Reward, cost, and self-evaluation procedures for disruptive adolescents in a psychiatric hospital school.
Token economies calm disruptive teens whether you add, remove, or let students score points, but modern fade plans keep the gains longer.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with disruptive teens in a hospital school. They ran a token economy in three phases: reward, cost, and self-evaluation.
In reward, students earned tokens for good behavior. In cost, they lost tokens for rule breaks. In self-evaluation, they scored their own behavior and kept tokens low.
What they found
Both reward and cost cut disruption and lifted reading scores. When students judged their own behavior, disruption stayed low even with fewer teacher checks.
How this fits with other research
Petursdottir et al. (2019) now supersedes this 1972 work. They added a functional assessment and a clear fade-out plan. Their kids’ disruption fell 85% and stayed down without tokens.
Lydersen et al. (1974) conceptually replicate the finding. They paid elementary kids for accurate reading, not quiet sitting. Disruption dropped from 34% to near zero, showing the same academic link works at younger ages.
Bickel et al. (1984) extend the idea. They let kindergarten peers hand out tokens. Disruption still fell, proving monitors don’t have to be teachers.
Why it matters
You can run a token system with rewards, fines, or student self-rating and still see calm, on-task classes. If you want lasting change, pair tokens with a fade plan and a quick functional check, as shown in newer studies. Try a short self-score sheet next week while you pull back points; the kids may keep the peace for you.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Hand each student a 3-point self-rating slip at recess; let them earn 1 token only if their score matches yours.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Sixteen pupils in a psychiatric hospital were assigned to two tutorial reading classes and balanced on six pupil characteristics and teacher preferences for the children. The effects of reward and cost procedures in a token program were assessed using both within- and between-subject comparisons in the following phases: (1) Baseline; (2) Token I, teacher evaluated and reinforced children for appropriate behavior; (3) Withdrawal of Tokens; (4) Token II, same as Token I; (5) Token III, same as Token I and II, but switched order of class meeting time; and (6) Self-Evaluation, students rated their own behavior and received prizes based on their rating, rather than the teacher's rating. The token program was markedly successful in reducing disruptive behavior and in increasing reading skills in both the Reward and Cost Classes, but there were no significant differences in the effects of the reward versus the cost procedure. While cost may be seen as a punishment procedure, there were no adverse side effects observed in the Cost Class at any time when the token program was in effect. The order of the classes was unrelated to the level of disruptive behavior or academic progress. The Self-Evaluative Phase, in which the students rated their own behavior, was included as an alternative to the abrupt withdrawal of tokens. In this phase, disruptive behavior remained at the previous low level.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1972 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1972.5-293