Using Objects of Obsession as Token Reinforcers for Children with Autism

  • Marjorie H. Charlop-Christy
  • Linda K. Haymes
Article

Abstract

We assessed the effectiveness of using objects of obsession as token reinforcers to increase task performance for children with autism. The use of obsessions as tokens (e.g., letter “A”, a picture of a train) was compared with the use of typical tokens (e.g., stars, happy faces). A multiple baseline design across children with a reversal within child was used. Data were collected on percentage correct of task responses and on the occurrence of inappropriate behaviors during work sessions. Results indicated that percentage correct on task performance was higher when objects of obsession were used as tokens as opposed to when typical tokens were used. Concomitant decreases in inappropriate behaviors during work sessions were also noted. Results are discussed in terms of primary versus secondary reinforcement and the effects of saliency and novelty of the reinforcing stimuli.

Obsession reinforcement aberrant behavior 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Charlop, M. H., & Haymes, L. K. (1996). Using obsessions as reinforcers with and without mild reductive procedures to decrease autistic children's inappropriate behaviors. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 26, 527–546.Google Scholar
  5. Charlop, M. H., Kurtz, P. F., & Casey, F. (1990). Using aberrant behaviors as reinforcers for autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 163–181.Google Scholar
  6. Epstein, L., Taubman, M. T., & Lovaas, O. I. (1985). Changes in self-stimulatory behavior with treatment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 281–294.Google Scholar
  7. Ford, J. D., McClure, G., & Haring-McClure, P. (1979). A token is not a token...: Interactive effects of intrinsic and extrinsic reinforcement with children. Behavior Therapy, 10, 295–297.Google Scholar
  8. Hawkins, A. H. (1982). Influencing leisure choices of autistic like children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 12, 359–366.Google Scholar
  9. Hewett, F. M., Taylor, F. D., & Artuso, A. A. (1969). The Santa Monica Project: Evaluation of an engineered classroom design with emotionally disturbed children. Exceptional Children, 35, 523–529.Google Scholar
  10. Hung, D. (1978). Using self-stimulation as reinforcement for autistic children. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 8, 355–366.Google Scholar
  11. Koegel, R. L., & Egel, A. L. (1979). Motivating autistic children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 418–426.Google Scholar
  12. Lovaas, O. I., Newsom, C., & Hickman, C. (1987). Self-stimulatory behavior and perceptual reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 45–68.Google Scholar
  13. Mangus, Henderson, & French (1986). Token economy with autistic children for physical activity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 97–98.Google Scholar
  14. Miller, L. B., & Dyer, J. L. (1975). Four preschool programs: Their dimensions and effects. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 40, 170.Google Scholar
  15. Moser, A. (1974). Effectiveness of tokens as secondary reinforcers with “emotionally disturbed children.” Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy, 20, 43–46.Google Scholar
  16. O'Connor, N., & Hermelin, B. (1967). Selective visual attention of psychotic children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 8, 167–179.Google Scholar
  17. O'Leary, K. D., & Drabman, R. (1971). Token reinforcement in the classroom: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 75, 379–398.Google Scholar
  18. Schreibman, L. (1988). Autism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Sugai, G., & White, W.J. (1986). Effects of using self-stimulation as a reinforcer on the prevocational work rates of an autistic child. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 16, 459–471.Google Scholar
  20. Trabasso, T., & Bower, G. H. (1968). Attention in learning: Theory and research. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Woolery, M., Kirk, K., & Gast, D. L. (1985). Stereotypic behavior as a reinforcer: Effects and side effects. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 15, 149–161.Google Scholar
  22. Young, S. (1969). Visual attention in autistic and normal children: Effects of stimulus novelty, human attributes and complexity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marjorie H. Charlop-Christy
    • 1
  • Linda K. Haymes
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyClaremont McKenna CollegeClaremont
  2. 2.Claremont Graduate SchoolClaremont

Personalised recommendations