Comparing the reinforcing efficacy of tokens and primary reinforcers

Abstract

Token economies are one of the most commonly used behavior‐analytic interventions. Despite literature supporting the use of tokens as tools for behavior change, little is known about the efficacy of tokens compared to that of the items for which they are exchanged. Results of previous research comparing the reinforcing efficacy of tokens and primary reinforcers have shown that both produce similar effects on responding. However, published findings have been confounded given the inclusion of primary reinforcers in the token‐reinforcer test conditions. In this study, we established novel tokens as reinforcers. We then conducted a conditioned‐reinforcer assessment using a tandem control to ensure that the tokens functioned as reinforcers. We used progressive‐ratio schedules to compare the reinforcing efficacy of the tokens to high‐ and low‐preference edibles that were also used as backup reinforcers. For both participants, we found that high‐preference primary reinforcers maintained higher response frequencies than did tokens.

Resurgence Following Higher or Lower Quality Alternative Reinforcement

“…Applied research has generally supported the notion that reinforcer quality affects treatment efficacy, but comparatively little applied research has examined how reinforcer quality affects relapse susceptibility. However, Norris and Greer (2023) recently showed that individuals whose severe problem behavior is maintained by multiple reinforcers (e.g., access to attention and toys) often have strong preferences for one functional reinforcer over others. The extent to which the maintenance of problem behavior by qualitatively distinct reinforcers affects treatment efficacy and relapse susceptibility has yet to be explored.…”

Crypto Tokens and Token Systems

“…One of the most studied types of token are those providing some sort of incentive or reward; these serve as reinforcement mechanisms in token economies (e.g. Bonfonte (2020), Ivy (2017), Doll (2013)). Such tokens may be tangible: gaming chips, coins, tickets, stickers, marbles, or stamps (McLaughlin & Williams, 1988).…”

An assessment of token value and effectiveness: A replication

“…Given the frequent use of token systems, understanding the relative reinforcing value of tokens compared with the items for which they are exchanged is important (Fiske et al, 2015). Tokens may be more valuable than the back-up reinforcers because they can be arranged as generalized conditioned reinforcers, or they may be less valuable due to delayed access to the back-up reinforcers (Bonfonte et al, 2020). Recently, a few investigations have assessed the value of tokens compared with the items for which they are exchanged.…”

“…Bonfonte et al (2020) also evaluated the reinforcing value of tokens using a progressive‐ratio (PR) reinforcement schedule with two young men diagnosed with ASD. The researchers used PR schedules to compare the efficacy of tokens (exchangeable for edible items) to high‐ and low‐preference edibles used as primary reinforcers.…”

“…Collectively, the results suggest that paired tokens functioned as reinforcers for all participants but token systems may not be as effective as primary reinforcement for all individuals. Bonfonte et al (2020) also evaluated the reinforcing value of tokens using a progressive-ratio (PR) reinforcement schedule with two young men diagnosed with ASD. The researchers used PR schedules to compare the efficacy of tokens (exchangeable for edible items) to high-and lowpreference edibles used as primary reinforcers.…”