JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2017, 9999, n/a–n/a NUMBER 9999 ()

USING PROGRESSIVE RATIO SCHEDULES TO EVALUATE TOKENS AS

GENERALIZED CONDITIONED REINFORCERS
DANIELLE RUSSELL, EINAR T. INGVARSSON AND JENNIFER L. HAGGAR
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS AND CHILD STUDY CENTER

AND

JOSHUA JESSEL
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS

The properties of operant reinforcers are dynamic and dependent on a number of variables, such
as schedule and effort. There has been sparse research on the generalized conditioned properties
of token reinforcement. We evaluated leisure items, edible items, and tokens using a progressive
ratio schedule with three children with diagnoses of ASD and developmental delays. The highest
break points occurred during the token reinforcement condition for two out of three partici-
pants, but response rates tended to be higher with edibles. We then evaluated the effects of pre-
session access to edibles on the break points of edible items and tokens with two participants.
Break points decreased only in the edible reinforcement condition, and the participants chose to
work for leisure items rather than edibles when presession access to edibles was in place. These
findings suggest that the tokens functioned as generalized conditioned reinforcers.
Key words: generalized conditioned reinforcement, progressive ratio schedule, motivating
operations, tokens

Efficient identification of reinforcers and eval-
uation of their ongoing effectiveness is a critical
aspect of behavioral interventions. Applied
researchers typically conduct preference assess-
ments to determine a relative ranking of stimulus
value, under the assumption that the ranking
predicts reinforcer effectiveness (e.g., DeLeon &
Iwata, 1996; Fisher et al., 1992; Pace, Ivancic,
Edwards, Iwata, & Page, 1985; Roane, Vollmer,
Ringdahl, & Marcus, 1998; Windsor, Piche, &
Locke, 1994). After preference is determined, a
reinforcer assessment with mastered responses
might be conducted, during which each response
produces access to a preferred stimulus (Fisher &
This study was conducted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the master’s degree of the first author at
the University of North Texas. We thank Kimberly Fair-
man and Melinda Robison for assistance with data collec-
tion. Joshua Jessel is now affiliated with Queens College.
Address correspondence to: Einar Ingvarsson, who is
now at the Virginia Institute of Autism, 943 Glenwood
Station LN, STE 201, Charlottesville, VA 22901.
Email: eingvarsson@viaschool.org
doi: 10.1002/jaba.424
© 2017 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
1
Mazur, 1997; Piazza, Fisher, Hagopian, Bow-
man, & Toole, 1996). However, reinforcer effec-
tiveness may fluctuate dependent on various
parameters, including fixed ratio (FR) require-
ments (DeLeon, Iwata, Goh, & Worsdell, 1997;
Tustin, 1994). DeLeon et al. (1997) compared
the reinforcing potency of two similar stimuli
previously found to be roughly equivalent in
preference ranking. When these stimuli were
available under concurrent FR 1 schedules, both
participants—adults diagnosed with develop-
mental disabilities—showed little or no differ-
ences in preference for either stimulus. However,
when the schedule requirements increased to FR
5, a clear preference for one of the stimuli
emerged for both participants. This difference
maintained when the schedule requirements
increased to FR 10. Thus, reinforcer potency is
not an absolute value for a given stimulus.
Given that schedule requirements influence
reinforcer potency and the terminal goal of
most applied efforts is to identify preferred
stimuli that will maintain and increase
2 DANIELLE RUSSELL et al.
responding over time, Roane, Lerman, and
Vorndran (2001) suggested using progressive
ratio (i.e., PR) schedules to evaluate reinforcer
potency. In a PR schedule, the number of
responses required to access reinforcement sys-
tematically increases within-session. With PR
schedules, relative reinforcement effects can be
identified by comparing the obtained break
point for each stimulus (Hodos, 1961). One
advantage of this method is that it allows for an
evaluation of reinforcing efficacy under increas-
ing response requirements.
In two experiments, Roane et al. (2001) evalu-
ated the effectiveness of preferred stimuli using
PR schedules. Four individuals who were diag-
nosed with developmental disabilities participated
in the first study and three of those individuals
participated in the second study. Roane
et al. found that whereas response patterns of
higher and lower preferred stimuli failed to differ-
entiate with FR 1 schedules, PR schedules pro-
duced differences in break points between various
stimuli. They also discovered that stimuli with
higher break points were overall more effective in
the treatment of destructive behavior.
Even following more extensive reinforcer
assessments using PR schedules, reinforcer effec-
tiveness can fluctuate as a function of motivat-
ing operations (MO; Laraway, Snycerski,
Michael, & Poling, 2003). A common concern
with edible and leisure reinforcers is the deleteri-
ous effects of abolishing operations on the rein-
forcing potency of these stimuli (McAdam
et al., 2005; Murphy, McSweeney, Smith, &
McComas, 2003). One major advantage of
tokens is that they should not be subject to MO
effects specific to each backup reinforcer, if they
function as generalized conditioned reinforcers
(Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007).
Token economies are reinforcement systems
that involve the contingent delivery of tokens
following the occurrence of the targeted behav-
ior. Accumulated tokens can later be exchanged
for back-up reinforcers (e.g., food and toys).
Through their association with back-up
reinforcers, the tokens may acquire conditioned
reinforcing properties (Cooper et al., 2007;
DeFulio, Yankelevitz, Bullock, & Hackenberg,
