Division of School Psychology

Randomized Group Contingencies:
Lotteries in the Classroom¹

Christopher H. Skinner, University of Tennessee
T. Stewart Watson, Mississippi State University

¹ Much of the article was adapted from an earlier version: Skinner, C. H., & Watson, T. S. (1995, March). Lotteries in the classroom. Legends: Mississippi Association for Psychology in the Schools.

Like most teachers, Mr. Jones enjoys his sixth-grade class but has some concerns. Several of his students are not turning in their homework and are doing poorly on their exams. Some students engage in major rule violations (fighting, dishonesty, truancy) at unacceptable rates and one student in the classroom is unpopular and either picked on or ignored by his peers. Currently, Mr. Jones is giving low grades for failure to turn in homework. Students who earn a grade of D or F on an exam are required to have their exams signed by a parent. When a student commits a major rules violation , school policy is followed and the student is sent to the principal’s office. There, the assistant principal determines and administers the students’ punishment. Finally, Mr. Jones has had several talks with students about making fun of others and has tried to boost the self-esteem of the unpopular student by providing high rates of social contact and social reinforcement (e.g., praise). Unfortunately, these procedures have not been very effective. Mr. Jones is conscientious, smart, and extremely busy. Although none of the problems in his classroom are unusual or extremely serious, the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and Mr. Jones has become very dissatisfied with his job. He has started yelling at students more and wondering why he became a teacher. However, Mr. Jones is not totally discouraged and is considering trying some sort of reinforcement program to address these problems. He approaches his school psychologists and tells him he would like help developing this program, but he has some criteria for this program including:

1. EASY TO IMPLEMENT- "I do not want to have to try to manage 15 different behavior modification programs."
2. NO M&Ms - "Food reinforcers are bothersome. In fact, I do not want to give the children things."
3. NO BACKLASH - "I’ve tried behavior modification in the past and sometimes it makes things worse. I hate it when children cry or have a tantrum because they do not earn their reinforcers."
4. HE WANTS THE PROGRAM TO BE FUN - "I used to enjoy teaching and it seemed to me that many students used to enjoy my class. But now........"
5. HE WOULD LIKE TO BOOST THE SELF-ESTEEM OF THE UNPOPULAR STUDENT - "I am really concerned about Johnny."

Interdependent Group Contingencies

Mr. Jones has several options that involve group contingencies. When interdependent group contingencies are used, reinforcers are distributed to every member of the group contingent upon the group meeting some criteria (Litow & Pumroy, 1975). Interdependent group contingencies have several advantages. Educators can run just one or several programs rather than an individual program for each member of the class. Because the entire group either earns or doesn’t earn the reinforcement, often educators do not have to monitor each student’s performance and give reinforcers to some students and not to others. This not only makes the program easier to manage (Gresham & Gresham, 1982) but also should reduce backlash because classmates are not separated into reinforcer "haves" and "have-nots" (Cashwell, Skinner, Cashwell, & Dunn, 1998). Because students are attempting to earn reinforcers as opposed to avoid punishment, these programs can also be fun. Before implementing these contingencies several decisions must be made.

Selecting Target Behavior(s)

In Mr. Jones’ case, he already has data on homework completed, test-grades, and major rules violations (he must record when and why students are sent to the principal’s office). Furthermore, these are clearly the problems he wants to address before they become major concerns.

Selecting Reinforcers.

If Mr. Jones is going to target group behaviors, he needs group reinforcers (access to stimuli that the entire group finds reinforcing). Mr. Jones knows of several reinforcers that have worked for other teachers. However, he does not want to give the children money, candy, or soda (see O’Leary, Poulos, & Devine, 1972 for an excellent discussion of reactions to tangible reinforcers). Furthermore, he does not want to reduce assignments for good behavior (e.g., negative reinforcement) as he is concerned that it will teach the children that school work is something that they should work to avoid. Mr. Jones likes activity reinforcers because they can be fun, free, and even educational. Activity reinforcers are sometimes difficult to use because students who do not earn access to reinforcers must still be monitored. Mr. Jones does not want to have to ask another teacher to supervise children who did not meet the criteria (i.e., reinforcer "have-nots") who are seething because their peers are engaged in a really cool activity. When interdependent reinforcers are used, access to reinforcers is delivered on an all or none basis. Thus, Mr. Jones can use activity reinforcers with minimal negative side-effects.Mr. Jones knows the students have many preferred activities and his next step is to survey the students to determine which group activities they would like. The class spends 10 minutes each day across 5 days brainstorming lists of activities. Some require much time and expense (e.g., field trip to the space center) while others require little planning, time, and money (e.g., watch film of a book they are reading, listening to music during independent seat work in mathematics). Others are just plain ridiculous (e.g., go to the mall and play video games). However, in the process of brainstorming the students develop a list of 20 activities that require little or no expense or prior planning. Each of the activities is produced separately on a slip of paper and put in a container.

