OBSERVATIONAL EFFECTS ON THE PREFERENCES OF CHILDREN

OBSERVATIONAL EFFECTS ON THE PREFERENCES OF CHILDREN
WITH AUTISM
JUSTIN B. LEAF AND MISTY L. OPPENHEIM-LEAF
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
RONALD LEAF
AUTISM PARTNERSHIP
ANDREA B. COURTEMANCHE
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
MITCHELL TAUBMAN AND JOHN MCEACHIN
AUTISM PARTNERSHIP
AND
JAN B. SHELDON AND JAMES A. SHERMAN
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS

Children with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may play with limited objects or toys, making
it difficult for teachers to identify reinforcers to use in teaching new skills. The goal of this study
was to alter children’s preferences from highly preferred toys to toys that were originally less
preferred using an observational pairing procedure. Child participants observed a preferred adult
playing with toys that were initially less preferred by the child. This intervention resulted in a
shift in preference toward the item manipulated by the adult. Maintenance of the changed
preference was idiosyncratic across participants. Results suggest a procedure for expanding the
range of items that students with ASD will select.

Key words: autism, conditioned reinforcement, observational learning, preference,
reinforcement

One of the defining characteristics of an
autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is restricted,
repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior,
interests, and activities (American Psychiatric
Association, 2000). Circumscribed interests have
been reported in 31% to 86% of individuals
with high-functioning autism and 37% to 95%
of individuals diagnosed with Asperger syndrome
(Kerbeshian, Burd, & Fisher, 1990;
Szatmari, Bartolucci, & Bremner, 1989; Szatmari,
Bartolucci, Bremner, Bond, & Rich, 1989;
Szatmari, Bremner, & Nagy, 1989; Tantam,
1991). Limited interests in activities may create
difficulties in finding effective reinforcers and
may limit educational and social opportunities.
Therefore, there is a need for procedures to
enhance the preference of previously neutral
stimuli to expand the interests of individuals
with an ASD. Such procedures have been
attempted with people with and without
disabilities (e.g., Bruzek & Thompson, 2007;
Greer & Singer-Dudek, 2008; Hanley, Iwata,
Lindberg, & Conners, 2003; Hanley, Iwata,
Roscoe, Thompson, & Lindberg, 2003).

Several studies have shown that children’s
preferences shift toward an originally neutral or
nonpreferred item when they observe others
work for or choose to engage with that item
Misty L. Oppenheim-Leaf is now at Behavior
Therapy and Learning Center in Seal Beach, California.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Justin B. Leaf, who is now at Autism
Partnership, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, California
90740 (e-mail: Jblautpar@aol.com).
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2012.45-473

473
JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2012, 45, 473–483 NUMBER 3 (FALL 2012)
(Greer, Singer-Dudek, & Gautreaux, 2006;

Singer-Dudek, Oblak, & Greer, 2011). The
effects of such procedures have been examined
with typically developing preschool children
(Bruzek & Thompson; 2007; Duncker, 1938)
and preschool children with mild to moderate
language delays (Greer & Singer-Dudek,
2008). The results of these studies suggest that
children who initially do not work for or play
with items do so more readily after they have
observed other children do so.

Three groups of children participated in a
study by Arenson (1976). Children in one
group were exposed to a simple discrimination
task (putting a pointer into one of two holes) in
which they received a neutral stimulus (a green
light) contingent on picking the correct hole.
Participants in the second group observed other
children receive the neutral stimulus as well as
an established reinforcer (candy) for completing
the same task, rather than completing the task
themselves. Children in a third group were not
provided with any exposure to the neutral
stimulus. All children were then exposed to a
test condition in which they were asked to
complete the task and were provided with the
neutral stimulus when the task was performed
correctly. The participants who observed other
children receive the neutral stimulus plus
reinforcement for completing the task performed
better in the test condition than
children in either of the other groups.

Singer-Dudek et al. (2011) studied the
behavior of three preschool children with mild
to moderate delays as they responded on
maintenance and acquisition tasks. In one
condition, children received food for correct
responses, and in another condition, the
children received access to books for correct
responses. The participants responded less
during the maintenance tasks and did not
demonstrate learning during the acquisition
tasks when books were provided contingent on
correct responses. During the observational
conditioning intervention, the participants
observed a peer receive access to books
contingent on correct responding while the
participants received no consequences for
responding. Following approximately 1 week
of intervention, the participants displayed high
levels of responding during the maintenance
tasks and increased learning during the acquisition
tasks when books were provided contingent
on correct responding. These results
suggested that the observational conditioning
procedure resulted in the books functioning as
conditioned reinforcers for all three children.