2014; Hackenberg, 2009). Early laboratory
research evaluated token systems and the extent
to which tokens functioned as conditioned rein-
forcers (Cowles, 1937; Kelleher, 1956, 1958;
Wolfe, 1936). These studies demonstrated that
poker chips could be established as conditioned
reinforcers for chimpanzees.
There are a number of advantages to using
generalized conditioned reinforcers (Kazdin &
Bootzin, 1972). Conditioned reinforcers are less
susceptible to the effects of satiation and can be
used to bridge the delay between initial
responses and access to preferred items or activi-
ties. Additionally, conditioned reinforcers main-
tain performance and responding over extended
periods of time, involve minimal interruptions,
and allow for sequences of responses to be rein-
forced easily. They can also be more potent than
any single primary reinforcer.
Ayllon and Azrin (1968) described several
potential advantages of tokens over other gener-
alized conditioned reinforcers (such as praise
statements). First, the number of tokens quan-
titatively represents the amount of reinforce-
ment earned. Second, tokens are portable, can
remain with the client, and can be delivered
easily across a variety of contexts and environ-
ments. Third, there is no limit to the potential
number of tokens one can earn. Fourth, tokens
are durable and allow for consistency and stan-
dardization. Fifth, tokens offer a visual repre-
sentation of improvement and progress (see
also Kazdin & Bootzin, 1972).
Whereas a considerable number of basic
research studies with nonhuman subjects have
explored the reinforcing properties of tokens, little
is known about the extent to which tokens func-
tion as generalized conditioned reinforcers in the
context of application (Hackenberg, 2009). An
exception is a study by Moher, Gould, Hegg, and
Mahoney (2008). The participants were five chil-
dren with autism and other developmental
 TOKENS AS GENERALIZED CONDITIONED REINFORCERS
disabilities. Moher et al. conducted reinforcer
assessments with tokens and manipulated the
MO (i.e., presession free access) for the backup
edible reinforcers. In a parametric analysis, tokens
were exchangeable with one, two, or three backup
reinforcers. Moher et al. found that tokens exclu-
sively exchangeable for one backup reinforcer lost
the ability to maintain responding on dense FR
schedules when preceded by sessions of free access
to that reinforcer. However, tokens continued to
maintain responding when exchangeable for mul-
tiple backup reinforcers, even when the value of
one of the reinforcers was previously abolished via
satiation. These findings suggest that the tokens
functioned as generalized conditioned reinforcers.
We conducted the current study as an exten-
sion of Moher et al. (2008) by including PR
schedules to determine reinforcer effectiveness.
In addition, we included qualitatively different
reinforcers (leisure items and edible items) in
an evaluation of the effects of different levels of
presession exposure on the effectiveness of
tokens (exchangeable for both edibles and lei-
sure items) versus edibles only.
METHOD
Participants
Three students attending a school for children
with developmental disabilities served as partici-
pants. The school director identified participants
based on whether they had experience with token
economies, had low levels of problem behavior
and noncompliance, and had acquired a sufficient
number of math facts to be used as tasks during
the study. All three children, Damien, Carmen,
and Zane, participated in Phase 1 of the study.
However, only Damien and Carmen participated
in Phase 2. All three participants had received
standard token training, based largely on the pro-
cedures described by Cooper et al. (2007). The
participants had extensive experience (at least
14 months) with token economies at the school.
Damien was a 7-year-old boy who was diag-
nosed with developmental delays and autism
3
spectrum disorder. According to the
Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Achievement
(WJ-III; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather,
2001), he functioned on a late-first grade/early-
second grade level. Prior to the study, Damien
had experience using tokens for about
18 months. On average, Damien completed
two to three responses before earning each
token, and he earned about 10 tokens before
accessing reinforcers. According to his teacher’s
report, Damien typically chose to exchange his
tokens for video games, board games, and occa-
sionally more lessons.
Carmen was an 8-year-old girl who was diag-
nosed with developmental delays and functioned
on a kindergarten grade level, according to the
WJ-III. She had experience using tokens for about
14 months prior to the study. On average, she
earned about 10 tokens before accessing reinforcers
in the classroom. With difficult tasks, only one
response was required per token, but with mas-
tered tasks, two to three responses were required
before earning a token. According to her teacher’s
report, Carmen typically chose to exchange her
tokens for small toys (i.e., Polly Pockets, LEGO®
bricks, etc.), board games, and candy.
Zane was a 7-year-old boy who had a diagnosis
of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and
autism spectrum disorder. He functioned on a
first grade level according to the WJ-III. Zane
had experience using tokens for about 2 years.
The number of responses required to earn a single
token varied from one to five, depending on task
difficulty. According to his teacher’s report, Zane
typically earned about 10 tokens before accessing
reinforcers and chose to exchange his tokens for
LEGO® bricks, Wii®, iPad®, and jelly beans.
Setting
All conditions and sessions were conducted in
a room (approximately 2 m x 3 m) containing a
bookshelf, two desks, four chairs, a tripod with
video camera, and a three-tier plastic storage bin.
Other children were not present in the room
4 DANIELLE RUSSELL et al.

