The Effect of Token Rewards on “Intrinsic” Motivation for Doing Math

Abstract

This study used a multielement baseline design to analyze the effects of token rewards delivered contingent upon completion of math problems by 2 middle-school boys. Time spent on math and number of work pages completed increased (with high accuracy) during reward conditions and were maintained during fading and withdrawal. At followup, time spent and work pages completed remained well above baseline for 1 boy and fell below for the other, while accuracy remained high and ratings of liking math were the highest possible for both boys. Overall, the results are inconsistent with warnings about use of token rewards to motivate children.

Token reinforcement: Translational research and application

“…This finding runs counter to the overjustification hypothesis, which predicts that brushing teeth would drop below baseline levels, owing to the reduced interest in the activity. That neither this study nor others (Feingold & Mahoney, ; McGinnis, Friman, & Carlyon, ; Vasta & Stirpe, ) have found evidence for detrimental effects of token reinforcement suggests that token economies may insulate behavior from such effects. Unlike the typical laboratory‐based study, in which exposure to conditions is extremely brief, the participants in Fisher's study were long‐time members of the token economy, with variables systematically manipulated over time.…”

Examining the Generality of Children's Preference for Contingent Reinforcement via Extension to Different Responses, Reinforcers, and Schedules

“…That is, children may still prefer to complete academic work rather than obtain reinforcement freely even as the schedule of reinforcement is thinned (Dave and Tim preferred CR at FR values of 7 and 9, respectively). Observing preference for CR in an instructional context under INT reinforcement provides some evidence that thinning the reinforcement schedule following the acquisition of an academic response (Baer et al, 1987; Cooper et al, 2007; Martens et al, 2002; McGinnis et al, 1999) can still result in a preferred learning context.…”

“…A common goal in practice is to thin the schedule of reinforcement to increase the practicality for caregivers and teachers. Given the prevalence of intermittent (INT) reinforcement in clinical and educational contexts (Baer, Blount, Detrich, & Stokes, 1987; Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007; Martens et al, 2002; McGinnis, Friman, & Carlyon, 1999), evaluating whether preference for CR persists as the schedule of reinforcement is thinned warrants investigation.…”

Competence, persistence, and success: The positive psychology of behavioral skill instruction

“…Along these lines, Martens, Hilt, et al (2003) found that students with learning disabilities chose to complete easier math problems and worked more carelessly after receiving points for "free" that could later be exchanged for back-up reinforcers. Thus, there is considerable research evidence to suggest that contingent reinforcement increases children's task engagement, accuracy, and enjoyment (e.g., McGinnis, Friman, & Carlyon, 1999), and only when rewards are given for free or not earned is there a potential for negative effects.…”

“…Results showed higher problem-completion rates under the multiple-ratio schedule, and this effect was more pronounced when the student was given easy problems. More recently, McGinnis et al (1999) found that reinforcing problem completion on an FR3 schedule increased the time that students devoted to math work above baseline levels. These gains were maintained when reinforcement was thinned to FR4 and FR5 schedules and even when reinforcement was withdrawn altogether.…”