the token economy an evaluative review

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS

THE TOKEN ECONOMY: AN EVALUATIVE REVIEW'

ALAN E. KAZDIN AND RICHARD R. BOOTZIN

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

Token economies have been applied in a wide range of settings. While there are severaladvantages to the use of this procedure, there are obstacles that may impede its imple-mentation and therapeutic efficacy. These include: staff training, client resistance, cir-cumvention of the contingencies, and non-responsiveness of subjects. Studies employingtoken programs with psychiatric patients, retardates, children in classroom settings,delinquents, and autistic children are reviewed. Although token economies are successfulwhile in operation, the issue of generalization of behavior gains or resistance to extinc-tion has not been given careful consideration. Inasmuch as generalization is perhaps themost crucial issue, several procedures are presented that are designed to facilitate main-tenance of performance when reinforcement is withdrawn. Methodological suggestionsfor investigations on token reinforcement in applied settings are presented.

Operant approaches to behavior change havebecome increasingly popular in recent years(see Bandura, 1969; Sherman and Baer, 1969;Ullmann and Krasner, 1965, 1969). An ex-traordinarily wide range of deviant and mal-adaptive behavior has been treated, ranging fromdecreasing the frequency of thumbsucking(Baer, 1962) to teaching mute autistic childrento speak (Lovaas, 1968). The success of thesetechniques encouraged investigators to developsystems to modify the behavior of groups ofindividuals with maladaptive behaviors. Thiswas made possible by using generalized con-ditioned reinforcers (see Kelleher and Gollub,1962). Such reinforcers are interchangeable fora wide variety of primary and back-up rein-forcers.

There are a number of advantages in usinggeneralized conditioned reinforcers. Specifically,conditioned reinforcers: (1) bridge the delaybetween the target response and back-up rein-forcement; (2) permit the reinforcement of aresponse at any time; (3) may be used to main-tain performance over extended periods of time

'Reprints max- be obtained from Alan E. Kazdin,Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania StateUniversity, University Park, Pennsylvania, 16802.

when the back-up reinforcer cannot be parcelledout; (4) allow sequences of responses to bereinforced without interruption; (5) maintaintheir reinforcing properties because of theirrelative independence of deprivation states; (6)are less subject to satiation effects; (7) providethe same reinforcement for individuals whohave different preferences in back-up rein-forcers; and (8) may take on greater incentivevalue than a single primary reinforcer since,according to Ferster and DeMyer (1962), theeffects resulting from association with each pri-mary reinforcer may summate.

There are additional advantages in usingtangible conditioned reinforcers, such as tokens,instead of other generalized conditioned rein-forcers, such as approval. Some of these as listedby Ayllon and Azrin (1968a) are: "(1) Thenumber of tokens can bear a simple quantita-tive relation to the amount of reinforcement;(2) the tokens are portable and can be in thesubject's possession even when he is in a situa-tion far removed from that in which the tokenswere earned; (3) no maximum exists in thenumber of tokens a subject may possess . . .;(4) tokens can be used directly to operate de-vices for the automatic delivery of reinforcers;(5) tokens are durable and can be continuously

343

19 '2 5 A3 .`72 NUMBER 3 (FALL 1972)

ALAN E. KAZDIN and RICHARD R. BOOTZIN

present during the delay . .. ; (6) the physicalcharacteristics of the tokens can be easily stan-dardized; (7) the tokens can be made fairlyindestructible so they will not deteriorate duringthe delay; (8) the tokens can be made uniqueand nonduplicable so that the experimenter canbe assured that they are received only in theauthorized manner." (p. 77). In addition, to-kens provide a visible record of improvement.This may facilitate social reinforcement fromstaff members, as well as self-reinforcement.A brief explanation of the steps required to

implement a reinforcement program will fa-cilitate the presentation of the token programsin this review. Initially, identification of thosebehaviors to be altered is required. Investigatorshave emphasized the importance of specifyingthe responses of interest in descriptive terms inorder that reinforcement can be delivered for anunambiguous response, and so that evaluationof progress through behavioral assessment canbe made (Ayllon and Azrin, 1968a, p. 36;Schaefer and Martin, 1969).

After target behaviors are determined, theavailable reinforcers in the environment mustbe defined and enumerated. Back-up reinforcersfor tokens may be selected on the basis of aprinciple elucidated by Premack (1965). Theprinciple states that a more-probable or higher-frequency behavior may be used to reinforcea less-probable behavior. Thus, to select effec-tive reinforcers, it is only necessary to notewhich responses are frequently emitted. Privi-leges such as "sitting around", leaving the ward,going on walks, and watching television can beused as reinforcers if their performance is of ahigher relative frequency than the other behav-iors that they are to reinforce. Other reinforcersincluded as back-up reinforcers in virtuallyevery token program include canteen itemsusually displayed in a "store". At various periodsof the day, clients may exchange tokens for food,cigarettes, toys, toiletries, and so on.

After target behaviors are agreed upon andreinforcers are selected, it is necessary to estab-lish the tokens as secondary reinforcers. Verbal

explanations are often enough. When instruc-tions are not sufficient, tokens are establishedas conditioned reinforcers by making them dis-criminative stimuli for the back-up reinforcers.This is typically accomplished by giving out afew tokens immediately before the opportunityto "spend" them. After the value of tokens isestablished, clients are informed that they mayearn tokens by performing various behaviors.Finally, the rules of the token system are pro-vided, i.e., how tokens may be earned, spent, andlost; and the system is in operation.

Although this model generally holds, pro-grams often differ in a number of proceduraldetails. For example, in some programs, rein-forcement contingencies are the same for allpeople in the economy; in other programs, thecontingencies are individualized. In the formercase, a particular behavior is reinforced for allclients with the same magnitude of reinforce-ment (i.e., number of tokens). In the lattercase, performance of a particular behavior (e.g.,reading) may be reinforced for some individualsbut not for others, or the magnitude of rein-forcement may vary. Individualized contingen-cies have the obvious advantage of focusing onparticular idiosyncratic problems. A number oftoken programs have combined the two typesof contingencies. That is, use is made of groupcontingencies, and added to these are ways inwhich each individual can earn tokens depend-ing upon his particular problems.

Programs also differ considerably in theamount of staff training provided and in pro-cedures initiated to: (1) minimize resistance ofclients to the economy, (2) prevent circumven-tion of the contingencies, and (3) deal withnonresponsiveness. The way in which theseproblems are resolved can make the differencebetween an effective and ineffective program.Because of this, a detailed review of theseproblems follows.

Staf Training2The training of staff to administer a token

economy represents a formidable task for the

344

THE TOKEN ECONOMY: AN EVALUATIVE REVIEW

effective use of reinforcement procedures. Per-haps more than with other procedures carriedout in treatment facilities, the nonprofessionalstaff must be adept at employing the proceduresof an operant program. Nonprofessional staff,as behavioral engineers, are responsible for whatbehaviors are reinforced, extinguished, shaped,punished, and so on.

Training is a formidable task because attend-ants and teachers often maintain inappropriatebehavior by reinforcing deviant responses(Buehler, Furniss, and Patterson, 1966; Dobson,Gelfand, and Gelfand, 1967; Ebner, unpub-lished). In mental hospitals, in particular, con-tingencies are frequently arranged for the com-fort and convenience of the attendants, ratherthan the treatment and training of the patients(Dunham and Weinberg, 1960; Goffman,1961; Ullmann and Krasner, 1969). Many re-searchers have emphasized the importance ofadequate staff training programs (e.g., Becker,Kuypers, and O'Leary, 1968; Krasner, 1968;Miron, unpublished). Ross (unpublished) sug-gested that the staff remains the "Achilles' heel"of operant programs. Although there is nodoubt that staff training is important, behaviorchange has sometimes been accomplished bystaffs having only minimal levels of training(Kuypers et al., 1968; Meichenbaum, Bowers,and Ross, 1968). Even so, a highly trained staffwould appear to be an advantage. Only quiterecently has there been any research evaluatingtraining programs. Most training programs relyupon the usual academic procedures of lectures,reading, and examination. Such procedures im-part knowledge of behavior principles withoutguarantees that staff perform appropriately

2The significance of staff training in operant con-ditioning programs is attested to by the appearance ofvarious training manuals for the ward personnel ofpsychiatric patients (Schaefer and Martin, 1969) andretardates (Bensberg, 1965), and for the parents andteachers of school children (Becker, Engelmann, andThomas, 1971; Homme, Csanyi, Gonzales, andRechs, 1969; Meacham and Wiesen, 1970; Mink,1970; Patterson and Guillon, 1968).

when in contact with the clients. In fact, Gard-ner (1972) found that rehearsing appropriatebehavior in training led to superior performancethan did lectures alone.

Even when staff are trained adequately, pos-itive consequences must be associated with de-sirable performance. For example, Panyan,Boozer, and Morris (1970) showed that sub-sequent to their training program, the staff be-came increasingly lax in their use of skills. Oncefeedback was reinstated, the staff improved.Some programs have been able to reinforce

the staff with tangible reinforcers, such as salaryincreases, vacations, and workshift preferences(e.g., Ayllon and Azrin, 1968a). A less-dramaticprocedure was employed by McNamara (1971).He dispensed tokens to teachers that could beexchanged at the end of the day for beer.The training of staff into effective behavioral

engineers remains a crucial obstacle that mustbe successfully confronted for a maximally ef-fective program. Effective implementation ofreinforcement procedures with qualified staff isa prior condition that must be met before thetheoretical questions regarding the applicationof various principles can be considered. Evenwhen staff behaviors are effectively altered whilethe program is in effect, there has been littlefollow-up of staff behavior to ensure that thesechanges are maintained. Although the evidencefor resistance to extinction is not encouraging(Kazdin, 1972a; Panyan et al., 1970) one in-teresting study has been reported. Baldwin(1967) found that attendants, trained in rein-forcement techniques on a token economy wardwith retarded children, performed significantlymore positive patient-oriented responses andless "custodial" responses when working onother wards than attendants without training.

Resistance of Clients to theToken-Reinforcement System

Client resistance is expressed in the form ofanger, complaints, disruptive behavior, impul-sive acts, rule-breaking, and requests for transferto other wards or hospitals. Although there have

345


been only a few reports of adverse reactions tothe initial establishment of token reinforcementprocedures (e.g., Guyett, unpublished; Lachen-meyer, 1969), it is probably a more frequentproblem than has been reported. However, fromthe numerous reports that have failed to notepatient resistance, and the few reports that men-tion favorable patient reaction, it would appearthat client resistance is not intrinsic to the tokenreinforcement procedures. It may be reasonableto expect minor resistances to follow implemen-tation of contingent reinforcement procedures.Token programs often use reinforcers (e.g.,privacy, recreational privileges, free-time, meals,and so on) that were previously freely available.A general method employed that seems to

mitigate resistance involves planning the pro-gram in conjunction with the client, thus em-phasizing his responsibility for his behavior. Forexample, Steffy (unpublished) reported theplanning of token reinforcement programs withaggressive psychotic patients. Contractual agree-ments were successfully made with patients onan individual basis in order to link reinforcerswith the performance of critical behaviors.

Patients have also been employed in theexecution of routine duties connected with thetoken system (e.g., banking of tokens, checkingattendance of patients to assignments) (At-thowe, unpublished, c); and have had importantroles in developing contingencies (Lovitt andCurtiss, 1969).

Procedures exemplified by Steffy (unpub-lished) and Atthowe (unpublished a, unpub-lished c) appear to be effective in overcomingthe patient resistance reported by other authors.Emphasis on patient responsibility for his ownbehavior, lack of coercion, contractual arrange-ments of programs, and client voice in mattersrelating to the program, all seem to mitigateagainst patient rebellion and the possibility ofan unjust and oppressive system.

Circumvention of ContingenciesOften, specific contingencies for clients can

be circumvented if tokens or back-up reinforcers

are obtained in ways contrary to the goals ofthe administration and staff. One report hasbeen presented of a female schizophrenic obtain-ing back-up reinforcers from male patients inexchange for sexual favors (Liberman, 1968).Stealing tokens has also enabled some individ-uals to escape reinforcement contingencies.Typically, to overcome stealing, tokens are insome way marked to individualize them, thusmaking theft unprofitable (Lachenmeyer,1969).

Contingencies may also be escaped when be-haviors are performed without staff surveillance.This presents a twofold problem for token pro-grams. When staff members are not present,desirable behaviors performed by a client areunreinforced. Similarly, undesirable responsesperformed in the absence of staff may be rein-forced (by peers, or the reinforcers gained fromthe behavior). To resolve this dilemma, inves-tigators have tried to design programs such thatdesirable responses (as well as undesirable re-sponses) are detected by some change in thephysical environment (Burchard, 1969). Forexample, in examining whether or not an in-dividual performed various self-care behaviors,specific checks are made to notice if the patient'sbed is made, if he is showered, and so on (Ayl-lon and Azrin, 1965, 1968a). The number ofbehaviors that may be defined by distinctchanges in the physical environment is limited.Subtle behaviors are often not handled by thecontingencies, perhaps, because their effects aredifficult to define. Thus, escape from reinforce-ment contingencies remains a problem in alltoken programs. Even so, as Burchard (1969)noted, considerable changes have been obtainedby means of token reinforcement. It is an em-pirical question as to whether complete controlof complex contingencies is a prerequisite foreffective treatment.