during sessions. One session was conducted per collection app on an iPod. The experimenters
day for each participant, 3 to 5 days per week (first and third author) and trained observers
(depending on participant availability). collected data on correct and incorrect
responses, total session time, and the progres-
sive ratio (PR) break point. Observers scored a
Tasks and Materials
response each time the child placed the com-
During sessions, participants worked on pre-
pleted task (math problem) in the pan. When
viously mastered academic skills. The first
the child had written the correct answer on the
author interviewed their teachers to identify
sheet, observers scored that response as correct.
skills that had previously been mastered and
Observers counted a response as incorrect when
selected tasks on the basis of each participant’s
either (a) the answer was not written clearly
individual level of development and academic
enough for the therapist to read or (b) the child
ability. Addition math facts were chosen for all
wrote the wrong answer on the sheet. The
participants. Carmen worked on addition math
number of correct responses was then divided
facts 0 and 1 + 0 through 11. Both Zane and
by the duration of the session to calculate rate
Damien worked on addition math facts
of responses per min (rpm). All participants
0 through 5 + 0 through 11.
responded at near 100% accuracy throughout
In all sessions and conditions, one participant
the study (M = 96.4%, SD = 2); therefore, we
was seated at a desk and the experimenter
report only correct responses.
(either the first or third author) sat to his or her
Reinforcer access time was subtracted from
right side. Each math fact was printed on a
session duration prior to calculating rate. Session
10.8 cm x 14.0 cm laminated paper. An alumi-
time began after delivering the initial instruc-
num pan (22.9 cm x 27.9 cm) with a card
tions and ended when the child asked to be fin-
attached with the printed phrase “I’m done”
ished or when the break point criterion was
was located on the far left corner of the desk.
reached. Observers circled the PR break point
The math fact sheets were stacked in the far
when the child was off-task for 2 min or when
right corner of the desk. After taking a math fact
the child said, “I’m done.” If the session ended
sheet from the stack and writing the answer on
after 2 min of off-task behavior, this duration
the sheet under the equals sign, the participant
was also subtracted prior to calculating the rate.
placed the completed math fact in the pan. The
In the token condition, the experimenter also
participant was given a dry-erase marker to write
noted whether the participants selected an edible
the answers and a tissue to erase mistakes.
or leisure item as a backup reinforcer.
The token board consisted of a laminated file
folder with the label “token board” at the top.
It had three long strips of Velcro centered Interobserver Agreement (IOA)
beneath the label. The tokens were brown
Interobserver agreement (IOA) was assessed
paper circles, about the size of a quarter, lami-
for at least 30% of sessions by having a second
nated with the word “token” printed across the
observer independently collect data from videos
center and Velcro affixed to the back. In the
using pencil and paper. We then counted point
token condition, the therapist placed the token
by point agreements versus disagreements
board in between the pan and the sheets.
across the two observers for incorrect and cor-
rect responses and PR break point, and calcu-
Measurement lated IOA for each session by dividing the total
All sessions were video recorded and the pri- number of agreements by the total number of
mary observers scored responses using a data agreements plus disagreements and multiplying
 TOKENS AS GENERALIZED CONDITIONED REINFORCERS
by 100. Mean IOA for both Carmen and
Damien was 100% for correct responses and
PR break point. Mean interobserver agreement
for Zane was 99% (range, 98% - 100%) for
correct responses and 100% for the PR break
point.
Procedural Fidelity
To assess procedural fidelity, we created a
checklist specifying important aspects of the pro-
cedures. These included giving instructions, pre-
senting the task, delivering consequences
according to the PR schedule, implementing the
break point, managing the token system, and
implementing presession access procedures. An
independent observer observed randomly selected
video-recorded sessions (with at least one session
from each phase and condition for each partici-
pant) and scored experimenter behavior using the
checklist. This observer had not previously been a
part of running the study or collecting data on
participant behavior. We collected procedural
fidelity data for 25.8% of sessions for Damien,
23.8% of sessions for Carmen, and 25% of ses-
sions for Zane. Procedural fidelity was 100% for
Damien, 99.5% (range, 89.5%-100%) for Car-
men, and 100% for Zane. We also obtained IOA
for the procedural fidelity measures for 12.5% of
scored sessions for Damien, 20% of sessions for
Carmen, and 20% of sessions for Zane. IOA for
the procedural fidelity measures was 100% for all
