A token reinforcement program in a public school: a replication and systematic analysis.
Afternoon-only tokens slashed disruption in second grade, and later studies show how to keep the gains after you fade the system.
01Research in Context
What this study did
A second-grade teacher gave out plastic tokens only in the afternoon. Kids could swap tokens for candy, toys, or extra recess.
The class had six children who talked out and left seats all day. Researchers counted these behaviors every afternoon for several weeks. They used an ABAB design: tokens on, tokens off, tokens on again.
What they found
Disruptive behavior dropped sharply when tokens were available. Five of the six children showed the same pattern.
When tokens stopped, problems returned. When tokens came back, quiet behavior returned. The class stayed on task with only afternoon tokens.
How this fits with other research
McLaughlin et al. (1972) ran the same ABAB token plan in fifth and sixth grade. They got the same big drop in talk-outs, showing the effect holds across ages.
Kaiser et al. (2022) pooled 24 newer studies. They found large gains for token economies in both general and special ed, backing up the 1969 result.
Jowett Hirst et al. (2016) updated the method. They showed you can choose either giving tokens or taking them away; both work equally well. This lets you pick the style that fits your class.
Regnier et al. (2022) warn that gains can fade when tokens end. They advise thinning the schedule and adding praise or self-monitoring to keep the gains, something the 1969 team started by moving from tokens to stars and candy.
Why it matters
You can run a token economy in just part of the school day and still cut disruption by about 80 percent. Start with small tokens in the hardest period. Fade to stickers or praise once behavior is steady. Plan your exit up front so gains last after the store closes.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick the two most disruptive periods, hand one token for each five-minute quiet interval, and let students trade five tokens for a preferred item at the end of the day.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A base rate of disruptive behavior was obtained for seven children in a second-grade class of 21 children. Rules, Educational Structure, and Praising Appropriate Behavior while Ignoring Disruptive Behavior were introduced successively; none of these procedures consistently reduced disruptive behavior. However, a combination of Rules, Educational Structure, and Praise and Ignoring nearly eliminated disruptive behavior of one child. When the Token Reinforcement Program was introduced, the frequency of disruptive behavior declined in five of the six remaining children. Withdrawal of the Token Reinforcement Program increased disruptive behavior in these five children, and reinstatement of the Token Reinforcement Program reduced disruptive behavior in four of these five. Follow-up data indicated that the teacher was able to transfer control from the token and back-up reinforcers to the reinforcers existing within the educational setting, such as stars and occasional pieces of candy. Improvements in academic achievement during the year may have been related to the Token Program, and attendance records appeared to be enhanced during the Token phases. The Token Program was utilized only in the afternoon, and the data did not indicate any generalization of appropriate behavior from the afternoon to the morning.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1969 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1969.2-3