Running Head: Effects of Using Mystery vs.

Known Rewards 1

The Effects of Using Mystery Vs. Known Rewards in Interdependent Group Contingencies to

Increase On-Task Behavior for Kindergarteners

Emily A. Barrie

University of West Florida

Running Head: Effects of Using Mystery vs. Known Rewards 2

Introduction

Kindergarten students need to quickly learn to acclimate themselves to a new

environment and the new expectations of the classroom as their school career begins. Students

in kindergarten classrooms come from many different backgrounds, cultures, home

environments, and different levels of educational experience. Some students have been in

structured daycare and preschool environments from a few weeks old, while for others

kindergarten is their first experience being away from home. Within the school setting,

kindergarten students have to learn a variety of expectations for the different settings (such as the

classroom, lunchroom, playground, and hallways) they encounter during their school day. This

new environment provides many opportunities for stimulation and distraction, both

environmentally and socially. In a kindergarten classroom, students are expected to be able to

remember the classroom rules, follow multi-step directions, sit for extended periods of time,

focus their attention on instruction, work independently to complete assigned tasks, and

transition between activities with independence. Because of the wide range of new

expectations, it is essential for kindergarteners to be taught the appropriate expected behaviors

and for the appropriate behaviors to be reinforced consistently. Early childhood students who

engage in disruptive and challenging behaviors may have academic struggles throughout their

school career due to missed learning opportunities, may have trouble being accepted by their

peers, and frequently continue to engage in these disruptive behaviors throughout the school

years if they do not receive intervention (Ling & Barnett, 2013).

Group contingencies can be used to reinforce the behavior of a group contingent on the

behavior of one individual (independent), a small group (dependent), or the entire group

(interdependent). Group contingencies foster positive behaviors for the entire class and decrease
Running Head: Effects of Using Mystery vs. Known Rewards 3

the need for the use of individual contingencies (Ling & Barnett, 2013). Cooper, Heron, &

Howard (2007) explain that independent group contingencies present a contingency to all the

members of the group, but only the individuals who meet the predetermined criterion are

provided with reinforcement. Dependent group contingencies allow for the entire group to earn

a reward if an individual or a small group meets the criterion. Interdependent group

contingencies require the entire group to meet the criterion before earning a reward.

There are many advantages to implementing a group contingency in a classroom setting.

Interdependent, dependent, and independent group contingencies have been shown to be

effective methods for increasing appropriate classroom behavior, as well as decreasing disruptive

behavior in elementary classrooms (Ennis, Blair, & George, 2016). Payne, Dozier, Briggs, and

Newquist (2017) found that no specific type of group contingency was more effective than

another; however, interdependent group contingencies have been found to be time and cost-

efficient classroom interventions, and the flexibility of interdependent group contingencies

makes them especially practical for schools with limited resources (Collins, Hawkins, Flowers,

Kalra, Richard, & Haas, 2018). When using interdependent group contingencies, teachers are

able to reward the entire class at one time, instead of using instructional time to pass out

individual reinforcers as each student earns them. Reinforcers can be free or inexpensive items

such as extra recess time, stickers, and homework passes. Interdependent group contingencies

have a lot of flexibility and can be adapted and changed to focus on different behaviors, to

include alternative procedures, reinforcers, and to target different students receiving the

intervention based on the situation and the students’ needs. Research has shown that

interdependent group contingencies, such as the Good Behavior Game (and variations of the

game), are effective methods of intervention in a Tier 1 School-Wide Positive Behavior

Running Head: Effects of Using Mystery vs. Known Rewards 4

Intervention System. (Collins, et al., 2018; Groves & Austin, 2017; Wright & McCurdy, 2011;

Flower, McKenna, Bunuan, Muething, & Vega, 2014). With an interdependent group

contingency in place, teachers are able to focus more time on academic instruction as behavior

concerns decrease (Flower, et al. 2014). Interdependent group contingencies encourage

teamwork, positive peer pressure, and increase positive interactions between peers (Theodore,

Bray, Kehle, & DioGuardi, 2003; Collins, et al., 2018).

Although there are many advantages to interdependent group contingencies, there are

also some drawbacks to their implementation. Not all students may not find the available

reinforcers motivating which may cause them to interfere with or sabotage the contingency

(Collins, et al., 2018). Students who are disruptive or cause the group to lose the reinforcer may

be looked at negatively by their peers (Wright & McCurdy, 2011). Students who consistently

exhibit good behavior and find the group contingency motivating may find it frustrating or

upsetting if a student who was not following expectations is still able to earn a reward due to the

group earning the reward.