three participants.
Procedures: Reinforcer Assessment (Phase 1)
Preference assessment. Two paired-stimulus
preference assessments were conducted with
each child (Fisher et al., 1992). One assessment
included edible items and the other included
leisure items. Five to eight items were paired
once with every other item in a counterba-
lanced sequence. Following a selection
response, the participant had access to the edi-
ble/leisure item for 1 min. The top three edible
and leisure items were then used as reinforcers
5
in the upcoming progressive ratio conditions.
For Damien, the top three edibles were 3 Mus-
keteers Bar®, M&M®, and chocolate chip
cookie. iPad®, LEGO® bricks, and an Angry
Birds Game were the top three leisure items.
For Carmen, the top three edibles were jelly
bean, Oreo®, and KitKat®. The top three lei-
sure items were iPad®, bowling, and an Angry
Birds game. For Zane, the top three edibles
were Doritos®, Oreo®, and KitKat®. The top
three leisure items were iPad®, bowling, and
LEGO® bricks.
Progressive ratio assessment. There were three
conditions in the progressive ratio assessment:
edible, leisure, and token reinforcement. The
top three edibles from the preference assess-
ment were used in the edible condition, the
top three leisure items were used in the leisure
condition, and tokens exchangeable for any of
those six items were used in the token condi-
tion. For the duration of the study (both
Phases 1 and 2), the participants did not have
access to these edibles and leisure items at the
school. Additionally, the experimenters asked
the participants’ parents to ensure that they did
not have access to these items at home.
Prior to each session, the experimenter placed
the items relevant to the current experimental
condition on the table and the child selected
what he or she wanted to earn during that ses-
sion. Immediately after the child selected an
item, the experimenter removed all other items.
Session materials were then placed on the child’s
desk (marker, tissue for erasing, math facts, and
“finished” pan). The experimenter then issued
the following instruction: “Today you will be
working on math facts. You will receive
_______ for completing math problems. Just
grab a sheet from the stack, answer the problem
and then put it in the finished bin. If at any
point you want to be all done working, you can
tell me, ‘I’m done’ (experimenter points to the
‘I’m done’ card). What do you say when you
want to be all done?” The session began after
the experimenter delivered the instructions and
6 DANIELLE RUSSELL et al.
the child answered the question by saying,
“I’m done.”
During sessions, the children worked on
math fact tasks by writing the solution to each
problem in the designated area on the lami-
nated sheet. The participant then placed the
completed sheet in the “finished” pan, took the
next sheet from the stack, and continued.
When the participant completed the current
ratio schedule requirement, the experimenter
placed a hand on the math sheets and delivered
the programmed consequence. The ratio sched-
ule requirements increased arithmetically (step
size of 1) beginning with one response to access
reinforcement, then 2, 3, and so on. The exper-
imenter delivered an edible item in the edible
condition, a leisure item in the leisure condi-
tion, and a token in the token condition. The
child’s selection at the beginning of session
determined which edible or leisure item was
used. In the edible and leisure conditions, the
participant was given 1-min access to consume
the edible or play with the leisure item after
completing each schedule requirement. If the
participant made an error, the therapist said,
“That’s not right” and allowed the child a few
seconds to correct the error. If the participant
did not know the answer, the experimenter
vocally prompted the correct answer. Any
incorrect or prompted answers were counted
toward the FR schedule requirement after the
child wrote the correct answer on the sheet and
placed it in the pan. Thus, an incorrect
response followed by a prompted response was
counted only once towards the schedule
requirement. If the participant tried to engage
in conversation during the task or reinforcer
time, the experimenter responded by saying,
“We can talk about that later if you want” and
ignored all additional initiations within 30 s of
the verbal redirection. The experimenter ver-
bally redirected the child again if needed after
the 30 s had passed.
The PR break point was reached and the ses-
sion was terminated when the child asked to be
finished or when no target responses occurred
for 2 min. When this occurred in the edible
and leisure conditions, the experimenter imme-
diately walked the child back to his or her class-
room. In the token condition, the experimenter
and child counted the number of tokens and
the child was given access to the item he or she
selected prior to the session. Each token was
worth one edible or 1-min access to the leisure
item. For example, if the break point was PR
10, the child had earned 10 tokens that were
exchangeable for 10 min of play time with the
leisure item or 10 pieces of the edible.