Nonresponsiveness to ReinforcementProceduresSome populations with which reinforcement

techniques have been used may present limiting

346


conditions for the effective application of oper-ant principles. For example, Lindsley (1956,1960) and Sidman (1960, 1962) found thatpsychotics in a free-operant situation respondedquite differently than normals. Response rateswere much slower and there were many un-predictable pauses in responding. Similar re-sults have been found with the mentally re-tarded (Barrett and Lindsley, 1962; Ellis, 1962;Spradlin, 1962) and with autistic children (Fer-ster and DeMyer, 1961, 1962; Metz, 1965).These studies suggest that nonresponsivenesscould be expected to be a problem in tokeneconomies with these patient populations. In-deed, this has been the case.

Ayllon and Azrin (1965), in their series ofstudies on the effect of contingent reinforce-ment in altering job preferences, found that18% of the chronic schizophrenic patients"were relatively unaffected by the reinforce-ment procedure" (p. 318). The patients whodid not respond were not distinguished by psy-chiatric diagnosis, age, IQ, or length of hospit-alization. The authors suggested that a failureto use sufficiently reinforcing behaviors, such assleeping and eating, in the management of thecontingencies accounted for the unresponsive-ness of some subjects.

Atthowe (unpublished), and Atthowe andKrasner, (1968) reported that 10% of the pa-tients (those most severely withdrawn) did notgain from the token program. Of the individualswho did respond to the token economy, the"most active" patients gained the least. Non-responsiveness was attributed to a failure touse strong reinforcers, and to the use of a gen-eralized ward program in lieu of individualizedcontingencies. Other studies with psychiatric pa-tients have also found that long-term withdrawnpatients show the least over-all improvement(e.g., Curran, Jourd, and Whitman, unpub-lished; Golub, unpublished; Steffy, unpub-lished).

Reports of nonresponsiveness have not beenrestricted to psychiatric settings. Zimmerman,Zimmerman, and Russell (1969) reported that

three of seven retardates studied were unaffectedby the token-reinforcement contingencies. Rayand Shelton (unpublished) reported that 13%of the disturbed adolescent retardates studied didnot show significant reductions in inappropriatebehaviors. It was noted that all of these subjectsexhibited psychotic symptoms or "complex"behavioral problems. An examination of thedata reported by Hunt and Zimmerman (1969)indicates that two of .14 subjects did not in-crease performance over baseline.The data are rather convincing that a small

percentage of patients in almost all token pro-grams remain unaffected. The question that re-mains is whether this is due to the practicalproblems related to implementing and carryingout the procedures or whether it is due to theapplicability and appropriateness of the operantparadigm with some individuals (see Davison,1969, for possible limitations of the operantparadigm with psychiatric patients). Althoughthe research to answer this question has not yetbeen done, some interesting solutions for non-responsiveness have been proposed.Many researchers individualize the contin-

gencies of the economy to maximize the prob-ability of responsiveness. Atthowe and Krasner(1968) occasionally devaluated the tokens asa way of discouraging hoarding and encourag-ing utilization of available reinforcers. Ayllonand Azrin (1968b) used what they call "rein-forcer sampling" to increase responsiveness.Patients are first encouraged to sample potentialreinforcers in settings that would maximize theiruse. Only after the reinforcer has acquired valuefor the patient is it associated with tokens.Having provided an overview of the pro-

cedures employed in token economies, a reviewof specific programs is now presented.

Psychiatric InpatientsThe major impetus for token economies with

psychiatric inpatients has come from the crea-tive and systematic work of Ayllon and Azrin(1965, 1968a). They employed a token econ-omy for "backward", female, chronic schizo-

347


phrenics at Anna State Hospital in Illinois. Thepatients had a median age of about 50 yrs andmedian years of hospitalization of about 16.Because patients exhibited severe behavioral def-icits, the authors had very modest goals. Thebehaviors reinforced were primarily work activ-ities and self-care behaviors. To evaluate theeffectiveness of the reinforcement procedures,Ayllon and Azrin used the within-subject ABABdesign in which the frequency of the behaviorof interest is alternately reinforced and not rein-forced in consecutive phases of the experiment.The studies indicated that reinforcement was

effective in maintaining job performance in thehospital, as compared with noncontingent tokenreinforcement. The reinforcement contingencieswere effective in altering voluntary job prefer-ences by manipulation of the number of tokensthat could be earned. Similar effects were dem-onstrated with on-ward assignments. Addition-ally, the distribution of tokens noncontingentlyled to a decrease in such behaviors as job at-tendance, thus demonstrating the salience of theresponse-reinforcement relationship. This ini-tial research program was successful in demon-strating the efficacy of a token economy.

Following the lead of Ayllon and Azrin, theuse of token economies within psychiatric facil-ities has increased dramatically. In a recent re-port of the Veterans Administration (Chase,unpublished) it was noted that as of December,1969 there were 27 on-going token economyprograms within VA hospitals alone, involving937 patients. Although token economies haveproliferated at an accelerated rate, there areonly a few systematic outcome studies.The previously mentioned work of Ayllon

and Azrin (1965, 1968a) indicated that con-tingent reinforcement could increase the fre-quency of work activities and self-care behaviorsof long-term chronic schizophrenics. The im-mediate goal of the program was improved be-havior within the hospital, and this was accom-plished. This is not a trivial demonstration,because it is often the lack of these behaviors

that prolongs the chronic schizophrenic's hos-pitalization. Other studies have also indicatedthat the self-care behaviors of chronic schizo-phrenics can be modified within the frameworkof a token economy (Atthowe and Krasner,1968; Ellsworth, 1969, Golub, unpublished;Lloyd and Garlington, 1968; Steffy, Hart, Craw,Torney, and Marlett, 1969). Self-care behav-iors that have been successfully increased bysuch programs include continence, self-feeding,getting out of bed on time, and personal ap-pearance routines such as shaving and wearingclean clothes.

Even when the token economy is focusedprimarily upon self-care behaviors, some authorshave reported beneficial effects in social be-haviors. Atthowe and Krasner (1968), for ex-ample, rated the "social responsiveness" of pa-tients in a weekly group meeting. They foundthat the social interaction was significantly in-creased after the introduction of a token econ-omy, even though it was not one of the targetbehaviors. They also report a general "wideningof interest and a lessening of apathy" (p. 40).Some programs have attempted to modify

social behavior and apathy directly, rather thandepend upon generalized effects. A notable at-tempt in this direction has been the work ofHenderson and Scoles (1970; Scoles and Hen-derson, unpublished; Henderson, unpublished,1969). They developed a program for psychoticmen that focused on vocational habits, counter-symptom behavior, and social adjustment. Thesocial activities that were reinforced included en-gaging in superficial conversation, initiating so-cial interactions, conversing with visitors fromthe community, and showing leadership andsocial approach responses. Introduction, removal,and reintroduction of contingent token reinforce-ment indicated that social responsivenness wasclearly under the control of the reinforcementcontingencies. However, independent measuresof social performance taken throughout thestudy failed to demonstrate behavioral changesbeyond the specific responses reinforced (Scoles

348


and Henderson, unpublished). The specificity ofthe effects of reinforcement were noted also byHenderson (unpublished). In this latter study,improvements in social and vocational skillswere reported. However, in spite of these im-provements, symptomatic behaviors remainedfor some patients.

Schaefer and Martin (1966) also attempted tomodify social interaction and apathy. Their op-erational definition of apathy was engagingin only one behavior (e.g., standing) withoutthe simultaneous performance of a concomi-tant behavior (e.g., talking). Behavioral check-list data were gathered on chronic patients. Halfof the patients received token reinforcement forthe performance of various responses relatedto personal hygiene, social interaction, and ade-quate work performance; the remaining patientsreceived tokens noncontingently. The resultsover a three-month period indicated that pa-tients on contingent token reinforcement sig-nificantly decreased on apathy ratings over timeand were significantly more improved than con-trol subjects at the termination of the study.This study is particularly noteworthy because itis one of the few in which a randomly assignedcontrol group was included.

In addition to changing social behavior, de-creasing the frequency of aggressive behaviorhas been an important goal. Steffy and his as-sociates (Fenz and Steffy, 1968; Steffy, unpub-lished; Steffy et al., 1969) described a programto deal with both aggressive and regressed fe-male in-patients. As part of this program (Steffy,unpublished), individual contracts were madeand negotiated with each patient to help bringher aggressive behavior under control. Seven ofnine aggressive patients showed increased jobproductivity and fewer acts of violence. How-ever, the behavior of six of the eight sociallywithdrawn patients was not altered.The primary focus of a program developed

by Curran, Jourd, and Whitman (unpublished)was on behaviors related to self-control (e.g., nophysical assaults). Reinforcement was also given

for work performance and self-care behaviors.Positive (token) and negative reinforcers wereemployed. Negative reinforcers included time-out from reinforcement, seclusion, and physicalrestraint. Periods of controlled behavior receivedpositive reinforcement even if seclusion or phys-ical restraint had been needed to facilitate con-trol. Evaluation of patient progress consisted ofratings of the patients' self-control during theprogram compared with retrospective ratingsof the patients' level of control before the pro-gram. Hospital records were used to make ret-rospective ratings. Improvement was noted for64 of the 73 patients in the ratings of controlledbehavior. However, the manner in which assess-ment was made, the use of retrospective ratingswithout the raters being "blind" as to the pa-tients who were treated, and the lack of controlperiods (within subjects) or of a control groupall make the specific therapeutic agent of theprogram unclear.Few studies have compared reinforcement

procedures with other therapeutic treatments.In one such study, Marks, Sonoda, and Schalock(1968) compared relationship therapy (indi-vidual sessions five days per week for 1 hr) withcontingent token reinforcement on social be-havior, work competence, and communicationskills. Each patient received both treatmentsconsecutively (with the order being balancedfor half of the patients). Both treatments wereeffective, as indicated by improvement on per-sonality and behavioral measures. There were nodifferences between the treatments. The authorsnoted some difficulties in keeping the treatmentsdistinct (i.e., administering individual therapywithout reinforcing desirable behaviors, andvice versa). Hartlage (1970) also comparedcontingent reinforcement with individual ther-apy. He found that contingent reinforcementwas the more effective treatment for chronicschizophrenics, as indicated by measures ofhospital adjustment and interpersonal relations.

In summary, the effectiveness of token rein-forcement to increase the frequency of a target

349


response (whether it be self-care of social be-havior) seems well established. However, it isalso necessary to know whether the gains madewill be maintained in settings outside of thehospital. This aspect is discussed more fully inthe section on generalization.

The Mentally RetardedWard and self-care behaviors. The necessity

of teaching severely retarded children basic self-care behaviors has made that response class animportant focus for many token programs es-tablished in institutional settings. There havebeen many reports describing ongoing tokenprograms in which little if any outcome dataare presented (e.g., Anderson, Morrow, andSchleisinger, unpublished; Bourgeois, 1968;Rooney, 1966). What follows is a brief presen-tation of those few studies attempting somesystematic evaluation.

In a token program developed by Girardeauand Spradlin (1964) for retarded girls in acottage residential setting, reinforcement wascontingent on good grooming, work tasks, andcooperative play. Individualized criteria forperformance were set to reward improvement.Individualized contingencies were also used forbehavior problems of particular individuals. Theauthors report marked gains four-and-one-halfmonths after beginning the program. Lent(unpublished, unpublished, 1968) continuedand expanded the program started by Girardeauand Spradlin. Residents were rewarded for per-sonal appearance, occupational skills, social be-haviors, and functional academic skills. They re-ceived check marks for their. performance ofclearly specified appropriate behaviors. Groupcontingencies were used, together with individ-ualized contingencies for specific problems. Thehighly specific behavioral criteria ensured highinterrater reliability (Lent, unpublished).

Lent (unpublished) reported that several be-haviors within each of the previously mentionedcategories were modified by token reinforcement.Moreover, when token reinforcement was dis-

continued, social reinforcement maintained orincreased the initial improvements. Analysis ofa 1-yr follow-up indicated significant group im-provements in self-care, personal appearance,walking, and sitting behaviors. Social skills andverbal behavior did not improve over baseline.

Hunt, Fitzhugh, and Fitzhugh (1968) alsodescribed a token program designed to improvepersonal appearance of retardates (mean IQ73). Those retardates who were most likely tograduate to the community were brought to-gether in their own ward and participated inthe program. Behaviors related to personal ap-pearance while performing work activities werethe focus of the program. An initial period (14days) of continuous reinforcement was followedby intermittent reinforcement (10 days). Dur-ing intermittent reinforcement, subjects more

frequently met the personal appearance criteriathan during continuous reinforcement. Examina-tion of the individual data indicated that rein-forcement was effective in temporarily improv-ing four of the 12 subjects. These subjectsexhibited appropriate behavior during the rein-forcement phases and met the criterion lessfrequently when reinforcement was discontinued.It is unclear what the results indicate about theremaining subjects who maintained appropriatebehavior during the extinction phase. However,since an individual baseline was not taken, thereis no way of differentiating subjects who im-proved during reinforcement phases from sub-jects who met the criterion before the programbegan.

