JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2019, 52, 116–131 NUMBER 1 (WINTER)

A COMPARISON OF GROUP CONTINGENCIES ON ACADEMIC

COMPLIANCE
MEGHAN A. DESHAIS AND ALYSSA B. FISHER
KENNEDY KRIEGER INSTITUTE

SUNGWOO KAHNG
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI

We used a reversal design with an embedded multielement design to compare the effects of an
independent group contingency and a randomized dependent group contingency on compliance
with assigned literacy worksheets in a first-grade general education classroom. Nine participants
were selected based on low levels of compliance in baseline or by teacher identification. Results
indicated that both group contingencies increased compliance relative to baseline for the major-
ity of participants. The independent condition produced higher levels of compliance for four
students and the randomized dependent condition produced higher levels of compliance for one
student. For four students, the two group contingencies were equally effective. A preference
assessment indicated that the majority of target students preferred the randomized dependent
condition and the majority of nontarget students preferred the independent condition. A num-
ber of potential explanations for our preference findings, including the possible role of obtained
reinforcement, are discussed.
Key words: classroom, compliance, group contingency, obtained reinforcement, preference

Group contingencies are arrangements in
which a consequence is delivered contingent on
the behavior of one member, some members,
or all members of a group (Litow & Pumroy,
1975). Group contingencies have been evalu-
ated in a number of settings, such as hospitals
(Bowman et al., 2016), residential facilities
(Brown & Redmon, 1990; Frankosky &
Sulzer-Azaroff, 1978), open-pit mines (Fox,
Hopkins, & Anger, 1987), and community-
based methadone clinics (Kirby, Kerwin,
Carpenedo, Rosenwasser, & Gardner, 2008);
however, the majority of group-contingency
Meghan A. Deshais, Department of Behavioral Psy-
chology, Kennedy Krieger Institute; Alyssa B. Fisher,
Department of Behavioral Psychology, Kennedy Krieger
Institute; SungWoo Kahng, Department of Health Psy-
chology, University of Missouri.
Meghan A. Deshais is now at the Department of Psy-
chology, University of Florida.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to SungWoo Kahng, University of Missouri,
205 Portland St., Columbia, MO 65211.
E-mail: KahngS@health.missouri.edu
doi: 10.1002/jaba.505
© 2018 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
116
research has been conducted in educational set-
tings (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969;
Gresham & Gresham, 1982). Group contin-
gencies are well suited to schools because they
allow a single teacher to change the behavior of
a large group of students (Gresham &
Gresham, 1982). In addition to being efficient,
group contingencies possess other advantages in
educational settings. They enable teachers to
avoid singling out students for individualized
interventions (Elliot, Turco, & Gresham,
1987), utilize the effects of peer influence and
attention (Skinner, Cashwell, & Dunn, 1996),
and facilitate the delivery of teacher attention
contingent on appropriate behavior (Davis &
Blankenship, 1996).
Litow and Pumroy (1975) outlined three
types of group contingencies: independent,
interdependent, and dependent. In an indepen-
dent group contingency, the same criteria are
applied to every member of the group and indi-
vidual members who meet criteria are granted
access to reinforcement (e.g., Brantley &
 GROUP CONTINGENCIES
Webster, 1993). In an interdependent group
contingency, the same criteria are applied to
each member of the group and all members
must meet criteria for the entire group to
obtain reinforcement (e.g., Barrish et al., 1969;
Packard, 1970). In a dependent group contin-
gency, a single individual or a subset of the
group must meet criteria for the entire group
to receive reinforcement (e.g., Vidoni & Ward,
2009; Williamson, Campbell-Whatley, & Lo,
2009). Since the publication of Litow and
Pumroy, a variation of a dependent group con-
tingency has become increasingly popular. A
randomized dependent group contingency
(Cariveau & Kodak, 2017; Hansen & Lignu-
garis/Kraft, 2005; Heering & Wilder, 2006;
Jones, Boon, Fore, & Bender, 2008; Vidoni &
Ward, 2009; Williamson et al., 2009) is one in
which the target individual is selected randomly
and anonymously.
Little, Akin-Little, and O’Neill (2015)
recently conducted a meta-analysis of group-
contingency studies conducted with school-
aged children between 1980 and 2010. They
used Cohen’s d (1988) to calculate effect sizes
and found that all three types of group contin-
gencies can be considered effective behavioral
interventions. More specifically, dependent
group contingencies produced the largest effect
size (ES = 3.75), followed by independent
group contingencies (ES = 3.27), and interde-
pendent group contingencies (ES = 2.88). Lit-
tle et al. (2015) identified 14 group
contingency studies aimed at improving stu-
dents’ academic (classwork or homework) per-
formance. Of those 14 studies, three studies
(Alric, Bray, Kehle, Chafouleas, & Theodore,
2007; Lynch, Theodore, Bray, & Kehle, 2009;
Speltz, Shimamura, & McReynolds, 1982)
compared the effects of different group contin-
gencies on academic performance and found
that, generally speaking, all of the group con-
tingencies (although to varying degrees for
some students) improved academic perfor-
mance. Additionally, all three of these studies
117
reported student preference or satisfaction rat-
ings following exposure to the different group
contingency interventions. For example, Speltz
et al. (1982) asked students to rate their satis-
faction with each of the four group contingency
conditions (independent, interdependent,
dependent, and randomized dependent) using a
5-point Likert Scale (1 = dislike, 5 = complete
satisfaction). Perhaps one of the most interest-
ing findings of this study was that target (low-
performing) students rated the dependent con-
dition the highest and nontarget students (high
performing) students rated the independent
condition the highest. One potential explana-
tion for these results is that students might have
contacted reinforcement more frequently in
one of the conditions relative to the other con-
ditions. In other words, the level of obtained
reinforcement in each of the group contingency
conditions might have varied across students as
a function of their own performance and the
number of sessions for which they were
present.
In addition to reporting student satisfaction
ratings, Lynch et al. (2009) also reported the
percentage of sessions in each condition that
individual students contacted reinforcement
(e.g., Thomas was rewarded 80% of the time
in the dependent condition). However, the
authors reported the students’ overall satisfac-
tion with the group contingencies in general,
not satisfaction ratings for each of the different
group contingencies. Therefore, it remains
unclear whether there was a relationship
between students’ obtained reinforcement in
each condition and student satisfaction ratings.
To date, no studies have reported student pref-
erence for different types of group contingen-
cies aimed at improving academic performance
in conjunction with individual rates of obtained
reinforcement. Therefore, the current evalua-
tion had three primary objectives. Our first
objective was to compare the effects of an inde-
pendent group contingency and a randomized
dependent group contingency on compliance
118 MEGHAN A. DESHAIS et al.
with assigned seatwork in a general education
classroom. We elected to compare an indepen-
dent group contingency and a randomized
dependent group contingency because the first
can be considered the “business as usual”
arrangement in educational settings (traditional
grading schemes and homework sticker charts
are good examples) and the latter represents the
“low-cost” (time, effort) arrangement. Our sec-
ond objective was to determine student prefer-
ence for these two types of group
contingencies. Our third objective was to con-
duct a preliminary investigation of variables
that might influence student preference for
group-contingency arrangements.
METHOD
Participants and Setting
This evaluation was conducted in a first-
grade classroom in a public charter elementary
school located in a large, urban school district.
The classroom teacher, Ms. Lucy, was a bache-
lor’s level teacher with 2 years of teaching expe-
rience prior to this study. The racial
demographics of the class were as follows: 50%
African-American, 30% Hispanic, 10% Cauca-
sian, 5% Asian, and 5% Biracial. Although all
20 members of the class were exposed to the
intervention, nine students (six girls, three
boys) were selected as target students. Three of
the target students were African-American, four
were Hispanic, one was Caucasian, and one
was Biracial. Eight of the target students were