Design. The three reinforcement conditions
were arranged sequentially according to an
ABC design with the order of conditions coun-
terbalanced across participants. Sessions were
conducted until the experimenters (first and
second authors) judged that the data were suffi-
ciently stable. A minimum of five sessions was
conducted in each condition. Stability was
judged by first looking at the most recent three
data points. The condition ended if a trend was
absent. If a possible trend was present, the
experimenters examined the most recent five
data points and ended the condition if a trend
was absent. The number of sessions in each
condition for all participants ranged from 5 to
13 (M = 8.9, SD = 2.6).
Procedures: Presession Access Evaluation
(Phase 2)
Baseline. There were two conditions in this
phase: edible and token. The leisure items con-
dition was not included because only the moti-
vating operation (MO) for edibles was
manipulated. However, the participants could
still choose to earn leisure items in the token
condition. The procedures were similar to the
progressive ratio assessment. Unlike the pro-
gressive ratio assessment, the participants did
not choose backup reinforcers at the beginning
of the session, but rather at the end of session
after all the tokens had been earned. This
 TOKENS AS GENERALIZED CONDITIONED REINFORCERS
change was made to better approximate the
procedures in place in their classroom.
Presession access comparison. During this
phase, each session in both conditions was pre-
ceded by a presession access period. During
presession access, the child was seated at the
desk and given access to the top three edibles
from the preference assessment. The instruc-
tions given were as follows: “You can eat as
much of the snacks as you want. If at any point
you are full, you can just tell me, ‘I’m full’.”
The experimenter then started a timer. During
the first presession access condition the maxi-
mum time was set to 5 min. When the timer
beeped or when the participant stated that he
or she was full or wanted to stop eating, the PR
session for that day was initiated.
The initial duration of presession access did
not result in a change in behavior. Because the
participants consumed the edibles rather slowly,
we concluded that 5 min might not be enough
to allow for satiation. Thus, we increased the
presession access period to 10 min. At the same
time, we observed that the participants had
rarely picked a leisure item as a backup rein-
forcer in the token condition in baseline. In
fact, Carmen had picked leisure items only
once, and Damien had never picked the leisure
items. We suspected that the leisure items
might have lost their reinforcing value. Addi-
tionally, Damien refused to exchange his tokens
for either leisure or edible items in the token
condition during the 5-min presession access,
opting instead to go back to his classroom.
Therefore, we also increased the range of leisure
items that the participants could choose as
backup reinforcers in the token condition.
From that point on, the participants could
select any toy, game, or activity available in the
classroom. However, the edibles available in the
edible condition remained unchanged. Subse-
quently, we conducted a third presession access
condition with Carmen only, in which we
didn’t set specific time limits for her to con-
sume the edibles prior to the session
7
(i.e., unlimited time). Again, this was because
she tended to eat very slowly. Presession access
lasted on average 23 min and 40 s for Carmen
during this phase.
Return to baseline. The second baseline was
identical to the initial baseline, except the par-
ticipants had access to a broader array of leisure
items as backup reinforcers in the token condi-
tion, as in the preceding presession-access
condition.
Experimental design. During the presession
access comparison, the progressive ratio condi-
tions (token vs. edible) were conducted in a
multielement design. The order of the condi-
tions was determined in a quasirandom fashion
such that no condition was conducted more
than two times in a row. The experimental
evaluation of the effects of presession access was
conducted in a reversal design.
RESULTS
Phase 1: Reinforcer Assessment
Figure 1 displays the response rate and break
point performance across the three reinforce-
ment conditions during the progressive ratio
assessment. Break points for each condition
were relatively similar for Damien, with the
highest mean break point in the edible condi-
tion (M = 10.2, SD = 2.1), followed by the lei-
sure items (M = 9.4, SD = 3.6), and token
reinforcement (M = 7.6, SD = 3.7). The
response rates were also highest in the edible
condition (M = 6.5 rpm, SD = .8), followed
by the leisure items (M = 5.9 rpm, SD = .9),
and then tokens (M = 5.6 rpm, SD = 1.1).
For Carmen, leisure items had a lower mean
break point (M = 3, SD = 2.3) than edible
(M = 5.1, SD = 2.9) and token (M = 5.2,
SD = 3.1) reinforcers. The highest mean
response rate occurred in the edible condition
(M = 5.7 rpm, SD = 1.2), followed by the lei-
sure items (M = 5.2 rpm, SD = 1.1), and
tokens (M = 4.5 rpm, SD = 1.5).
8 DANIELLE RUSSELL et al.