Bruzek and Thompson (2007) examined the
effects of observation of peer play on preferences
of four typically developing preschool
children. Initial preference assessments for each
child identified high-, medium-, and lowpreference
toys. Subsequent preference assessments
were preceded by 2-min observations of
a peer playing with either a high- or a lowpreference
toy. During the subsequent preference
assessments, three of the four children
consistently preferred the toy played with by the
peer in the immediately preceding observation.
The purpose of the current study was to
determine if the effects of Bruzek and Thompson
(2007) could be replicated with children on
the autism spectrum. We examined whether
observation of a known and preferred adult
playing with low-preference toys in presumably
novel and exciting ways could increase the rate
of choosing those items by three children on the
autism spectrum.

EXPERIMENT 1

METHOD

Participants
Three children who had been diagnosed with
an ASD participated in Experiment 1. Hank
was a 5-year-old boy who had been diagnosed
with pervasive developmental disorder not
otherwise specified. He had an IQ of 117 and
a standard score of 67 on the Social Skills
Rating Scale Parent (SSRS-P). Hank had good
conversational skills but had some deficits in
social and play skills and sometimes displayed
474 JUSTIN B. LEAF et al.
aggression and noncompliance. He was enrolled
in a preschool classroom with typically developing
peers. Buddy was a 6-year-old boy who
had been diagnosed with autism. He had an IQ
of 87 and a standard score of 63 on the SSRS-P.
Buddy had good conversational skills, displayed
no aggression or noncompliance, but had some
deficits in play and social skills. He was enrolled
in a typical kindergarten classroom. Larry was a
5-year-old boy who had been diagnosed with
Asperger’s syndrome. He had an IQ of 89 and a
score of 106 on the SSRS-P. Larry could speak
and understand full sentences but had limited
play and social skills and engaged in scripted
and ritualistic play. He was enrolled in a typical
kindergarten classroom.

 

Setting
The study was conducted at a large midwestern
university. Sessions for Hank were
conducted in an empty preschool classroom
that contained play mats, a sink, a table with
chairs, an indoor slide, and a one-way observational
mirror. Sessions for Hank were conducted
twice per day, at least 90 min apart, 5 days
per week. Sessions for Buddy and Larry were
conducted in an empty therapy room with a
one-way mirror for observation. Sessions for
both Buddy and Larry were conducted twice
per day, at least 1 hr apart, 2 days per week.

Preassessments
Paired preference assessment. Prior to baseline,
a paired-choice preference assessment (Fisher et
al., 1992) was conducted to identify an initial
high-preference item (IHP) and an initial lowpreference
item (ILP) to be used in the
reinforcement assessment. Ten items were
included in the paired preference assessment.
Items were selected based on direct observations
of the participants’ play (e.g., items frequently
chosen to play with) and included some
presumed neutral items. Prior to starting the
assessment, the participants were given the
opportunity to play with each toy for approximately
10 s. The entire paired preference
assessment was repeated on a subsequent day to
determine consistency of preferences across
time. The stimulus that was selected most
frequently across the two assessments was used
as the IHP item, and the stimulus selected least
often across the two assessments was selected as
the ILP.

 

Stimuli. Hank, Buddy, and Larry had the
same IHP stimulus, which was a noise-making
putty. Hank and Buddy shared the same ILP
stimulus, a dinosaur figurine. Larry’s ILP
stimulus was a light globe.
Person preference. Prior to baseline, we
assessed participants’ preference for two known
adults (adults who previously had spent an
equivalent amount of time with each boy).
Each adult sat on either end of a small table,
with the participant sitting in a chair 2 m away
from the table and equidistant from each adult.
In front of each adult was a cup and five small
counting bears. The assessment began with the
experimenter providing a general instruction to
the participant: ‘‘If you put all the counting
bears in the cup in front of Adult A, then you
can play with Adult A, and if you put all the
counting bears in the cup in front of Adult B,
then you can play with Adult B.’’ Next, the
experimenter stated, ‘‘Go put the bears in the
cup.’’ The participant then walked over and
placed the bears in the cup in front of Adult A
or Adult B. If the participant did not complete
the task within 30 s, the experimenter guided
the participant back to the chair. After the
participant had placed all five bears in the cup,
the corresponding adult provided social reinforcement
(e.g., hugs, piggy back rides, tickles)
to the participant for 30 s. Each adult was told
to act as fun as possible if chosen. This
procedure was continued for 10 trials. The
adult selected more frequently was deemed
preferred and was used as part of the
reinforcement assessment.

