Instructions and group versus individual reinforcement in modifying disruptive group behavior.

Herman et al. (1971) worked with a preschool class that had lots of disruptive behavior. They tried two kinds of token systems: one where each child earned tokens alone, and one where the whole group had to behave to earn tokens. Before each session they gave short, clear rules like "Keep your hands to yourself." They tracked how often kids yelled, left seats, or grabbed toys.

The team flipped back and forth between the two setups to see which worked better.

Both token systems plus rules knocked disruption down to almost zero. Group tokens worked just as well as individual tokens. When they stopped the tokens, problem behavior bounced back. The gains also faded when kids went to other rooms or later days.

Little et al. (2015) later looked at 50 similar studies and found huge overall effects for group contingencies, so the 1971 result sits inside that bigger picture. Weisman (1970) ran a nearly identical token system one year earlier, but aimed at raising attention instead of cutting disruption; both studies show tokens work, just for different targets.

Alba et al. (1972) tried tokens alone for attention and saw no academic boost; H et al. added brief instructions and got big behavior drops. The difference hints that clear rules, not just tokens, may be the key piece.

Kuhl et al. (2015) and Hirsch et al. (2016) moved the same group-contingency logic into PE classes decades later, showing the idea keeps working across ages and activities.

You can run a group token system without extra individual tracking; just state the rules, pick a group goal, and hand out tokens. Because effects vanish when you stop, plan to thin the schedule slowly and practice the same rules in new settings. If you want both behavior and learning gains, pair your tokens with direct feedback on the academic response, not just sitting still.