Ray and Shelton (unpublished) reported atoken program with 42 institutionalized retard-ates in which the focus of contingent reinforce-ment was on behaviors related to self-care, din-ing-room activities, and meal routines. The ma-jority of the subjects in the program (77%) werereported as showing significant reductions inseveral inappropriate behaviors, such as eatingat an inappropriate speed, and failing to meetstandards of personal cleanliness. Of the 62 re-tardates who were in the program at some point

350


during its 2-yr duration, eight (13%) wereregarded as program failures. There were noexperimental control periods in which the re-inforcement contingencies were reversed oromitted.

Classroom behaviors. One of the earliest pro-grams was developed by Birnbrauer and Lawler(1964) for severely retarded children (IQsbelow 40). Behaviors reinforced were enteringthe classroom quietly, hanging coats, sitting atdesk attentively, and working persistently on atask. Initially, candy was made contingent uponthe performance of appropriate behaviors; sub-sequently, tokens were used and could be ex-changed for candy and trinkets. Token reinforce-ment procedures were effective in improving 37of 41 pupils on behavioral criteria. The specificaspects of the program that led to these im-provements, as the authors note, are unclearbecause control periods were not included.

Birnbrauer, Wolf, Kidder, and Tague (1965)expanded the program of Birnbrauer and Law-ler (1964) and attempted systematic evaluationof the token reinforcement procedures. Thedependent measures were the percentage oferrors in assignments, productivity (the numberof items completed), and the amount of disrup-tive behavior. Token reinforcement was dis-pensed according to individualized performancecriteria. An ABAB design was used in whichtoken reinforcement was followed by no tokenreinforcement and then by token reinforcementagain. Contingent social approval was given forappropriate behavior throughout the study. Theresults confirmed the importance of token rein-forcement because the majority of subjects (10of 15) showed decreased performance on atleast one of the three criteria when tokens werenot given. However, only four subjects showeddecreases in performance on all criteria, andfive subjects were not adversely affected at all.

Orlando, Schoelkopf, and Tobias (unpub-lished) described a similar classroom programfor trainable and educable retardates. Token re-inforcement was dispensed for behaviors such as

number and letter identification, cursive writing,and completing art work. The authors note thatgeneralized positive effects were evident beyondthe particular situations in which tokens weregiven and that individualized reinforcementcontingencies appeared to be superior to groupcontingencies.Zimmerman, Zimmerman, and Russell

(unpublished, 1969) tested the effectiveness of atoken program in developing instruction-follow-ing behavior. The class was initially praisedwhen instructions were followed, then giventoken reinforcement (with praise), then againpraise alone, and, finally token reinforcement(ABAB design). The duration of the experimentwas seven weeks.

For four of seven subjects, token reinforce-ment generated and maintained higher frequen-cies of instruction-following behavior than didcontingent praise. Two subjects were not differ-entially affected by alterations of the contingen-cies, and one subject showed improvementthroughout the study. It is important to notethat this study compared the effects of contin-gent praise with and without the benefits oftoken reinforcement. Thus, the "failures," i.e.,subjects who did not respond differentially tosocial and token reinforcement, perhaps demon-strated the equality of the reinforcers for thesesubjects, rather than reflected the ineffectivenessof the operant procedures.

Workshop. Zimmerman, Stuckey, Garlick,and Miller (1969) evaluated the effectivenessof a token program for retardates in a shelteredworkshop. After a baseline was established, sub-jects were told that although they would notearn tokens for a while, they could "practice"(by working well) -so that they would knowhow to earn tokens. During this practice period,subjects were told how many tokens they wouldhave earned if tokens had been given. Thus, theeffect of feedback could be assessed indepen-dently of token reinforcement. In the nextphase, contingent reinforcement was deliveredfor production. This was followed by a phase

351


consisting of alternating days of practice andtoken reinforcement. Then, baseline data wereagain collected with all contingencies removed.

The results were that token reinforcementelicited the highest production rates, followedby practice and then baseline. There was no dif-ference between the first and second baseline.This study indicates clearly that feedback alonecan improve performance, but that token rein-forcement increases performance even further.This study is particularly noteworthy for at-tempting to separate the information value oftokens from their incentive and reinforcementvalue.

Hunt and Zimmerman (1969) evaluatedtoken reinforcement for institutionalized re-tardates in a simulated workshop. After a base-line period in which productivity was assessed,14 subjects were informed that increases in pro-duction (over individualized criterion levels)would be rewarded with coupons redeemablefor items in a canteen. During the experimentalsessions, this bonus for production was alter-nated with no coupon payment. Following thisperiod, all reinforcement was removed. The re-sults were that productivity was significantlyhigher in those periods in which reinforcementwas given than in periods in which no "bonus"was given. Performance in the postexperimentalbaseline was significantly higher than in the pre-experimental baseline. A closer examination ofthe data presented indicates that a number ofindividuals did not increase in productivity inthe experimental sessions, and of those who did,some did not differentially respond to the token-reinforcement and nonreinforcement periodswithin the experimental sessions.

Children in Classroom SettingsOperant principles have also been applied in

elementary schools. Usually, classroom problemsmay be alleviated by instructing teachers to useattention, praise, and approval as social rein-forcers (Becker, Madsen, Arnold, and Thomas,1967; Hall, Panyan, Rabon, and Broden, 1968;

Madsen, Becker, and Thomas, 1968; Schmidtand Ulrich, 1969; Thomas, Becker, and Arm-strong, 1968; Ward and Baker, 1968). How-ever, in some settings and for some children,praise may not be sufficiently reinforcing. Inthese instances, a token system may be moreeffective. Since token programs in the classroomhave been recently reviewed (O'Leary and Drab-man, 1971), only a sample of relevant studiesis included here.Walker and Buckley (1968) used token re-

inforcement with a child who had particulardifficulty in paying attention to classroom tasks.Academic skills and social responsiveness hadbeen previously altered with contingent socialreinforcement but attending behaviors remainedunaffected. A special treatment session wasscheduled in an isolated room for 40 min daily,during which the subject could earn points. Thepoints could be exchanged for various tangibleobjects. The subject was rewarded for payingattention for increasing durations of time (to amaximum of 10 min). During a baseline period,the subject attended an average of 33% of thetime. During contingent reinforcement, this in-creased to an average of 93%. Finally, whenreinforcement was withdrawn, the average per-centage of attending behavior fell to 44%. Afterthe experiment, attending behaviors were main-tained in the classroom at a high level withtoken reinforcement delivered on a variable-interval schedule.A series of studies using entire classrooms has

been done by O'Leary and Becker and their as-sociates. In the first study, O'Leary and Becker(1967) described the use of token reinforce-ment in an elementary school adjustment class.Students were placed in the special class becauseof a history of undesirable classroom behaviors.Observations were made on a 20-sec observe,10-sec record basis for a 2.5 hr period each day.During baseline, teachers conducted the class asusual. During the token-reinforcement period,students were told which behaviors receivedpoints. These included paying attention, remain-

352


ing seated, and facing forward. Points were ex-changeable for small prizes.The average deviant behavior for all children

was 76% during the baseline period and 10%during token reinforcement. Although the pro-cedures led to dramatic improvement in class-room behaviors, the effects of increases in teacherattention and daily instructions were confoundedwith the token reinforcement contingencies. Asmentioned previously, contingent teacher atten-tion without token reinforcement is often effec-tive in reducing deviant behaviors.

Kuypers et al., (1968) set up another tokeneconomy in an elementary school classroom.However, in this study, the teachers receivedless training. They were not given backgroundtraining in operant procedures, but rather werejust given written instructions in how to carryout the study. Observations of behavior duringbaseline indicated deviant behavior for 54% ofthe observational periods. The percentage de-creased to 28% when token reinforcement wasgiven for instruction-following behaviors. An in-crease in percentage of deviant behaviors to41% was noted when token reinforcement wasremoved. Individual data revealed that four ofthe six children studied were reliably affected bythe token reinforcement procedures. Little gen-eralization of beneficial effects was noted fromthe afternoon class in which tokens were de-livered to the morning sessions in which tokenprocedures were not in effect.The authors regarded this token program as

being only marginally effective, particularlywhen compared to the results reported byO'Leary and Becker (1967). The discrepancy inthe efficacy of the two programs was attributedto several factors in the replication. Primarily,there was a failure of teachers in the secondprogram to use contingent teacher attention andpraise.

O'Leary, Becker, Evans, and Saudargas(1969) analyzed the various procedures thatwere confounded with the token reinforcementcontingencies in the previous studies. The effects

of classroom rules, structured educational les-sons, teacher praise, and token reinforcementwere examined on disruptive behaviors in anelementary school classroom.

Eight experimental phases were presented tothe class in the following order: (1) baselineperiod; (2) classroom rules, i.e., instructions;(3) planned lessons; (4) praising of appropri-ate and ignoring of inappropriate behaviors;(5) token reinforcement; (6) praising andignoring; (7) token reinforcement; and (8)follow-up. The follow-up period was in factanother token reinforcement period in whichthere were fewer back-up reinforcers and inwhich group competition was introduced.

Rules, lesson structure, and praise-and-ignoreconditions did not have any reliable effect ondeviant behaviors. Token reinforcement de-creased disruptive behavior for six of the sevensubjects. The "follow-up" period was somewhatless effective than previous token periods. Gen-eralization effects, such as increased class at-tendance during token-reinforcement periodsand gains in achievement test scores, were alsonoted. The authors concluded that token rein-forcement was effective in reducing disruptivebehavior, whereas rules, lesson structure, andsocial reinforcement were not. However, the re-sults were less effective than those reported byO'Leary and Becker (1967) in which rules, prais-ing of appropriate and ignoring of inappropriatebehaviors, and token reinforcement were intro-duced simultaneously.

Although analysis of the separate treatmentswas the goal of this investigation, treatmentconditions were cumulative. Rules were includedin the planned lesson period, and these condi-tions were both included in the praise-ignorecondition. Hence, evaluation of the separateeffect of each condition is not possible. Even ifthe conditions were not combined in this man-ner, the order of conditions was fixed. Thus, theeffect of any condition cannot be separated fromthe order in which it appeared or the effect of ahistory of prior conditions. In contrast, Kazdin

353


( 1972b) was able to analyze the separate effectsof instructions and token reinforcement. Fourdifferent token economies were implemented inelementary school classes. They represented allcombinations of the two variables: instructions(either given or not) and reinforcement (eithercontingent or noncontingent). The results indi-cated that contingent reinforcement, irrespec-tive of instructions, increased on-task and de-creased deviant behaviors. There was evidenceof generalization because improvement wasnoted in both morning and afternoon sessions,even though reinforcement was given only inthe morning.Token procedures have not only been ap-

plied to classroom management problems, theyhave also been applied to help increase academicactivities. Bushell, Wrobel, and Michaelis(1968) focused upon such classroom behaviorsas writing, reciting, participating in activities,and completing projects with preschool chil-dren. Tokens could be exchanged for a specialevent each day such as a short trip, movie, orstory. In a within-subject design, a token-rein-forcement period was followed by a period inwhich tokens were given contingently, but allsubjects received the special privilege. Afterthis period, the contingencies were reinstitutedand tokens were again required for the specialevent. The results indicated that study behaviorscores varied with the contingent delivery ofthe back-up reinforcer. Performance declinedwhen tokens had no special purchasing power.

Wolf, Giles, and Hall (1968) examined theeffectiveness of token reinforcement proceduresin a remedial education program for low achiev-ing elementary school students (mean IQ = 88).Reinforcement (points redeemable for candy,novelties, clothing, food, field trips, movies,privileges, money, and numerous other items)was given for completing classroom assignmentscorrectly. Points were given differentially de-pending upon the grade received for a particularremedial assignment as well as report-cardgrades for regular class assignments. In aninitial experiment, it was demonstrated in a

within-subject design (n 2) that varying themagnitude of reinforcement decreased or in-creased the number of reading assignments com-pleted.

In a second experiment, tokens were givenfor language and arithmetic, as well as reading.After responses stabilized, the magnitude ofreinforcement was increased for an individual'sarea of lowest performance. The results indicatedthat varying the number of tokens for a partic-ular behavior altered performance on that be-havior without affecting the performance ofother behaviors for which reinforcement had notchanged. For every subject (n= 11), shifts incontingencies led to shifts in performance ofassignments.A number of additional token reinforcement

contingencies were included in this program.Reinforcement was administered for extra workassignments, attendance, grade averages, "good"behavior, and cooperation. The effects of thesecontingencies were not systematically evaluated.The over-all effect of the program was evaluatedby comparing the subjects in the remedial pro-gram with a control group selected for, but notassigned to, the program. At the end of a 1-yrperiod, the subjects who received the remedialprogram were significantly higher in publicschool grades and in gains on an achievementtest than the subjects not exposed to the pro-gram.

In another study described by Wolf and Ris-ley (unpublished), points were given for com-pleting assignments correctly and for being inone's seat when a bell sounded. The bell wassounded on a variable-interval schedule (VI20-min). The results of the-e procedures showedan increase in academic behavior and a decreasein disruptive behavior. These behaviors did notshow improvement when token reinforcementwas administered noncontingently or when sub-jects were only instructed to behave in the de-sired manner.A special program was developed for one

subject whose out-of-seat behavior had not beensubstantially affected by the previous contin-

354


gencies. Her behavior was brought under con-

trol when it was used to determine whether or

not her classmates would receive reinforcement.The use of an individual's performance as a

criterion for delivering reinforcement to one'speers, along with concomitant peer pressure andsocial reinforcement, appears to be effective inmodifying behavior (e.g., Patterson, 1965).