Studies have found there are ways to offset some of these disadvantages of group

contingencies. Collins, et al. (2018) conducted a study to determine if the interdependent group

contingency of Behavior Bingo would reduce the disruptive behavior and increase academic

engagement in students with EBD in a high school classroom. The study found that randomizing

the criteria, reinforcers, target behaviors, target students and providing opportunities for student

choice can contribute to the success of an interdependent group contingency. When components

of the contingency are randomized, students are not made aware of which target behavior is

being observed, which students have to display the target behavior, or what reinforcer they are

working towards. This helps to decrease sabotage by students who do not care for specific
Running Head: Effects of Using Mystery vs. Known Rewards 5

components the teacher has chosen. Murphy, Theodore, Aloiso, Alric-Edwards, and Hughes

(2007) conducted a study on the use of mystery rewards and group contingencies with

preschoolers. The results of the study showed the combined use of the interdependent group

contingency and the mystery rewards with the preschool students decreased the disruptive

classroom behavior. They found mystery rewards can be successful due to increased anticipation

and curiosity in learning which reinforcer they will earn. Pokorski, Barton, and Ledford (2019)

examined the use of known versus mystery rewards to determine if the children knowing what

reward they were earning made a significant effect on their rate of social skill acquisition. They

determined both the known and mystery rewards were equally successful in increasing social

interactions for the targeted children. Donaldson, Matter, and Wiskow (2018) reviewed research

on the Good Behavior Game (an interdependent group contingency) and discussed that due to the

many components to the Good Behavior Game, teachers can find it difficult to implement while

teaching a lesson. One potential strategy to aid teachers is to train students to conduct

components of the game such as rewarding points, reviewing expectations and delivering

reinforcers. The authors conducted a study to demonstrate the use of student-led Good Behavior

Games in kindergarten classrooms. The results of the study showed disruptive behavior was

decreased in all classrooms across all phases. Teacher preference for who led the game varied

across teachers; however, students preferred to lead the game themselves.

Group contingencies have been found to be effective behavior change methods for groups

of individuals but limited research has been done with groups of young children (Payne, Dozier,

Briggs, & Newquist, 2017). Limitations of previous studies have been that they have not been

conducted in actual early childhood classrooms, they have ben conducted in settings without a

full class of students, and that a researcher was the individual implementing and conducting
Running Head: Effects of Using Mystery vs. Known Rewards 6

sessions rather than the classroom teacher. The purpose of this study is to determine the effects

of a group contingency on kindergarten students’ on-task behavior with the use of a mystery

reinforcer versus using a known reinforcer. The study will focus on increasing current research

showing the effectiveness of a group contingency in early childhood with the classroom teacher

implementing the contingency, as well as determining if mystery reinforcers are more motivating

to young students than known rewards.

Method

Participants

The research participants will be kindergarten students between five and six years old.

The students have been selected to participate in the intervention based on their high levels of

off-task and disruptive behaviors during ELA center time in comparison to students in other

kindergarten classrooms at the same school. This classroom has 18 students in total: seven girls

and 11 boys. There are three Latino students, four Black students, and 11 White students. Two

students are currently identified as Developmentally Delayed. These students are receiving ESE

services in a pull-out classroom for 60 minutes during the day. Seven students are in the MTSS

process receiving Tier II academic intervention, two students are in the MTSS process receiving

a behavioral intervention, and four students receive speech and language services.

Setting

The research will be carried out in a general education kindergarten classroom in an

urban Title I school. The general education classroom teacher has agreed to implement the

intervention procedures during English/Language Arts (ELA) center time due to a high level of

off-task and disruptive behaviors occurring during this portion of the day. The classroom has a

total of 18 students; however, two students are pulled out for ESE services for the first 30
Running Head: Effects of Using Mystery vs. Known Rewards 7

minutes of the ELA block. The classroom is a large square shaped room with five student tables

and a teacher small group table. There are six student computers located along one wall of the

classroom. Center work is differentiated based on students’ academic levels and the activities

vary daily; however, routines and expectations remain consistent. Students are expected to stay

in their assigned areas and complete their work within the allotted amount of time. The duration

of ELA center time is generally about 60 minutes. Students are divided into groups of six during

this 60 minute center block, based on their academic proficiency: one group meeting with the

teacher, one group on computers working on assigned lessons, and one group working

independently on center work at their assigned table spot. A visual timer is displayed on the

Smartboard and set for 20 minute increments. After 20 minutes, the timer rings and the students

clean up their area and rotate to the next center. They are permitted to complete an additional

“Can Do” center if they have extra time.

