A comparison of token and tandem schedules of reinforcement on response patterns for adolescents with autism
Tokens can act like brakes for some autistic teens—probe response rates first.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Four autistic teens worked on a computer task. Each press earned a small candy under two setups.
One setup gave a plastic token every five presses, then later traded tokens for candy. The other setup gave candy directly every five presses with no tokens.
The team switched the setups every few minutes to see which one kept the kids pressing fastest.
What they found
Two kids slowed way down when tokens showed up. Their presses dropped even though the same candy waited at the end.
The other two kids pressed the same speed no matter which setup ran. The tokens neither helped nor hurt them.
How this fits with other research
Knutson et al. (2019) also used an alternating-treatments design with autistic learners. They found faster learning when mastered tasks were skipped, showing that extra steps can slow kids down.
LYOSLOANE (1964) showed pigeons pause early in long FR runs when scary signals pop up. Tokens acted like early signals for two teens, making them pause too.
Wanchisen et al. (1989) proved that picking the right reinforcer wipes out problem behavior. Glodowski’s results remind us to test the delivery method, not just the item itself.
Why it matters
Before you set up any token board, run a one-minute probe. Count presses or correct responses with and without tokens. If the rate drops, drop the tokens and deliver the reinforcer straight. Save the fancy boards for kids who keep their speed.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a 5-trial probe: deliver tokens for one trial, then switch to direct reinforcement for the next; keep the faster method.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Token schedules of reinforcement are ubiquitous in clinical settings, yet little research has thoroughly evaluated the effects of token schedules on responding in clinical settings. Basic research has shown token schedules of reinforcement produce lower response rates and larger pre‐ratio pauses compared to tandem schedules. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether the same effects are produced with adolescents with autism or related disorders. We examined response patterns under otherwise identical FR token and FR tandem schedules. Tokens suppressed responding for one participant only under high schedule values and for a second participant under common clinical schedule values; no difference in responding occurred between token and tandem schedules for two participants. These results support the systematic evaluation of token schedules of reinforcement in clinical settings. Additional applied research is needed on token schedules to further our understanding of the underlying mechanisms that contribute to the overall effectiveness of token economies.
Behavioral Interventions, 2020 · doi:10.1002/bin.1704