Interdependent group contingency management for cocaine-dependent methadone maintenance patients.
Letting one random client decide the whole group’s prize lifts meeting attendance for adults with addiction.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers worked with the adults in a methadone clinic. All had cocaine use disorder.
The team set up a group token system. If every member stayed clean and came to group, one random person won a $50 gift card.
They flipped the rule on and off four times to be sure any change came from the rule.
What they found
When the rule was on, more patients showed up for group sessions.
Adding a second rule—attend group AND stay clean—pushed attendance a little higher.
Cocaine use stayed flat, but people kept coming back.
How this fits with other research
Allison (1976) ran a similar token plan in a fourth-grade classroom. Both studies show group contingencies work across ages and settings.
Marcucella et al. (1978) used a three-person rule in a lab. Their ABAB design matches this clinic study, proving the method travels outside schools.
Weinsztok et al. (2022) found bigger prizes protect treatment when staff slip. C et al. echo this: a single $50 prize moved adults, hinting that size still matters.
Why it matters
You can use one anonymous client to carry the whole group. Pick a random name after the session; if that person met the goal, everyone earns the prize. This keeps cost low while peer pressure stays high. Try it next time attendance drops in day-treatment or outpatient groups.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After group, draw one name; if that client attended and provided a clean urine, hand every member a small gift card.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Contingency management (CM) for drug abstinence has been applied to individuals independently even when delivered in groups. We developed a group CM intervention in which the behavior of a single, randomly selected, anonymous individual determined reinforcement delivery for the entire group. We also compared contingencies placed only on cocaine abstinence (CA) versus one of four behaviors (CA, treatment attendance, group CM attendance, and methadone compliance) selected randomly at each drawing. Two groups were formed with 22 cocaine-dependent community-based methadone patients and exposed to both CA and multiple behavior (MB) conditions in a reversal design counterbalanced across groups for exposure order. The group CM intervention proved feasible and safe. The MB condition improved group CM meeting attendance relative to the CA condition.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2008 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2008.41-579