A comparison of paired- and multiple-stimulus-without-replacement preference assessments to identify reinforcers for dog behavior

IF 1.4 3区 心理学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Steven W. Payne, Cintya Toledo Fulgencio, Reynafe N. Aniga
{"title":"A comparison of paired- and multiple-stimulus-without-replacement preference assessments to identify reinforcers for dog behavior","authors":"Steven W. Payne,&nbsp;Cintya Toledo Fulgencio,&nbsp;Reynafe N. Aniga","doi":"10.1002/jeab.857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Dogs may be relinquished to shelters and are unlikely to be adopted if they engage in problem behavior. A successful way to eliminate problem behavior is through training techniques based on behavioral principles. Obedience training with the use of positive reinforcement has been successful in treating problematic behavior by dogs. In order for this method to work, it is essential that the stimuli selected function as reinforcers. Preference assessments can be used to identify these potential reinforcers. A preference assessment is a systematic method used to identify stimuli that may serve as possible reinforcers by yielding preference hierarchies. Although preference and reinforcer assessments have been successfully used with humans, research with nonhuman animals is limited. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy and efficiency of paired-stimulus preference assessment with a multiple-stimulus preference assessment. The results suggested that the results of both preference assessments corresponded with reinforcer assessments but that the paired-stimulus method was the most efficient.</p>","PeriodicalId":17411,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeab.857","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Dogs may be relinquished to shelters and are unlikely to be adopted if they engage in problem behavior. A successful way to eliminate problem behavior is through training techniques based on behavioral principles. Obedience training with the use of positive reinforcement has been successful in treating problematic behavior by dogs. In order for this method to work, it is essential that the stimuli selected function as reinforcers. Preference assessments can be used to identify these potential reinforcers. A preference assessment is a systematic method used to identify stimuli that may serve as possible reinforcers by yielding preference hierarchies. Although preference and reinforcer assessments have been successfully used with humans, research with nonhuman animals is limited. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy and efficiency of paired-stimulus preference assessment with a multiple-stimulus preference assessment. The results suggested that the results of both preference assessments corresponded with reinforcer assessments but that the paired-stimulus method was the most efficient.

配对和多重刺激无替代偏好评估的比较,以确定强化狗的行为
狗可能会被送到收容所,如果它们有问题行为,就不太可能被收养。消除问题行为的一个成功方法是通过基于行为原理的训练技术。使用正强化的服从训练已经成功地治疗了狗的问题行为。为了使这种方法发挥作用,所选择的刺激物起到增强作用是至关重要的。偏好评估可以用来识别这些潜在的强化因素。偏好评估是一种系统的方法,用于通过产生偏好层次来识别可能成为增强因素的刺激。尽管偏好和强化评估已成功用于人类,但对非人类动物的研究有限。因此,本研究的目的是比较配对刺激偏好评估与多重刺激偏好评估的疗效和效率。结果表明,两种偏好评估的结果都与强化评估一致,但配对刺激方法是最有效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
14.80%
发文量
83
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior is primarily for the original publication of experiments relevant to the behavior of individual organisms.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信