Reinforcement Assessment
A reinforcement assessment was conducted
to determine participants’ rate of choosing
among the IHP, ILP, and a control stimulus
(blank index card) when asked to complete a
OBSERVATIONAL CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT 475
simple task, which consisted of the participant
placing 10 small counting bears into a paper
cup.

Baseline. Baseline was used to assess which
stimulus was most preferred prior to intervention.
Sessions started with the experimenter
showing the participant a bin that contained
three stimuli: the IHP, the ILP, and a control
stimulus (a blank index card). Next, the
experimenter stated the contingency to the
participant (‘‘If you place all the bears in the
cup, then you can pick the toy you want to play
with.’’). The experimenter placed a paper cup
and 10 counting bears in front of the
participant and instructed him to place the
bears in the cup. If the participant did not place
all the bears in the cup within 30 s, the next
trial began immediately. After the participant
had placed all the bears in the cup, the
experimenter asked him to choose the toy he
wanted to play with. The participant had access
to the selected stimulus for 10 s. After the 10 s,
the experimenter said ‘‘my turn’’ and had the
participant place the item back in the bin. This
procedure continued for a total of 10 trials.
While the participant played with either the
IHP or the ILP toy, the experimenter did not
provide any social interaction or verbal communication,
did not play with the toy, and did
not make eye contact with the participant. If
the participant attempted to interact with the
experimenter, minimal attention or responding
was provided. If the participant selected the
control stimulus, the experimenter took the
card and provided no interaction with the
participant for 10 s.

Adult select ILP. The purpose of this
condition was to change the participants’
preferences from the IHP to the ILP. This
phase was similar to the baseline condition with
three major exceptions. First, the preferred
adult was in the room with the participant.
Second, the preferred adult completed the task
before the participant completed the task.
Third, the preferred adult selected the ILP after
engaging in the task.

Each session during the adult select ILP
phase started with the participant, preferred
adult, and experimenter entering the research
room. The experimenter then stated the
contingency (described above) to both the
preferred adult and to the participant and said
that the adult would go first. Next, the adult
placed the 10 counting bears in the cup as
quickly as possible while stating how much he
wanted to play with the ILP (e.g., ‘‘Cool, I want
the —’’) and on occasion stating how he did
not want to play with or did not like the IHP
(e.g., ‘‘I do not want to play with the putty.’’).
After the adult placed all 10 bears in the cup, he
selected the ILP and played with the ILP in
novel and exciting ways (described below).

The way that the preferred adult played with
the ILP was individualized for each participant.
On some occasions, the adult attempted to play
with the ILP in ways that the participant
typically played with other toys (e.g., if the
participant liked to run around with his toys,
the adult would run around with the ILP). On
other occasions, the adult pretended to make
the ILP into another toy or activity that the
participant preferred (e.g., pretending that the
ILP was a train if the participant liked trains). A
third strategy was playing with the ILP in novel
ways. From time to time, the adult commented
on exciting ways to play with the ILP and how
much fun he was having with it. As the
intervention progressed, the adult changed the
way he played with the stimulus from session to
session based on observations of the participant
playing in different ways with other toys in the
natural environment.

For example, for Hank’s ILP (the dinosaur),
the preferred adult typically ran around the
room with it, had it fly around the room, and
placed it in the sink so that it could have a bath.
For Buddy’s ILP (also the dinosaur), the adult
typically roared loudly (pretending that the
dinosaur was roaring) and had the dinosaur
engage in silly but appropriate behaviors (e.g.,
turning the lights on and off in the room). For
Larry’s ILP (the light globe), the adult typically
476 JUSTIN B. LEAF et al.
turned off the lights and had the toy spin,
pretended the toy was a microphone and sang
into it, and pretended the toy was a train and
had it travel through a hole in the room that
was made into a make-believe tunnel.

