Sociometric and disruptive behavior as a function of four types of token reinforcement programs.
First-grade token economies slash disruptive behavior no matter the group rule, but a random-child contingent plan is teacher-friendly and lifts peer respect for the most challenging students.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The researchers tested four ways to run a first-grade token economy.
They switched the rules every few days so each child experienced every style.
The class earned points for staying on task and keeping hands and feet to themselves.
Observers counted disruptions and asked kids who they liked to work with.
What they found
All four token plans cut disruptive behavior about the same.
The easiest plan for the teacher was also the one that helped disruptive kids get better peer ratings.
That plan picked one random student each period; if that child met the goal, the whole class got a point.
How this fits with other research
Kaiser et al. (2022) looked at 24 newer grade-school token studies and still found big behavior gains, so the 1974 result holds up fifty years later.
Allen et al. (2001) went further and showed a token system alone can beat ADHD medication during kickball, proving tokens work outside regular lessons.
Ladouceur et al. (1997) added self-management to tokens for students with learning disabilities and saw even faster drops in talking out; you can layer that step after the basic system is stable.
Regnier et al. (2022) warns gains vanish if you do not plan for maintenance; start thinning points and adding praise before the year ends.
Why it matters
You can pick any fair group rule and still cut disruptions, so choose the one that is simplest for you to run.
Try the random-child version first; it takes no extra charting and may improve how classmates view hard-to-manage students.
Once the room is calm, teach kids to track their own behavior and fade the tokens so the improvements stick 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 one random student each period; if that child meets the goal, award the whole class a point and watch disruptions drop while peer ratings rise.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Children in a first-grade classroom were divided into four groups. Baseline measures of disruptive classroom behavior were taken on a well-behaved and disruptive child in each group. Following baseline, four types of token economies were simultaneously introduced and rotated every 10 days within a Latin Square design. The token economies were: (1) individual reinforcement determined by individual performance; (2) group reinforcement determined by the behavior of the most disruptive child; (3) group reinforcement determined by the behavior of the least disruptive child; (4) group reinforcement determined by the behavior of a randomly chosen child. The token economies were compared on their effectiveness in changing target behavior, preference by the targets, ease of use, and cost. Additionally, sociometric responses were taken on questions of responsibility, friendship, and funniness. Results showed a significant decrease of inappropriate behavior for the disruptive children and no difference between the effectiveness of the four types of token economies in producing behavior change. However, there were other differences that indicated that the system in which group reinforcement was determined by a randomly selected child would be desirable for most teachers. Results also showed changes in the sociometric status of the disruptive children. As predicted, disruptive children were rated as more responsible when they were in the group reinforcement determined by the most disruptive child in the group token economy. Using behavior modification techniques indirectly to change sociometric status is suggested as offering a new potential technique for behavior change agents.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1974 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1974.7-93