Barrish, Saunders, and Wolf (1969) devel-oped this idea further within a token system inan elementary classroom. Students were dividedinto two separate teams or groups. Disruptivebehaviors (talking out or being out of seat) ofany individual resulted in a point for his team.

The group with the fewest points over variousperiods of time received a number of privileges(e.g., extra recess, time for special activities).The contingencies significantly and reliablymodified the target behaviors. Inappropriate be-haviors increased when contingencies were re-

moved.A study by Hewett, Taylor, and Artuso

(1969) is interesting by virtue of its design.Token reinforcement was employed in ele-mentary school classrooms to reinforce the atten-

tiveness of students and to improve reading andarithmetic skills. In the experimental (E) con-

dition, the teacher administered tangible andtoken reinforcement for appropriate behaviors.In the control (C) condition, the teacher was

instructed to rely on her usual method of teach-ing, including social reinforcement, but tokenreinforcement was not employed. The experi-ment was conducted over a 34-week period. Fortwo consecutive periods of 17 weeks, four se-

quences were employed as follows: E-E, C-C,E-C, and C-E. The subjects were assigned to one

of these groups in a manner that achieved com-

parable class groupings with respect to IQ, age,

and academic achievement. (The precise man-

ner of matching and assigning subjects to con-

ditions was not presented.)The results indicated, as predicted, that the

E-E group (token reinforcement over the entire34 weeks) was higher than the C-C group inattentive behaviors. The C-E groups, which only

received token reinforcement in the final 17-week period, showed marked improvement inthe final period. The E-C groups, contrary to theprediction, did not show a decline in perform-ance when token reinforcement was withdrawnafter the first 17-week period. For this lattergroup, a moderate gain was noted when tokenreinforcement was removed. The reason for thestability of the gain in behaviors in the controlperiod is not clear from this study. 'Althoughtoken reinforcement improved attending be-haviors, reading and arithmetic achievementlevels were not reliably affected. Several addi-tional studies (Clark, Lachowic'z, and Wolf,1968; Graubard, 1969; Haring, Hayden, andNolan, 1969; McKenzie, Clark, Wolf, Kothera,and Benson, 1968; Miller and Schneider, 1970)have also indicated that token reinforcement isan effective means of altering classroom be-havior.

DelinquentsOne of the major difficulties in treating de-

linquents is that much of their deviant behaviormay be maintained by peer support. In fact,deviant behaviors in institutional settings areoften reinforced by peers more times than theyare punished by staff, and socially conformingresponses are punished more often by peers thanthey are reinforced by staff (Buehler et al.,1966). In addition, peer reinforcement of anti-social behavior is often more immediate thancontingent social or token reinforcement fromstaff members (Ross, unpublished b). An addi-tional difficulty is that delinquents often have anextensive repertoire of inappropriate responses.The suppression of a particular response maylead to the performance of other inappropriateresponses (Meichenbaum et al., 1968). The re-sponse frequency of delinquent behaviors for agiven individual is usually low, making anotherdifficulty for the application of operant tech-niques (Burchard and Tyler, 1965). Finally,Ross (unpublished a) noted that institutional-ized delinquents were adept at finding loopholesin a token reinforcement program, modifying

355


the program to suit their own ends, and con-stantly testing the limits of the system. Perhapsfor the above reasons, the application of operantprocedures to delinquents has clearly been lessfrequent than to other populations.

Because delinquents frequently are behind inschool, academic performance has been an im-portant target response for token programs. Ina case study, Tyler (1967) described a programto alter the academic performance of an institu-tionalized delinquent. Tokens were contingentupon daily and weekly evaluations of perform-ance. They were exchangeable for noninstitu-tional clothes, use of a comfortable bed, andcanteen items. Grade-point average increasedduring the three-week period in which tokenreinforcement was employed. Performance de-clined when the subject was taken off the pro-gram.A token program with two groups of adoles-

cent delinquents was reported by Tyler andBrown (1968). In this study, a quiz was giveneach day based on the televised news of thepreceding day. Members of one group receivedtokens contingent upon their quiz scores, whereasmembers of the other group received tokensindependently of their performance. After ap-proximately four weeks, the experimental con-ditions for the groups were reversed. The resultsindicated that quiz performance was greater dur-ing contingent reinforcement for both groups.

Meichenbaum et al. (1968) employed tokenreinforcement to modify classroom behaviors ofinstitutionalized female delinquents. Classroombehaviors were categorized as inappropriate (un-related to the task set forth by the teacher) orappropriate (related to class activity). Subjectswere given feedback notes by observers in theclassroom when their behavior was appropriate.These notes could be exchanged for money.The results indicated that after a baseline

period, the introduction of reinforcement (FIschedule) in the afternoon led to a sudden im-provement in behavior. However, only the be-havior in the afternoon session was altered; be-havior during the morning session, which was

not reinforced, was not modified. Subsequently,when reinforcement was given for behavior dur-ing the morning (VI schedule), classroom be-haviors improved to a level equal to the after-noon performance. In a final condition, fining oftokens (i.e., punishment) for inappropriate be-havior was combined with the existing reinforce-ment for both morning and afternoon periods.A combination of these procedures led to a de-crease in inappropriate behaviors compared tothe effect of reinforcement alone. The schedulesof reinforcement, fixed and variable, did not dif-ferentially affect performance. At the end oftreatment, the class showed a mean level of ap-propriate behavior that was significantly higherthan the pretreatment level. The final level ofappropriate behavior was found to be about thesame as that of noninstitutionalized students ina nearby school.

Cohen (1968) also employed token rein-forcement techniques for developing academicskills. His subjects were institutionalized de-linquents. For approximately 3 hr each day,each subject had the opportunity to work oneducational materials that were individually pre-programmed. Individuals were not coerced towork on assignments or remain in the classroom.However, points (exchangeable for consumableitems, privileges, private facilities, and money)were given for correct completion of assign-ments, test performance, and studying. Pointswere given once a week for the entire week'swork. Measures of time spent studying indicatedthat the behavior was controlled by reinforce-ment, and that students studied more frequentlyas "pay day" approached. After eight months,subjects who previously had little interest inacademic pursuits and had dropped out of schoolhad gained more than two grade levels on stan-dard achievement tests.

Even though academic deficits are important,the primary target response for delinquents isusually antisocial behavior. Burchard and Tyler(1965) reported such a case study. Timeoutfrom reinforcement was used for antisocial anddisruptive behavior, and tokens were used to

356


reinforce amount of time not in isolation. Tokenswere backed up by canteen privileges. The time-out and reinforcement procedures were effectivein reducing the severity and frequency of un-acceptable behaviors.

Burchard (1967) described a program fordelinquent adolescents who were mildly retarded(IQ ranging from 50 to 70). The populationwas characterized by a variety of antisocialbehaviors such as property damage, theft, arson,truancy, and so on. A general ward programwas developed for training in practical skills(personal, social, recreational, educational, andvocational). This program is one that has effec-tively employed a number of punishment pro-cedures. Behaviors that were punished werethose that were considered likely to be met withpunishment in the community. Reinforcementwas delivered for those behaviors that were con-sidered as most likely to be met with reward inthe community.Two experiments were reported by Burchard.

In the initial study, tokens were given for theamount of time spent sitting at assigned seats ina classroom and workshop, and for the numberof problems or tasks completed. The effect ofreinforcement was examined in an ABAB design(contingent, noncontingent, and contingent re-inforcement periods). Each experimental periodlasted for five consecutive days. The results indi-cated that the target behaviors varied with thereinforcement contingencies. There was no over-lap in the response distributions for contingentand noncontingent periods.

In a second experiment, the effect of punish-ment was examined on a variety of inappropri-ate behaviors such as stealing, lying, cheating,and fighting. Timeout from reinforcement (lossof tokens and required time spent in "timeout"area for a short period of time) and seclusion(loss of a greater number of tokens than fortimeout, and isolation in a special room for alonger period of time than above) were used.In phase one of the experiment, the number oftokens a resident was fined depended upon hisfrequency of timeout and seclusion. In phase

two, the resident was charged a constant feethat was not contingent upon his performance.The final phase was a reinstatement of phaseone. The results indicated that the total numberof timeout and seclusion periods varied withcontingent and noncontingent fining. Whenresidents were fined according to their inappro-priate behaviors, the number of timeout andseclusion periods were less than when there wasno contingent relationship. It should be notedthat the overlap in distributions for the ABAperiods indicates that the differential effect ofthe punishment procedures was not of greatmagnitude.

Phillips (1968) implemented a token pro-gram for three delinquent males assigned to afoster care program. Tokens (points), whichcould be exchanged for several privileges, weregiven out for a variety of behaviors relating toacademic achievement, cooperative behavior,self-care skills, household chores, and being in-formed of current events. The boys could losetokens for such things as being late and gettingpoor grades. Five experiments were conductedwithin the general context of the token program.

The results of these five experiments indicatedthat aggressive statements and poor grammardecreased, and tidiness, punctuality, and amountof academic tasks completed increased. Finingtokens for various inappropriate behaviors inthese studies was shown to decrease the targethigh-frequency behavior. In altering "poor"grammar (use of the word "ain't"), changeseffected by fining were maintained when fineswere removed. The effect of fining appeared tobe specific to the situation in which it was em-ployed. For example, tardiness for one activity,if fined, did not appear to alter tardiness inother situations. Instruction alone in which thesubjects were told to behave in a certain manner(e.g., "do not talk aggressively", or "speak cor-rectly") was considerably less effective than con-tingent punishment or reward.

Stayer and Jones (unpublished) reported theuse of a token reinforcement program for sol-diers who were labeled conduct disorders. For

357


these soldiers, a special hospital ward was estab-lished in which they could earn points for par-ticipation in various scheduled activities, andwork performance. Points could be exchangedfor canteen items, recreational activities, privi-leges, and money. Although no data are reportedfor the specific effects of reinforcement contin-gencies, follow-up assessment conducted at three,six, and nine months revealed a higher percent-age (69%) of treated soldiers having completeda tour of duty or serving in good standing thana nontreated comparison group (28%). A recentreport on the token program at Walter ReedHospital (Boren and Colman, 1970) evaluatedthe effects of various procedures (alterations ofreward magnitude, modeling, response-chaining,response-cost, and group versus individual con-tingencies). Positive token reinforcement wasshown to increase attendance to meetings, ver-bal behavior, and discussions of personal as op-posed to impersonal problems. Interestingly, theremoval of tokens (fining) did not decreaseinappropriate behavior as intended, but increasedit.

Autistic ChildrenThe use of operant conditioning procedures

with autistic and schizophrenic children hasproduced dramatic results. Self-destructive be-haviors have been extinguished (Lovaas, Freitag,Gold, and Kassorla, 1965; Wolf, Risley, andMees, 1964), speech has been developed(Lovaas, Berberich, Perloff, and Schaeffer,1966), and stuttering has been decreased(Browning, 1967). The efficacy of positive andnegative reinforcement, as well as punishment,has been demonstrated for a number of be-havioral problems (Lovaas, 1968). In themajority of work, there is a predominant reli-ance on primary reinforcement, such as foodor avoidance of pain. Although no general tokenprograms for autistic children have been pre-sented in the literature, token reinforcement hasbeen employed in a few studies. Because of theproblems associated with treating this popula-tion, it is particularly interesting to mention

briefly studies effecting behavioral changes withtoken reinforcement.

Ferster and DeMyer (1961, 1962) are respon-sible for the initial use of conditioned reinforce-ment with autistic children. A simple response(key pressing) was employed to examine sus-tained performance and responsiveness to var-ious reinforcers. Generalized conditioned rein-forcers (coins) were used, which the subjectcould deposit in a vending machine to obtainfood, candy, and toys. The task requirements forreinforcement were altered gradually to developcomplex responses. The results indicated that itwas possible to bring the behavior of autisticchildren under control of conditioned rein-forcers, and gradually widen their behavioralrepertoire. As the authors pointed out, the useof operant techniques in these studies was anattempt at experimental analysis of behaviorrather than to develop complex responses for thepurpose of treatment.

Hingtgen, Sanders, and DeMyer (1965) em-ployed a lever-pressing task with childhoodschizophrenics. Lever pressing was trained intwo individuals, simultaneously, who were work-ing independently. Gradually, cooperative re-sponses were required for reinforcement; i.e.,token reinforcement for one individual de-pended on the prior response of the other. Co-operative behaviors were shaped in three pairsof subjects in this manner.

Other investigators have explored responses ofgreater complexity. Metz (1965, unpublished)used token and primary reinforcement to trainautistic children to perform imitative behaviors.Initial training involved demonstration of vari-ous nonverbal tasks by the experimenter (e.g.,hugging a doll, blowing a horn, moving blocks)and rewarding with praise and tokens for imita-tive responses. The tokens were exchangeablefor food. Subsequent to training, additional test-ing on similar tasks revealed that the imitativeresponse set generalized to other tasks thanthose in which the subjects were trained. More-over, the imitative response set was maintainedby praise alone without token reinforcement.

358


Thus, the training procedure was effective indeveloping generalized imitative behavior. Thisachievement is significant inasmuch as imitativeresponse patterns represent a particular response

deficit in autistic children.