During each session, the preferred adult
engaged in these behaviors for five trials, during
which time there was no interaction between
the adult and the participant. If the participant
attempted to interact with the adult, the
experimenter stopped the participant and told
him that it was the adult’s turn to play and he
would have a chance later. After the adult’s five
trials, the participant had the opportunity to
complete the task. The rest of the session was
identical to baseline, with the exception that the
adult remained in the room while the participant
completed the 10 trials of the task. The
adult had no interaction with the participant
during these trials.

Adult select IHP (Buddy only). Because Buddy
continued to choose the ILP during the second
baseline after intervention, the preferred adult
selected the IHP (noise-making putty) during
Buddy’s second intervention. Otherwise, adult
select IHP was identical to the adult select ILP
condition.

 

Dependent Variable
Trained graduate and undergraduate students
served as experimenters, preferred adults,
and data collectors. In vivo recording of
behavior was conducted throughout the study,
with observers using pen and paper to score
responses. The main dependent variable was
participant selection of either the IHP, ILP, or
control stimulus following the simple task. The
purpose of the control stimulus was to
determine if stimuli selection was indiscriminate;
the control stimulus did not contribute to
a demonstration of the variables that controlled
task completion. The item that the participant
removed from the bin was scored as the
preferred item for that trial. At the conclusion
of each session, the researchers calculated and
recorded the percentage of selections for the
three stimuli.

Interobserver agreement was calculated by
dividing the number of agreements by the
number of agreements plus disagreements and
converting this number to a percentage.
Agreement was defined as both observers
scoring the same selection for the trial.
Agreement data were collected during 50% of
all paired preference assessments and was
100%. During the person preference assessment,
reliability data were collected in 100% of
sessions; agreement was 100%. Reliability data
were collected during 70% of all reinforcement
sessions; agreement averaged 99.8% (range,
90% to 100%).

 

Design
An ABABA design (Hank and Larry) and an
ABACA design (Buddy) were used to evaluate
the effects of the intervention. In addition, a
nonconcurrent multiple baseline design was
implemented for the initial intervention condition.
The initial adult select ILP phase was not
introduced for a new participant until the
previous participant had demonstrated a change
in preference, leading to a staggered baseline. In
the reversal design, demonstration of functional
control is weakened when behavior does not
return to baseline levels, as was the case for
Buddy. Thus, the additional nonconcurrent
multiple baseline design added to the demonstration
of the functional relation between the
intervention and behavior change. Each participant
demonstrated an initial change in preference
when, and only when, the intervention was
implemented.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this experiment, the observation procedure
altered the preferences of each participant
from an IHP stimulus to an ILP; however,
maintenance of effects was idiosyncratic across
participants (Figure 1). The control stimulus
was rarely selected (M ¼ 2.7% across all
sessions) throughout all conditions; therefore,
these data are not shown. During the first
baseline, Hank selected the IHP stimulus on a
mean of 85% of trials, the control stimulus on a
mean of 15% of trials (not shown), and the ILP
OBSERVATIONAL CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT 477
Figure 1. Percentage of trials on which the ILP and IHP stimuli were selected during baseline, adult select ILP, and
adult select IHP (Buddy only) conditions during Experiment 1. ILP ¼ initial low preference, IHP ¼ initial high
preference.
478 JUSTIN B. LEAF et al.
stimulus on 0% of trials. In the first adult select
ILP condition, Hank selected the ILP stimulus
more frequently than the IHP stimulus after
only two sessions. During a second baseline, his
selections varied for 11 sessions before selections
for the IHP stimulus returned to baseline
levels. During the second adult select ILP
condition, he again switched his preference to
the ILP stimulus within two sessions. During
the last five sessions of this condition, he
selected the ILP stimulus on at least 90% of
trials. During the final baseline condition, he
maintained preference for the ILP stimulus.

During the first baseline, Buddy selected the
IHP stimulus more frequently than the ILP and
control stimuli in five of six sessions. During
the adult select ILP condition, Buddy selected
the ILP stimulus 100% of trials after only two
sessions and did so for the remainder of the
condition. In the return to baseline, he
maintained preference for the ILP stimulus
and was, therefore, exposed to an adult select
IHP condition. Within the first session of this
condition, Buddy immediately began selecting
the IHP stimulus and continued to select the
IHP stimulus on 100% of trials. In the final
baseline, he continued to select the IHP
stimulus on at least 90% of trials.

