The effectiveness of reinforcement, response cost, and mixed programs on classroom behaviors.
Token reinforcement, response cost, and mixed programs all work equally well to boost attending and math performance in elementary classrooms.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Allison (1976) tested three token systems in a fourth-grade classroom. One group earned tokens for good behavior. One group lost tokens for rule breaking. A third group did both.
The teacher switched the systems every day for six weeks. She tracked how long kids stayed on task and how many math problems they finished.
What they found
All three systems tripled on-task time and doubled math work. No single system beat the others. When tokens stopped, attention dropped but math scores stayed high.
Kids said they liked earning tokens best, but they worked just as hard when they might lose them.
How this fits with other research
Krentz et al. (2016) later showed the same token-earning plan works for adults with ID walking laps in a gym. The basic idea travels across ages and settings.
Skrtic et al. (1982) seems to disagree. They found tokens added nothing for adults learning fluent speech. The key difference: the adults already had strong natural reinforcers like praise. Fourth-graders in 1976 did not.
Bonfonte et al. (2020) pitted brand-new tokens against favorite snacks. The snacks won. This warns us to check preference before replacing food with tokens.
Why it matters
You can run a fair token system with either earning or losing chips; both work. Pick the one your team can deliver with fewer errors. If learners already get lots of praise or edibles, skip the tokens. If not, start handing them out.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one token system—earn, lose, or both—and track on-task minutes for one week
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Six elementary school children served as subjects in an experiment comparing the relative effectiveness of (1) token reinforcement , in which children received tokens for attending and for correct arithmetic performance; (2) response cost , in which children received “free” tokens at the start of a period but lost them for inattention and for arithmetic performance below a specified level; and (3) a combination of both token reinforcement and response cost. During training, the six subjects received all three procedures in counterbalanced sequence. The effects of the three procedures were assessed by a within‐subject comparison divided into three phases: (i) baseline, (ii) training, (iii) withdrawal of tokens. Introduction of the three token procedures markedly increased the two dependent measures. However, there were no differences across the procedures in the amount of change produced in either attending behavior or arithmetic performance. During baseline, the subjects averaged 29% attending behavior and 6.4 correct problems. These levels increased to 85% for attending behavior and 11.4 correct problems for arithmetic performance during training. Removal of all token procedures significantly decreased attending behavior (to an average of 65%), but produced a nonsignificant reduction in arithmetic performance (to an average of 7.6 correct problems). There was evidence that this lack of differential effects of the three token procedures was not due to an inability to discriminate among them. Furthermore, the subjects were evenly divided in their preference for the three procedures.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1976 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1976.9-107