selected because they had the lowest compli-
ance with assigned seatwork in the initial base-
line condition. The teacher selected the ninth
target student (George) based on his low com-
pliance levels relative to his literacy skills as
determined by quarterly reading tests.
Research Design
A combination reversal and multielement
design was used to compare the effects of an
independent group contingency and a
randomized dependent group contingency on
student compliance with assigned seatwork.
Five baseline sessions were conducted during
the first baseline phase. After baseline, two
group contingency conditions were introduced,
and nine sessions of the independent condition
and nine sessions of the dependent condition
were conducted in an alternating fashion. At
the conclusion of the multielement phase, a
preference assessment was conducted to deter-
mine student preference for the two group con-
tingency arrangements. Following the
preference assessment, a reversal to baseline was
conducted for ten sessions. Finally, nine ses-
sions of the independent condition were con-
ducted in a best-treatment phase. We elected to
implement the independent condition during
the best-treatment phase because it produced a
higher mean level of compliance relative to the
randomized dependent condition for target stu-
dents during the multielement phase.
Dependent Variables, Response Measurement,
and Interobserver Agreement
We used permanent-product measurement.
Our first dependent variable was compliance
with assigned seatwork for target students. Stu-
dents were expected to do the assigned daily
seatwork during their group’s designated time
at a worksheet station (this will be explained in
more detail in the general procedures).
Assigned seatwork for each session consisted of
one literacy worksheet selected by the teacher
from the Houghton Mifflin Reading: Practice
Book, Volumes 1 & 2 (Grade 1), and all stu-
dents received identical worksheets. Worksheets
were never repeated during the course of this
evaluation. Each worksheet consisted of one or
more sections (e.g., fill-in-the-blank, circle the
misspelled word, etc.), and written instructions
were located at the top of each section. The
written instructions outlined how the student
should respond within the section below
and included directions typically found in
 GROUP CONTINGENCIES
first-grade worksheets such as “circle,” “write,”
“underline,” etc. The number of trials (oppor-
tunities to respond) in each section and the
total number of trials per worksheet varied
based on the worksheet. The mean number of
trials per worksheet during the baseline condi-
tion was 18 trials (range, 6-38) and 14.5 trials
(range, 3-25) during the first and second base-
line phases, respectively. The mean number of
trials during the randomized dependent group
contingency condition was 17.3 trials (range,
10-25). The mean number of trials per work-
sheet during the independent group contin-
gency condition was 14.8 trials (range, 7-26)
and 16.7 trials (range, 12-24) during the first
and second phases, respectively. The number of
trials per worksheet and worksheet difficulty
were not explicitly controlled or manipulated
by the experimenters.
Compliance was expressed as a percentage
and calculated by dividing the number of trials
the student complied with on their worksheet
by the total number of trials on the worksheet
and multiplying the result by 100 (this yielded
a compliance score for a single session). We cal-
culated percentage compliance after each liter-
acy period. Compliance was scored on a trial if
the student provided a response within the pro-
vided trial space and the response was compati-
ble with the instructions at the top of the
section. For example, if the instructions indi-
cated the student should write a word in the
fill-in-the-blank to complete the sentence and
the student wrote a word in the provided
blank, we scored compliance for that trial. If
the instructions indicated that the student
should circle all of the misspelled words in a
sentence and the student circled at least one
word, we scored compliance for that trial. For
compliance to be scored, student responses had
to be written in pencil unless the instructions
for that trial contained the word “color,” in
which case a response written in crayon was
accepted. Noncompliance was scored on a trial if
the student failed to provide a response, a
119
response was not written within the provided
trial space, or if the response was incompatible
with the instructions at the top of the
section (i.e., the student drew a picture in the
provided blank instead of writing a word or the
student underlined words instead of circling
them). Our rationale for requiring students to
provide a response that was compatible with
the instructions was that responding in accor-
dance with written or vocal directions is a nec-
essary skill for success on standardized
assessments.
A second observer independently collected
compliance data for all students during 27% of
baseline sessions, 22% of randomized depen-
dent sessions, and 22% of independent ses-
sions. Interobserver agreement was calculated
for each worksheet following the conclusion of
the study using the exact trial-by-trial agree-
ment method. An agreement was defined as a
trial in which both observers scored “compli-
ance” or both observers scored “noncompli-
ance.” A disagreement was defined as a trial in
which the primary observer scored “compli-
ance” and the second observer scored “non-
compliance” or vice versa. The total number of
agreements was divided by the total number of
trials (agreements and disagreements) and mul-
tiplied by 100 to yield an agreement score for
each worksheet. Agreement scores for all work-
sheets in a given condition were averaged.
Interobserver agreement (IOA) scores were
97% (range, 75%-100%) for baseline sessions,
99% (range, 88%-100%) for randomized
dependent sessions and 99% (range, 78% to
100%) for independent sessions. Only three
individual worksheet IOA scores were below
80% across all conditions. Two of those scores
(77%, 78%) were obtained from a nontarget
student whose pencil marks were very light on
two of his worksheets, making it difficult for us
to score his responses. The remaining low score
(75%) was obtained from a nontarget student
on a worksheet with only four trials (the two
observers disagreed on one trial).
120 MEGHAN A. DESHAIS et al.
Our second dependent variable was student
preference for the group contingency condi-
tions. During the preference assessment, we
brought each student into the hallway and
asked the student which condition they pre-
ferred (e.g., “Which days did you like best, the
red days or the blue days?”). We recorded stu-
dent responses with paper and pencil. If the
student did not indicate a preference (“I liked
them both the same”), we recorded that the
student had no stated preference.
Our third dependent variable was target and
nontarget students’ obtained reinforcement
during the two group contingency conditions
conducted in the multielement phase of the
experiment. Obtained reinforcement was calcu-
lated by dividing the number of sessions in
which a student earned the reinforcer in a given
condition by the total number of sessions the
student was present for in a given condition
and multiplying the result by 100 to yield a
percentage.
Additional variables of interest were:
(a) mean compliance for target students and
nontarget students in the various conditions
and (b) mean accuracy for the target students
and nontarget students in the various condi-
tions. Mean compliance for target students was
calculated by adding all of the target students’
compliance scores in a given condition and
dividing the result by the total number of com-
pliance scores collected for target students in
that condition. The same calculation was com-
pleted for the nontarget students. We collected
and analyzed accuracy data after the completion
of the study. We randomly selected a sample of
five worksheets per student from each of the
three conditions and scored each worksheet for
accuracy. Accuracy was expressed as a percent-
age and calculated by dividing the number of
trials to which the student responded correctly
by the total number of trials on the worksheet
and multiplying the result by 100 (this yielded
an accuracy score for a single session). Accuracy
was scored on a trial if the student provided a
response within the provided trial space, the
response was compatible with the instructions
at the top of the section, and the response was
correct. For example, if the instructions indi-
cated that the student should circle all of the
misspelled words in a sentence and the student
circled all of the misspelled words, we scored
that trial as accurate. If the student underlined
all of the misspelled words, or circled only
some of the misspelled words, we scored that
trial as inaccurate.
Procedures
General procedures. We conducted one ses-
sion per day during a morning literacy period