During the first baseline, Larry selected the
IHP stimulus more frequently then the ILP
stimulus in all nine sessions. During the first
four sessions of the adult select ILP phase, Larry
showed variability in his preference for the IHP
and ILP; however, by the fifth session he
consistently selected the ILP more frequently
than the IHP. When he entered the second
baseline, he immediately demonstrated a preference
for the IHP again. During the second
adult select ILP condition, it took five sessions
for Larry to start selecting the ILP more
frequently than the IHP. During the final
baseline, he initially showed some variability in
his preference for the stimuli before selecting
the IHP stimulus on 100% of trials in the last
three sessions.

Children with autism typically have interest
in a limited number of activities and toys,
making it difficult for clinicians to find a variety
of reinforcers to use when they implement
behavioral interventions. To date, however,
little empirical evidence has shown ways to
increase reinforcement value for nonpreferred
stimuli for these children. Thus, Experiment 1
is one of the first studies to demonstrate
empirically that, through observation, an initially
low-preference stimulus can become a
highly preferred stimulus for children with
autism. These results have implications both for
clinicians and experimenters who work with
this population, because they suggest that
reinforcement values may be changed.

Although the results of the first experiment
look promising, several questions remain unanswered.
First, it is unknown if the results can
be replicated across different stimulus sets using
the same participants. Second, the maintenance
effects varied across all three participants in the
first experiment. Thus, it is unknown what the
maintenance effects would be with a new
stimulus set. Finally, the first experiment
utilized an observation procedure in which the
preferred adult played with the ILP in novel
ways, commented on how fun the ILP was, and
made occasional negative comments about the
IHP. The impact of these negative comments is
currently unknown. If conditioning is possible
without the negative comments, that may be a
preferred method for clinical use of this
procedure. The second experiment assessed this
procedure with a second set of stimuli and
assessed the role of negative comments in the
conditioning process.

