has REL A Therap 193, Ya 12540128. Pegamon Pres: Printed in Enh CASE HISTORIES AND SHORTER COMMUNICATIONS: ‘An experimental evaluation of tokens as conditioned reinforcers in retarded children (Received 26 August 971) ‘since the publication of experimental reports by Wolfe (1936) and Cowles (1937), that tokens could be ‘cuabished as conditioned reinforcers, many accounts have appeared on the implementation of token systems {human sublects, Tokens have been succesfully used 3s prosthetic ativational devies ina great variety of uations and subjects, such as retarded children (Bienbraver, Wolf, Kidder and Tague, 1965), adult psy- GHoiks (Avlfon and Azsn, 1969), delinquent children an adolescents (Tyler, 1967; Philips and Wl, 1968), Tow achievers schools (Clark, Lachowier and Wolf, 1968), emotionally disturbed children (Hewett, Taylor find Arts, 1969) and in normal iassroom settings (O'Leary, Becker, Evans and Saudsraas, 1969) In these Soporte adfninistraton oF tokens usualy produced an increase in the frequency of desirable social and pro- Bathe uchavior, Howevee, none of these studies showed that the effect of the tokens depended on their ole as conditioned reinforcers based on the standard exchange systems being used, No assessment was provided about the separate contribution of the soda reinforcement operations involved in dispensing {okens in a social seting. ‘A suazestion about the possible confounding effets of social reinforcement in token administration comes frorn ihe filure to establish token systems in subjects who are partially unresponsive t0 social rei ovcement Hamblin etal, 1970; Ribes and Souza e Sita, in preparation). The present research was con; {Sucued wth the ams of ooking the effects of conditioned reinforcement as such—apart from those produced by the socal reinforcement provided in the delivery of tokens, METHOD Subjects ‘our retarded and brain-damaged children attending the Center for Training and Special Education of the Unqversity of Veracruz, were selected on ais of thet limited behavioral sepertoires. Subjects 1, 2and 3 ‘had been previously introduced £0 a token system, although tokens never became powerful reinforcers for ‘em, Subject 4 had no prior experience with any kind of token system. Their ages ranged from $ 10 14 years and they were all untesponsive to any Kind of psychometric texting. Their verbal behaviour ranged rom very poor to totaly inarticulate, ‘Social responsiveness was restricted to obtaining physical stimulation {Gusjec or io aggressive behavior toward others (subject 1). Subjects 2 and 3 were withdrawn chikiren, Procedure ‘Tole establishment. As previously mentioned, subjets 1,2 and 3, had already been introduced to @ token gstem at the Center for Training and Special Education, Plastic fokens were exchanged for candies Snacks and toys as well 35 for obtdoor playing time, During the first two weeks of attendance three hours {Gully hve daye a week atthe Center, children were given atthe beginning of the morning, 5 tokens which ‘vere immediately exchanges for cookies or soda. During the rest of the morning the children worked on {herent secal behavior and academic programs where they were reinforced sith tokens and primary rein- Forsurs, The exchange was done every twenty minules since tokens seemed uncbie o bridge longer period Grane, Sujet Thad been under tokens for one year and subjects 2 and 3 for three months prior to this Hlugy, Subject 4 bad always been working under direct primary reinforcers and was wsed as a contol Tieaponte specification, Singe the study stlempled to assess the efflecs of tokens and sosial reinforcement na social situation, s vey simple response available in the limited repertoires of al four subjects was selected, Puls sessonse was that of toushing an adult With any part of the body—making physical contact, ‘Baucline recording. Baseline recordings were taken for cach chiki during 4 shiry-minute sessions on consceutive days, From this time onwards, he token system was cisconilnued on the subjest' daily activities at te Center. Two observers recarded the Frequency of physical contact with an adult. The chilé and the f2dult were placed in a 33 metere room where they could be observed from an adjacent rocm through a ne-way marror window. The adult was instructed pot to pay aitention to the child. Since baseline rates Were exiemely low, reliability Goecients between observers were about 1.0. 128126 [CASE HISTORIES AND SHORTER COMMUNICATIONS Experimental procedure. Four experimental conditions were administered tol four children. Sessions were balfan hour fong and were run twice daily with a thiry-minute break between them, Each treatment cers gas epesed four times in order to oblain intersubject and intrasujoct replication for each treat- ‘nent condition. “Thece variables were manipulated independently: (2) primary reinforcers (exchange), (b) tokens, and (@)sosaleinforcoment. Candies wete sed as prionary reinforesrs since they had proved to be functional for eens dures thei xing in imitation and verbal behavior prior o the experiment "Fhe four diferent restment conditions were: (a) social reinforeement paired with tokens having 0 xchat vale: (0) soca einforcement paired with tokens having exchange values (c) social reinforcement {Er giasented independent of tokens which had no exchange value; and (8) social reinforcement (FT) Greented independent of tokens which had exchange value, The order of presentation of the various eres tinenal condiuons (see Table 1 was varied in each child in order fo contro for warm-up or sequential Coe eie ceotons, ‘Two of the children eubjects 3 and 4) did not participate in the final two and four Sessions respectively beeause of lines. ‘Daring the experimental sessions the adult was siting in chair, without paying any attention to the child in eides to prevent any. prompting of the physical contact response, Every time the child made Sri. contact with