in Ms. Lucy’s classroom, in the context of the
normal classroom routine. The class was
divided into four groups of four to six students,
based on ability level. See Table 1 for student
groupings. Target students are listed by name;
nontarget students are listed by gender
(B1 = nontarget boy #1). During the session,
the groups rotated through four classroom sta-
tions (a small-group instruction station, a work-
sheet station, a reading station, and a centers
station); each group went to each station once.
Each rotation lasted 9-15 min depending on
the day; however, on a given day all groups had
the same duration of time at each station.
According to Ms. Lucy, 9 to 15 min was suffi-
cient time for students to finish the assigned
worksheets. The worksheet station was the sta-
tion in which students were expected to com-
plete the assigned seatwork.
Table 1
Literacy Groupings in Order from Highest (Group 1) to
Lowest Literacy Skills (Group 4)
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
B1 G1 G4 G5
B2 G2 Charlotte Amelia
B3 G3 Ramona Nancy
B4 B5 Wilbur Laura
B6 Madeline Peter
George
 GROUP CONTINGENCIES
The worksheet station consisted of one hex-
agonal table and chairs. A bowl of crayons and
a basket of books were located in the middle of
the table. Pencils were freely available to stu-
dents throughout the classroom. The teacher
and experimenters did not provide instructions
or assistance to students at the worksheet sta-
tion. Students were permitted to whisper qui-
etly to one another provided they were
discussing the worksheet or helping each other.
If students finished early, they were expected to
read a book quietly. There were no pro-
grammed consequences for problem behavior;
Ms. Lucy usually delivered corrective verbal
feedback to students when they engaged in
off-task or other minor disruptive behavior. Com-
pliance data were collected via permanent product
when students were not in the classroom.
Baseline. Experimenters were not in the class-
room during baseline sessions.
Presession. Ms. Lucy explained the assigned
worksheet to the class immediately prior to the
session. She held up the worksheet and read
aloud the instructions at the top of each sec-
tion. After explaining every section in the
worksheet, Ms. Lucy answered all student ques-
tions. She asked students to confirm they
understood the instructions (e.g., “Give me a
thumbs up if you know how to do today’s
worksheet.”). She reminded students that she
could not help them with their worksheets
because she would be busy at the small-group
station and if they needed help they could “ask
a friend” in their group. Ms. Lucy told the stu-
dents to put their worksheets under the pencil
box located at the worksheet station when they
were finished or at the end of the rotation.
Session. Ms. Lucy reported that baseline ses-
sions were identical to the daily classroom rou-
tine as described above in general procedures.
Postsession procedures. Following the literacy
period, students left the classroom for lunch
and Ms. Lucy collected worksheets. We scored
the worksheets, collected compliance data, and
returned the worksheets to the teacher. No
121
feedback was given to the students regarding
the worksheets and no programmed contingen-
cies were in place during baseline.
Group contingency. The experimenters were
in the classroom during all group-contingency
sessions. The two group-contingency condi-
tions were alternated daily, except for one
instance in which two randomized dependent
sessions were conducted consecutively.
Ms. Lucy selected an activity that she called
“Dance Breaks” to serve as the reinforcer dur-
ing both group-contingency conditions. Dance
Breaks were short (2-5 min) videos from “Just
Dance Kids” that were projected onto the
Smartboard™ in the front of the classroom.
Students stood in front of the Smartboard™
and followed the video or danced on their own.
Dance Breaks were not available to students at
any other time during the course of this study.
We created Dance Break tickets by writing stu-
dents’ names on the back of store-bought raffle
tickets. During both group contingency condi-
tions, students who earned tickets that day par-
ticipated in the Dance Break. Students without
tickets had to remain “in the audience” (seated
on the rug) during the Dance Break.
Presession. Procedures were similar to baseline
with a few exceptions. After Ms. Lucy
explained the assigned worksheet, we read a
script explaining the group contingency in
effect that day and answered student questions.
Both scripts stated that the students needed to
“finish their packet” and “do their best to
answer each question” (see Supplemental Mate-
rial for the daily scripts that we read to the stu-
dents). For purposes of discrimination, each
condition was assigned a color and the two
conditions were referred to as “blue days” and
“red days.” When the independent condition
was in effect, a single blue folder labeled, “All
of Ms. Lucy’s friends” was placed at the work-
sheet station. When the randomized dependent
condition was in effect, two red folders labeled,
“Boys” and “Girls” were placed at the work-
sheet station.
122 MEGHAN A. DESHAIS et al.
Session. Procedures were similar to baseline
except for the presence of the experimenters
and the colored folders at the worksheet
station.
Postsession procedures. Following group con-
tingency sessions, we collected the worksheets
and students left the classroom for lunch. We
scored the worksheets, collected compliance
data, determined which students met criteria,
and created tickets for those students. When
the students returned from lunch, we delivered
the tickets and the Dance Break was
conducted.
During the independent condition, we
issued a ticket to each student who met the cri-
terion (100% compliance with assigned work-
sheet). The experimenter called each student to
the front of the classroom to receive his or her
ticket. The student then walked to the dance
floor, deposited the ticket into a jar, and waited
for the Dance Break to start. Students who did
not meet criteria did not receive tickets. After
all of the tickets were delivered the experi-
menter gave general, nonspecific feedback to all
of the students who did not earn tickets
(i.e., “many students forgot to circle the mis-
spelled words today in the second section”).
During the randomized-dependent condi-
tion, we issued tickets to the girls’ team and
the boys’ team contingent on the performance
of “secret students” (one girl and one boy). We
selected secret students by randomly choosing
one worksheet from the girls’ folder and one
worksheet from the boys’ folder. Our selection
was truly random; any student’s worksheet
could be selected, even if they had been chosen
as the secret student in a previous session. If
the secret student met the criterion (100%
compliance with assigned worksheet), every
member of the team received a ticket. When
secret students met the criterion, the experi-
menter called the secret student to the front of
the classroom and let the student pass out
tickets to his or her teammates. If the secret
student did not meet the criterion, the team
did not receive tickets and we did not reveal
the identity of the secret student. The experi-
menter delivered the same feedback as for the
independent condition (general, nonspecific
feedback on performance) to teams that did
not earn tickets.
RESULTS
Figure 1 displays graphs for the four target
students for whom both group contingency
conditions were equally effective at increasing
compliance. Charlotte’s compliance was vari-
able in the first baseline phase. High and stable
levels of compliance were observed in both
group contingency conditions. Compliance
decreased and variability increased during the
reversal to baseline. Charlotte’s compliance was
high and stable during the best-treatment
phase. Laura’s compliance was low during the
first baseline phase. During all subsequent
phases, including the second baseline phase,
Laura’s compliance was high and stable. Ramo-
na’s compliance was low and variable in the ini-
tial baseline phase. Increased compliance was
observed in both group contingency conditions
relative to baseline. Compliance decreased dur-
ing the reversal to baseline but did not reach
levels as low as the first baseline phase. Ramo-
na’s compliance was high and stable during the
best-treatment phase. Wilbur’s compliance was
low during the first baseline phase. Compliance
increased slightly with the introduction of the
group contingencies, although a high degree of
variability was observed in both conditions.
During the reversal to baseline, Wilbur’s com-
pliance decreased to levels lower than the first
baseline. Compliance increased during the best-
treatment phase to levels similar to those in the
multielement phase.
Figure 2 displays graphs for the four target
students for whom the independent group con-
tingency produced higher levels of compliance
than the randomized-dependent group contin-
gency. Amelia’s compliance was low and
 GROUP CONTINGENCIES 123

