Search

The purpose of the current study was to conduct a systematic replication of Fiske et al. (2015) to extend the behavior‐analytic literature on token reinforcement. Specifically, the researchers addressed several of the limitations of Fiske et al. by including specific conditioning procedures, creating a controlled history of reinforcement with the token system, including participants with and without disabilities to extend the generality of the findings, and equating the magnitude of reinforcement across the primary and paired‐token conditions. The current study evaluated the reinforcing value of tokens by using progressive‐ratio schedules to compare the efficacy of primary reinforcement, paired tokens, and unpaired tokens. The results suggest that paired tokens may function as reinforcers, but they were not as consistently effective as primary reinforcers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Jessel et al. (2015) provided some evidence to suggest that "other" behavior is strengthened in the differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO). The present study is a systematic replication of the Jessel et al. procedures. The effects of DRO and extinction on target responding, target‐other responding (a response with an established history of reinforcement), and nontarget‐other responding emitted by children with intellectual and developmental disabilities and children with no known diagnoses were compared. Other behavior increased in at least one DRO condition for each participant, suggesting that other behavior increases when using DRO, at least initially. Under extinction, target responding and target‐other responding decreased to low rates for three of the five participants; however, rates of nontarget‐other responding were elevated compared to the DRO condition. These results suggest that increased rates of target‐other responding and nontarget‐other responding during the DRO condition may be a result of extinction‐induced variability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]