8 15
Damien

6
10
4
5
2 Token
Edible
Leisure
0 0

8 15
Carmen
Responses per minute

Break point
6
10
4
5
2

0 0

15 30
Zane

10 20

5 10

0 0
10 20 30
Sessions

Figure 1. Rate of responding and break points during the progressive ratio assessment (phase 1).

The highest mean break point for Zane was
observed for the token condition (M = 15.7,
SD = 5.2), followed by the edibles (M = 11.7,
SD = 3.3), and then leisure items (M = 7.4,
SD = 2.8). The highest response rates were
observed in the edible condition (M = 10.7
rpm, SD = 1.3). The token condition was next
(M = 10 rpm, SD = 1.4), and the lowest
response rates occurred in the leisure item con-
dition (M = 6.5 rpm, SD = .7).
Phase 2: Presession Access Comparison
During the presession access baseline for
Damien (Figure 2, top panel), there was little
difference in break points across the edible rein-
forcers condition (M = 13.4, SD = 5.7) and the
token reinforcers condition (M = 15.4, SD =
6.3). These undifferentiated results between
the edibles (M = 9.3, SD = 1.2) and tokens
(M = 9, SD = 1) maintained after the 5-min
presession access to the edible items was intro-
duced. Following the introduction of the 10-
min presession access condition, Damien
contacted the ratio requirements in only one
session during the edible reinforcement condi-
tion (M = 1.75, SD = 3.5). However, break
points remained stable and high during the
token reinforcement condition (M = 10.5,
SD = 2.6). Break points during the edible
 TOKENS AS GENERALIZED CONDITIONED REINFORCERS
Figure 2. Break points for Damien (top panel) and
Carmen (bottom panel) across varying durations of preses-
sion access to edible reinforcers in phase 2.
reinforcement condition (M = 5.5, SD = 3.8)
returned to previous levels during the second
baseline.
For Carmen, higher break points were
achieved in the token reinforcement condition
(M = 7.1, SD = 2.1) in comparison to the edi-
ble reinforcement condition (M = 6.4, SD =
2.9) during baseline (Figure 2, bottom panel).
Although there was a downward trend in token
condition break points during the 5-min pre-
session access period (M = 6, SD = 2.2), this
condition was largely unaffected by the changes
in presession access. High break points contin-
ued to occur during the 10 min (M = 6.7,
SD = .6) and unlimited conditions (M = 6.8,
SD = 1.5). A slight decrease in the level of edi-
ble condition break points was observed for
9
Figure 3. Cumulative selections of backup reinforcers
that were exchanged during each session in which tokens
were earned in phase 2.
Carmen during the 5-min (M = 3.5, SD = .6)
and 10-min (M = 3.7, SD = .6) presession
access condition. However, level of break
points reduced dramatically and responding
was eliminated altogether in many sessions dur-
ing the unlimited access condition (M = 1.4,
SD = 1.8). Higher break points were again
obtained in the edible (M = 3.7, SD = .6) and
token (M = 6.7, SD = 2.9) conditions during
the return to baseline.
Figure 3 shows whether the participants
selected edible or leisure backup reinforcers
during token reinforcement sessions. Both
Damien and Carmen exclusively exchanged
their tokens for edible items during baseline.
During the 5-min presession access, Damien
refused to exchange his tokens for either edibles
10 DANIELLE RUSSELL et al.
or tokens, choosing instead to return to his
classroom. Carmen continued exchanging her
tokens for edibles (with the exception of the
last session in this phase). Their selections
shifted to leisure items when the 10-min pre-
session access to edibles was introduced (which
coincided with a broader range of leisure items
being made available), and Damien continued
to select leisure items even during the second
baseline. Carmen chose leisure items in the first
token session in this phase, edibles in the sec-
ond session, but declined both in the third and
final session, opting to go to her classroom
instead. After the range of available leisure
items was increased, both participants selected
leisure items that had not been available before.
Damien chose iPod Touch® six times. How-
ever, it should be noted Damien played the
same game on his personal iPod Touch as he
had on the iPad in the leisure condition; the
difference was that a higher game level was
available on his personal iPod. Interestingly,
there were three occasions on which he chose
not to engage in leisure activities, but requested
to go back to working on academic math tasks.
Carmen chose LEGO® bricks (an item that
was available during the initial preference
assessment, but had not been highly preferred
at that time) seven times, but also picked one
of the original items (iPad®) three times. Car-
men declined leisure items and chose to rejoin
scheduled activities in the classroom on one
occasion.
DISCUSSION
In the first phase of the current study, we
evaluated leisure items, tokens, and edibles as
reinforcers with three children with autism using
progressive ratio schedules. Results indicated
that all influenced high rates of behavior, with
slightly higher break points occurring during the
token reinforcement condition for two partici-
pants. In the second phase, we evaluated the
extent to which tokens functioned as generalized
conditioned reinforcers with two of the partici-
pants. The results showed that presession access
to food detrimentally affected progressive ratio
break points only when edibles were used as
reinforcers, but not when tokens (exchangeable
for leisure items and edibles) were used as rein-
forcers. Further, when presession access to food
was implemented, the participants chose to
exchange their tokens for leisure items rather
than edibles. These results suggest that tokens
functioned as effective generalized conditioned
reinforcers in the current study.
The results of Phase 1 suggested that tokens
maintained responding for a longer period and
at leaner schedules of reinforcement (for two
participants) but at a somewhat slower pace rel-
ative to edible reinforcement. However,
because the token, edible, and leisure reinforce-
ment conditions were not replicated within
participants, conclusions regarding the differen-
tial effectiveness of tokens cannot be made.
Further research should incorporate a sound
experimental design to examine if tokens are
indeed differentially effective.
We found that presession access to edibles
abolished the value of the edible reinforcers.
The tokens, on the other hand, were unaffected
by the presession access and continued to
maintain high break points. It is likely that the
combination of multiple categories of backup
reinforcers, both leisure and edible items,
resulted in the tokens’ resilience to singular
abolishing operations. Additionally, the shift in
