SOCIOMETRIC AND DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR AS A FUNCTION OF FOUR TYPES OF TOKEN REINFORCEMENT PROGRAMS¹

Abstract

Children in a first-grade dassroom were divided into four groups. Baseline measures of disruptive classroom behavior were taken on a well-behaved and disruptive child in each group. Following baseline, four types of token economies were simultaneously introduced and rotated every 10 days within a Latin Square design. The token economies were: (1) individual reinforcement determined by individual performance; (2) group reinforcement determined by the behavior of the most disruptive child; (3) group reinforcement determined by the behavior of the least disruptive child; (4) group reinforcement determined by the behavior of a randomly chosen child. The token economies were compared on their effectiveness in changing target behavior, preference by the targets, ease of use, and cost. Additionally, sociometric responses were taken on questions of responsibility, friendship, and funniness. Results showed a significant decrease of inappropriate behavior for the disruptive children and no difference between the effectiveness of the four types of token economies in producing behavior change. However, there were other differences that indicated that the system in which group reinforcement was determined by a randomly selected child would be desirable for most teachers. Results also showed changes in the sociometric status of the disruptive children. As predicted, disruptive children were rated as more responsible when they were in the group reinforcement determined by the most disruptive child in the group token economy. Using behavior modification techniques indirectly to change sociometric status is suggested as offering a new potential technique for behavior change agents.

EMPLOYING TASK ARRANGEMENTS AND VERBAL CONTINGENCIES TO PROMOTE VERBALIZATIONS BETWEEN RETARDED CHILDREN1

“…In this regard, behavior analysis could make a significant contribution. Drabman, Spitalnik, and Spitalnik (1974), for example, reported a study in which sociometric status was shown to be a function of a group tokenreinforcement system. The authors concluded that behavior-modification techniques could be employed to change sociometric status.…”

A Comparison of Cost and Reward Procedures With Interdependent Group Contingencies

“…Token economies have frequently been implemented in the classroom to both increase appropriate behavior (Putnam, Handler, Ramirez-Platt & Luiselli, 2003;Herring & Wilder, 2006) and to decrease disruptive behavior (Drabman, Spitalnik, & Spitalnik, 1974;. The educational literature on classroom management now includes recommendations on how to implement token economies within the classroom for individual students Macciomei, 1999;Ward, 1991) and for the entire classroom (Axelrod, 1998;.…”

“…For example, tokens can be given and never removed (Drabman, Spitalnik, & Spitalnik, 1974;Kirby, Kerwin, Carpenedo, Rosenwasser, & Gardner, 2008;. The teacher may present a token each time a desired behavior occurs and never remove tokens when an undesired behavior occurs.…”

Acceptability of Alternative Treatments for Deviant Child Behavior

“…Occasionally, published reports have included client evaluations of treatment procedures by mentioning anecdotal information about how institutional staff, parents, and clients prefer one treatment technique over another (Drabman, Spitalnik, & Spitalnik, 1974;Foxx & Azrin, 1972. In some cases, questionnaire data have been obtained about staff or client satisfaction with treatment (Foxx & Shapiro, 1978;Liberman, Levine, Wheeler, Sanders, & Wallace, 1976;Porterfield, Herbert-Jackson, & Risley, 1976;Rosenbaum, O'Leary, & Jacob, 1975;Webster & Azrin, 1973).…”