the experimenter, the experimenter would reinforce him with a token. Tn the sessions Far shich sogal reinforcement was to be provided contingenty, the adult gave a token and patted the erie head wie saying "very nice" In thse sessions, socal reinforcement was abvays en immediate con- saancnce of he peical Contact response bythe chil. Tp the experimental conditions where social reinfores- sere ided non-contingent to the physical contact response, the experimenter remained non-attentive aan eon Gicpenved token every lime she was touched but without saying anything and also turning, Teac eae Noncontingent social reinforcement was provided every three minotes. Thus, in the condi: aera ae acca seinforcement was not paired with tokens, the schedule covld be expressed a5 a concurrent Fo oe toscament periodic 3 social reinforcement, while the condition where social reinforcement Ce pied with tokens, would be a CRF with token and socal reinforcement. The difference among e%- TaS Big novachange conditions was the exchange of tokens for candies atthe end of the session. RESULTS “The data are potted in several graphs to show the effects of the three variables as measured by the resporee frequency of pagsical contact responses shown by the four subjects. Figure 1 shows a very low Fares il csmanding curing the baseline sessions. Responding never increased above an average of $ Fesponses Guring the one-hour period of recording ‘Figure I shows total frequencies of responding inthe four conditions for cach ofthe children. Two of then itiecte v and 3, were not afected by any ofthe available reinforcers since their response frequencies remained unchanged compared to the baseline sessions, ‘Subjects 1 and 4 showed remarkable inereases and decreases in responding according to the contingent a ee inaeat admonstration of social reinforcement. Contingent socal reinforcement, both im the are ape and ne-excharie conditions, tended to produce an increas in the frequency of the physical contact Sepa compared te beseline sessions. Non-cootingent socal reinforcement decreased respondingeompared rere ce ttareit wa provided contingenty, especially n subject 1. This seems to indieate that exchange as Sich was not important in producing any effet, ‘Subjects 1 and 4 both showed an inerease in responding in over-all treatment conditions compared 10 ther berline rate. ‘They both showed increased peaks of responding in successive sessions, independently cae acbunincntal treatments per se. Subject 1, except for sessions {en and twelve in which sbe engsged 19 cotimntatory behaviour, slays recponcled with higher rates in conditions in which socisl reinforcement ae to phveal contact. Non-contingent social reinforcement produced a decrease in responding aaa ereape two abovementioned sessions. Subject I id not diffe in responding during exchange and no texehange conditions. ‘Subject 4 showed a somewhat diferent trend {o subject 1 perhaps because he had never been under 2 Coke ety aaa the experiment itself was similar to an acquisition provedure. Non-contingent social sees lonen: produced an increasing frequency of responding inthe first six experimental sesions but the Fanner exepece during the last four sessions in Which contingent socal reinforcement proved 10 bx more Tre we nscauing pnysical contact frequency. Like subject 1, subject 4 did not show any difference Jpetween exchange apd no-exchange condition. “Lastly, a comparison between conditions in which tokens were or were nat exchanged (irrespective of the contingency of social reinforcement) failed reveal any éifferences,(CASE HISTORIES AND SHORTER COMMUNICATIONS 127 ea mw Besclne : it 2 BD notcens * ic ape, i wm geet : o Bass £00 sane 1 ied 7 i = of Sobjea Sujet oF Fig. Thetotal frequency of responses for 4 subjects under conditions of social reinforcement ‘andjor token exchange, DISCUSSION “The findings are interesting since, although chowing that tokens stm to be quite effective reinforcers in some subjects and 4), some confounding variables not taken into account in ordinary studies are identified In this study, the reinforcing effects of tokens (shen attained) seem to depend in srne eases on the social reinforcement simultaneously provided. Our subject who was naive concerning tokens, showed = double Geet Fist, non-contingent social reinforcement seemed to work as a priming stimults for the physical Contact response (Boel, Stoddard, Harris and Boer, 1968). To addition, he enjoyed manipulating the rokens Sind it was not until contingent social reinforcement began controling his increased response rete, that the tokens lor their power as manipulatable reinforcers (the last Four sessions). Tn bre, the study shows with some resrilions that at last with the specific experimental population involved, the reinforcing effects of tokens are mediated by concurrently provided social reinforcement “Antpough the data were not uniform for sl subjects, socal reinforcement seemed to be important relative to {token adminisration in two ofthe four subjects “The results ofthis stady rales some questions. What isthe usefulnes of roker systems established on an ‘exchange basis? Why do certain children fal to come under the control of tokens? ‘Despite the uncertainty about the determinants of the eects, the literature onthe topic shows that token systems do work ina great verity of situations, However, 1s important to raise the question about how tokens become functional reinforcers in humans, Although Until now it has been thought that tokens tsin Conn arcs by means of hr change for mary reno br 0 sesso Fit to. diferent view a least in some cases ‘Tokensscem to provide a formal manner of spocfving and scheduling thereinforcng agents behaviour. ‘That is, social reinforcement is provided by those who eliver tokens in a restricted and contingent way [because lokens set an objective frame for reinforcing the behaviour of others. Otherwise, i would be most