100 100

80 80

60 60

PERCENTAGE COMPLIANCE
Baseline
40 40 Dependent
Independent
20 20

CHARLOTTE LAURA
0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

RAMONA WILBUR
0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

SESSIONS

Figure 1. Percentage compliance across daily sessions for the four target students for whom both group contingency
conditions were equally effective at increasing compliance.

100 100

80 80

60 60
PERCENTAGE COMPLIANCE

Baseline
40 40 Dependent
Independent
20 20

AMELIA GEORGE
0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

MADELINE NANCY
0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

SESSIONS

Figure 2. Percentage compliance across daily sessions for the four target students for whom the independent group
contingency condition was the most effective condition at increasing compliance.

variable during the first baseline phase. During Lower, variable levels of compliance were
the multielement phase, Amelia’s compliance recaptured following the reversal to baseline.
increased in both group contingency conditions Compliance was high and stable during the
compared to baseline, with higher, more stable best-treatment phase, replicating Amelia’s
levels observed in the independent condition. results from the independent condition of the
124
100
PERCENTAGE COMPLIANCE
80
60
40
20
0
5 10
Figure 3. Percentage compliance across daily sessions for Peter, the only target student for whom the randomized
dependent group contingency condition was superior at increasing compliance.
multielement phase. George engaged in variable
levels of compliance during the initial baseline
phase, although an increasing trend was
observed prior to the introduction of the multi-
element phase. George’s compliance was highly
variable in both group-contingency conditions,
although slightly higher levels of compliance
were observed in the independent condition.
Upon reversing to baseline, compliance
decreased to levels lower than those observed in
the first baseline. Finally, in the best-treatment
phase, George’s compliance was high and sta-
ble. Madeline’s compliance was low and highly
variable during the initial baseline phase. Com-
pliance increased slowly following the introduc-
tion of the group contingency conditions but
variability was observed in both conditions.
Madeline’s compliance was somewhat higher in
the independent condition but absences from
school resulted in fewer data points in that con-
dition. Upon reversing to baseline, compliance
decreased. During the best-treatment phase
Madeline’s compliance increased slightly com-
pared to the second baseline phase but variabil-
ity persisted. Nancy’s compliance was low
during the first baseline phase. Compliance
increased in both conditions during the multie-
lement phase, although higher and more stable
levels of compliance were observed in the
independent condition. Nancy’s compliance
MEGHAN A. DESHAIS et al.
PETER
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
SESSIONS
decreased during the reversal to baseline. The
effects of the independent condition were repli-
cated with Nancy in the best-treatment phase.
Figure 3 displays the results for Peter, the
only student for whom the randomized-
dependent group contingency produced higher
levels of compliance than the independent
group contingency. Peter’s compliance was low
during the initial baseline phase. During the
multielement phase, Peter’s compliance
increased relative to baseline, with slightly
higher levels of compliance observed in the ran-
domized dependent condition. During the
reversal to baseline, compliance decreased
slightly. Finally, in the best-treatment condi-
tion, Peter’s compliance increased initially but
a decreasing trend was observed towards the
end of the study.
Table 2 displays group means for target stu-
dents and nontarget students during each con-
dition. Target students’ mean compliance was
substantially lower than nontarget students dur-
ing the initial baseline phase. For both groups
of students, compliance increased in both
group-contingency conditions relative to base-
line with slightly higher levels of compliance
observed in the independent condition.
Although target student compliance improved
in both group-contingency conditions, they did
not attain levels of compliance as high as the
 GROUP CONTINGENCIES 125