the exchange for backup reinforcers from edi-
bles to leisure items during the token condition
supports this interpretation.
The current results differ somewhat from
those found by Vargo and Ringdahl (2015;
Experiment 4). In their study with four typi-
cally developing preschoolers, these authors
found that presession access to edible items had
a more deleterious effect on responding main-
tained by token reinforcement than responding
maintained by edible reinforcement. However,
the tokens in the Vargo and Ringdahl study
 TOKENS AS GENERALIZED CONDITIONED REINFORCERS
were exchangeable only for the same edible
items that were delivered in the presession
period. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the
tokens functioned as generalized conditioned
reinforcers. Instead, the delivery of the tokens
may have signaled the availability of delayed
edibles. Further, the participants received only
a set amount of edibles presession, which may
not have been sufficient to produce satiation.
Thus, the presession period in the Vargo and
Ringdahl study may have served to reduce the
value of delayed edible reinforcement more
than the value of immediate reinforcement,
resulting in greater reduction in response rates
in the token condition. The results of the cur-
rent study, however, suggest that token rein-
forcement is likely to be resistant to disruption
by presession access to one type of reinforce-
ment, if the tokens are exchangeable for a vari-
ety of backup reinforcers.
Because access to a greater variety of leisure
items was instituted at the same time as preses-
sion access to edibles, we cannot be certain
whether the generalized function of the tokens
was established by the enrichment of the leisure
items, substitution of multiple dissimilar rein-
forcers, or both. Nevertheless, the fact remains
that breakpoints occurring in the edible condi-
tion were disrupted as a result of presession
access to edibles, whereas breakpoints occurring
in the token condition were unaffected, and this
effect was demonstrated in a reversal design.
The current findings add to those of Moher
et al. (2008), in that the properties of token
reinforcers may extend across individual stimuli
creating categories that are affected by a more
encompassing MO. Moher et al. included only
edible items and manipulated the value of each
item, whereas the current study included a
three-item array of the most highly preferred
edibles and leisure items. However, the current
study is limited in that the value of only one
category of backup reinforcers was manipu-
lated. Future research could focus on determin-
ing the boundaries of generalized conditioned
11
reinforcers by including more categories of
reinforcers and measuring the effects on tokens
when abolishing operations are manipulated for
multiple categories. In addition, we have seen
only deleterious effects of satiation, but the
inverse may be possible as well. In other words,
presession consumption of one category of rein-
forcers may increase the break points of tokens
exchangeable for different, independent backup
reinforcers. However, this remains an empirical
question.
Although the results suggest that tokens func-
tioned as generalized conditioned reinforcers,
there is a slight possibility that the tokens them-
selves were reinforcers. Due to practical con-
straints, there was no baseline token condition
included. In such a condition, the tokens would
be earned, but no backup reinforcers would be
available for exchange. If high break points were
maintained in such contexts, we could say that
the value of the tokens might be somewhat inde-
pendent of their relation to the backup rein-
forcers. During the 5-min presession access
period, Damien continued to achieve high break
points without exchanging the tokens for edibles
or leisure items. This might indicate that the
tokens functioned as reinforcers, independent of
the backup reinforcers. However, this is difficult
to determine because both participants had an
extensive history with token economies and
backup reinforcers. Along similar lines, a no-
reinforcement baseline condition was not con-
ducted, leaving the possibility of the behavior
being maintained in the absence of programmed
reinforcement. Although inclusion of a no-
reinforcement baseline would reduce speculation
about the tasks being automatically reinforcing,
we can affirm the consequent. During presession
access periods, responding was effectively elimi-
nated even though the contingency was still in
place. In other words, if completing the tasks
was maintained by automatic reinforcement,
task engagement should have continued irre-
spective of the MO manipulations.
12 DANIELLE RUSSELL et al.
Additional inferences can be drawn from
previous studies that examined the use of PR
schedules in reinforcer assessments. Roane
et al. (2001) found that stimuli with higher
break points were overall more effective in
decreasing problem behavior and increasing
appropriate behavior. These findings, combined
with the outcomes of the current study, suggest
that tokens might be the most effective rein-
forcers to increase appropriate behavior under
certain conditions. In addition, Penrod, Wal-
lace, and Dyer (2008) found that more pre-
ferred stimuli resulted in higher break points.
All the items used in the current study were
ranked as the top three preferred items accord-
ing to the initial preference assessments. Thus,
break points on PR schedules may prove to be
a more sensitive measure of reinforcer efficacy
than assessments including a singular dense
schedule of reinforcement. This is not to say
that PR schedules should replace all other rein-
forcer assessments. Which assessment to con-
duct depends on time restrictions, the
participant’s response when exposed to thin
reinforcement schedules, and relevance to the
task. For example, if brevity is required or if
the participant is unlikely to contact thin rein-
forcement schedules in their everyday environ-
ment, a simple comparison using dense
reinforcement schedules may be sufficient.
However, if the participant is likely to contact
a much broader array of reinforcement sched-
ules, an assessment using a PR schedule may be
more appropriate. It is also important to note
that the rapidly thinning reinforcement sched-
ules characteristic of PR arrangements can
result in potentially aversive conditions. In the
current study, we ensured that the participants
could emit a low-effort escape response at any
time. The fact that Damien and Carmen some-
times opted to end the sessions very quickly
(sometimes without emitting any target
responses) suggests that high schedule values
