Some Effects of Loss Aversion in Token Systems
Loading...
Links to Files
Permanent Link
Collections
Author/Creator
Author/Creator ORCID
Date
2016-01-01
Type of Work
Department
Psychology
Program
Psychology
Citation of Original Publication
Rights
This item may be protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. It is made available by UMBC for non-commercial research and education. For permission to publish or reproduce, please see http://aok.lib.umbc.edu/specoll/repro.php or contact Special Collections at speccoll(at)umbc.edu
Distribution Rights granted to UMBC by the author.
Distribution Rights granted to UMBC by the author.
Subjects
Abstract
Token economies, or token systems, have been studied extensively and are one of the most widely used and efficacious reinforcement systems to date (Hackenberg, 2009). Although applied research on token systems has diminished considerably in recent decades, an area of research that is relatively understudied in behavioral training programs, but relevant to application, is the framing of contingencies in token systems (Iwata & Bailey, 1974). That is, token systems can be delivered for (a) engaging in appropriate behavior or (b) the omission of inappropriate behavior. These systems can also be arranged such that tokens are removed for (a) not engaging in a predefined appropriate behavior or (b) engaging in a predefined inappropriate behavior. Few studies have directly compared the differential effects of reinforcement gain and reinforcement loss on behavior in a token system (e.g., Iwata & Bailey, 1974). In general, results are mixed. Discrepancies may be a result of procedural differences across studies and whether data were reported aggregately or on an individual basis. Alternatively, the behavioral economic concept, loss aversion, may be a potential variable that contributes to the effectiveness of a token program. Loss aversion refers to the psychological propensity for individuals to weigh losses larger than the corresponding gains, relative to a reference point (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). At least two matters about loss aversion should be addressed before invoking it to understand the effects of framing on an individual'sresponsiveness to a token system: (a) how humans behave when a choice is made available repeatedly and (b) whether children exhibit loss aversion. Experiment 1 evaluated whether loss aversion, as exhibited by college students, diminished with repeated prospects. Results suggest that participants (N = 30) demonstrated loss aversion that did not diminish with repeated presentations. Experiment 2 evaluated whether preschool children exhibit loss aversion, and if observed, whether this loss-averse behavior diminished with repeated prospects. Six of the seven participants exhibited loss aversion, and loss aversion did not diminish with repeated presentations for 5 of these 6 participants. Experiment 3 examined the effectiveness of and preference for token gain and token loss interventions with preschool children. For 3 of the 5 participants, the token loss contingencies produced higher levels of task completion and/or less variability relative to the token gain contingencies. In addition, when given the choice, the four participants who experienced the preference condition unanimously preferred to experience the token loss system. These initial results favor arranging token loss systems and are consistent with the behavioral economic principle of loss aversion.