Table 2
Mean (and Ranges) Compliance in Each Condition

Group contingency
Best
Subjects Baseline I Indep. Random. Dependent Baseline II Indep.
Target students 51% 85% 79% 60% 89%
(n = 9) (0-100%) (0-100%) (5-100%) (0-100%) (0-100%)
Nontarget students 75% 96% 91% 85% 97%
(n = 11) (0-100%) (64-100%) (0-100%) (13-100%) (58-100%)

Table 3 Table 4
Mean Accuracy in Each Condition (Sample of Five Stated Preference for Group Contingency Conditions
Sessions)
Random. No stated
Subjects Baseline Indep. Random. Dependent Subjects Indep. Dependent preference

Amelia 43% 66% 61% Target students 3 5 1

Charlotte 43% 60% 53% (n = 9)
George 58% 70% 56% Girls (n = 6) 3 3 0
Laura 35% 68% 52% Boys (n = 3) 0 2 1
Madeline 26% 38% 30% Nontarget students 7 3 1
Nancy 29% 52% 45% (n = 11)
Peter 33% 57% 49% Girls (n = 5) 3 2 0
Ramona 44% 55% 57% Boys (n = 6) 4 1 1
Wilbur 6% 20% 33% Total 10 8 2
B1 72% 74% 88%
B2 39% 43% 49%
B3 53% 88% 66% independent condition). Table 4 displays the
B4 78% 83% 70%
B5 52% 43% 71% preferences of target and nontarget students,
B6 57% 74% 77% separated by gender. Results indicate that the
G1 38% 62% 57%
G2 77% 82% 79% majority of target students preferred the
G3 53% 71% 62% randomized-dependent condition. The majority
G4 39% 56% 56%
G5 53% 54% 58% of nontarget students preferred the independent
condition. When analyzed along gender lines,
preferences were split relatively evenly across
nontarget students. During the reversal to base- the two conditions regardless of classification as
line, mean compliance for both groups a target or nontarget student. Overall, the pref-
decreased, but was not quite as low as the ini- erence of the class as a whole slightly favored
tial baseline phase. In the best-treatment phase, the independent condition. At the conclusion
compliance increased for both groups to levels of the study, Ms. Lucy reported that she pre-
similar to or better than those observed in the ferred the randomized-dependent group contin-
initial independent condition. gency because “it was much less work, easily
Table 3 depicts the mean accuracy for each managed, and the students enjoyed the surprise
student (calculated from a randomly selected of the mystery person.”
sample of five worksheets from each condition) Table 5 shows the obtained reinforcement
across the three conditions. For all students, percentages for all students during both group
accuracy improved in both group contingencies contingencies in the multielement phase, as
relative to baseline, with three exceptions well as student preference. The percentage of
(George and student B4 in the randomized- sessions in which Dance Break tickets were
dependent condition and student B5 in the earned during the independent condition varied
126 MEGHAN A. DESHAIS et al.

Table 5 Table 6
Obtained Reinforcement in Group Contingency Secret Students Selected for Each Team During
Conditions (%) Randomized Dependent Group Contingency Condition

