Generalization of aggressive behavior in adolescent delinquent boys.

Staddon (1970) worked with teenage boys who had court records. The boys could earn coins for non-aggressive answers during a rigged card game. Later the coins traded for real money.

The researchers then watched the same boys play a new group game where aggression earned nothing. They wanted to see if the earlier cash-backed tokens made aggression spread to this free setting.

Aggressive talk and moves showed up in the new game even though it paid zero. The boys kept swearing, shoving, and threatening just like before.

Polite responses did not bounce all the way back. Once aggression paid, it stuck around when the pay stopped.

Kelly et al. (1970) seems to clash: they saw aggression jump when coins stopped. Both studies used cash with the same teen sample in 1970. The gap is timing. E showed that reinforced aggression leaks into new spots. F showed that pulling the pay can also spark a burst. Together they warn: money-backed tokens can lock in or flare up aggression.

Kohlenberg et al. (1976) built on the idea but flipped the target. They ran a cottage-wide token economy and got 14 months of cleaner rooms and rule following. Their longer view says tokens work if you aim them at prosocial acts, not aggression.

Yassine et al. (2021) stretched the token plan down to elementary recess. Aggression fell 50-100 % when kids earned points for safe play. The drop held only while backup prizes lasted. The pattern echoes E: tokens shape aggression fast, but the change may fade if the prize cupboard runs dry.

If you use points, stickers, or cash to manage teens, watch what you reward. Paying for calm can cut trouble, but paying for any response tied to aggression can make it travel to other rooms, games, or classes. Plan for generalization: train calm skills in many spots and fade the coins slowly. Have a backup prize line ready so the good behavior does not crash when the store runs out.