Efficacy of and preference for reinforcement and response cost in token economies

First-grade teachers ran two kinds of token systems on different days.

Some days kids earned tokens for staying on task. Other days they lost tokens for being off task.

The researchers counted which plan kept kids working and asked kids which one they liked.

Both plans worked equally well. On-task behavior jumped the same amount whether kids earned or lost tokens.

Each child picked a favorite. Some liked earning, others liked losing fewer tokens.

Letting the child choose did not hurt results.

Kaiser et al. (2022) looked at 24 elementary token studies and also found big gains, so the new result fits the larger picture.

Hursh et al. (1974) tested only group earning rules long ago; the new study shows adding a loss rule works just as well.

Eluri et al. (2016) used only response cost with children who had autism and still saw good behavior drops, backing the idea that loss contingencies are safe when done right.

Regnier et al. (2022) warns gains fade if you stop tokens cold; pair either method with thinning and praise to keep the win.

You no longer need to pick one style. Run both for a week, let the child vote, and stay with the winner. It saves planning time and gives the student voice without losing power. Start there, then fade tokens using thin schedules and social praise so the behavior sticks after the coins disappear.