A Comparison of Cost and Reward Procedures With Interdependent Group Contingencies.

Lee et al. (2017) tested two group token systems in elementary classrooms.

One system took tokens away when kids broke rules (response cost). The other gave tokens when kids stayed quiet (token reward).

Teachers flipped between the two each day to see which one worked better and who liked it more.

Both systems cut disruptive behavior about the same.

Teachers and kids said they liked losing tokens more than earning them. They felt it was clearer and faster.

Conyers et al. (2004) saw the same match-up in preschool. At first the reward system worked faster, but after a few days the cost system pulled ahead.

Hursh et al. (1974) showed that any group contingency helps when you add rules and feedback. Kathryn’s team kept those pieces the same and only changed cost vs. reward.

Vargo et al. (2019) let middle-schoolers pick their group plan. Most chose independent tokens, not the interdependent kind Kathryn used. That suggests older students want control, but younger ones accept either rule.

You can run a tight token economy without extra prizes. Taking tokens away works just as well and the class likes it.

Next time you set up a group contingency, start with response cost. You save money on backup reinforcers and still get calm, on-task kids.