Comparing an interdependent and dependent group contingency to increase physical activity in students during recess

Asaro and team tested two group prize systems at recess. One system made the whole class earn the reward together. The other let one student earn it for the group.

They flipped the systems every few days to see which made kids move more. Recess aides counted steps with cheap pedometers on 48 fourth-graders.

Both systems beat no system. Kids took about 1 ½ times more steps when a prize was on the line.

The we-earn-it-together version won by a nose. The margin was small, but it showed up every time they switched.

Seward et al. (2023) saw the same jump in adults with disabilities using a team step-game. The age and prize changed, yet group contingencies still doubled movement.

Fluharty et al. (2024) stretched the idea further. They asked the class what prize they wanted first, then ran the contingency. Picking the prize boosted work even more, showing a quick preference scan can sharpen any group plan.

Zerger et al. (2016) looks opposite at first glance. They used single-kid praise, not class prizes, to raise preschoolers’ active play. The common thread is contingent payoff—whether one child or many, movement climbs when something good follows it.

You can lift recess exercise tomorrow without new staff or gear. Pick any small prize the class likes, set a group step goal, and hand it out only if every pedometer hits the mark. If you want an extra bump, let the kids vote on the prize first—Fluharty showed that five-minute vote pays off.