Subject Indep. Random. Dependent Session Boy meet Girl meet

# Boys criterion? Girls criterion?
Amelia 75 67
Charlotte 88 67 7 B2 Yes * Yes
George 33 44 8 B6 No G4 No
Laura 78 67 10 Wilbur No G5 Yes
Madeline 13 67 12 Wilbur Yes Laura No
Nancy 50 67 14 B6 Yes G4 Yes
Peter 22 44 16 Wilbur No G1 Yes
Ramona 67 67 18 B1 No G5 Yes
Wilbur 22 44 20 B5 Yes G5 Yes
B1 88 44 22 B3 No G4 No
B2 67 44
B3 78 38 Note. * = This student was removed from classroom
B4 78 50 shortly after multielement phase began
B5 67 44
B6 86 43
G1 89 67
G2 100 67 the secret student three times and nontarget
G3 44 67 students were selected six times. Wilbur met
G4 75 67
G5 78 67 the criterion for reinforcement once (session
12) and failed to meet the criterion twice (ses-
Note. Stated preference is in bold.
sions 10 and 16). The nontarget boys met the
criterion for reinforcement three times (sessions
across students and ranged from 13% to 100% 7, 14, 20) and failed to meet the criterion three
of sessions. During the randomized-dependent times (sessions 8, 18, 22). For the girls’ team, a
condition, the girls’ team earned Dance Break target student (Laura) was selected as the secret
tickets in six of the nine sessions (67%) and student once and nontarget students were
the boys’ team earned Dance Break tickets in selected eight times. Laura failed to meet the
four of nine sessions (44%). Any variation in criterion during session 12. The nontarget girls
these percentages was a reflection of student met the criterion for reinforcement six times
absences. Each student’s preference (if stated) is (sessions 7, 10, 14, 16, 18, 20) and failed to
depicted in bold. The results depicted in meet the criterion twice (sessions 8, 22).
Table 5 indicate that 18 students (all but Peter
and B2) expressed a preference for one of the
group contingency conditions, and 17 of those DISCUSSION
students had different obtained reinforcement Our first objective was to compare the effects
percentages in the two conditions (Ramona of independent and randomized-dependent
earned Dance Breaks in 67% of sessions in group contingencies on target students’ compli-
both conditions). For 15 of 17 students, stu- ance with assigned seatwork. For the majority of
dent preference aligned with the condition in target students, we observed higher levels of
which obtained reinforcement was the highest. compliance in the group contingencies relative to
Table 6 displays the students that were the initial baseline phase, suggesting that both
selected as secret students during the random- group contingencies increased compliance with
ized dependent group contingency condition assigned seatwork. For four target students
and if they met the criterion. For the boys’ (Charlotte, Laura, Ramona, and Wilbur), both
team, a target student (Wilbur) was selected as group contingencies were equally effective at
 GROUP CONTINGENCIES
increasing compliance (average compliance across
the two conditions was within 5%). The results
for these four participants are consistent with the
results of Lynch et al. (2009) and Speltz
et al. (1982), who reported that independent
and randomized-dependent group contingencies
were equally effective at increasing compliance
with assigned seatwork or homework. For five tar-
get students, slightly higher levels of compliance
were observed in one of the group contingencies.
For four students (Amelia, George, Madeline, and
Nancy), higher levels of compliance were
observed in the independent condition and for
one student (Peter), higher levels were observed in
the randomized-dependent condition. Although
we were primarily interested in the effects of two
group contingencies on the performance of target
students, the performance of nontarget students
also improved during the group contingencies.
This is especially noteworthy because the nontar-
get students had higher levels of compliance than
target students in the initial baseline phase and
therefore, less opportunity for improvement.
Although only one target student performed
better in the randomized-dependent group con-
tingency compared to the independent, the
randomized-dependent contingency did produce
higher levels of compliance relative to baseline
for the majority of students. Williamson
et al. (2009) noted that one distinct advantage
of randomized-dependent group contingencies is
that they take substantially less time and effort
on the part of the implementer than an inde-
pendent group contingency. We can report that
the randomized-dependent group contingency
took less time to implement than the indepen-
dent group contingency because two worksheets
can be scored faster than twenty worksheets.
However, we did not explicitly measure the time
required to implement the two group contingen-
cies in this study, thus, we cannot draw conclu-
sions about the relative efficiency of these two
arrangements. Future researchers might want to
consider evaluating the efficiency of group con-
tingencies aimed at improving compliance with
127
assigned seatwork. A cost–benefit analysis might
be beneficial to educators who seek to improve
academic performance but are limited by time
constraints.
Despite the importance of increasing on-task
behavior or compliance with assigned tasks
(Williamson et al., 2009), improvements in
these behaviors do not necessarily result in
increased academic productivity (Klein, 1979).
Previous research on the effects of group contin-
gences on both compliance and accuracy has
been limited (Lynch et al., 2009; Reinhardt,
Theodore, Bray, & Kehle, 2009). One possible
reason for this gap in existing literature is the
issue of motivational deficits and skill deficits.
Axelrod and Greer (1994) note that the use of
group contingencies to address motivational def-
icits is acceptable but it is not appropriate to
apply group contingencies to academic behaviors
when some students lack the necessary skills to
meet the expectations outlined by the contin-
gencies. Our pre-experimental observations in
Ms. Lucy’s classroom suggested that many of
the students probably lacked the necessary skills
to complete literacy worksheets at 100% accu-
racy, which is why we focused on compliance
rather than accuracy. When we explained the
group contingency conditions to the students
prior to each session, we were careful to never
imply that their worksheets needed to be 100%
correct; we stated that they needed to “finish”
their worksheet and “try their best to answer
each question.” One risk presented by this deci-
sion was the possibility that students would
detect the distinction and begin responding hap-
hazardly without regard for accuracy. However,
our post-hoc analysis of accuracy suggested that
this did not occur. Both group contingencies
produced improvements in accuracy relative to
baseline with only a few exceptions.
Our second objective was to evaluate student
preference for the two group contingencies.
Many research studies that have evaluated pref-
erence for group contingencies have used treat-
ment acceptability ratings as an indicator of
128 MEGHAN A. DESHAIS et al.
preference or hypothetical vignettes without
direct exposure to the contingencies (Elliot
et al., 1987; Shapiro & Goldberg, 1986;
Turco & Elliot, 1990). Our preference assess-
ment was simple; we simply asked the students
which condition they liked best and recorded
their answers. There are a number of potential
explanations for our preference findings. First, it
is possible that more students preferred the inde-
pendent group contingency condition due to a
recency effect. The preference assessment was
conducted prior to the reversal to baseline and
the last session of the multielement phase was
an independent session. However, the difference
between the number of students who preferred
the independent contingency over the
randomized-dependent group contingency was
minimal (10 students and 8 students respec-
tively), so it seems unlikely that our results were
a function of the most recent exposure. A sec-
ond potential explanation for our preference
findings is that student literacy skills might have
influenced preference. The majority of target
students preferred the randomized-dependent
condition and the majority of nontarget students
preferred the independent condition. That is,
the low-performing students preferred that their
access to the reinforcer be contingent on some-
one else’s performance and the high-performing
students preferred that their access to the rein-