GENERALIZATION

Generalization may be divided into stimulusand response generalization. Stimulus generali-zation refers to the transfer of effects to otherstimulus conditions or situations. In other words,the concern is whether behavior change is main-tained when there is no token economy. Re-sponse generalization here refers to the spreadof effects to behaviors or responses that were

not of initial focus. That is, generalization oc-

curs from the responses upon which treatment

focused to other responses that may be relatedbut were not specifically dealt with.

Stimulus GeneralizationThe generalization of treatment effects to

stimulus conditions in which token reinforce-ment is not given might be expected to be theraison d'etre of token economies. An examina-tion of the literature leads to a different conclu-sion. There are numerous reports of token pro-

grams showing behavior change only whilecontingent token reinforcement is being de-livered. Generally, removal of token reinforce-ment results in decrements in desirable responses

and a return to baseline or near-baseline levelsof performance. Such a state of affairs ledZimmerman, Zimmerman, and Russell (unpub-lished) to conclude that token economies are

prosthetic rather than therapeutic, a distinctionmade by Lindsley (1964). Prosthetic environ-ments show changes only during treatment con-

ditions, whereas removal of these conditions re-

sults in a loss of treatment effects. Therapeuticenvironments show changes that are maintainedbeyond the treatment conditions themselves.Identification of token economies with prostheticenvironments emphasizes the fact that behaviorcontrolled by token reinforcement contingencies

fails to generalize to conditions in which thoseconditions are not in effect.

However, it may be premature to identifytoken economies as only prosthetic environ-ments. The relevant experiments have not beendone. Most researchers have used the within-subject design with a reversal of effects to indi-cate that the reinforcement procedures werefunctionally related to the dependent variable.The goal of the research was not maintenanceof desired behavior. In fact, Bijou, Peterson,Harris, Allen, and Johnston (1969) cautionedresearchers using an ABAB design not to waittoo long before reversing, lest the behaviorcome under the control of new conditioned rein-forcers and thus not reverse.

It is evident that the meaning of stimulusgeneralization changes somewhat dependingupon the treatment setting discussed. In thepsychiatric hospital, generalization refers to thetransfer of behavior from within the hospital toextratreatment settings (the community, home,and place of employment). Remarkably littleresearch has assessed generalization directly.Generalization is usually inferred from increaseddischarge and decreased readmission rates (At-thowe and Krasner, 1968; Curran et al., unpub-lished, Ellsworth and Foster, 1969; Hendersonand Scoles, 1970; Schaefer and Martin, 1966,1969; Steffy et al., 1969). Since discharge andreadmission rates depend upon administrativedecisions, increases and decreases can be accom-plished without concomitant changes in the psy-chological status of the patients. In this regard,recent programs are likely to benefit from thecommunity psychology emphasis that has sweptthe mental health field in recent years. Hospitalstaffs have been encouraged to discharge patientsand to develop community resources so thatpatients could be treated without requiring pro-longed hospitalization. Any program that con-trasts present discharge and readmission rateswith those before the .program started is likelyto find favorable statistics. Thus, in many re-ports, it is not clear whether token economies arein fact more successful at keeping people in the

359


community or have benefited from a change inthe orientation of the hospital staffs. Even instudies that have included control groups, wardstaff and treatment have been frequently con-founded. Differential discharge and readmissionrates may have been due to different staff policyrather than to the generalized effects of tokeneconomies. In summary, although token econ-omies have been dramatically effective at chang-ing behavior within the psychiatric hospital,there is little evidence that improvement ismaintained outside the institution.

For token programs implemented in a class-room setting, generalization refers primarily tothe transfer of performance within the samesetting. With some exceptions (Wahler, 1969),behavior in nonschool settings is not monitoredfor evidence of generalization. Instead, the goalis to maintain improved classroom behaviorwhen the token economy is withdrawn and inclasses not associated with the token economy.As in the case of mental hospitals, generaliza-tion in classroom settings is not usually foundunless it is programmed as part of the procedures.Reinforcement programs that have been imple-mented in either the mornings or afternoons(Becker et al., 1967; Broden, Hall, Dunlap,and Clark, 1970; Kuypers et al., 1968; Meich-enbaum et al., 1968; O'Leary et al., 1969),with few exceptions (Kazdin, 1972b; Walker,Mattson, and Buckley, unpublished), have notfound evidence of generalization to the part ofthe day in which tokens were not dispensed.Also, studies that have examined resistance toextinction have generally found that behaviorchanges are not maintained (Barrish et al., 1969;Kuypers et al., 1968; O'Leary et al., 1969;Walker and Buckley, 1968). However, few di-rect attempts to program generalization havebeen made. An exception to this is a study byPatterson and Brodsky (1966) in which a 5-yr-old boy was treated for multiple problems athome and in school. To ensure generalization,the child's environment was programmed tosupport adaptive behaviors. Peers were rewardedfor reciprocating positive social interaction, and

the parents were trained to use contingent rein-forcement at home. These procedures were effec-tive in maintaining improved behavior both atschool and at home. In light of studies where be-havior changes are not maintained, it appearsthat generalization should be planned, ratherthan depended upon as an inadvertent conse-quence of the token program. However, few di-rect attempts to program generalization havebeen made.

Response GeneralizationThere has been a paucity of reports of re-

sponse generalization in the literature on tokenreinforcement. Primarily this is due to the factthat both treatment and the assessment of treat-ment effects focus directly on the targetbehavior. Usually, concomitant changes in non-target behaviors are not measured. Some evi-dence for generalized effects of the token systemrelates to the cluster of behaviors usually called"institutionalization". Several authors have com-mented on the deleterious effects of the "total"institution (Goffman, 1961; Scheff, 1966; Ull-mann and Krasner, 1969). Changes in specifictarget responses have led to a decrease in institu-tionalized behaviors. Atthowe (unpublished b)and Atthowe and Krasner (1968) focused ontarget behaviors such as attendance to group ac-tivities, self-care behaviors, social interaction,and participation in activities (Atthowe, unpub-lished a). Some generalized effects were noted,such as greater utilization of day passes and anincrease in discharge rates. Although social in-teraction among patients was reinforced, At-thowe (unpublished b) reported that someforms of social interaction not specifically rein-forced showed marked improvement. Similarly,Schaefer and Martin (1966) reported that hos-pitalized schizophrenics, at the termination oftoken reinforcement procedures, were signifi-cantly less apathetic, as measured by clearly dis-cernible behaviors, than control patients given"normal" ward treatment. The findings of thesestudies conducted with mental patients supportthe notion that token programs increase the gen-

360


eral interests and participation of inmates in aninstitutional setting.

Aside from decreasing apathy and increasingactivity of patients, a few studies present morespecific data on response generalization. Winkler(1970) noted that episodes of both violence andnoise decreased on a psychiatric ward while atoken program was in effect for behaviors notdirectly related. Other authors working withpsychiatric patients have reported anecdotal ac-counts of response generalization. Steffy (1968)reported mood changes and improvement insocial behavior, and Curran et al., (unpublished)reported improved "maturation and personalitydevelopment."

Burchard and Tyler (1965) reported the de-crease in both frequency and severity of disrup-tive behavior as a result of a token program withan institutionalized delinquent. The concurrentchange of frequency and topography of the re-sponse would seem to be evidence of responsegeneralization.

The clearest evidence for response generaliza-tion has been reported by Meichenbaum (1969).This study investigated the differential effects ofinstructions and reinforcement on the languagebehavior of schizophrenics. Subjects were rein-forced for either "healthy" talk or proverbabstractions. Subjects receiving reinforcementfor only one of these two response classes,showed improvement in both. In addition,treated subjects showed improved behavior ona word-association test and a similarities subtestof the Wechsler-Bellevue Adult IntelligenceScale. Similar improvement was not shown byno-contact control and attention-contact controlsubjects.

In general, response generalization has re-ceived little empirical investigation in tokenreinforcement programs. The references tobeneficial effects of reinforcement contingenciesare generally restricted to the target behaviorsof interest. While the specificity of assessment isdesirable and remains a singular advantage ofoperant or learning programs over treatmentprograms based on other models (see Kanfer

and Saslow, 1969), multiple-response measuresand measures of a more global or general naturemight be meaningful additions.

Procedures to Increase Generalization

Although most research with token economieshas not focused upon generalization, a numberof procedures have been used to enhance main-tenance of behavioral gains. Perhaps the mostfrequently used procedure is to follow Ayllonand Azrin's (1968a, pp. 49-56) Relevance ofBehavior Rule which states: "Teach only thosebehaviors that will continue to be reinforcedafter training." Thus, behaviors should be se-lected that can come under the control ofnaturally occurring reinforcers in the person'senvironment. Target behaviors that have typi-cally been selected in token economies (self-carebehaviors, work skills, academic behaviors) domeet this criterion. These are behaviors that willcontinue to be reinforced (e.g., by social ap-proval) after training.

Because social approval is not reinforcing foreveryone (e.g., delinquents; Quay and Hunt,1965), it may be important to increase the rein-forcement value of verbal statements and praise.For example, in a study reported by Wahler(unpublished), parental approval of cooperativebehavior was initially ineffective in modifyingthe uncooperative behavior of their children. Areinforcement program was then developed inwhich tokens (exchangeable for toys) and ap-proval were given for cooperative responses.Gradually, tokens were eliminated, and coopera-tive behavior was successfully maintained bysocial approval. Pairing verbal praise and tokenreinforcement has been used by a number ofresearchers in the hope of facilitating subsequentgeneralization (Atthowe and Krasner, 1968;Lent, unpublished; O'Leary and Becker, 1967).The efficacy of this procedure has been demon-strated recently (Locke, 1969).

Another technique employed to facilitate gen-eralization involves the gradual removal oftoken reinforcement. Schaefer and Martin

361


(1969) discussed how token reinforcement wasgradually faded out in a hospital setting for psy-chotic patients. Praise, extra privileges, andstaff approval were all given contingently andwere gradually substituted for token reinforce-ment as the individuals improved. Atthowe andKrasner (1968) described an "elite" group ofpatients who, because of their prolonged per-formance of appropriate behavior, were given acarte blanche for privileges, and were free fromspecific reinforcement contingencies.

Another way to fade token reinforcement isto have the subjects spend increasingly longerparts of their day out of the program. Hender-son and Scoles (1970) employed this techniquewhile training psychotic males in vocational,social, and countersymptom behaviors. To fa-cilitate generalization, individuals participatedin social activities in the community where non-

token reinforcers presumably would be opera-tive. Kelley and Henderson (1971) reported thatindividuals in their program are reinforced forlooking for jobs in the community, obtaininginterviews, and making phone calls to prospec-tive employers. Once employment is secured,additional privileges are given (e.g., move to the"tpenthouse" in the facility). Exposing an insti-tutionalized patient to the community not onlyremoves the specific token reinforcement con-tingencies that might be controlling his behaviorbut also places him under stimulus conditionssimilar to those he will experience subsequentto discharge.

Requiring that the subject spends time in thecommunity is one way of varying the stimulusconditions for appropriate behavior. Stimulusvariation can also be directly programmed.Goocher and Ebner (unpublished) trained a de-viant child in appropriate classroom behavior,initially, in the presence of only the experi-menter. Gradually, planned distractions wereintroduced (e.g., a television set operating) . Fi-nally, the training was continued in the class-room itself in the presence of other children. Al-though deviant behavior often increased whendistracting stimuli were introduced, it was

quickly extinguished. In addition, appropriatebehavior was maintained after the terminationof training.

Stimulus variation has not been attempted ona large-scale basis in a token program. Evenprograms using exposure to community activitiesor employment as part of generalization trainingdo not usually reinforce behavioral performancein the community (an exception is Kelley andHenderson, 1971). In one of the few attempts todo so, Lent (unpublished b, 1968) trained ado-lescent retardates in various household activitiesin which they might participate upon discharge.A model home, built on the grounds of the in-stitution, had facilities in which household train-ing could be conducted. This represents one ofthe few attempts to reinforce behavior understimulus conditions similar to extratreatmentconditions.

Stepwise or leveled token systems have beenemployed to maintain desirable behaviors andthe beneficial effects of treatment, and hence,constitute another technique to enhance gen-eralization. Several token programs require in-dividuals to begin at an initial level and, de-pending on their improvement and sustainedperformance, allow them to progress to higherlevels. Initial levels require the performance offew behaviors and offer few reinforcers; Afterthe individual is able to meet the particular re-quirements of a given level for a certain periodof time, he is able to progress to a level that willentitle him to receive added privileges. Thenotion of levels is not new in, for example, men-tal hospital procedures, and bears similarity tothe reasoning behind the halfway house move-ment. In levelled token programs, it is the goalto have the patients at the highest level performdesirable behaviors without token reinforce-ment. In leveled token programs, it is the goalplanning of programs for other patients, assumeresponsibilities for other patients on the ward,and so on (Garlington and Lloyd, unpublished;Guyett, unpublished; Schaefer and Martin,1969). Terminal treatment behaviors in a lev-eled system are assumed to be closely related to

362


extrainstitutional performance demands. Albeitthe leveled system has prima facie appeal, its useremains to be justified by follow-up data.

