ABA Inside Track – Episode 338: Social Preference Assessments w/ Dr. Casey Clay

Release Date: March 18, 2026
Host(s): Robert Perry Crews, Jackie McDonald, Diana Perry Cruz
Guest: Dr. Casey Clay

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the fascinating world of social preference assessments within applied behavior analysis (ABA). Host Robert Perry Crews, alongside co-hosts Jackie McDonald and Diana Perry Cruz, interviews Dr. Casey Clay, a notable researcher in the field, about his work exploring how different types of social interactions can function as reinforcers, especially for individuals with autism. The discussion encompasses the rationale for researching social reinforcers, methodological details of Clay's studies, practical implications, real-world challenges, and future directions.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why Study Social Preference Assessments? (05:46–09:18)

• Edibles and Tangibles vs. Social Interaction
  • While food or iPads are classic, effective reinforcers, overreliance on these creates problems (e.g., unhealthy choices, poor generalization to natural environments).
  • Quote (Dr. Clay, 06:22):

    "...If it's only for, you know, those high sugary treats or we're only using those... we kind of pigeonhole ourselves in terms of what reinforcers we have to use... social interactions... they're cheap, they're, well, they're free, you know, to, to a large degree..."

• Generalization Concerns
  • Social reinforcers likely to be more prevalent, acceptable, and naturally occurring in everyday settings (07:14–07:22).

2. Assumptions about Autism and Social Reinforcement (09:18–10:30)

• Myth-busting: Contrary to the belief that autistic individuals universally dislike social interactions, Dr. Clay found many clients responded well to certain social stimuli.

• Individualization: The category of "social interaction" is vast—preferences are highly individualized.

  • Quote (Diana, 10:44):

    "In parallel people can like different types of social interaction and... you've got to find the right match for the person."

3. Methodology of Social Preference Assessments (14:56–19:30)

• 'Split Room' Pairwise Method
  • Two therapists occupy separate corners. Participant, standing at the midline, chooses between them to receive a sampled interaction.
  • Therapists are later switched to disentangle therapist preference from interaction preference.
  • Quote (Dr. Clay, 17:46):

    "We wanted to control for sort of the idiosyncratic features of the therapist... so, you know, once we assign therapists different social interactions and then ran the paired stimulus preference ass. After that, we looked at which therapist was selected the most..."

• Findings:
  • Most participants tracked the social interaction rather than therapist identity—true even when history with the therapist was minimal (19:11).

4. Limitations & Logistical Challenges (29:11–30:00)

• Resource Intensive
  • Multiple therapists needed; frequent repositioning to control for side bias; time-consuming.
• Extension and Simplification in Future Studies
  • Later research aimed to streamline methodologies (30:00).

5. Research Extensions: Dissecting Social Stimuli (31:48–37:16)

• Breaking Down Social Interactions
  • Explored vocal vs. physical components and compared social with edible reinforcers.
  • Even if edibles "win," it’s vital to test if lower-ranked (less-preferred) reinforcers (like social interaction) still function as effective reinforcers for some purposes.
  • Quote (Diana, 32:35):

    "Just because something doesn't compete in that, like, direct sense... doesn't mean that those other items can't function as reinforcers."

• Method
  • Used colored cards to cue different reinforcer types; controls included.

6. Staff/Practitioner Variables and Training (37:30–41:05)

• Delivery Matters
  • Staff style can be crucial: vocal prosody, facial expression, “energetic vs. calm” affect.
• Matching Staff and Student Preferences

  • When staff energy doesn't match student preference, this can impact behavior (see anecdote at 38:34–40:19).

  • Notable Story (Jackie, 38:34):

    "I worked with a child who did not appreciate my high energy... his aggression skyrocketed... so they did have to train me to be monotone..."

7. Assessment Modalities and Prerequisite Skills (43:54–50:49)

• Presentation of Options
  • In-person demonstration ('live sample'), pictures, or videos.
  • Consider client’s ability: e.g., visual impairments, picture-object matching skills.
• Comparisons to Other Modalities (Morrison & Vollmer, 2020)
  • Used arbitrary pictures, photos, vocal requests—vocal choice valid for those with the necessary repertoire.
  • Quote (Diana, 48:39):

    "...if you have someone who can reliably tell you what it is that they prefer, very often those results are valid..."

