Token reinforcement: a review and analysis

Abstract

Token reinforcement procedures and concepts are reviewed and discussed in relation to general principles of behavior. The paper is divided into four main parts. Part I reviews and discusses previous research on token systems in relation to common behavioral functions--reinforcement, temporal organization, antecedent stimulus functions, and aversive control--emphasizing both the continuities with other contingencies and the distinctive features of token systems. Part II describes the role of token procedures in the symmetrical law of effect, the view that reinforcers (gains) and punishers (losses) can be measured in conceptually analogous terms. Part III considers the utility of token reinforcement procedures in cross-species analysis of behavior more generally, showing how token procedures can be used to bridge the methodological gulf separating research with humans from that with other animals. Part IV discusses the relevance of token systems to the field of behavioral economics. Token systems have the potential to significantly advance research and theory in behavioral economics, permitting both a more refined analysis of the costs and benefits underlying standard economic models, and a common currency more akin to human monetary systems. Some implications for applied research and for broader theoretical integration across disciplines will also be considered.

Keywords: behavioral economics; conditioned reinforcement; cross-species analysis; symmetrical law of effect; token reinforcement.

Fig. 1

Subject and apparatus used in Wolfe (1936). Top: Chimpanzee depositing a poker-chip token into token receptacle. Bottom: Outside view of experimental apparatus. See text for details. From Yerkes (1943). Property of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Emory University. Reprinted with permission.

Fig. 2

Photograph of intelligence panel and diagram (side view) of token receptacle used in Malagodi's research with rats as subjects and marbles as tokens. See text for details. From Malagodi (1967a). Reprinted with permission.

Fig. 3

Representative cumulative records for rats exposed to token-reinforcement schedules. Left panels: VI 1-min token-production schedules. Right panels: FR 20 token-production schedules. Pips indicate token deliveries. Exchange-production and token-exchange schedules (labeled deposit in the figure) were both FR 1. From Malagodi (1967a). Reprinted with permission.

Fig. 4

Token-production and exchange-production response rates as a function of FR token-production ratio (left panels) and exchange-production ratio (right panels) of 4 pigeons across the final five sessions of each condition. Note that the graphs in left and right panels are derived from the same data, plotted differently to highlight the impact of token-production and exchange-production ratios. Different symbols represent different ratio sizes for the exchange-production ratios (left panels) and token-production ratios (right panels). Unconnected points represent data from replicated conditions; error bars represent standard deviations. From Bullock & Hackenberg (2006). Copyright 2006, by the Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, Inc. Reprinted with permission.

Fig. 5

Token-production response rates of 3 pigeons as a function of exchange-ratio size and schedule type: FR (open circles) and VR (closed circles) over the final five sessions of each condition. Unconnected points denote data from replicated conditions. Error bars indicate the range of values contributing to the means. From Foster, Hackenberg, & Vaidya (2001). Copyright, 2001 by the Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, Inc. Reprinted with permission.

Fig. 6

Representative cumulative records for one rat exposed to FR 20 token-production schedules as a function of exchange-production schedules: FI 1.5 min (top), FI 4.5 min (middle) and FI 9 min (bottom). Token deliveries are indicated by pips, exchange periods by resets of the response pen. From Waddell, Leander, Webbe, & Malagodi (1972). Reprinted with permission.

Fig. 7

Response rates across successive FR token-production segments as a function of token-exchange FR for 2 rats. Overall mean response rates are shown on the right-hand side of each plot. From Malagodi, Webbe, & Waddell (1975). Copyright 1975, by the Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, Inc. Reprinted with permission.

Fig. 8

Mean token accumulation as a function of FR exchange-production ratio. Top panel: Percentage of cycles in which multiple tokens accumulated prior to exchange. Bottom panel: Mean tokens accumulated per exchange period. The different symbols represent different token-production FR sizes. Data are based on the final five sessions per condition, averaged across 3 subjects. (Adapted from Yankelevitz, Bullock, & Hackenberg, 2008).

Fig. 9

Response rates and standard deviations in baseline (hatched bars) and loss (filled bars) conditions, expressed as a percentage of rates in the no-loss component within the same session, for 4 pigeons across the final five sessions of each condition. The labels TL and YF represent data from Token-Loss and Yoked-Food conditions, respectively. See text for additional details. Adapted from Raiff, Bullock, & Hackenberg (2008).

Fig. 10

Mean number of large-reinforcer choices per 10-trial session for 3 pigeons in a token-based self-control procedure as a function of exchange-delay conditions. Delays to the exchange periods were either unequal and shorter for the small-reinforcer option (UD) or equal for both options (ED). Data are from the final 10 sessions per condition; error bars reflect the range of values contributing to the mean. From Jackson & Hackenberg (1996). Copyright 1996, by the Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, Inc. Reprinted with permission.