The comparative effectiveness of group and individually contingent free time with inner-city junior high school students.

Wilson et al. (1973) tested two ways to hand out free time in a 7th-grade class. One way let the whole class earn minutes together. The other way let each student earn minutes alone.

The team watched student behavior in both set-ups and compared them to regular teaching with no extra rewards.

Both free-time plans beat the baseline. Kids behaved better when minutes were on the line.

The group plan edged ahead. When the class had to meet a shared goal, behavior improved a little more than when kids worked only for themselves.

Wahler (1969) first showed that free time itself can work as a classroom reinforcer. Wilson et al. (1973) built on that idea by asking, 'Does it matter if the reward is shared or solo?'

Jones et al. (2019) later swapped free time for cell-phone access and still saw big drops in disruption. The pattern holds across different prizes and ages.

Joslyn et al. (2024) moved the same group-contingency logic into alternative-school teens. Hidden criteria and no public rules still worked, showing the tactic travels well.

You can run a group contingency with almost any reinforcer. Start with shared free minutes: set one clear class goal, post progress, and pay everyone at once. If a student tries to coast, the peer pressure often pulls them back in. Try it during the roughest period of your day—transitions, after lunch, or last period—and watch the room settle.