Response to Ahrendt, Houlihan, and Buchanan.

Ringdahl (2013) wrote a short reply to critics who say token economies are old news.

The paper is pure argument—no new data, no new kids, no new clinic.

It reminds readers that tokens still trade on basic reinforcement laws.

The author found the criticism unfair.

Token boards, point cards, and classroom bucks still work because they still deliver reinforcement.

The paper says, "Keep using them; just update the items kids can buy."

Older work already proved the point. Siegel et al. (1970) showed preschoolers wrote more letters when tokens bought extra play time.

Newer lab work backs the same laws. Wan et al. (2026) ran pigeons through token markets and saw the same price-demand curves Joel defends.

Classroom tweaks keep coming. Whitehouse et al. (2014) found first-graders behaved best when tokens were taken away for rule breaks, not just given out.

That looks like a clash—Joel says "keep earning," M et al. say "try losing." The gap is only in procedure; both agree tokens still control behavior.

If you run a token system, you do not need to scrap it for the next shiny method. Pair it with loss contingencies or peer managers, track what kids actually buy, and refresh the store items. The tool is sound; the polish is what changes.