8. Generalization, Versatility & Social Validity (51:49–53:09)

• Social reinforcers generally more portable and generalizable than edibles/toys—easier to transport, less disruptive, easier to fade.

9. Expanding the Range of Social Reinforcers (51:49–54:09)

• Therapy Animals:
  • “File drawer” study investigated including a therapy dog in preference arrays; findings suggested direct interaction with a real therapy animal was highly preferred.
  • Even non-human social interactions (animal-assisted) are possible.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "Gotta get all the components of that social interaction in there, right? Yeah. Make it as rich as possible."
  – Dr. Clay (08:08)
• "We just did a really, a really simple reversal where... in one condition we deliver the social interaction, and in the other... extinction was in place..."
  – Dr. Clay (27:18)
• Discussion of staff delivery:
  – "If you have a staff who... just not their wheelhouse... does that have an impact on the delivery? If you have a student who really likes social interaction... does that factor into where you place that teacher? Or is this something you can teach?"
  – Diana (37:30–38:11)
• Real-Life Anecdote:
  – "His BCBA... did a scatter plot, and turns out it was only happening when I was working with him. So they did have to train me to be monotone..."
  – Jackie (38:34)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Introduction to Social Preference Assessments: 02:52–03:16
• Why Use Social vs. Tangible Reinforcers?: 06:17–07:14
• Misconceptions on Autism & Social Interaction: 09:18–10:44
• Design of Initial Social Preference Study: 14:56–17:46
• Therapist vs. Interaction Preference: 17:46–19:51
• Practical Limitations of Method: 29:11–30:00
• Component Analysis of Social Interaction: 31:48–33:51
• Importance of Staff Delivery: 37:30–41:05
• Assessment Modalities & Prerequisites: 43:54–50:49
• Therapy Animals in Preference Assessments: 51:49–54:09
• Practical Takeaways & Dissemination Station: 55:14–56:33

Practice Takeaways (55:14–56:33)

Dr. Clay’s Suggestions for Practitioners:

• Control for Variations: Make sure to account for differences in how staff deliver social reinforcers.
• Start Simple: If the learner can answer, just ask about their preferences before using more resource-intensive methods.
• Broaden Reinforcer Options: Don’t give up on social interactions; systematically assess and include them to move away from excessive reliance on edibles.

Research Directions & Open Questions (57:00–58:51)

• Age- and Group-Appropriateness: Expand beyond preschool interactions; define dignified/age-appropriate reinforcers.
• Conditioning Social Reinforcers: More research needed on how to make social interactions reinforcing for more individuals.
• Novel social stimuli: Explore non-traditional social reinforcers (e.g., unique autistic interactions, therapy animals).
• Virtual Delivery: Could digital or AI-mediated interactions be reinforcing? (60:19)

Contact & Resources

• Dr. Casey Clay:
  Email: casey.clay@usu.edu
  Instagram: @dr.caseyclay | Lab IG: @xrlab.aba

• Relevant Studies Discussed:

  • Clay, Samaha & Bogov (2018), “Assessing Preference for and Reinforcing Efficacy of Components of Social Interaction...”
  • Clay, Samaha, Bloom, Bogev & Boyle (2013), “Assessing Preference for Social Interactions”
  • Morris & Vollmer (2020), “A Comparison of Methods for Assessing Preference for Social Interactions” (Java)

Suggested Episodes for Further Listening ("Pairings” 62:10–64:08)

• Episode 2: Conditioned Reinforcers in the Social Setting
• Episode 47: Social Reinforcer Assessments
• Episode 238: Moving Away from Edible Reinforcement
• Episode 245: Rapport Building
• Episode 310: Pictorial and Video-Based Preference Assessments
• Episode 93: Dr. Clay on Virtual Reality Training

Tone and Style

Conversational, humorous, and practical, with an emphasis on real-world application, empirical grounding, and gentle myth-busting. The hosts and guest use personal anecdotes and playful banter to illustrate their points, while remaining deeply respectful of research, clients, and practitioners.

In summary:
This episode stands out as an in-depth and candid look at the “how and why” of social preference assessments, moving the field forward in both the science and art of delivering meaningful, humane, and effective reinforcement in ABA.