became aversive or less preferred. Due to the
fact that PR arrangements are relatively time-
consuming and may lead to lean ratios that are
aversive, they should not be used unless there is
a clear benefit of doing so and participants are
free to opt out of the arrangement at any time
(cf. Poling, 2010). Future research could help
guide the appropriate application of different
reinforcer assessments.
REFERENCES
Ayllon, T., & Azrin, N. H. (1968). The token economy: A
motivational system for therapy and rehabilitation.
New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007).
Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Cowles, J. T. (1937). Food-tokens as incentives for learn-
ing by chimpanzees. Comparative Psychological
Monographs, 12, 1-96. https://doi.org/10.1037/
14268-000
DeFulio, A., Yankelevitz, R., Bullock, C., &
Hackenberg, T. D. (2014). Generalized conditioned
reinforcement with pigeons in a token economy.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 102,
26-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.94
DeLeon, I. G., Iwata, B. A., Goh, H., & Worsdell, A. S.
(1997). Emergence of reinforcer preference as a func-
tion of schedule requirements and stimulus similarity.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 439-449.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-439
Fisher, W. W., & Mazur, J. E. (1997). Basic and applied
research on choice responding. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 30, 387-410. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.1997.30-387
Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G.,
Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992).
A comparison of two approaches for identifying
reinforcers for persons with severe and profound dis-
abilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25,
491-498. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491
Hackenberg, T. D. (2009). Token reinforcement: A
review and analysis. Journal of the Experimental Analy-
sis of Behavior, 91, 257-286. https://doi.org/10.1901/
jeab.2009.91-257
Hodos, W. (1961). Progressive ratio as a measure of
reward strength. Science, 134, 943-944. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.134.3483.943
Kazdin, A. E., & Bootzin, R. R. (1972). The token econ-
omy: An evaluative review. Journal of Applied Behav-
ior Analysis, 5, 343-372. https://doi.org/10.1901/
jaba.1972.5-343
Kelleher, R. T. (1956). Intermittent conditioned rein-
forcement in chimpanzees. Science, 124, 679-680.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.124.3224.679
 TOKENS AS GENERALIZED CONDITIONED REINFORCERS
Kelleher, R. T. (1958). Fixed-ratio schedules of condi-
tioned reinforcement with chimpanzees. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1, 281-289.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1958.1-281
Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Michael, J., & Poling, A.
(2003). Motivating operations and terms to describe
them: Some further refinements. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 36, 407-414. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.2003.36-407
McAdam, D. B., Klatt, K. P., Koffarnus, M.,
Dicesare, A., Solberg, K., Welch, C., & Murphy, S.
(2005). The effects of establishing operations on pref-
erences for tangible items. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 38, 107-110. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
2005.112-03
Moher, C. A., Gould, D. D., Hegg, E., &
Mahoney, A. M. (2008). Non-generalized and gener-
alized conditioned reinforcers: Establishment and val-
idation. Behavioral Interventions, 23, 13-38. https://
doi.org/10.1002/bin.253
Murphy, E. S., McSweeney, F. K., Smith, R. G., &
McComas, J. J. (2003). Dynamic changes in rein-
forcer effectiveness: Theoretical, methodological, and
practical implications for applied research. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 421-438. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-421
Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L.,
Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1985). Assessment of
stimulus preference and reinforcer value with pro-
foundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 18, 249-255. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.1985.18-249
Penrod, B., Wallace, M. D., & Dyer, E. J. (2008). Asses-
sing reinforcer potency of high preference and low-
preference reinforcers with respect to response rate
and response patterns. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 41, 177-188. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
2008.41-177
Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hagopian, L. P.,
Bowman, L. G., & Toole, L. (1996). Using a choice
assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness. Journal
13
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 1-9. https://doi.org/
10.1901/jaba.1996.29-1
Poling, A. (2010). Progressive-ratio schedules and applied
behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
43, 347-349. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.
43-347
Roane, H. S., Lerman, D. C., & Vorndran, C. M.
(2001). Assessing reinforcers under progressive sched-
ule requirements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
34, 145-167. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2001.
34-145
Roane, H. S., Vollmer, T. R., Ringdahl, J. E., &
Marcus, B. A. (1998). Evaluation of a brief stimulus
preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 31, 605-620. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
1998.31-605
Tustin, R. D. (1994). Preference for reinforcers under
varying schedule arrangements: A behavioral eco-
nomic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
27, 597-606. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.
27-597
Vargo, K. K., and Ringdahl, J. E. (2015), An evaluation
of resistance to change with unconditioned and con-
ditioned reinforcers. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 48, 643-662. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jaba.226
Windsor, J., Piche, L. M., & Locke, P. A. (1994). Prefer-
ence testing: A comparison of two presentation
methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15,
439-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/0891-4222(94)
90028-0
Wolfe, J. B. (1936). Effectiveness of token rewards for
chimpanzees. Comparative Psychological Monographs,
12, 1-72. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093425
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N.
(2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Received April 9, 2016
Final acceptance October 9, 2017
Action Editor, Anthony DeFulio