Problem. Traditionally, we tell students the reinforcer that they are working for. Unfortunately, some students find some activities very reinforcing and others less reinforcing. Students who do not find a particular activity reinforcing may sabotage the group (fight, not do homework, etc.) if the reinforcer is set before the criteria is met.

Solution. Using an unknown reinforcer (Rhode, Jensen, & Reavis, 1992) or a reinforcer lottery (Skinner, Cashwell, & Dunn, 1996) should solve this problem. Provided the reinforcers can be delivered quickly with little or no expense, Mr. Jones does not need to identify one specific reinforcer. Rather, he can randomly select the reinforcer after the class meets a criterion. Not only does this address the problem of idiosyncratic reinforcers, using unknown or randomly selected reinforcers may actually strengthen the effectiveness of the reinforcement program (Moore, Waguespack, Wickstrom, Witt, & Gaydos, 1994).

Hints for Randomly Selecting Reinforcers

1. Having a container of reinforcer slips (e.g., slips of paper with reinforcers written on the paper) in plain view serves as a cue for students to behave. For example, one teacher used wide mouth glass jars on his desk. Although his students broke many things, including teeth, they never broke these jars. However, we would still recommend a non-breakable container.
2. It often helps to make a big deal out of selecting the reinforcer. Mr. Jones may want to select students who have done something special that week or have a "special guest" select the reinforcer. In the current scenario, we strongly recommend having the assistant principal select the reinforcer as he is typically involved in administering aversive consequences to students.
3. Feel free to add reinforcers. By periodically allowing students to add to the pool of reinforcers you keep the program novel and may adjust it to fit other needs. For example, one group of students talked a teacher into kissing his principal if they met their goal. Another teacher began to cover insects in science class and allowed the students to earn a field trip to hunt insects for the class’ collection. Although these examples violated the randomness rule, no students complained or sabotaged the program presumably because the activities were strong reinforcers for most, if not all, of the students and the teachers rarely established group reinforcers a priori.
4. Once a reinforcer is selected it should be returned to the container so that it could be chosen again. Of course there are some exceptions.
5. Reinforcers in the pool of available reinforcers can and should vary. In the beginning, Mr. Jones should attempt to use primarily high quality reinforcers that can be delivered immediately after the students earn them. As students become hooked on the program he should include both high quality and low quality reinforcers. Furthermore, he should include some reinforcers that may require some planning or time to deliver (e.g., off-campus fields trips). Delaying reinforcement and reducing the quality of reinforcement may help maintain target behaviors.

Specifying Target Behaviors

Typically, educators set rigid goals or criteria based on specific behaviors. In this instance, Mr. Jones has three classes of target behaviors (homework, test grades, and major rules infractions) but does not want to run multiple complicated programs. What behaviors should he target? Actually, he can once again use the lottery and target all three classes of behavior with one interdependent group contingency program. Specifically, Mr. Jones could reach into a separate container and pull out a slip of paper that says either homework, test scores, or rules infractions. By randomly selecting target behaviors, Mr. Jones can attempt to alter several behaviors with on reinforcement program. However, Mr. Jones must be careful not to stretch things too thin (make the schedule of reinforcement to thin given the amount of behavior change requested). If Mr. Jones wants to target all three behaviors he may have to include either a) many opportunities to earn reinforcers, b) very powerful reinforcers, and/or c) immediate reinforcement in order to alter multiple target behaviors (Neef, Mace, & Shade, 1993). Also, Mr. Jones may want to consider targeting just a one or two behaviors when the program is first instituted. As the students begin to meet their goals on a regular basis Mr. Jones can then add target behaviors.

Setting Criteria

Mr. Jones has had some bad experiences with reinforcement systems in the past. Contingencies often target behavior over a long interval, say a week. If the behavior and the criteria are established a priori (e.g., no major rules infraction for one week) and one student blows the contingency early (e.g., fight on Monday morning) then there is no contingency operating the rest of the interval (e.g., an entire week). Further, when the entire class realizes that none of them can have access to the reinforcer, educators may occasion a negative emotional and physical reaction from the entire groups (e.g., a full-scale riot), the student who blew the contingency may get mauled, and glass jars could get broken! Once again, a lottery that allows Mr. Jones to employ unknown criteria can address these problems. Mr. Jones will need three containers, one for each target behavior. For homework and test grades, he may want to use percentages. For rules infractions he may want a raw number (a frequency count). Mr. Jones can manipulate the criteria. Since most of the students are doing their homework he may want only one slip of paper at 0% (Yes, a 0%) but many slips of paper in the 85%-100% range. By manipulating the probability of drawing a more rigorous criteria Mr. Jones can alter the criteria and institute a shaping program were the group is reinforced for making progress toward their goal behavior.

