
(2015) extended the aforementioned studies by
evaluating preference for and performance under
continuous and discontinuous arrangements
with skill acquisition tasks. The researchers
found that (a) preference was mixed with one
participant preferring each arrangement,
respectively, and one participant demonstrating
no differentiated preference, (b) the number of
sessions to mastery did not differ for two of
three participants, and (c) overall session dura-
tion was consistently shorter for the continuous
arrangement for all three participants. Never-
theless, it is unclear whether Kocher et al.s
preference outcome is the result of skill acqui-
sition tasks or some other variable, as the
study did not directly compare preference for
arrangements when the skills were acquisition
vs. maintenance tasks. Future research could
directly examine the effects of acquisition and
maintenance tasks on preference by manipu-
lating the type of task across experimental
phases.
Collectively, the aforementioned studies sug-
gest that (a) participants generally prefer continu-
ous arrangements, (b) continuous arrangements
are generally more efcient than discontinuous
arrangements, (c) reinforcer type inuences per-
formance, but not necessarily preference, (d) task
type may inuence preference but not perfor-
mance, and (e) reinforcer continuity alone may
not be sufcient to inuence preference. Never-
theless, the mechanisms driving preference and
performance are unclear. First, it is unclear
whether continuity of access inuenced the value
of the different types of reinforcers by allowing
sufcient time to reach pivotal stages in the activ-
ity (i.e., completing an activity ensures that a
pivotal stage was reached). For instance, DeLeon
et al. (2014) reported that three of the four
participants were unable to complete the entire
activity reinforcer within a session (i.e., two
exposure trials and ve choice trials per session),
and the participant who was able to complete the
activity was unable to complete it during a single
4 JOHN C. WARD-HORNER et al.
choice trial. In addition, although Ward-Horner
et al. (2014) directly manipulated continuity of
reinforcer access, the researchers did not directly
manipulate the extent to which the participant
could complete the activity.
Second, it is unclear whether continuity of
access serves as a motivating operation or a
manipulation of reinforcer magnitude. Tradi-
tionally, continuity of access has been equa-
ted to reinforcer magnitude (e.g., Bonem &
Crossman, 1988; Hoch, McComas, Johnson,
Faranda, & Guenther, 2002), but more
recent research suggests that continuity of
access may function as a motivating operation
(Steinhilber & Johnson, 2007). For instance,
Steinhilber and Johnson (2007) demonstrated
that participants preference for activity reinfor-
cers was dependent upon duration of access.
Therefore, continuity of access may simply
change the reinforcing value of an activity regard-
less of the particular stage of the activity, or it
might inuence preference and performance by
way of reinforcer magnitude.
Finally, an important question that has yet
to be addressed is whether preference is
determined by the arrangement of responses
(i.e., continuous and discontinuous task
completion), distribution of reinforcers, or a
combination of these variables (DeLeon
et al. 2014; Ward-Horner et al. 2014). The
most direct approach for examining this
question is to hold either the arrangement of
responses or distribution of reinforcers con-
stant while manipulating the values of the
other variable. For instance, to investigate
the effects of the arrangement of responses,
researchers might arrange the discontinuous
condition so that a delay occurs between
each set of responses, instead of brief rein-
forcer access, and continuous reinforcer
access is provided following the completion
of all tasks. DeLeon et al. (2014) recom-
mended an analogous procedure for examin-
ing the effects of reinforcer distribution.
Variables that May Inuence Preference and
Performance
Table 1 lists variables that may inuence
preference for and performance under response-
reinforcer manipulations. Some of these variables
may inuence preference, performance, or both,
and each of these variables may or may not affect
preference and performance in similar ways.
Consideration of the variables in Table 1 may
help clarify the conditions under which continu-
ous and discontinuous arrangements inuence
participants preference and performance, and
each, in isolation or combination represent fertile
grounds for future research. Next, we briey
highlight two variables: (a) response characteris-
tics and (b) participant characteristics.
Task difculty may affect preference and,
specically, participants who generally prefer
continuous arrangements may switch prefer-
ence as the task difculty increases. Difcult
tasks may be more aversive (Lerman, Addi-
son, & Kodak, 2006), require greater response
effort, and result in longer delays to reinforce-
ment. Therefore, as responses become more
difcult, more frequent reinforcer access and
escape from work (i.e., discontinuous arrange-
ments) might be preferred. Other response
characteristics, such as large vs. small response
requirements, may affect preference and perfor-
mance for similar reasons (e.g., greater delay to
reinforcement and increased response effort).
