Behavior Analysis in Practice

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 310–319 | Cite as

An Application of the Group-Oriented Concurrent-Chains Arrangement

  • Kristina K. VargoEmail author
  • Kathleen Becknell
Research Article


Group contingencies are a set of behavior management procedures used to improve the behavior of several students simultaneously. Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of each group contingency in managing academic and challenging behaviors, the decision to select one group contingency over another may be difficult for teachers, especially if similar efficacy is found. In this study, we compared the effectiveness of three group contingencies on disruptive behavior with 13 typically developing eighth-grade students. Results showed that all three group contingencies reduced levels of disruptive behavior from baseline levels. We then assessed the students’ individual preferences for the group contingencies using a group-oriented concurrent-chains procedure. Most students showed preference for one of the group contingencies, and most preferred the independent group contingency. These results demonstrated that the group-oriented concurrent-chains procedure was an effective and efficient method of identifying individual preferences for behavior-change procedures in a classroom setting.


Concurrent-chains arrangements Group contingencies Preferences 



This study was not funded.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Kristina K. Vargo declares that she has no conflict of interest. Kathleen Becknell declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119–124. Scholar
  2. 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. Scholar
  3. Brower-Breitwieser, C. M., Miltenberger, R. G., Gross, A., Fuqua, R. W., & Breitwieser, J. (2008). The use of concurrent operants preference assessment to evaluate choice of interventions for children diagnosed with autism. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 4, 270–278. Scholar
  4. Browning, R. M. (1967). A same-subject design for simultaneous comparison of three reinforcement contingencies. Behavior Research and Therapy, 5, 237–243. Scholar
  5. Cole, C. L., Davenport, T. A., Bambara, L. M., & Ager, C. L. (1997). Effects of choice and task preference on the work performance of students with behavior problems. Behavioral Disorders, 22, 65–74. Scholar
  6. Donaldson, J. M., Vollmer, T. R., Krous, T., Downs, S., & Berard, K. P. (2011). An evaluation of the good behavior game in kindergarten classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 605–609. Scholar
  7. Gresham, F. M., & Gresham, G. N. (1982). Interdependent, dependent, and independent group contingencies for controlling disruptive behavior. The Journal of Special Education, 16, 101–110. Scholar
  8. Hanley, G. P. (2010). Toward effective and preferred programming: A case for the objective measurement of social validity with recipients of behavior-change programs. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 3, 13–21. Scholar
  9. Heal, N. A., & Hanley, G. P. (2007). Evaluating preschool children’s preferences for motivational systems during instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 249–261. Scholar
  10. Heering, P. W., & Wilder, D. A. (2006). The use of dependent group contingencies to increase on-task behavior in two general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 459–468.Google Scholar
  11. Kleinman, K. E., & Saigh, P. A. (2011). The effects of the good behavior game on the conduct of regular education new York City high school students. Behavior Modification, 35, 95–105. Scholar
  12. Layer, S. A., Hanley, G. P., Heal, N. A., & Tiger, J. H. (2008). Determining individual preschoolers’ preferences in a group arrangement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 25–37. Scholar
  13. Ling, S., Hawkins, R. O., & Weber, D. (2011). Effects of a classwide interdependent group contingency designed to improve the behavior of an at-risk student. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20, 103–116. Scholar
  14. Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341–347. Scholar
  15. Luczynski, K. C., & Hanley, G. P. (2009). Do children prefer contingencies? An evaluation of the efficacy of and preference for contingent versus noncontingent social reinforcement during play. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 511–525. Scholar
  16. Mitchell, R. R., Tingstrom, D. H., Dufrene, B. A., Ford, W. B., & Sterling, H. E. (2015). The effects of the good behavior game with general-education high school students. School Psychology Review, 44, 191–207. Scholar
  17. Murphy, K. A., Theodore, L. A., Aloiso, D., Alric-Edwards, J. M., & Hughes, T. L. (2007). Interdependent group contingency and mystery motivators to reduce preschool disruptive behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 53–63. Scholar
  18. Romero, F. (1998). The negative effects of using a group contingency system of classroom management. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25, 130–133 Retrieved from Scholar
  19. Skinner, C. H., Williams, R. L., & Neddenriep, C. E. (2004). Using interdependent group-oriented reinforcement to enhance academic performance in general education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 33, 384–397.Google Scholar
  20. Sran, S. K., & Borrero, J. C. (2010). Assessing the value of choice in a token system. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 553–557. Scholar
  21. Theodore, L. A., Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J. (2004). A comparative study of group contingencies and randomized reinforcers to reduce disruptive classroom behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 19, 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Heal, N. A. (2006). The effectiveness of and preschoolers’ preferences for variations of multiple-schedule arrangements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 475–488. Scholar
  23. Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Hernandez, E. (2006). An evaluation of the value of choice with preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 1–16. Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Teaching and LearningSam Houston State UniversityHuntsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations