Collegiate contingencies.

Nasr et al. (2000) mapped the reward systems that pull college faculty, students, and administrators in opposite directions. The team drew triangles to show how each group's payoffs clash. No students were tested; the paper is pure theory.

The maps reveal built-in instability. Profits for one group often mean losses for another, so the campus keeps wobbling. The authors sketched possible fixes but did not try them out.

Curiel et al. (2023) later rounded up 59 real classroom studies that use group contingencies, response cards, and PSI. Those tools lifted quiz scores, showing the upside when contingencies are aligned. Lyons (1995) had already warned that you must measure all three parts of a contingency—empirical, theoretical, and practical—before you act. Together the three papers form a timeline: define the parts, see the conflict, then test solutions that work.

If you consult on college programs, start by drawing the same triangle. List what earns points for faculty, students, and admins. When the arrows fight each other, pick one shared payoff—like quiz accuracy—and build your intervention there. You will turn systemic chaos into a single, measurable target.