Another technique employed to facilitategeneralization involves training relatives in be-havioral principles so that important contin-gencies can be continued. This procedure is notnew to the operant approach, but has been usedonly in a few instances with token-reinforce-ment procedures. O'Leary, O'Leary, and Becker(1967) trained an aggressive, hyperactive childto cooperate at home. Training was conductedby the experimenters in the child's home. Rein-forcers for cooperative behaviors consisted ofcandy, social, and token reinforcement (ex-changeable for small toys). The child's motherwas trained to take over the entire token pro-gram with the child. Although some deviantbehaviors remained, the operant procedures car-ried out by the parent were clearly effective inincreasing cooperative behaviors. Other investi-gators have reported similar success with parentsof psychiatric patients (Henderson and Scoles,1970) and of brain-damaged children (Salzinger,Feldman, and Portnoy, 1970).

Self-reinforcement (Kanfer, 1970) representsa technique of considerable potential. This tech-nique relies on the individual giving himself areinforcer contingent upon the performance ofan appropriate response. If an individual can betrained to reward himself, or develop his owncontingencies (Homme, Csanyi, Gonzales, andRechs, 1969; O'Leary, unpublished), it is morelikely that he will be able to monitor his behav-ior in a number of settings. Although self-devel-oped contingencies may be more effective thanexternally imposed ones (Lovitt and Curtiss,1969), self-reinforcement has not been moreeffective than externally administered contingen-cies (Johnson, 1969). Self-reinforcement shouldbe more fully investigated. Self-regulation (Kan-fer, 1970) and self-control procedures (see Ban-dura, 1969 for a review) appear to be useful formaintaining a variety of behaviors. Althoughsuch techniques might have some limitationswith populations that often receive token rein-

forcement procedures (e.g., retardates), suchlimitations cannot be determined on a priorigrounds.

Although there is an abundant literature onthe effects of schedules of reinforcement on ex-tinction, schedules are seldom varied in tokeneconomies. Partially, this is due to the fact thatit would be uneconomical to monitor the sched-ules so closely. In addition, intermittent sched-ules may only delay extinction, rather thanprevent it. Nevertheless, a few studies have in-vestigated the effects of different schedules. Some-what inconsistent results have been obtained(Haring and Hauck, 1969; Meichenbaum et al.,1968). So little is now known about the effectsof schedules of reinforcement in token econo-mies, that it is an obvious next step for researchin the area. This is particularly so since reinforce-ment is seldom dispensed according to a 1:1ratio schedule. In the typical token economy,much behavior, both appropriate and inappropri-ate, goes undetected. In addition, the staff is byno means the only dispenser of reinforcers.

Delay of reinforcement is another variablethat would seem to have implications for in-creasing resistance to extinction. Two separateprocedures have been employed in delayingreinforcement. One procedure used is to increasethe delay between the response and token rein-forcement. For example, in the token economypresented by Atthowe and Krasner (1968), anumber of behaviors earned tokens that werepaid at the end of the week, rather than uponeach performance of the response. Atthowe andKrasner utilized a number of different delayperiods for various behaviors.

Another delay of reinforcement procedureinvolves the manipulation of the delay betweentoken reinforcement and the exchange of tokensfor back-up reinforcers. The delay here is in theexchange of back-up reinforcers, rather than inthe presentation of conditioned reinforcers.O'Leary and Becker (1967) employed this tech-nique for elementary school students. Pointswere given for instruction-following behaviors.Gradually, the number of reinforcement periods

363


decreased and the delay between token rein-forcement and exchange of tokens increased upto a four-day delay period.

Manipulation of delay of reinforcement(token or back-up) is designed to increase re-sistance to extinction, presumably because of theresemblance of delayed reinforcement in treat-ment and nontreatment settings. Numerous re-wards in the natural setting (e.g., grades, money)are delayed. Thus, it seems desirable to trainsubjects so that they could perform withoutreceiving rewards immediately for performance.It is assumed that training under delayed rein-forcement in a treatment setting will generalizeto performance in nontreatment settings. It isalso hoped that in the treatment setting when ex-trinsic reinforcement is delayed, behaviors willcome under the control of naturally occurringreinforcers, such as praise and attention. Evi-dence supporting these assumptions is notavailable.The manipulation of other parameters of re-

inforcement (e.g., varied reinforcement; Kimble,1961) could also be used to increase resistance toextinction. With varied reinforcement, a numberof aspects of reinforcement are varied simul-taneously (e.g., magnitude, delay, and place ofreinforcement).

Although there are a number of proceduresfor potentially increasing generalization, it isour guess that the most fruitful techniques willbe the ones that emphasize programming thenatural environment (e.g., Kazdin, 1971; Patter-son and Brodsky, 1966). The investigation ofreinforcement parameters during acquisitionmay help refine the token economy methodol-ogy, but it seems unlikely that it will providea means for dramatically increasing generaliza-tion.

METHODOLOGY

The majority of investigations of token econ-omies employs designs in which the subject ishis own control. Of these, the most frequently

used is the ABAB design (where A refers to thebaseline period and B refers to the treatment).This design has been referred to as the intra-subject replication design (Sidman, 1960), thereversal technique (Baer, Wolf, and Risley,1968), and the equivalent time-samples design(Campbell and Stanley, 1963). If the behaviorof the subject(s) improves whenever treatmentis presented and declines whenever treatment iswithdrawn, and this occurs repeatedly, a func-tional control of the target behavior has beenpowerfully demonstrated. The four stages of theABAB design (alternations of base and treat-ment conditions) appear to represent the basicessential in demonstrating a functional relation-ship. There are, of course, several variations ofthe design. For example, in later phases, afterfunctional control has been demonstrated, pro-cedures to enhance stimulus generalization orresistance to extinction may be implemented andassessed. A major advantage of this design isthat it rules out maturation and chance as alter-native hypotheses for the effectiveness of the ex-perimental variable. Nevertheless, there are avariety of problems in using this design to whichthe researcher should be alerted.The first problem involves reversing or with-

drawing the experimental contingencies. TheABAB design is suitable only if the behaviorbeing studied is transient and reversible. How-ever, it is by no means clear that the effects oftoken economies are transient and reversible.Although in most cases the behavior does reversewith the reversal of conditions, there are in-stances in which this does not happen (e.g.,Kazdin, 1972b; Walker et al., unpublished). Of-ten, this may be taken as evidence that the be-havior has come under control of other variablesin the environment or as evidence for resistanceto extinction. However, if resistance to extinctionis being tested (and a reversal is not expected),this within-subject design is inadequate. In thisinstance, the design does not control for theeffects of maturation, regression to the mean,or extraneous change-producing events. To con-trol for these alternative hypotheses, other de-

364


signs, such as multiple-baseline or between-subject designs, are essential. These designs arediscussed later in this section.

Difficulty in reversing the behavior oftenoccurs because baseline stimulus conditions arenot reinstated. Other aspects of the environment(e.g., social approval) may have changed con-comitantly with the introduction of tokens, butthen were not reversed when tokens were with-drawn. This problem frequently can be avoidedif, in addition to the records of response fre-quency, detailed records of stimulus conditionsare kept.

Another potential confound that may varywith the presentation and withdrawal of tokenreinforcement is staff behavior. During the rein-forcement phase of the experiment, the staff maydispense considerable attention, encouragement,and contact with the subjects, which they maywithdraw during the reversal phase. For exam-ple, in one study it was suggested that staff mayhave more contact with subjects when contin-gent reinforcement is given than when noncon-tingent reinforcement is given (Mandelker,Brigham, and Bushell, 1970). This may have theeffect of ensuring the expected reversal. How-ever, it does not demonstrate the functional con-trol of token reinforcement over the target re-sponse. One solution to this is to have baselineand reversals include social approval and atten-tion, thus evaluating the effectiveness of tokenreinforcement as a supplement to approval.Even so, the staff may alter their behavior subtlyto ensure the reversal. Potential solutions to thisproblem that should be investigated are:(1) alerting staff of this problem; (2) reducingtheir commitment to the reversal by structuringit as an exploratory alteration of the contingen-cies; and (3) detailing changes in staff behavioracross experimental phases.

In addition to difficulties associated with re-versal, a second, and related, problem of theABAB design is that some variable other thantoken reinforcement that covaries with its pre-sentation and withdrawal, may have functionalcontrol over the response. For example, changes

in behavior may be due to the instructions tothe subjects at the onset of each phase, ratherthan to the changes in contingencies. Thus, inone of the studies reported by Ayllon and Azrin(1965), patients were instructed at the beginningof the reversal that they were in a sense receivinga "vacation with pay". It is not surprising thatwork performance fell dramatically during this"noncontingent reinforcement" phase becausepeople seldom work during vacations. The effectof instructions, or of what Orne (1962) callsthe demand characteristics of the experiment, re-mains a plausible alternative hypothesis of theeffectiveness of token reinforcement in manystudies. Yet, the effect of instructions in theabsence of reinforcement has been shown to betransient (e.g., Packard, 1970).A third problem area for the ABAB design

is the generalizability of the results to othersettings. The results may not generalize to set-tings in which the experimental variable isavailable continuously and does not alternatewith a baseline period. Although this seemsimplausible, often response frequency reachesnew heights immediately after a reversal, andit is possible that the reversal was a prerequisitefor this degree of effectiveness. In cases wherethe effectiveness of one phase may depend uponthe experience with the preceding phases, be-tween-subject designs would provide convergentvalidation of the effectiveness of the techniqueswithout confounding them with sequence effects.In spite of these limitations to the usefulness ofthe ABAB design, it still provides the most prac-tical evaluative tool for evaluating ongoing pro-grams. No token economy should be institutedwithout providing for systematic evaluation.Although in most instances, this design will bequite sufficient, other designs may be useful.One such design is the multiple-baseline de-

sign (Baer, Wolf, and Risley, 1968) or themulti-element baseline design (Sidman, 1960).In this design, a functional relationship betweencontrolling conditions and behavior is demon-strated somewhat differently. This is particularlywell suited to situations in which a behavioral

365


reversal is unanticipated or undesirable. Thereare at least three variations of this design de-pending upon whether multiple-baseline dataare collected across behaviors, across individuals,or across situations. (For an excellent example ofthe use of multiple baseline designs as discussedhere, refer to Hall, Cristler, Cranston, andTucker, 1970.)When multiple-baseline data are collected

across behaviors, several (two or more) behaviorsof a subject (or subjects) are monitored. After allbehaviors have stabilized, reinforcement is madecontingent upon the occurrence of only one ofthe responses. Ideally, as the first target responsechanges, the other behaviors remain at baselinelevels. After the initial target response has sta-bilized at its new level, the contingency is ex-tended to include an additional target behavior.This procedure is continued until all behaviorshave been included in the contingency. Al-though, there are no reversals or returns to base-line in this design, extraneous events are ruledout as alternative hypotheses by the demonstra-tion that the baseline response frequencies of thespecific behaviors remain stable until the con-tingencies are applied to each consecutively.A major difficulty in using this version of the

design is the possibility of response generaliza-tion. Some responses may remain independent ascontingencies are applied to one of them, butother responses will change as the target re-sponse changes. Clearly, before this design canbe effectively utilized, more information aboutthe nature and extent of response generalizationin token settings will be required.

Another version of this design employs mul-tiple-baseline data on a single response acrossseveral individuals. Each subject receives onlybaseline and treatment phases with no reversals.However, the subjects receive the baseline phasefor differing lengths of time, thus ruling outextraneous events as a plausible hypothesis forthe effectiveness of the contingencies. The ad-vantage of this design over the previous one isthat response generalization presents no specialdifficulties. However, it is sometimes possible

that altering the behavior of one subject mayaffect the performance of other subjects, eventhough baseline has been continued for the othersubjects (see Broden, Bruce, Mitchell, Carter,and Hall, 1970).A final version of the multiple-baseline de-

sign examines baseline data across several situ-ations for one or more individuals. In this ver-sion, the contingencies are introduced in onesituation while baseline data are collected onthe behavior(s) in other situations. Sequentially,the contingencies are introduced into differentsituations. Here, it is demonstrated that the be-havior does not change in a given situation untilthe contingencies are extended to include thesesituations.

As a final type of design to be discussed, be-tween-subject designs may be used in whichsubjects are randomly assigned to experimentaland control groups. This design is also appropri-ate for situations when reversals in behavior arenot expected. If the behavior of control subjectsdoes not change, while that of the treatment sub-jects does, experimental control of the behaviorhas been demonstrated. There is obvious resem-blance between this design and multiple-baselinedesign across individuals. However, in the be-tween-subject design subject selection to groupsis random. In addition, it is possible to evaluatecomponents of a treatment (without confound-ing with sequence) by assigning different com-ponents to different treatment groups. Althoughthis is a potentially powerful design, it is usuallyrarely found in the token economy literature,primarily because practical considerations withinthe applied settings make random assignmentdifficult, if not impossible. In order for this de-sign to be used, random assignment is essential.Otherwise, the treatment and control groupsmay differ because of variables not related to theone being investigated. Campbell and Stanley(1963) described a number of between-subjectexperimental designs that might be used whenrandom assignment is not, possible. However,the within-subject designs already described ap-pear preferable to these in most situations.

366

THE TOKEN ECONOMY: AN EVALUATIVE REVIEW 367

CONCLUSION

The extensive literature that has developedon token economies indicates clearly that a widevariety of behaviors can be changed in manydifferent populations of subjects using con-ditioned reinforcers. However, there are threeareas in particular that have been insufficientlyinvestigated and in which future studies couldprofitably concentrate.

