Procedural variations in group contingencies: effects on children's academic and social behaviors.
Put the lowest performer in charge of the group reward—peers will tutor and the student will work more.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Reiss et al. (1982) tested three ways to run a group contingency in elementary special-ed rooms.
Kids had to finish math and reading sheets. The class earned free time only if one picked student met the daily goal.
The twist: the teacher always picked the lowest performer to be that student. The team compared this to letting the group vote or drawing names.
What they found
Making the weakest student the "designated responder" lifted academic work for half of the low-achievers.
Most groups also started talking and helping each other more during lessons.
The vote and draw conditions helped a little, but not as much.
How this fits with other research
Finney et al. (1995) later used the same interdependent idea with preschoolers with autism. They added a five-minute peer-prompt lesson and saw social play double.
Alwahbi et al. (2021) moved the logic into general-ed recess. Peer training alone did nothing; once they taped a simple contingency contract to the fence, social bids jumped.
These follow-ups extend Reiss et al. (1982) by showing the trick works across ages, diagnoses, and settings when you pair it with brief peer coaching.
Bushell et al. (1968) is an earlier cousin. They used group tokens for preschool study behavior and proved the contingency itself drives the change—when tokens stopped, work dropped the same day.
Why it matters
You can set up a group reward in minutes. Pick your lowest-performing student as the daily key player. Tell the class, "If Sam finishes his sheet, we all earn five minutes of computer time." Watch peers gather around Sam to coach, and see Sam work harder than ever. Use it in any small-group class where social and academic gains are both on the IEP.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Name your lowest-skilled student the daily "scorekeeper"; the whole group earns free time only if that student meets a clear academic goal.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
There has been little research on the effects of the many procedural variables in applied group contingencies. In the present study, an individualized contingency and three group contingencies with different "responder" criteria (e.g., reward based on the group average, reward based on the work of a designated, low-achieving student, or reward based on the work of a randomly selected student) were applied to the academic work of primary grade children in a learning disabilities classroom. Group social interaction during each contingency was measured systematically. Although there were large individual differences in students' academic and social responses to the different contingencies, some consistent effects were observed. Two of the four low-achieving target students did their best academic work during the group contingency which focused on their performance as a designated responder. This type of contingency also produced high levels of positive social interaction in three of four groups of children observed.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1982 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1982.15-533