School & Classroom

Group versus individual reinforcement contingencies within the context of group study conditions.

Lloyd et al. (1996) · Journal of applied behavior analysis 1996
★ The Verdict

A class-wide quiz goal beats individual points for raising the class average, yet a couple of students may need their own target to keep up.

✓ Read this if BCBAs helping high-school teachers run group review sessions.
✗ Skip if Clinicians working one-to-one in clinic or home settings.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The researchers compared two ways to hand out points during group study time.

One week students earned points only for their own correct quiz answers.

The next week the whole class had to hit a joint goal to earn the same points.

They tracked high-school students’ quiz scores across both setups.

02

What they found

When the class worked for a shared reward, average quiz scores went up.

Yet some individual students scored lower under the group plan.

The group contingency helped the class as a whole, but not every kid.

03

How this fits with other research

Little et al. (2015) looked at 50 similar studies and found huge drops in problem behavior no matter which group-contingency style teachers used.

Their big picture matches the rise in quiz scores seen here.

Kuhl et al. (2015) tested the same group-vs-individual question with third-grade step counts.

They saw the opposite twist: adding personal goals to the group plan made kids walk more, not less.

The difference is the target skill—quiz answers versus steps—so the two papers together tell us the payoff of personal goals depends on what you are measuring.

Alba et al. (1972) warned that reinforcing only behavior can leave academic scores flat.

The current study shows that when the group goal is tied directly to quiz performance, scores do rise, backing up the need to reinforce the exact skill you want improved.

04

Why it matters

You can lift class quiz averages by switching to a group contingency during review games.

Check each student’s data, though—some may need an extra personal goal or a different reward.

Pair this tip with the 2015 meta-analysis confidence: group contingencies are solid, but fine-tune for the few kids who slip.

FREE CEUs

Get CEUs on This Topic — Free

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.

60+ on-demand CEUs (ethics, supervision, general)
New live CEU every Wednesday
Community of 500+ BCBAs
100% free to join
Join The ABA Clubhouse — Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Post one shared quiz-score goal for the week, then graph each student so you can spot who needs a personal booster.

02At a glance

Intervention
group contingencies
Design
alternating treatments
Population
neurotypical
Finding
positive
Magnitude
medium

03Original abstract

We investigated the effects of two teaching variables on students' Spanish vocabulary quiz performance: (a) group study and (b) individual versus group contingencies. In Experiment 1, we compared students' quiz scores under conditions in which students either studied independently and received no programmed reinforcement or studied in groups and received individual rewards for high scores. The results showed that, on average, the group-study individual-reward condition produced superior quiz scores. In Experiment 2, we compared individual (i.e., the superior condition in Experiment 1) and group contingencies within the context of the group study condition. On average across the class, group contingencies produced performance superior to individual contingencies. In both studies, however, benefits for the classes as a whole were mitigated by effects on individual students. These results extend the literature on the effects of group-based instructional activities and reinforcement contingencies. Educators who choose such procedures may encounter conflicting findings depending on whether they examine results at the group or individual level.

Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1996 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1996.29-189