First, studies investigating programmed gen-eralization are badly needed. Inasmuch as main-tenance of target behaviors beyond the tokenreinforcement conditions is an important goal oftoken programs, the examination of variablesthat contribute to response maintenance appearsto be especially important. As reviewed earlier,numerous procedures for augmenting generali-zation and resistance to extinction are available.The application of these techniques for use intoken economies should be evaluated.

Second, few investigators have tried to bringcomplex behaviors such as language and socialbehavior under control of token reinforcement.This is probably because the practical problemsassociated with monitoring and escaping contin-gencies are difficult to solve. However, any gen-eral methodology of behavior change must ad-dress itself to these complex behaviors as well.

Third, almost all studies report that the be-havior of some subjects was not altered. At thisstage in our knowledge it is not clear whetherthis was due to not applying sufficiently in-dividualized contingencies or whether there areimportant individual-difference variables thatinteract with the token procedures. Both possi-bilities require further investigation.

That token programs are effective in alteringbehaviors, and offer numerous advantages astreatment programs, cannot be disputed from anexamination of the literature. The stability ofchanges effected, and the generalization of im-provements to nontreatment settings, if demon-strated, will strengthen the thrust of the trendto establish token economies in numerous treat-ment, rehabilitation, and educational settings.

REFERENCES

Anderson, D., Morrow, J. E., and Schleisinger, R.The effects of token reinforcers on the behaviorproblems of institutionalized female retardates.Unpublished paper presented at Western Psycho-logical Association Convention, San Francisco,May, 1967.

Atthowe, J. M. Ward 113: Incentives and costs-Amanual for patients. Unpublished manuscript,Veterans Administration Hospital, Palo Alto,California, 1964. (a)

Atthowe, J. M. The token economy: Its utility andlimitations. Unpublished paper presented to theWestern Psychological Association, Long Beach,California, April, 1966. (b)

Atthove, J. M. Ward 203 C1 token program:Manual for ward staff. Unpublished manuscript,Veterans Administration Hospital, Palo Alto,California, 1967. (c)

Atthowe, J. M. and Krasner, L. Preliminary reporton the application of contingent reinforcementprocedures (token economy) on a "chronic"psychiatric ward. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,1968, 73, 37-43.

Ayllon, T. and Azrin, N. H. The measurement andreinforcement of behavior of psychotics. Journalof the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1965,8, 357-383.

Ayllon, T. and Azrin, N. H. The token economy: amotivational system for therapy and rehabilitation.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968. (a)

Ayllon, T. and Azrin, N. H. Reinforcer sampling: atechnique for increasing the behavior of mentalpatients. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,1968, 1, 13-20. (b)

Baer, D. M. Laboratory control of thumbsucking bywithdrawal and re-presentation of reinforcement.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,1962, 5, 525-528.

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., and Risley, T. R. Somecurrent dimensions of applied behavior analysis.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1,91-97.

Baldwin, V. L. Development of social skills in re-tardates as a function of three types of reinforce-ment programs. Unpublished dissertation, Disser-tation Abstracts, 1967, 27(9-A), 2865.

Bandura, A. Principles of behavior modification.New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1969.

Barrett, B. H. and Lindsley, 0. R. Deficits in acqui-sition of operant discrimination and differentiationshown by institutionalized retarded children.American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1962,67, 424-436.

Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., and Wolf, M. M.Good behavior game: effects of individual con-tingencies for group consequences on disruptivebehavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 1969, 2, 119-124.

368 ALAN E. KAZDIN and RICHARD R. BOOTZIN

Becker, W. C., Engelmann, S., & Thomas, D. R.Teaching: A basic course in applied psychology.Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1971.

Becker, W. C., Madsen, C. H., Arnold, C. R., andThomas, D. R. The contingent use of teacherattention and praising in reducing classroom be-havior problems. Journal of Special Education,1967, 1, 287-307.

Bensberg, G. J. (Ed.) Teaching the mentally re-tarded: A handbook for ward personnel. Atlanta:Southern Regional Education Board, 1965.

Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., Harris, F. R., Allen,K. E., and Johnston, M. S. Methodology for ex-perimental studies of young children in naturalsettings. Psychological Record, 1969, 19, 177-210.

Birnbrauer, J. S. and Lawler, J. Token reinforce-ment for learning. Mental Retardation, 1964, 2,275-279.

Birnbrauer, J. S., Wolf, M. M., Kidder, J., and Tague,C. E. Classroom behavior of retarded pupilswith token reinforcement. Journal of Experi-mental Child Psychology, 1965, 2, 219-235.

Boren, J. J. and Colman, A. D. Some experimentson reinforcement principles within a psychiatricward for delinquent soldiers. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 1970, 3, 29-37.

Bourgeois, T. L. Reinforcement theory in teachingthe mentally retarded: A token economy program.Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 1968, 6.

Broden, M., Bruce, C., Mitchell, M., Carter, V., andHall, R. V. Effects of teacher attention on at-tending behavior of two boys at adjacent desks.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1970, 3,199-203.

Broden, M., Hall, R. V., Dunlap, A., and Clark, R.Effects of teacher attention and a token reinforce-ment system in a junior high school special edu-cation class. Exceptional Children, 1970, 36,341-349.

Browning, R. M. Behaviour therapy for stutteringin a schizophrenic child. Behaviour Research andTherapy, 1967, 5, 27-35.

Buehler, R. E., Patterson, G. R., and Furniss, J. M.The reinforcement of behaviour in institutionalsettings. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1966,4, 157-167.

Burchard, J. D. Systematic socialization: A pro-grammed environment for the habilitation ofantisocial retardates. Psychological Record, 1967,17, 461-476.

Burchard, J. D. Residential behavior modificationprograms and the problem of uncontrolled con-tingencies: A reply to Lachenmeyer. Psychologi-cal Record, 1969, 19, 259-261.

Burchard, J. D. and Tyler, V. 0. The modificationof delinquent behaviour through operant con-ditioning. Behaviour Research and Therapy,1965, 2, 245-250.

Bushell, D., Wrobel, P., and Michaelis, M. Applying"group" contingencies to the classroom study be-

havior of preschool children. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 55-62.

Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. Experimentaland quasi-experimental designs for research onteaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally,1963. Pp. 171-246.

Chase, J. D. Token economy programs in the Vet-erans Administration. Unpublished manuscript,VA Department of Medicine and Surgery, Wash-ington, D.C., 1970.

Clark, M., Lachowicz, J., and Wolf, M. A pilotbasic education program for school dropouts in-corporating a token reinforcement system. Be-haviour Research and Therapy, 1968, 6, 183-188.

Cohen, H. L. Educational therapy: The design oflearning improvements. In J. M. Shlien (Ed.) Re-search in psychotherapy. Vol. III. Washington,D. C.: American Psychological Association,1968. Pp. 21-53.

Curran, J. P., Jourd, S., and Whitman, N. Behaviorchange techniques on a closed psychiatric ward.Unpublished manuscript, Anoka State Hospital,Anoka, Minnesota, 1968.

Davison, G. C. Appraisal of behavior modificationtechniques with adults in institutional settings.In C. M. Franks (Ed.), Behavior therapy: Ap-praisal and status. New York: McGraw-Hill,1969. Pp. 220-278.

Dunham, H. W. and Weinberg, S. K. The cultureof the state mental hospital. Detroit: Wayne StateUniversity Press, 1960.

Ebner, M. An investigation of the role of the socialenvironment in the generalization and persistenceof the effect of a behavior modification program.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofOregon, 1967.

Ellis, N. R. Amount of reward and operant be-havior in mental defectives. American Journal ofMental Deficiency, 1962, 66, 595-599.

Ellsworth, J. R. Reinforcement therapy withchronic patients. Hospital and Community Psy-chiatry, 1969, 20, 36-38.

Ellsworth, J. R. and Foster, L. D. The rehabilitationof chronically hospitalized patients through atoken economy system conducted by non-profes-sionals. Unpublished manuscript, Veterans Ad-ministration Hospital, Roseburg, Oregon, 1969.

Fenz, W. D. and Steffy, R. S. Electrodermal arousalof chronically ill psychiatric patients undergoingintensive behavioral treatment. PsychosomaticMedicine, 1968, 30, 423-436.

Ferster, C. B. and DeMyer, M. K. The developmentof performances in autistic children in an auto-matically controlled environment. Journal ofChronic Diseases, 1961, 13, 312-345.

Ferster, C. B. and DeMyer, M. K. A method for theexperimental analysis of the behavior of autisticchildren. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,1962, 1, 87-110.


Garlington, W. K. and Lloyd, K. E. The establish-ment of a token economy ward at the State Hos-pital North in Orofino, Idaho. Unpublished paperpresented at research meeting, Fort Steilacoom,Washington, November, 1966.

Gardner, J. M. Teaching behavior modification tononprofessionals. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 1972, 5, in press.

Gelfand, D. M., Gelfand, S., and Dobson, W. R.Unprogrammed reinforcement of patients' be-haviour in a mental hospital. Behaviour Researchand Therapy, 1967, 5, 201-207.

Girardeau, F. L. and Spradlin, J. E. Token rewardsin a cottage program. Mental Retardation, 1964,2, 345-351.

Goffman, E. Asylums. New York: Anchor, 1961.Golub, C. M. The influence of various demographic

variables on the participation of Veterans Admin-istration Day Treatment Center patients in atoken economy. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, University of Minnesota, 1969.

Goocher, B. E. and Ebner, M. A behavior modifica-tion approach utilizing sequential response tar-gets in multiple settings. Unpublished paper pre-sented at Midwestern Psychological Association,Chicago, May, 1968.

Graubard, P. S. Utilizing the group in teaching dis-turbed delinquents to learn. Exceptional Children,1969, 35, 267-272.

Guyett, I. Behavior modification using resocializa-tion and token economy for the rehabilitation ofchronic schizophrenic patients. Unpublished pa-per presented at Quarterly Meeting of State Psy-chologists of Pennsylvania, Dixmont State Hos-pital, October, 1968.

Hall, R. V., Cristler, C., Cranston, S., and Tucker, B.Teachers and parents as researchers using multiplebaseline designs. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 1970, 3, 247-255.

Hall, R. V., Panyan, M., Rabon, D., and Broden, M.Instructing beginning teachers in reinforcementprocedures which improve classroom control.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1,3 15-322.

Haring, N. G. and Hauck, M. A. Improved learningconditions in the establishment of reading skillswith disabled readers. Exceptional Children, 1969,35, 341-352.

Haring, N. G., Hayden, A., and Nolen, P. A. Ac-celerating appropriate behaviors of children in aHead Start program. Exceptional Children, 1969,35, 773-784.

Hartlage, L. C. Subprofessional therapists' use ofreinforcement versus traditional psychotherapeu-tic techniques with schizophrenics. journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 34,181-183.

Henderson, J. D. Conditioning techniques in a com-munity-based residential treatment facility foremotionally disturbed men. Unpublished manu-

script. Spruce House, Horizon House, Inc., Phila-delphia, 1968.

Henderson, J. D. The use of dual reinforcement inan extensive treatment system. In R. D. Rubinand C. M. Franks (Eds.), Advances in behaviortherapy, 1968. New York: Academic Press, 1969.

Henderson, J. D. and Scoles, P. E. A community-based behavioral operant environment for psy-chotic men. Behavior Therapy, 1970, 1, 245-251.

Hewett, F. M., Taylor, F. D. and Artuso, A. A. TheSanta Monica Project: Evaluation of an engineeredclassroom design with emotionally disturbedchildren. Exceptional Children, 1969, 35, 523-529.

Hingtgen, J. N., Sanders, B. J., and DeMyer, M. K.Shaping cooperative responses in early childhoodschizophrenics. In L. P. Ullmann and L. Krasner(Eds.), Case studies in behavior modification.New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965.

Homme, L., Csanyi, A., Gonzales, M., and Rechs, J.How to use contingency contracting in the class-room. Champaign, Illinois: Research Press, 1969.

Hunt, J. G., Fitzhugh, L C., and Fitzhugh, K. B.Teaching "exit-ward" patients appropriate per-sonal appearance by using reinforcement tech-niques. American Journal of Mental Deficiency,1968, 73, 41-45.

Hunt, J. G. and Zimmerman, J. Stimulating pro-ductivity in a simulated sheltered workshopsetting. American Journal of Mental Deficiency,1969, 74, 43-49.

Johnson, S. M. Effects of self-reinforcement andexternal reinforcement in behavior modification.Proceedings, 77th Annual Convention, AmericanPsychological Association, 1969, 4, 535-536.

Kanfer, F. H. Self-regulation: Research, issues, andspeculations. In C. Neuringer and J. L. Michael(Eds.), Behavior Modification in Clinical Psy-chology, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,1970. Pp. 178-220.

Kanfer, F. H. and Saslow, G. Behavioral diagnosis.In C M. Franks (Ed.), Behavior therapy: Ap-praisal and status. New York: McGraw-Hill,1969. Pp. 417-444.

Kazdin, A. E. Toward a client-administered tokenreinforcement program. Education and Trainingof the Mentally Retarded, 1971, 6, 52-5 5.

Kazdin, A. E. Assessment of teacher training in areinforcement program. Journal of Teacher Edu-cation, 1972, in press. (a)

Kazdin, A. E. The role of instructions and rein-forcement in behavior changes in token reinforce-ment programs. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 1972, in press. (b)

Kelleher, R. T. and Gollub, L. R. A review of posi-tive conditioned reinforcement. Journal of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 1962, 5,543-597.

