Preferences for token exchange‐production schedules: Effects of task difficulty and token‐production schedules

Abstract

Previous research suggests that accumulated exchange‐production schedules promote increased work completion and are more preferred than distributed exchange‐production schedules. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the response effort or token‐production schedules associated with token delivery influenced preferences for exchange‐production schedules. Tokens exchanged under accumulated schedules were more preferred, relative to distributed schedules, when tokens were earned for completing easy tasks. When participants earned tokens for completing difficult tasks, two of three participants preferred accumulated exchange‐production schedules (Experiment 1). Under dense token‐production schedules, accumulated exchange‐production schedules were preferred, but participant's preferences switched to distributed schedules under increasing token‐production (i.e., leaner) schedules (Experiment 2).

Risky choice and token reinforcement: Preferences for amount variability.

“…Preference for token-reinforcement interventions using distributed exchange-production may also be enhanced by programming VA token delivery relative to FA delivery. Future research should examine how preference for VA token delivery is affected by other tokenreinforcement parameters (e.g., changes in token-production schedule or task difficulty; Falligant et al, 2020) or how preference for probabilistic outcomes characterizes clinical populations with disordered behavior (e.g., Rooker et al, 2019). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.…”

Effects of and preference for fixed-ratio and time-based exchange-production schedules in a token system.

“…Falligant and Kornman (2019) evaluated preference for an accumulated exchange-production schedule (FR 10) versus a distributed exchange-production schedule (FR 1) while manipulating other token schedule requirements (e.g., token production) and found the participant preferred the accumulated arrangement except under the leanest token-production schedule (FR 5). Similarly, Falligant et al (2020) found that participants preferred accumulated exchange-production schedules under denser token production schedules, but preference for the distributed arrangement emerged under leaner token production schedules.…”

“…Token reinforcement systems are commonly implemented as part of behavioral programming, but there are many remaining scientific and practical questions related to specific components of token systems and token reinforcement schedules that, when answered, could improve their implementation in applied settings (Hackenberg, 2018). In particular, with a few exceptions (e.g., Argueta et al, 2019; De Luca & Holborn, 1990; Falligant et al, 2020; Falligant & Kornman, 2019; Repp & Deitz, 1975) the effects of schedules that comprise token reinforcement systems (i.e., token production, exchange production, token exchange) have not been examined as thoroughly in the applied and translational literatures as they have in the basic literature. Exchange-production schedule variations and their effects on responding during token production are important to understand in applied settings because the frequency of exchange opportunities affects the pace of instruction, which impacts the rate of acquisition of target behavior and the rate of challenging behavior exhibited during instruction for both typically developing children and those with developmental disabilities (Cariveau et al, 2016; Carnine, 1976; Francisco & Hanley, 2012).…”

“…A few recent translational studies with humans have examined features of exchange-production schedules in token systems (Argueta et al, 2019; Falligant et al, 2020; Falligant & Kornman, 2019). Argueta et al (2019) directly compared the effects of FR and VR exchange-production schedules on responding during token production with a child with an Autism Spectrum Disorder, a systematic replication of the Foster et al (2001) investigation with pigeons.…”

“…FR exchange-production schedules similar to the ones evaluated by Argueta et al (2019), Falligant and Kornman (2019), and Falligant et al (2020) are commonly implemented as a component of behavioral interventions in the applied literature (e.g., Cividini-Motta & Ahearn, 2013; Kahng et al, 2003) and in practice (e.g., exchange occurs when the individual fills their token board). Time-based schedules are also common in the applied literature (e.g., Ayllon & Azrin, 1965; Gilley & Ringdahl, 2014; Phillips et al, 1971) and in practice (e.g., exchange occurs at set times throughout the day).…”