A preliminary analysis of adaptive responding under open and closed economies.

Two adults with developmental disabilities worked on a simple task. They pressed a switch to earn snacks.

The researchers switched between two setups. In one, the snacks came only from working. In the other, snacks were also given for free.

The team used a progressive-ratio schedule. Each new round required more presses than the last. They counted how many presses each person did before quitting.

When snacks came only from work, both adults pressed far more times. They kept going even when the work got hard.

Free snacks cut the work in half. The same people stopped pressing much sooner.

Timberlake et al. (1987) saw no big difference between open and closed economies in pigeons. They said the schedule ratio matters more than free food. The new study shows the opposite in humans.

Jerome et al. (2008) used the same progressive-ratio method with adults who have developmental disabilities. They swapped food for social praise and still saw higher break points with better reinforcers. The 2005 paper adds that simply removing free food can also raise break points.

Argueta et al. (2019) let kids choose token exchange schedules. Kids picked the variable option even when it did not raise work rate. Together, these studies say both choice and free access shape how hard people will work.

If you give free access to reinforcers before or during work, you may get less effort. Try a closed economy first: deliver all reinforcers only through the task. Watch the client’s break point rise, then fade in free access only when the skill is strong.