Skip to main content
Log in

Response to Ahrendt, Houlihan, and Buchanan

  • Ask the Experts
  • Published:
Behavior Analysis in Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports some puzzling results from a token economy in an inpatient behavioral treatment facility. A seemingly insignificant change from poker chip tokens to sticker tokens produced substantial increases in problem behavior—as measured by frequency of time-outs for problem behavior. The results are puzzling because it is generally assumed that qualitative aspects of the tokens—such as whether or not they are handled—should not matter. What should matter is simply the correlation between tokens and other reinforcers for which they are exchanged. Indeed, the successful use of check marks, stickers, and stars in scores of token systems over the years shows pretty clearly that stickers and other nonhandled tokens are up to the job.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Conyers, C., Miltenberger, R., Maki, A., Barenz, R., Jurgens, M., Sailer, A., Haugen, M., & Kopp, B. (2004). A comparison of response cost and differential reinforcement of other behavior to reduce disruptive behavior in a preschool classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 411–415.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Flaherty, C. F. (1982). Incentive contrast: A review of behavioral changes following shifts in reward. Animal Learning & Behavior, 10, 409–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackenberg, T. D. (2009). Token reinforcement: A review and analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 91, 257–286.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Iwata, B. A., & Bailey, J. S. (1974). Reward versus cost token systems: An analysis of the effects on student and teacher. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 567–576.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kelleher, R. T. (1958). Fixed-ratio schedules of conditioned reinforcement in chimpanzees. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1, 281–289.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Malagodi, E. F. (1967). Fixed-ratio schedules of token reinforcement. Psychonomic Science, 8, 469–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, T. F., & Malaby, J. (1972). Intrinsic reinforcers in a classroom token economy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 263–270.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrini, S., Seal, M. F. L., & Papini, M. R. (2008). Scaling relative incentive value: Different adjustments to incentive downshift in pigeons and rats. Behavioural Processes, 79, 182–188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pietras, C. J., & Hackenberg, T. D. (2005). Response-cost punishment via token-loss with pigeons. Behavioural Processes, 69, 343–356.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hackenberg, T.D. Response to Ahrendt, Houlihan, and Buchanan. Behav Analysis Practice 6, 36–37 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391802

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391802

Navigation