forcer be contingent on their own performance.
These results are similar to the preference find-
ings reported by Speltz et al. (1982). When we
asked the students why they preferred a given
condition, they responded by saying things such
as, “on red days you pick a special student” or
“on blue days you don’t actually have to worry
about someone else doing a good job, you only
worry about yourself.”
Our third objective was to examine the rela-
tionship between obtained reinforcement and
student preference for the group contingency
arrangements. Differential rates of obtained
reinforcement across the two group contingen-
cies is another potential explanation for our
preference findings. In other words, the fre-
quency with which students contacted rein-
forcement in the two conditions varied, and
generally, students preferred the condition in
which they received reinforcement most fre-
quently. If we conceptualize the students’ stated
preference as a measure of choice between two
available alternatives, these findings are consis-
tent with matching law theory (Baum, 1974;
Herrnstein, 1961). The matching law predicts
that organisms will allocate responding across
two available alternatives according to the rate
of reinforcement for each alternative. Admit-
tedly, a single assessment of preference based
on self-report is not the same as measuring
response distribution over an extended period
of time. Nonetheless, the majority of students
preferred the condition in which they obtained
a higher reinforcement rate. To date, no other
studies have examined the role of obtained
reinforcement as it relates to student preference
for different group contingencies. It might be
interesting for future researchers to systemati-
cally manipulate rates of obtained reinforce-
ment across group contingency conditions and
measure the effects of those manipulations on
preference.
Finally, our preference findings might have
been influenced by an unanticipated variable. It
is possible that, for some students, being
selected as the secret student and “winning”
might have had an impact on their reported
preference. Seven students “won” during the
course of this study (G1, G4, G5, B2, B5, B6,
and Wilbur). Students G5 and B5 were the
two students whose preference did not align
with the condition in which they obtained a
higher rate of reinforcement. They both pre-
ferred the randomized-dependent group contin-
gency even though they contacted
reinforcement more frequently in the indepen-
dent group contingency. Additionally, one of
the students (B2) without a reported preference
for either condition had “won” for his team.
He also contacted reinforcement more
 GROUP CONTINGENCIES
frequently in the independent group contin-
gency condition but reported that he liked both
the red folder days and blue folder days equally.
For these three students, the unprogrammed
reinforcers (social rewards) that they received
from their teammates when they “won” may
have influenced their preference more than did
the rates of obtained reinforcement across the
two conditions. Thus, it might be possible for
teachers to sway the preference of high-
performing students by strategically selecting
them to “win” when a randomized-dependent
group contingency is introduced.
This study contains a number of limitations
that warrant discussion. The first limitation of
this study is that we did not collect treatment
integrity data on the implementation of the
group contingencies or interobserver agreement
data on student preferences. Future researchers
should collect treatment integrity data when
evaluating the effects of group contingencies on
student’s academic performance. Additionally,
it would be beneficial for future researchers to
collect interobserver agreement data when mea-
suring student preference for different group
contingency arrangements.
A second limitation of this study is that the
experimenters were present in the classroom
during the group contingency conditions but
absent during baseline conditions. We chose to
be present during the group contingency condi-
tions to ease the burden for the teacher. Our
presence in the classroom might have influenced
students’ compliance during the group contin-
gencies (i.e., observer reactivity). However, we
had a prior history with the students in this
classroom. Additionally, the differential effects
observed across the two group contingencies for
many target and nontarget students suggest that
the contingencies, rather than the mere presence
of the experimenters, exerted control over stu-
dent responding.
A third limitation of the current evaluation
is that we provided general feedback to students
who did not meet criteria (e.g., “many students
129
forgot to circle the misspelled words today in
the second section”) during the group contin-
gencies. It is possible that this feedback
increased the likelihood that students paid
closer attention to their work during the group-
contingency sessions or when Ms. Lucy
explained the worksheets before those sessions.
Although our feedback may have influenced
responding during the group contingencies rel-
ative to baseline, it should not have affected the
multielement comparison.
A final limitation of this study is that student
compliance in a given session could have been
influenced by a number of variables that we
did not explicitly control. These variables might
account for some of the within-subject variabil-
ity we observed. As stated earlier, we did not
control or manipulate the length and difficulty
of each worksheet. Ms. Lucy followed her pre-
established literacy curriculum and selected the
worksheets independently, without input from
the experimenters. That said, we have no evi-
dence that the difficulty did not change system-
atically over time, which presents a threat to
internal validity. Additionally, the varying
length and difficulty of worksheets across ses-
sions might have presented two disadvantages
to target students. First, our criterion of 100%
compliance might have been an unrealistic goal
for target students on days in which the work-
sheets were particularly long or difficult. Future
researchers interested in the effects of group
contingencies on academic performance might
consider using flexible criteria for reinforcement
based on students’ performance in baseline or
on standardized assessments rather than a fixed,
unchanging criterion for all students. Second,
the class was divided into groups according to
literacy skills. Groups 1 and 2 consisted of stu-
dents with the strongest literacy skills and each
contained only one target student. Groups
3 and 4 consisted of the students with weaker
literacy skills and both contained at least three
target students. These groupings might have
impacted the students’ ability to help each
130 MEGHAN A. DESHAIS et al.
other during the worksheet station. Though
students’ worksheets did not need to be 100%
accurate to meet criterion, their responses had
to be compatible with the directions; therefore,
the students’ ability to read could have
impacted their ability to comply with the work-
sheet instructions as outlined. That is, students
with strong literacy skills might have been able
to re-read the directions on the worksheet while
students with weak literacy skills might have
had to rely on their memory of the verbal
instructions given by Ms. Lucy prior to the ses-
sion. Early learner sight word lists (Fry First
100 words, Fry Second 100 words, Dolch Basic
Sight Word List) do not include words such as
“underline” or “identify.” Nevertheless, the
directions in the students’ worksheets (designed
for first-graders) often contained words of this
difficulty. Considering that worksheets are
often assigned to students as independent seat-
work or homework, it might be prudent for
teachers to teach students these words at the
beginning of the school year. It might be inter-
esting for future researchers to assess the pro-
portion of students who can read the words
contained in the directions of grade-level work-
sheets. Future research could also investigate
the effects of teaching students the words com-
monly found in worksheet directions on home-
work and seatwork compliance as well as
standardized testing. This is a future line of
research that could have major implications for
the producers of student textbooks, workbooks,
and standardized assessments.
Despite these limitations, our study adds to
the existing literature on the effects of group con-
