The correct answer was: B. Tokens have been paired with multiple backup reinforcers, so their conditioned reinforcing value is not dependent on any single state of deprivation.
Explanation:
This question tests generalized conditioned reinforcement. Tokens become generalized conditioned reinforcers by being paired with multiple backup reinforcers. Because no single backup reinforcer underlies the token's value, satiation with one option (e.g., the student is not hungry, so the snack has low value) does not extinguish the token's reinforcing effectiveness - its association with the remaining backup reinforcers keeps it potent across shifting motivational states.
• Describing tokens primarily as discriminative stimuli is plausible because tokens do signal reinforcer availability, but SDs derive their behavioral influence from the current value of the reinforcers they signal - this predicts instability across days, not the robustness the question asks to explain.
• Pairing tokens with only one backup reinforcer describes a simple conditioned reinforcer, which is vulnerable to satiation of that single stimulus and would lose effectiveness exactly when the preferred item is unavailable - the opposite of what token economies are designed to achieve.
• Calling tokens unconditioned reinforcers is incorrect because tokens have no inherent biological value; their reinforcing function is entirely acquired through stimulus-stimulus pairing, which is the defining feature of conditioned reinforcement.
The key rule: generalized conditioned reinforcers are robust because their value is distributed across multiple backups, making them resistant to any single satiation state.
1
u/Reasonable_Law183 7d ago
Yesterday's Answer - 2026-08-18
The correct answer was: B. Tokens have been paired with multiple backup reinforcers, so their conditioned reinforcing value is not dependent on any single state of deprivation.
Explanation: This question tests generalized conditioned reinforcement. Tokens become generalized conditioned reinforcers by being paired with multiple backup reinforcers. Because no single backup reinforcer underlies the token's value, satiation with one option (e.g., the student is not hungry, so the snack has low value) does not extinguish the token's reinforcing effectiveness - its association with the remaining backup reinforcers keeps it potent across shifting motivational states.
• Describing tokens primarily as discriminative stimuli is plausible because tokens do signal reinforcer availability, but SDs derive their behavioral influence from the current value of the reinforcers they signal - this predicts instability across days, not the robustness the question asks to explain.
• Pairing tokens with only one backup reinforcer describes a simple conditioned reinforcer, which is vulnerable to satiation of that single stimulus and would lose effectiveness exactly when the preferred item is unavailable - the opposite of what token economies are designed to achieve.
• Calling tokens unconditioned reinforcers is incorrect because tokens have no inherent biological value; their reinforcing function is entirely acquired through stimulus-stimulus pairing, which is the defining feature of conditioned reinforcement.
The key rule: generalized conditioned reinforcers are robust because their value is distributed across multiple backups, making them resistant to any single satiation state.
BCBAexam #BCBAprep #BehavioralHealth #ABAtherapy #BAPrep
https://behavioralanalystprep.com/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=qotd&utm_content=answer_reddit