Determinants of pigeons' choices in token-based self-control procedures.
Token lights themselves reinforce, so cut exchange delay and keep price low for best effect.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Rutherford et al. (2003) let pigeons peck for colored lights that acted like tokens.
The birds could pick a few tokens right away or wait for more tokens later.
Researchers changed how soon the tokens came and how big the final food payoff was.
What they found
When the wait times differed, pigeons took the tokens they could get sooner.
When the wait was the same, they picked the side that gave more food.
The little exchange lights themselves worked like mini-reinforcers.
How this fits with other research
Burack et al. (2004) ran a near-copy setup and saw almost perfect choice for the cheaper, faster-exchange option.
That result tightens the 2003 finding: if you cut both unit price and exchange delay, preference jumps to almost 100%.
DeFulio et al. (2014) and Tan et al. (2015) swapped specific food tokens for generalized ones.
They showed the same conditioned-reinforcer effect holds even when a token could later buy either food or water, giving you more flexibility in classroom economies.
Why it matters
Your tokens are not just place-holders; they already feed the behavior while the child waits.
So shorten the delay to exchange and keep the token price low.
If you need variety, use generalized tokens such as points that can buy different backups—research says they still pull their weight.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Hand the token immediately and set a short, fixed timer the child can see for the exchange.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Four pigeons were exposed to a token-based self-control procedure with stimulus lights serving as token reinforcers. Smaller-reinforcer choices produced one token immediately; larger-reinforcer choices produced three tokens following a delay. Each token could be exchanged for 2-s access to food during a signaled exchange period each trial. The main variables of interest were the exchange delays (delays from the choice to the exchange stimulus) and the food delays (also timed from the choice), which were varied separately and together across blocks of sessions. When exchange delays and food delays were shorter following smaller-reinforcer choices, strong preference for the smaller reinforcer was observed. When exchange delays and food delays were equal for both options, strong preference for the larger reinforcer was observed. When food delays were equal for both options but exchange delays were shorter for smaller-reinforcer choices, preference for the larger reinforcer generally was less extreme than under conditions in which both exchange and food delays were equal. When exchange delays were equal for both options but food delays were shorter for smaller-reinforcer choices, preference for the smaller reinforcer generally was less extreme than under conditions in which both exchange and food delays favored smaller-reinforcer choices. On the whole, the results were consistent with prior research on token-based self-control procedures in showing that choices are governed by reinforcer immediacy when exchange and food delays are unequal and by reinforcer amount when exchange and food delays are equal. Further, by decoupling the exchange delays from food delays, the results tentatively support a role for the exchange stimulus as a conditioned reinforcer.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2003 · doi:10.1901/jeab.2003.79-207