Group Contingencies

Abstract

Group contingencies describe interventions in which a reward is delivered to a group of individuals based on meeting a predetermined target level of performance. Group contingencies have repeatedly been found to be effective in modifying student behavior. Not only are group contingences effective, but they also have several logistical advantages over individual contingencies. Namely, the delivery of a common consequence to a group of individuals increases efficiency, the use of peers as change agents increases positive peer pressure for appropriate behavior, group contingencies are flexible, and they allow access to a variety of reinforcers. Three different types of group contingencies are described. Finally, specific examples of group contingencies are provided. This includes the Good Behavior Game, Positive Peer Reporting, and Mystery Motivator.

Examining the Generalization of a Combined Independent and Interdependent Group Contingency for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

“…Group contingencies are effective and efficient strategies for teachers to implement, especially because they can simultaneously affect the behavior of multiple students at a time (Maggin et al, 2012). There are three types of group contingencies: (a) independent; in which consequences are based on the outcome of students' individual behavior; (b) dependent; in which group consequences are based on the behavior of one member of the group or a small subgroup; and (c) interdependent; in which consequences are based on the behavior of the group as a whole or all group members meeting a specified criterion (Collins et al, 2019). A number of recent reviews and meta-analyses have demonstrated the near universal appropriateness and effectiveness of group contingencies across a variety of contexts and populations (e.g., Little et al, 2015;Maggin et al, 2012Maggin et al, , 2017.…”

“…Research comparing the effectiveness of the various types of group contingencies has failed to consistently identify one type of contingency as superior (Groves & Austin, 2017; Theodore et al, 2004). Given that each type of contingency can be effective, decisions about which type of group contingency to implement should be made based on the context of the setting, with input from individuals responsible for implementation to promote adherence (Collins et al, 2019; Ennis et al, 2016; Trevino-Maack et al, 2015). Each type of group contingency has strengths and limitations associated with it, and these should be carefully considered during intervention planning (Collins et al, 2019; Little et al, 2015).…”

“…Given that each type of contingency can be effective, decisions about which type of group contingency to implement should be made based on the context of the setting, with input from individuals responsible for implementation to promote adherence (Collins et al, 2019; Ennis et al, 2016; Trevino-Maack et al, 2015). Each type of group contingency has strengths and limitations associated with it, and these should be carefully considered during intervention planning (Collins et al, 2019; Little et al, 2015). For example, interdependent group contingencies have the advantage of promoting group cohesion and collaboration, but the contingency may be sabotaged by individuals who do not find the reinforcers desirable.…”

“…For example, interdependent group contingencies have the advantage of promoting group cohesion and collaboration, but the contingency may be sabotaged by individuals who do not find the reinforcers desirable. Independent group contingencies are less likely to promote collaboration, but students and teachers may perceive them as fairer (Collins et al, 2019). To minimize such disadvantages, researchers have randomized contingency components such as the reinforcers, criteria, and target behaviors (Theodore et al, 2004).…”

“…To minimize such disadvantages, researchers have randomized contingency components such as the reinforcers, criteria, and target behaviors (Theodore et al, 2004). For example, randomizing contingency criteria may motivate students to try their best throughout the session (rather than giving up once the criteria are out of reach) because the criteria are unknown until the end of the intervention session (see Collins et al, 2019, for more examples). Randomizing contingency components can help address limitations of various contingencies, but advantages of the intervention are still dependent on the one type of group contingency selected for implementation (i.e., dependent, interdependent, or independent).…”