A systematic literature review of group contingencies with adults
Group contingencies work with adults across jobs, sports, and college classes—this review gathers the evidence in one place.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Fuhrmann-Knowles and colleagues hunted for every study that used group contingencies with adults. They screened journals, dissertations, and conference papers up to 2023.
They kept any paper that tested independent, interdependent, or dependent group contingencies with people 18 or older. No kids, no animals, no hypothetical tasks.
What they found
The team found dozens of adult studies across workplaces, sports teams, and college classes. All three contingency types boosted target behaviors, but the review stays narrative—no average effect size is given.
Most studies used small single-case designs. Settings ranged from factory floors to basketball courts, showing the tactic travels well.
How this fits with other research
Schenk et al. (2019) cataloged 101 sport studies; any adult group-contingency papers in that pile are now swept into the 2024 review. The new paper extends their index by adding non-sport adult settings like offices and clinics.
Matson et al. (2004) showed single-subject designs are rare in sport psychology. Fuhrmann-Knowles agrees—most adult athletic papers they found are tiny A-B-A designs, so the field still needs bigger proofs.
Perez et al. (2015) warned that adult single-case reviews can mask weak evidence. The 2024 authors echo the call for better design quality, but they remain upbeat about group contingencies while M et al. slammed sensory integration. Same method, opposite tone—difference is the intervention, not the science.
Coleman (1987) pitted cooperative against competitive contingencies with college students and saw mixed results. Fuhrmann-Knowles shows modern studies still run that comparison; cooperative structures remain popular and effective, validating the old lab finding in real-world adult groups.
Why it matters
If you work with adults—employees, athletes, or clients in day-hab—this review gives you a ready list of group-contingency studies to cite when you ask for administration buy-in. You can point to evidence from factories, gyms, and classrooms that peers can reinforce each other safely and cheaply. Try starting with an interdependent contingency: set a team goal, post the count, and deliver the reward only when the whole group hits it.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one adult group you serve, set a shared daily target, and tie a fun group reward to meeting it—start collecting data Monday.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
AbstractA group contingency is one in which a common consequence (e.g., a reinforcer or a punisher) is contingent on the behavior of one member of a group, the behavior of part of a group, or the behavior of every member in a group. The most commonly used group contingencies in behavior‐analytic practice and research include interdependent, independent, and dependent group contingencies. Group contingencies are advantageous for multiple reasons, including their versatility, as they have been demonstrated to be effective across individuals, settings, and behaviors. Additionally, they are efficient as they can facilitate behavior change in multiple individuals at once. Previous literature reviews have supported the use of group contingencies with children; however, there has yet to be a systematic literature review conducted on group contingencies with adults. Because group contingencies have multiple benefits, it is important that a literature review be conducted to assess the evidence of these interventions when implemented with adults. A literature review of studies utilizing group contingencies with adults was conducted. Trends across studies, the efficacy of different group contingencies, clinical implications, and recommendations for future research are provided.
Behavioral Interventions, 2024 · doi:10.1002/bin.2027