Kelley, K. M. and Henderson, J. D. A community-based operant learning environment II: Systems


and procedures. In R. Rubin, H. Fensterheim,A. Lazarus, and C. M. Franks (Eds.), Advancesin behavior therapy. New York: Academic Press,1971.

Kimble, G. A. Hilgard and Marquis' conditioningand learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 196 1.

Krasner, L. Assessment of token economy in chronicpopulations. Paper presented at American Psy-chological Association, San Francisco, September,1968.

Kuypers, D. S., Becker, W. C., and O'Leary, K. D.How to make a token system fail. ExceptionalChildren, 1968, 113, 101-108.

Lachenmeyer, C. W. Systematic socialization: Ob-servations on a programmed environment for thehabilitation of antisocial retardates. PsychologicalRecord, 1969, 19, 247-257.

Lent, J. R. A demonstration program for intensivetraining of institutionalized mentally retardedgirls. Unpublished Progress Report, U. S. Depart-ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Feb-ruary, 1966.

Lent, J. R. A demonstration program for intensivetraining of institutionalized mentally retardedgirls. Unpublished Progress Report, U. S. Depart-ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, January,1967. (b)

Lent, J. R. Mimosa Cottage: Experiment in hope.Psychology Today, 1968, 2, 50-58.

Liberman, R. A view of behavior modificationprojects in California. Behaviour Research andTherapy, 1968, 6, 331-341.

Lindsley, 0. R. Operant conditioning methods ap-plied to research in chronic schizophrenia. Psy-chiatric Research Reports, 1956, 5, 118-139.

Lindsley, 0. R. Characteristics of the behavior ofchronic psychotics as revealed by free-operantconditioning methods. Diseases of the NervousSystem, (Monograph Supplement), 1960, 21,66-78.

Lindsley, 0. R. Direct measurement and prothesisof retarded behavior. Journal of Education, 1964,147, 62-81.

Lloyd, K. E. and Garlington, W. K. Weekly varia-tions in performance on a token economy psychi-atric ward. Behaviour Research and Therapy,1968, 6, 407-410.

Locke, B. Verbal conditioning with retarded sub-jects: Establishment or reinstatement effective re-inforcing consequences. American Journal ofMental Deficiency, 1969, 73, 621-626.

Lovaas, 0. I. Some studies on the treatment ofchildhood schizophrenia. In J. M. Shlien (Ed.),Research in psychotherapy. Vol. III. Washington,D. C.: American Psychological Association, 1968.Pp. 103-129.

Lovaas, 0. I., Berberich, J. P., Perloff, B. F., andSchaeffer, B. Acquisition of imitative speech in

schizophrenic children. Science, 1966, 51, 705-707.

Lovaas, 0. I., Freitag, G., Gold, V. J., and Kassorla,I. C. Experimental studies in childhood schizo-phrenia: Analysis of self-destructive behavior.journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1965,2, 67-84.

Lovitt, T. C. and Curtiss, K. A. Academic responserate as a function of teacher and self-imposed con-tingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,1969, 3, 49-53.

Madsen, C. H., Becker, W. C., and Thomas, D. R.Rules, praise, and ignoring: elements of ele-mentary classroom control. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 139-150.

Mandelker, A. V., Brigham, T. A., and Bushell, D.The effects of token procedures on a teacher'ssocial contacts with her students. Journal of Ap-plied Behavior Analysis, 1970, 3, 169-174.

McNamara, J. R. Teacher and students as sourcesfor behavior modification in the classroom. Be-havior Therapy, 1971, 2, 205-213.

Marks, J., Sonoda, B., and Schalock, R. Reinforce-ment vs. relationship therapy for schizophrenics.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 73, 397-402.

McKenzie, H. S., Clark, M., Wolf, M. Kothera, R.,and Benson, C. Behavior modification of chil-dren with learning disabilities using grades astokens and allowances as back up reinforcers. Ex-ceptional Children, 1968, 34, 745-752.

Meacham, M. and Wiesen, A. Changing Classroombehavior: A manual for precision teaching. Scran-ton, Penn.: International Textbook Co., 1970.

Meichenbaum, D. H. The effects of instruction andreinforcement on thinking and language be-haviour of schizophrenics. Behaviour Researchand Therapy, 1969, 7, 101-114.

Meichenbaum, D. H., Bowers, K., and Ross, R. R.Modification of classroom behavior of institution-alized female adolescent offenders. Behaviour Re-search and Thearpy, 1968, 6, 343-353.

Metz, J. R. Conditioning generalized imitation inautistic children. Journal of Experimental ChildPsychology, 1965, 2, 389-399.

Metz, J. R. Conditioning social and intellectualskills in autistic children. In J. Fisher and R. Har-ris (Eds.), Reinforcement theory in psychologicaltreatment: A symposium. Unpublished ResearchMonograph No. 8, California Department ofmental Hygiene, 1966. Pp. 25-39.

Mink, 0. The behavior change process. Chicago:Harper & Row, 1970.

Miller, L. K. and Schneider, R. The use of a tokensystem in project Head Start. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 1970, 3, 213-220.

Miron, N. B. Behavior shaping and group nursingwith severely retarded patients. In J. Fisher andR. Harris (Eds.), Reinforcement theory in psy-chological treatment: A symposium. Unpublished


Research Monograph No. 8, California Depart-ment of Mental Hygiene, 1966. Pp. 1-14.

O'Leary, K. D. Establishing token programs inschools: Issues and problems. Unpublished paperpresented at American Psychological Association,Washington, D. C., August, 1969.

O'Leary, K. D. and Becker, W. C. Behavior modi-fication of an adjustment class: A token reinforce-ment program. Exceptional Children, 1967, 9,637-642.

O'Leary, K. D., Becker, W. C., Evans, M. B. andSaudargas, R. A. A token reinforcement pro-gram in a public school: A replication and sys-tematic analysis. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 1969, 2, 3-13.

O'Leary, K. D. and Drabman, R. Token reinforce-ment programs in the classroom: A review. Psy-chological Bulletin, 1971, 75, 379-398.

O'Leary, K. D., O'Leary, S., and Becker, W. C. Mod-ification of a deviant sibling interaction patternin the home. Behaviour Research and Therapy,1967,5, 113-120.

Orlando, R., Schoelkopf, A., and Tobias, L. Tokensas reinforcers: Classroom applications by teachersof the retarded. Unpublished manuscript. Instituteof Mental Retardation and Intellectual Develop-ment, Nashville, Tennessee, 1968.

Orne, M. T. On the social psychology of the psy-chological experiment: with particular referenceto demand characteristics and their implications.American Psychologist, 1962, 17, 776-783.

Packard, R. G. The control of "classroom attention":a group contingency for complex behavior. Jour-nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1970,3, 13-28.

Panyan, M., Boozer, H., and Morris, N. Feedback toattendants as a reinforcer for applying operanttechniques. Journal of Applied Analysis, 1970,3, 1-4.

Patterson, G. R. An application of conditioningtechniques to the control of a hyperactive child.In L. P. Ullmann and L. Krasner (Eds.), CaseStudies in Behavior Modification. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. Pp. 370-375.

Patterson, G. R. and Brodsky, G. A behaviour mod-ification programme for a child with multipleproblem behaviours. Journal of Child Psychologyand Psychiatry, 1966, 7, 277-295.

Patterson, G. R. and Gullion, M. Living with chil-dren: New methods for parents and teachers.Champaign, Illinois: Research Press, 1968.

Phillips, E. L. Achievement place: Token reinforce-ment procedures in a home-style rehabilitationsetting for "predelinquent" boys. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 213-223.

Premack, D. Reinforcement theory. In D. Levine(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: 1965.Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965.Pp. 123-180.

Quay, H. C. and Hunt, W. A. Psychopathy, neurot-

icism and verbal conditioning: A replication andextension. Journal of Consulting Psychology,1965, 29, 283.

Ray, E. T. and Shelton, J. T. The use of operantconditioning with disturbed adolescent retardedboys. Unpublished paper presented at the 20thMental Hospital Institute, Washington, D. C., Oc-tober, 1968.

Rooney, J. R. Paxton program: Orientation and pro-cedure manual for a token economy. Unpublishedmanuscript, Sonoma State Hospital, Eldridge,California, 1966.

Ross, R. R. Application of operant conditioningprocedures to the behavioral modification of insti-tutionalized adolescent offenders. Unpublishedmanuscript, University of Waterloo, 1967. (a)

Ross, R. R. Application of operant conditioningprocedures to the behavioral modification of in-stitutionalized adolescent offenders. Unpublishedprogress report, University of Waterloo, 1968. (b)

Salzinger, K., Feldman, R. S., and Portnoy, S. Train-ing parents of brain-injured children in the useof operant conditioning procedures. BehaviorTherapy, 1970, 1, 4-32.

Schaefer, H. H. and Martin, P. L. Behavioral therapyfor "apathy" of hospitalized schizophrenics. Psy-chological Report, 1966, 19, 1147-1158.

Schaefer, H. H. and Martin, P. L. Behavioraltherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.

Scheff, T. J. Being mentally ill. Chicago: Aldine,1966.

Schmidt, G. W. and Ulrich, R. E. Effects of groupcontingent events upon classroom noise. journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 171-179.

Scoles, P. E. and Henderson, J. D. Effects of tokenreinforcement on the social performance of psy-chotic men. Unpublished manuscript, SpruceHouse, Horizon House, Inc., Philadelphia, 1968.

Sherman, J. A. and Baer, D. M. Appraisal of oper-ant therapy techniques with children and adults.In C. M. Franks (Ed.), Behavior therapy: Ap-praisal and status. New York: McGraw-Hill,1969. Pp. 192-219.

Sidman, M. Tactics of scientific research. New York:Basic Books, 1960.

Sidman, M. Operant techniques. In A. Bachrach(Ed.), Experimental foundations of clinical psy-chology. New York: Basic Books, 1962. Pp. 170-210.

Spradlin, J. E. Effects of reinforcement schedules onextinction in severely mentally retarded children.American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1962,66, 634-640.

Stayer, S. J. and Jones, F. Ward 108: Behavior mod-ification and the delinquent soldier. Unpublishedpaper presented at Behavioral Engineering Con-ference, Walter Reed General Hospital, 1969.

Steffy, R. A. Service applications: Psychotic adoles-cents and adults. Treatment of aggression. Un-published paper presented to American Psycho-


logical Association, San Francisco, September,1968.

Steffy, R. A., Hart, J., Craw, M., Torney, D., andMarlett, N. Operant behaviour modification tech-niques applied to severely regressed and aggressivepatients. Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal,1969, 14, 59-67.

Thomas, D. R., Becker, W. C., and Armstrong, M.Production and elimination of disruptive class-room behavior by systematically varying teacher'sbehavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,1968, 1, 35-46.

Tyler, V. 0. Application of operant token reinforce-ment of academic performance of an institution-alized delinquent. Psychological Reports, 1967,21, 249-260.

Tyler, V. 0. and Brown, G. D. Token reinforce-ment of academic performance with institutional-ized delinquent boys. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 1968, 59, 164-168.

Ullmann, L. P. and Krasner, L. (Eds.) Case studiesin behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rine-hart, & Winston, 1965.

Ullmann, L. P. and Krasner, L. A psychological ap-proach to abnormal behavior. Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969.

Wahler, R. G. Behavior therapy for oppositionalchildren: Love is not enough. Unpublished paperread at Eastern Psychological Association Meet-ing, Washington, D. C., April, 1968.

Wahler, R. G. Setting generality: some specific andgeneral effects of child behavior therapy. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 239-249.

Walker, H. and Buckley, N. The use of positive re-inforcement in conditioning attending behavior.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1,245-252.

Walker, H. M., Mattson, R. H., and Buckley, N. K.Special class placement as a treatment alternative

for deviant behavior in children. In unpublishedMonograph 1, Department of Special Education,University of Oregon, 1969.

Ward, M. H. and Baker, B. L. Reinforcementtherapy in the classroom. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 1968, 1, 323-328.

Winkler, R. C. Management of chronic psychiatricpatients by a token reinforcement system. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 1970, 3, 47-55.

Wolf, M. M., Giles, D. K., and Hall, R. V. Experi-ments with token reinforcement in a remedialclassroom. Behaviour Research and Therapy,1968, 6, 51-64.

Wolf, M. M. and Risley, T. Analysis and modifica-tion of deviant child behavior. Unpublished pa-per presented at American Psychological Associa-tion, Washington, D. C., 1967.

Wolf, M. M., Risley, T., and Mees, H. Applicationof operant conditioning procedures to the be-haviour problems of an autistic child. BehaviourResearch and Therapy, 1964, 1, 305-312.

Zimmerman, E. H., Zimmerman, J., and Russell,C. D. Differential effects of token reinforcementon "attention" in retarded students instructed as agroup. Unpublished paper presented at AmericanPsychological Association, San Francisco, Septem-ber, 1968.

Zimmerman, E. H., Zimmerman, J., and Russell,C. D. Differential effects of token reinforcementon instruction-following behavior in retardedstudents instructed as a group. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 101-112.

Zimmerman, J., Stuckey, T. E., Garlick, B. J., andMiller, M. Effects of token reinforcement onproductivity in multiply handicapped clients in asheltered workshop. Rehabilitation Literature,1969, 30, 34-41.

Received 17 December 1970.

the token economy an evaluative review

Documents