Replication of the Achievement Place model in California.
Token economies transfer across states: fines cut interruptions, rewards lift chores, but savings stay low unless you teach delay tolerance.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team moved the Achievement Place token system from Kansas to California. They ran the same fines for interruptions and points for chores in a small group home for pre-delinquent youths.
An ABAB reversal design showed what happened when tokens came and went.
What they found
Fines cut interruptions and points improved table-setting. Clean-up stayed high even after tokens stopped. Savings, however, did not rise.
How this fits with other research
Macdonald et al. (1973) built the original model; Brinker et al. (1975) prove it travels. Nelson et al. (1978) later added youth self-evaluation and got longer-lasting clean-up without tokens, topping the 1975 result.
Kohlenberg et al. (1976) swapped points for rent credits with adults and still lifted chores, showing the contingency matters more than the currency.
Kim et al. (2024) revisit the stubborn savings issue. Their 2024 second-graders hoard tokens when they tolerate delay, hinting that the 1975 youths may have discounted future purchases too steeply.
Why it matters
You can export a token economy to a new site and still cut problem behavior and boost chores. Expect savings to lag; it is not a sign the system is broken. If you want the gains to stick after tokens end, let youths score their own work, as Nelson et al. (1978) showed.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a five-minute self-evaluation check at night; let youths award their own points for chores to stretch maintenance after you fade tokens.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Attempting to replicate procedures from Achievement Place, token reinforcement procedures were used to modify savings, conversational interruptions, and table-setting of delinquent boys residing in a home-style, community based, treatment setting. The tokens (points) were redeemable for various privileges and could be earned for specified appropriate behaviors and lost for specified inappropriate behaviors. Contingent point fines reduced the frequency of interruptions. Point rewards improved table-setting, but even large point rewards did not substantially increase savings. Baseline data indicated that lateness to dinner was not a problem, as it was in Achievement Place. Withdrawal of contingent points and back-up rewards did not disrupt the clean-up behavior of two boys.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1975 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1975.8-287