Future research could clarify the role of
response characteristics by examining their
effects on preference and performance for
response-reinforcer arrangements across experi-
mental conditions. Nevertheless, it is important
to note that manipulation of variables such as
small vs. large tasks and easy vs. difcult tasks
may result in excessively long session durations,
which might evoke challenging behavior, par-
ticularly with continuous arrangements.
Participant characteristics may also affect
outcomes. The outcomes of the ve studies
(Bukala et al., 2015; DeLeon et al., 2014;
 RESPONSE-REINFORCER ARRANGEMENTS
Fienup et al., 2011; Kocher et al., 2015; Ward-
Horner et al., 2014) come from a fairly homog-
enous group of participants. There were 12
participants across the ve studies and their
ages ranged from 13 to 20 years old. All partici-
pants followed one or two-step instructions,
nine participants communicated vocally, and
three participants relied primarily on non-vocal
modes of communication (i.e., gestures, sign
language, augmentative communication devices,
or a combination of non-vocal modes of com-
munication). The extent to which participant
characteristics inuenced the outcomes of these
studies is unclear.
There are several ways that future research
might clarify the effects of participant character-
istics. First, researchers might attempt to repli-
cate this line of research with younger
participants and participants with more pro-
found intellectual disabilities who may respond
more impulsively and therefore prefer discontin-
uous arrangements. Second, the research to date
has examined positively reinforced daily living
skills and academic behavior; researchers might
examine whether participants with challenging
behavior maintained by negative reinforcement
perform similarly under continuous and discon-
tinuous arrangements. For instance, Lerman
et al. (2006) demonstrated that two participants
whose problem behavior was negatively rein-
forced responded impulsively by choosing to
delay work completion when provided the
choice of completing less work sooner or more
work later, suggesting that these participants
would prefer discontinuous arrangements.
Summary
Additional research on response-reinforcer
arrangements is needed to better understand the
variables contributing to preference and perfor-
mance. Consideration of the variables in
Table 1 may help disentangle these contributing
factors, which might lead to assessments and
teaching procedures that t best with the types
5
of tasks completed and types of reinforcers con-
sumed. Future research will certainly illuminate
the relative contribution of response characteris-
tics, reinforcement characteristics, and interac-
tion between responses and reinforcers.
REFERENCES
Bonem M., & Crossman, E. K. (1988). Elucidating the
effects of reinforcement magnitude. Psychological Bulletin,
104,348362.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.104.3.348
Bukala, M., Hu, M. Y., Lee, R., Ward-Horner, J. C., &
Fienup, D. M. (2015). The effects of work schedules
on performance and preference in participants with
autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 215
220. doi:10.1002/jaba.188
DeLeon, I. G., Chase, J. A., Frank-Crawford, M. A.,
Carreau-Webster, A. B., Triggs, M. M.,
Bullock, C. E., & Jennett, H. K. (2014). Distributed
and accumulated reinforcement arrangements: Evalua-
tions of efcacy and preference. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 47, 293313. doi:10.1002/jaba.116
Fienup, D. M., Ahlers, A. A., & Pace, G. (2011). Prefer-
ence for uent versus disuent work schedules. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 847858.
doi:10.1901/jaba.2011.44-847
Hoch, H., McComas, J. J., Johnson, L.,
Faranda, N., & Guenther, S. L. (2002). The effects
of magnitude and quality of reinforcement on
choice responding during play activities. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 171181.
doi:10.1901/jaba.2002.35-171
Kocher, C. P., Howard, M. R., & Fienup, D. M. (2015).
The effects of work-reinforcer schedules on skill acqui-
sition for children with Autism. Behavior Modication,
69, 600621. doi:10.1177/0145445515583246
Lerman, D. C., Addison, L. R., & Kodak, T. (2006). A
preliminary analysis of self-control with aversive
events: The effects of task magnitude and delay on
the choices of children with autism. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 39, 227232. doi:10.1901/
jaba.2006.90-05
Steinhilber, J., & Johnson, C. (2007). The effects of brief
and extended stimulus availability on preference.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 767772.
doi:10.1901/jaba.2007.767-772
Ward-Horner, J. C., Pittenger, A., Pace, G., &
Fienup, D. M. (2014). Effects of reinforcer magni-
tude and distribution on preference for work sche-
dules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47,
623627. doi:10.1002/jaba.133
Received February 9, 2015
Final acceptance July 1, 2016
Action Editor, John Borrero