Exchange schedules in token economies: A preliminary investigation of second‐order schedule effects
Let kids pick variable-ratio token exchange; they like it even if it doesn’t raise their work rate.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Argueta et al. (2019) tested one autistic child in a classroom.
The child earned tokens on a fixed ratio 1 schedule.
Tokens could then be traded for toys under two rules: fixed ratio 2, 5, or 10, or variable ratio 2, 5, or 10.
Sessions alternated so the team could watch response rate and the child’s choice.
What they found
Response rates stayed the same under both exchange rules.
Yet when the child could pick, he always chose the variable-ratio side.
Preference did not match performance.
How this fits with other research
Cullinan et al. (2001) saw the same pattern with pigeons: VR exchange kept higher peck rates than FR as the ratio grew.
Their animal data say VR beats FR; the 2019 kid data say the two are equal for rate but VR still wins for liking.
Kim et al. (2024) later showed that neurotypical second-graders also lean toward variable token schedules that fit their delay discounting.
Together the three studies span species and diagnoses, yet all point toward learners liking variable exchange even when the extra work is not obvious.
Why it matters
If the client can choose the exchange rule, let him.
A VR swap may feel more fun and cost you nothing in output.
Probe both schedules, then honor preference—your token economy stays powerful and kid-friendly.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Offer two token boards—one with fixed trade-ins, one with variable—and let the learner point to the one he wants today.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Basic research shows that token‐production and exchange‐production schedules in token economies affect each other as second‐order schedules (i.e., the exchange‐production schedule's requirements affect responding toward the token‐production schedule). This relationship has not been investigated with children in academic settings despite the widespread use of token economies in this context. This study compared the effects of fixed‐ratio (FR) and variable‐ratio (VR) exchange‐production schedules of equal ratios (2, 5, and 10) on responding toward an FR 1 token‐production schedule with a child diagnosed with autism. A concurrent chains assessment was also conducted to assess the participant's relative preference for FR and VR exchange‐production schedule arrangements within her typical discrete trial training. Results showed no difference in response rate between the two schedule types. However, the concurrent chains assessment revealed an exclusive preference for the VR arrangement.
Behavioral Interventions, 2019 · doi:10.1002/bin.1661