Token reinforcement: Translational research and application

Abstract

The present paper provides an integrative review of research on token reinforcement systems, organized in relation to basic behavioral functions and economic variables. This type of functional taxonomy provides a useful way to organize the literature, bringing order to a wide range of findings across species and settings, and revealing gaps in the research and areas especially ripe for analysis and application. Unlike standard translational research, based on a unidirectional model in which the analysis moves from laboratory to the applied realm, work in the area of token systems is best served by a bidirectional interplay between laboratory and applied research, where applied questions inspire research on basic mechanisms. When based on and contributing to an analysis, applied research on token economies can be on the leading edge of theoretical advances, helping set the scientific research agenda.

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

“…Tokens can help individuals discriminate between delays to reinforcement and situations in which reinforcement is unavailable (Hackenberg, ). Tokens can also establish preferences for larger, delayed outcomes relative to smaller, immediate outcomes (see Hackenberg, ; Hackenberg, ).…”

A comparison of token and tandem schedules of reinforcement on response patterns for adolescents with autism

“…Evaluating the effects of different variations of token economies is a ripe area of study for applied researchers and clinicians. This line of research, in connection with the basic literature (Hackenberg, ), will eventually result in a thorough understanding of token economies and, therefore, better implementation of such technology in clinical settings.…”

“…These results provide empirical support for the use of token schedules with these individuals and contributes to the body of evidence, more broadly, of the effectiveness of token reinforcement with clinical populations (e.g., Eluri et al, ; Krentz et al, ; Tarbox et al, ). Although tokens are often assumed to function as reinforcers, empirical demonstrations of the reinforcing effect of tokens is relatively uncommon in applied research and practice (Hackenberg, ). As a result, when a token economy does not appear effective in changing behavior it can be difficult to isolate the problem given the inherent complexity of a token economy coupled with the assumption that tokens function as reinforcers.…”

“…Following this pioneering research, the token economy has become a staple of behavioral programing with a large body of accumulated evidence for its efficacy (e.g., American Psychological Association, ; Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, ). Despite the extensive history of using token economies in clinical settings, relatively little is known about the basic mechanisms of token reinforcement (Hackenberg, ).…”

“…Although this token economy arrangement is common in applied research and practice, researchers have not yet compared token and tandem schedules of reinforcement with a clinically relevant population. More broadly, the token economy as an applied technology has developed largely in isolation of potentially important basic research findings (see Hackenberg, for additional discussion). Research that translates the methods and findings of basic research could have significant implications for applied token economy practice and research.…”