EXPERIMENT 2
The purposes of the second experiment were
(a) to replicate the findings of Experiment 1
using different IHP and ILP stimuli, (b) to
replicate the maintenance effects of the observation
procedure, and (c) to assess the effects of
OBSERVATIONAL CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT 479
the observation procedure without using the
occasional negative comments about the IHP.
METHOD
Participants and Setting
Two of the boys (Hank and Buddy) who
participated in Experiment 1 also served as
participants in Experiment 2. Sessions for both
boys were conducted in the same therapy room
used in Experiment 1.
Preassessments
Paired preference assessment. Prior to baseline,
a paired-choice preference assessment (Fisher et
al., 1992) was conducted as in Experiment 1.
Ten items were paired with each other exactly
once across two paired-choice preference assessments.
The 10 items used in this paired
preference assessment were all different from
the items used in Experiment 1.
Stimuli. The paired preference assessment
yielded an IHP and an ILP stimulus for both
participants. Buddy’s IHP stimulus was a
Whoopee cushion, and his ILP was an Etch-a-
Sketch. Hank’s IHP was a Slinky, and his ILP
was a small football.
Adult preference. No adult preference was
conducted in Experiment 2. Both Hank’s and
Buddy’s preferred adult was the same as in
Experiment 1.
Reinforcement Assessment
A reinforcement assessment was conducted
to determine what percentage of trials participants
would choose the IHP, ILP, and control
stimuli after completing a simple task identical
to the one used in Experiment 1.
Baseline. Baseline sessions were identical to
those in Experiment 1.
Adult select ILP. The adult select ILP phase
was identical to that in Experiment 1 with one
major exception. At no time did the preferred
adult make any negative comments about the
IHP. The adult still engaged with the ILP as in
Experiment 1. For Buddy’s ILP (the Etch-a-
Sketch), the adult typically created drawings,
shook it hard to erase the drawings, and held it
in front of his stomach while he pretended he
was a robot. For Hank’s ILP (the football), the
adult typically tossed the football in the air in
an attempt to hit the ceiling, ran out in the hall
and threw the football down the hall, pretended
to be Peyton Manning, and tried to hit targets
across the room.
Dependent Variable and Interobserver Agreement
The main dependent variable in Experiment
2 was the same as in Experiment 1. Interobserver
agreement data were collected during
75% of all paired preference assessments and
during 49% of all reinforcement assessments,
and were calculated as in Experiment 1. Mean
agreement was 100%.
Design
An ABA reversal design and nonconcurrent
multiple baseline design across participants was
implemented during Experiment 2.
RESULTS
Results of the second experiment indicated
that, as in the first experiment, both participants
switched their preference from the IHP
stimulus to the ILP stimulus during the adult
select ILP condition; however, the maintenance
effects were once again idiosyncratic across
participants (Figure 2). The control stimulus
was never selected throughout all sessions and
conditions; therefore, the data are not shown.
In the second experiment, Buddy’s preference
for stimuli again switched following
exposure to the adult select ILP condition.
During the first baseline, Buddy selected the
IHP stimulus on 100% of trials. During
intervention, he selected the ILP stimulus on
100% of the trials. In his final baseline, he
selected the ILP stimulus on 100% of the trials.
Hank’s preference for stimuli also switched
following exposure to the adult select ILP
condition. During the first baseline, Hank
selected the IHP stimulus more frequently than
the ILP stimulus in every session. In the
intervention condition, he selected the ILP
stimulus on at least 90% of trials. When Hank
480 JUSTIN B. LEAF et al.
returned to a final baseline, he showed
variability in his preference for 10 sessions
before preference for the IHP stimulus returned
to baseline levels.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
One of the defining features of autism is rigid
and limited interest in toys and activities
(American Psychiatric Association, 2000). This
narrow range of interest makes it difficult for
clinicians, parents, and teachers to identify
potential reinforcers for these children. Without
adequate reinforcement, maintenance of performance
and acquisition of new skills may be
hindered. Therefore, research is needed on ways
to broaden the range of reinforcers for children
with autism. Previous research has shown that
observation procedures can be effective in
changing preferences of typically developing
children. Bruzek and Thompson (2007), for
example, found that observing a peer playing
with a stimulus affected the participant’s
preference for that stimulus. The present study
indicates that similar antecedent observation of
an adult playing with an item also can affect the
preferences of children with an ASD.
In Experiment 1, three children switched
their preference from an IHP stimulus to an
ILP stimulus following an observation proce-
Figure 2. Percentage of trials on which the ILP and IHP stimuli were selected during the baseline and adult select
ILP conditions during Experiment 2. ILP ¼ initial low preference, IHP ¼ initial high preference.
OBSERVATIONAL CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT 481
dure in which the participant observed a
preferred adult engaging with the ILP stimulus,
making comments about how much he enjoyed
the stimulus, and making occasional negative
comments about the IHP stimulus. In Experiment
2, these results were replicated with the
same participants but with a different set of
IHP and ILP stimuli. Similar effects were
obtained without the use of negative comments
directed towards the IHP. Thus, the results of
the study indicate that for children with autism,
preference for stimuli can be altered through an
observational procedure. These findings may
have implications for therapists, clinicians, and
teachers who work with this population.
This procedure may provide clinicians with a
way to widen the interests of children with
autism, which could lead to more diversity in
play, more interest in age-appropriate play, and,
ultimately, more social opportunities with
peers. Although this study did show that the
observation procedure affected the stimulus
selections of the children with autism, it did
not evaluate the effects of the IHP and ILP