The Unpopular Student

By now you may have already developed your own solution for the unpopular student. Again, it involves a group contingency. It just happens that Carl is excellent in history, while almost all the other students make, at best, B’s on history tests. Kathy (a student) reaches into the reinforcer container and pulls out bug collecting. Ralph (another student) reaches into the target behavior container and pulls out test scores. Bob (another student) reaches into another container and pulls out 98%. The students are on the edge of their seats when Mr. Jones reaches into another container and pulls out history (he palmed this, but students are not supposed to know he palmed it). A large groan goes up, but no rowdy objection because you never know when Mr. Jones may go back to the container and give the class another opportunity to earn reinforcement (schedules can also be random). Mr. Jones reaches into another container and pulls out a slip reading "individual student" (this container also has a slip with "group average," and could contain slips with "high score," "lowest score," etc.). Again, Mr. Jones palmed this slip. The students began whispering, "did anyone get a 98% on the last history test." Most know that only Carl could get such a grade. As Mr. Jones reaches into the container with each student’s name on a slip the students began chanting "Carl, Carl, Carl." Mr. Jones looks at the slip of paper, then at his grade book which contains each students grade on the last history test. He smiles, and announces that a) Carl’s name was selected, b) Carl earned a 100% on the last history test, and c) they will be going outside to collect bugs. On the way out of the classroom, Carl receives many high fives from his peers. If the student selected (e.g., Carl) had not met the criteria, the name would NOT have been announced. Therefore, when this program (technically and unknown dependent group oriented contingency) is run only Mr. Jones selects individual names.

Final Cautions

1. Drawing the reinforcer before determining that the criteria has been met is typically not a good idea because students can become very disappointed. If students do not meet the criteria, do not pull a "Wheel of Fortune" and show them what they failed to win. If students don’t meet the criteria don’t select a reinforcer.
2. Group contingencies should be entered with caution. Students sometimes engage in inappropriate behaviors in an attempt to get other students to help meet group goals.
3. You may use reinforcers that require some planning. Do not be afraid to do this because students won’t mind the wait if they are really good activities.
4. Sometime students who have not been doing so well end up getting access to reinforcers. You must follow through and allow them access (all or nothing). Do not let it bother you so much as this is a good life lesson for students and teachers.
5. These contingencies will not solve all your problems. Although teachers, administrators, counselors, and other school personnel may be attracted to these programs because they are positive and relatively easy to manage, do not oversell the programs. Educators should be prepared to use these programs in conjunction with other procedures.
6. NEVER USE GROUP CONTINGENCIES COUPLED WITH PUNISHMENT. STUDENTS SHOULD ALWAYS BE WORKING TOGETHER TO EARN REWARDS, NOT AVOIDING PUNISHMENT!
7. Teacher should be careful when palming someone’s name. In the Carl example, Mr. Jones could have been paddled for being dishonest had he been caught.

Actually, a popular student accused one of the authors, who was his teacher, of palming (reaching into a jar and pretending to pull a name out at random, but actually palming a slip of paper with a specific students name on it). This accusation was made in a quiet manner. Students usually do not scream when you cheat for their benefit. It wasn’t so much an accusation as it was acknowledgment of what the teacher was trying to do. Interestingly enough, when the popular student figured out why the teacher palmed Carl’s name he made a special effort to befriend Carl. Would he have done the same if he was asked directly? Regardless, we have to go now. Stewart’s wife just pulled "fix the fence" out of his "job jar" and he needs some help.

References

Cashwell, C.S., Skinner, C.H., Dunn, M.S., & Lewis, J. (1998). Group reward programs: A humanistic approach. Humanistic Education and Development, 37, 47-53.

Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 431-447.

Gresham, F.M., & Gresham, G.N. (1982). Interdependent, dependent, and independent group contingencies for controlling disruptive behaviors. The Journal of Special Education, 16, 101-110.

Moore, L.A., Waguespack, A.M., Wickstrom, K.F., Witt, J.C., & Gaydos, G.R. (1994). Mystery motivator: An effective and time efficient intervention. School Psychology Review, 23, 106-118.

Neef, N.A., Mace, F.C., & Shade, D. (1993). Impulsivity in students with serious emotional disturbance: The interactive effects of reinforcer rate, delay, and quality. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 37-52.

O’Leary, K. D., Poulos, R. W., & Devine, T. V. (1972). Tangible reinforcers: Bonuses or bribes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 38, 1-8.

Rhode, G., Jensen, W.R., & Reavis, H.K. (1992). The tough kid handbook: Practical classroom management strategies. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Skinner, C.H., Cashwell, C.S., & Dunn, M.S. (1996). Independent and interdependent group contingencies: Smoothing the rough waters. Special Services in the Schools, 12, 61-78.