Choice Supported by Literature

• Dyer, K., Dunlap, G., & Winterling, V. (1990). Effects of choice making on the serious problem behaviors of students with severe handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 515-524.

  This study assessed the impact of choice making on the serious problem behaviors of 3 students with severe autism and/or mental retardation. In the context of within-subject reversal designs, the results showed consistently reduced levels of problem behaviors (e. g., aggression) when the students were given opportunities to make choices among instructional tasks and reinforcers. Additional data showed no systematic differences in the rate of correct responding between the two conditions. The results are discussed in relation to the continuing search for effective, nonintrusive solutions to the occurrence of serious problem behavior.

• Sigafoos, J., & Dempsey, R. (1992). Assessing choice making among children with multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 747-755.
Dunlap, G., dePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Wright, S., White, R., & Gomez, A. (1994). Choice making to promote adaptive behavior for students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 505-518.

Two analyses investigated the effects of choice making on the responding of elementary school students with emotional and behavioral challenges. In the first analysis, 2 participants were given choices from menus of academic tasks, all of which were pertinent to their educational objectives in English and spelling, respectively. Reversal designs showed that the choice- making conditions increased task engagement and reduced disruptive behavior for both students. An additional analysis was performed with a 3rd student in an effort to further distinguish the effects of choice making from preference. In this study, one of the no-choice phases was yoked to a previous choice-making condition. This analysis demonstrated that the choice-making condition was superior to baseline and yoked control phases as determined by levels of task engagement and disruptive behavior. The findings of the two analyses contribute information relevant to students with emotional and behavioral disorders, and to a growing literature on the desirable effects of choice making for students with disabilities and challenging behaviors.

Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & Lindberg, J. S. (1999). Analysis of activity preferences as a function of differential consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 419-435.

Individuals who do not possess the verbal skills to express meaningful choice in the absence of its consequences may have difficulty indicating their preference for protracted activities that are unavailable until some time in the future (e.g., taking a walk, riding a bike). When we examined the preferences of 4 individuals with developmental disabilities by showing them pictorial representations of various activities, their initial choices showed no clear preferences. In a subsequent condition, selecting a photograph resulted in brief access to the depicted activity. When selections produced differential consequences (i.e., access to the activity), clear preferences emerged. In addition, 3 individuals' preferences were later shifted to an initially less preferred but more socially desirable option by superimposing additional reinforcement contingencies for engaging in the less preferred activity. Results are discussed in terms of the conditions under which choice functions as an indicator of preference and how those conditions may be altered to improve the quality of choice making without limiting access to preferred options.