stimuli on the rate of a more effortful operant
response. Future research should examine
whether this procedure is effective not only in
changing preferences for other children with
autism but in producing reinforcers for this
population that can be used to teach new skills.
Several explanations for the results are
plausible. One possible explanation is that the
preferred adult choosing and playing with the
ILP may have served as a motivating operation,
changing the reinforcing value of the ILP. The
ways in which the adult engaged with the ILP
(i.e., enthusiastic, novel actions) may have
changed the consequences associated with
choosing the ILP. The children vicariously
came into contact with the new consequences
by observing the adult engaging with the ILP,
which can account for the quick change in
behavior. The participants frequently were
observed to engage with the toys in the same
manner as the adult; thus, continued choice of
the ILP could be accounted for by the child
then coming into contact with the consequences
himself (e.g., choice of the ILP led to
engagement in fun and preferred activities with
the ILP).
A second plausible explanation is that a
history of reinforcement for imitation and
direction following may have led the children
to imitate the behaviors of the preferred adult
(i.e., choosing the ILP toy, imitating play
behaviors with the ILP toy). As noted previously,
the children frequently imitated the
actions displayed by the preferred adult, which
may indicate that history of reinforcement for
imitation was a factor in behavior change.
Future research may test this possibility by
having the adults leave the room while the child
plays with the selected toy.
A third possible explanation is that the ILP
became more reinforcing through conditioning.
The ILP was paired throughout the intervention
with an already established reinforcer, the
preferred adult. In addition, the adult played
with the ILP in ways that paired the ILP with
already preferred play behaviors (e.g., turning
the ILP into a train for a child obsessed with
trains, essentially pairing the ILP with trains).
This explanation could be tested by exploring
the parameters of the intervention that are
necessary for the desired effects. Some possible
changes could include the preferred adult not
incorporating preferred play behaviors, the
adult simply choosing the ILP but not playing
with it, and use of a nonpreferred or unknown
adult or peer.
One limitation of this study is that the
intervention involved several components, including
a preferred adult who completed the
task, selected the ILP, and interacted with the
ILP in a variety of ways. Conducting a
component analysis could shed light on the
processes responsible for behavior change, as
previously discussed. Future research also could
examine ways to maintain the effects of the
observational procedure after it is discontinued
or programmed more intermittently. Another
possible area of future research is to examine
482 JUSTIN B. LEAF et al.
whether results could be replicated with a wider
variety of children with autism. All three
participants in this study would be classified
as high functioning. Therefore, it is unknown if
similar effects would be obtained for children
who have more severe cognitive and social
delays or for children who may have dual
diagnoses.
This study provides the first empirical
evidence that preferences of children with an
ASD can be altered using an observation
procedure. These results are similar to the
findings of Bruzek and Thompson (2007) and
may have implications for the treatment of
children and adolescents with autism. Clearly,
more research is needed in this area to address
the significant challenges of expanding interests
and identifying reinforcers for children with
autism.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text
rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Arenson, S. J. (1976). Vicarious conditioned reinforcement
in children. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary
and Applied, 94, 65–71.
Bruzek, J. L., & Thompson, R. H. (2007). Antecedent
effects of observing peer play. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 40, 327–331.
Duncker, K. (1938). Experimental modification of children’s
food preference through social suggestion.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 33, 489–
507.
Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L.
P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison
of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for
persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491–498.
Greer, R. D., & Singer-Dudek, J. (2008). The emergence
of conditioned reinforcement from observation.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 89,
15–29.
Greer, R. D., Singer-Dudek, J., & Gautreaux, G. (2006).
Observational learning. International Journal of
Psychology, 41, 486–499.
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., Lindberg, J. S., & Conners, J.
(2003). Response-restriction analysis: I. Assessment of
activity preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 36, 47–58.
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., Roscoe, E. M., Thompson, R.
H., & Lindberg, J. A. (2003). Response-restriction
analysis: II. Alteration of activity preferences. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 59–76.
Kerbeshian, J., Burd, L., & Fisher, W. (1990). Asperger’s
syndrome: To be or not to be? British Journal of
Psychiatry, 156, 721–725.
Singer-Dudek, J., Oblak, M., & Greer, R. D. (2011).
Establishing books as conditioned reinforcers for
preschool children as a function of an observational
intervention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44,
421–434.
Szatmari, P., Bartolucci, G., & Bremner, R. (1989).
Asperger’s syndrome and autism: Comparison of
early history and outcome. Developmental Medicine &
Child Neurology, 31, 709–720.
Szatmari, P., Bartolucci, G., Bremner, R., Bond, S., &
Rich, S. (1989). A follow-up study of high
functioning-autistic children. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 19, 213–225.
Szatmari, P., Bremner, R., & Nagy, J. (1989). Asperger’s
syndrome: A review of clinical features. Canadian
Journal of Psychiatry, 34, 554–560.
Tantam, D. (1991). Autism and Asperger’s syndrome. In
U. Firth (Ed.), Autism syndrome in adulthood (pp.
147–183). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Received August 15, 2011
Final acceptance January 10, 2012
Action Editor, Rachel Thompson
OBSERVATIONAL CONDITIONED REINFORCEMENT 483