tingencies on academic performance. It also
extends previous research on student preference
for different group contingency arrangements
designed to improve academic performance in
the classroom. Finally, the present results, and
those of Speltz et al. (1982), suggest a number of
avenues for future research aimed at elucidating
the variables that influence student preference for
different group-contingency arrangements.
REFERENCES
Alric, J. M., Bray, M. A., Kehle, T. J.,
Chafouleas, S. M., & Theodore, L. A. (2007). A
comparison of independent, interdependent, and
dependent group contingencies with randomized
reinforcers to increase reading fluency. Canadian
Journal of School Psychology, 22, 81-93. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0829573507301254
Axelrod, S., & Greer R. D. (1994). Cooperative learning
revisited. Journal of Behavioral Education, 4, 41-48.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01560508
Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969).
Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingen-
cies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in
a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2,
119-124. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1969.2-119
Baum, W. M. (1974). On two types of deviation from
the matching law: Bias and undermatching. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22, 231-242.
Bowman, L., Hardesty, S., McIvor, M., Wagner, L.,
Hagopian, L., & Sigurdsson, S. (2016). Long-term
measurement of hand washing in a hospital setting:
Enhancing infection control practices using lotteries.
Manuscript in preparation.
Brantley, D. C., & Webster, R. E. (1993). Use of an
independent group contingency management system
in a regular classroom setting. Psychology in the
Schools, 30, 60-66. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-
6807(199301)30:1<60::AID-PITS2310300110>3.0.
CO;2-X
Brown, N., & Redmon, W. K. (1990). The effects of a
group reinforcement contingency on staff use of
unscheduled sick leave. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 10, 3-17. https://doi.org/10.
1300/J075v10n02_02
Cariveau, T., & Kodak, T. (2017). Programming a ran-
domized dependent group contingency and common
stimuli to promote durable behavior change. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 121-133. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jaba.352
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behav-
ioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Davis, P. K., & Blankenship, C. J. (1996). Group-
oriented contingencies: Applications for community
rehabilitation programs. Vocational Evaluation and
Work Adjustment Bulletin, 29, 114-118. https://doi.
org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(200003)37:2<135::
AID-PITS5>3.0.CO;2-U
Elliott, S. N., Turco, T. L., & Gresham, F. M. (1987).
Consumers’ and clients’ pretreatment acceptability
ratings of classroom group contingencies. Journal of
School Psychology, 25, 145-153. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0022-4405(87)90023-9
Fox, D. K., Hopkins, B. L., & Anger, W. K. (1987). The
long-term effects of a token economy on safety per-
formance in open-pit mining. Journal of Applied
 GROUP CONTINGENCIES
Behavior Analysis, 20, 215-224. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.1987.20-215
Frankosky, R. J., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1978). Individual
and group contingencies and collateral social behav-
iors. Behavior Therapy, 9, 313-327. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0005-7894(78)80075-6
Gresham, F. M., & Gresham, G. N. (1982). Interdepen-
dent, dependent, & independent group contingencies
for controlling disruptive behavior. Journal of Special
Education, 16, 101-110. https://doi.org/10.
1177/002246698201600110
Hansen, S. D., & Lignugaris/Kraft, B. (2005). Effects of a
dependent group contingency on the verbal interac-
tions of middle school students with emotional distur-
bance. Journal of Behavioral Disorders, 30, 170-184.
https://doi.org/10.1177/019874290503000204
Heering, P. W., & Wilder, D. A. (2006). The use of
dependent group contingencies to increase on-task
behavior in two general education classrooms. Educa-
tion and Treatment of Children, 29, 459-467. http://
www.jstor.org/stable/42899896
Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of
response as a function of frequency of reinforcement.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4,
267-272.
Jones, M., Boon, R. T., Fore III, C., & Bender, W. N.
(2008). “Our mystery hero!” a group contingency
intervention for reducing verbally disrespectful behav-
iors. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
15, 61-69. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ817874
Kirby, K. C., Kerwin, M. E., Carpenedo, C. M.,
Rosenwasser, B. J., & Gardner, R. S. (2008). Interde-
pendent group contingency management for cocaine-
dependent methadone maintenance patients. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 579-595. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.2008.41-579
Klein, R. D. (1979). Modifying academic performance in
the grade school classroom. Progress in Behavior
Modification, 8, 293-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-535608-4.50012-9
Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of
classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341-347. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1975.8-341
Little, S. G., Akin-Little, A., & O’Neill, K. (2015). Group
contingency interventions with children—1980-2010:
A meta-analysis. Behavior Modification, 39, 322-341.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445514554393
Lynch, A., Theodore, L. A., Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J.
(2009). A comparison of group-oriented contingen-
cies and randomized reinforcers to improve home-
work completion and accuracy for students with
disabilities. School Psychology Review, 38, 307-324.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ856390
131
Master list of Dolch sight words. Retrieved from http://
bogglesworldesl.com/dolch/lists.htm
Packard, R. G. (1970). The control of “classroom atten-
tion”: A group contingency for complex behavior.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 13-28. https://
doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1970.3-13
Reinhardt, D., Theodore, L. A., Bray, M. A., &
Kehle, T. J. (2009). Improving homework accuracy:
Interdependent group contingencies and randomized
components. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 471-488.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20391
Shapiro, E. S., & Goldberg, R. (1986). A comparison of
group contingencies for increasing spelling perfor-
mance among sixth grade students. School Psychology
Review, 15, 546-557. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=
EJ346440
Skinner, C. H., Cashwell, C. S., & Dunn, M. S. (1996).
Independent and interdependent group contingen-
cies: Smoothing the rough waters. Special Services in
the Schools, 12, 61-78. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J008v12n01_04
Speltz, M. L., Shimamura, J. W., & McReynolds, W. T.
(1982). Procedural variations in group contingencies:
Effects on children’s academic and social behaviors.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 533-544.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1982.15-533
Turco, T. L., & Elliot, S. N. (1990). Acceptability and
effectiveness of group contingencies for improving
spelling achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 28,
27-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(90)
90034-5
Vidoni, C., & Ward, P. (2009). Effects of fair play
instruction on student social skills during a middle
school sport education unit. Physical Education and
Sport Pedagogy, 14, 285-310. https://doi.org/10.
1080/17408980802225818
Williamson, B. D., Campbell-Whatley, G. D., &
Lo, Y. Y. (2009). Using a random dependent group
contingency to increase on-task behaviors of high
school students with high incidence disabilities. Psy-
chology in the Schools, 46, 1074-1083. https://doi.
org/10.1002/pits.20445
Received January 10, 2017
Final acceptance November 5, 2017
Action Editor, Claire St. Peter
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional Supporting Information may be
found in the online version of this article at the
publisher’s website.