Materials

Materials will include a visual timer projected on the SmartBoard, a timer for the

observer(s), CHAMPS expectation visual cards, and a laminated poster with visuals of

appropriate “on-task” behaviors. Picture directions cards will be displayed in a small pocket

chart on each student table with specific directions for each center. Two social stories will be

created by the researcher to explain the importance of on-task behavior during center time and to

provide specific examples of what those behaviors should look like. The books will contain the

same information; however, they will be color coded and will include a review of which

contingency (mystery or known reinforcer) will be in effect. A color-coded picture of a

question mark (mystery reinforcer) and pictures of pre-selected reinforcers will also be created.

The researcher will create a box decorated in gift wrap and question marks for the mystery
Running Head: Effects of Using Mystery vs. Known Rewards 8

reinforcer picture cards. A magnetic tens-frame with 10 color coded magnets and student pre-

selected rewards will also be used for this study.

Experimental Design

The experimental design will be an alternating treatment design (ATD). It will include

three conditions: baseline, treatment comparison, and follow-up. During the treatment

comparison condition, two treatments (A and B) will be rapidly alternated. The treatment phase

will be designed: ABABBAABABAAB. This design will allow for two different experimental

conditions to be used within the same group of students (Kennedy, 2007). The strengths of this

design are that the treatment does not need to be withdrawn and the treatment conditions are able

to be compared quickly (Cooper, 2007).

Procedure

The experiment will be conducted in the kindergarten classroom for 60 minute sessions

five days a week. The kindergarten students will be given a preference assessment to determine

the types of reinforcers the group is interested in. The researcher will ask the group of

kindergartners to brainstorm items and activities they would want to earn at school. The

researcher may need to guide the discussion to help students choose items that are appropriate

and able to be earned at school. The researcher will record student ideas on the whiteboard by

drawing a simple picture to represent the item and writing the label next to the picture. The

researcher will ask students to pick five items off of the class list and write them down on their

list. The researcher will choose frequently chosen items to include as reinforcers for the study.

Baseline sessions will be conducted on at least three separate days. The researcher will provide

the students with a brief 15 minute training to read the social stories and to explain the

reinforcement procedures. The researcher will also model a treatment condition: demonstrating
Running Head: Effects of Using Mystery vs. Known Rewards 9

appropriate on-task behavior, earning a token for on-task behavior, and how to earn a reward at

the end of the session. The independent variable that will be introduced during this study is an

interdependent group contingency of a token economy with the ability to earn either a known

reinforcer or a mystery reinforcer. The dependent variable of this study is student on-task

behavior during ELA center time. On-task behavior is operationally defined as being oriented

towards the teacher, the materials or task at hand; asking or answering (teacher or peer) questions

about the content, working with the appropriate materials; and compliance with all directions and

CHAMPS expectations.

Baseline

During the baseline condition, the teacher will give directions for center time as usual and then

dismiss the students to their centers one group at a time. A visual timer set for 20 minutes will

be projected on the screen to provide students a visual of how long they have to complete the

work at their current center. The teacher will start both the visual timer and timer that will be

used for PLACHECK after directing the last group to their center. The teacher’s timer will be

set for 10 minute intervals. After the 10 minute interval is finished, the teacher will conduct a

PLACHECK to count how many students are on-task at that moment. Baseline data will be

taken until stable data is collected for a minimum of 3 days.

Intervention

The two treatment conditions (known and mystery reinforcer) will be rapidly alternated after

baseline is completed. The known reinforcer treatment sessions will be conducted like the

baseline. However, at the beginning of the session the teacher will read the social story with the

known reward and show the students a picture of the reward they can earn. The picture of the

reward available will be displayed in the front of the classroom. The reward will be selected
Running Head: Effects of Using Mystery vs. Known Rewards 10

randomly by the teacher. The teacher will then give the class the directions for the center time

activities and dismiss them to their centers one group at a time. At the end of the 10 minute

interval, the students will be able to earn a token if 80% of the class is displaying on-task

behavior. The class will have six opportunities to earn a token during the session, but only needs

to earn five tokens to receive the reward. At the end of the session, the students will receive the

reward if it is earned. If the class does not receive the reward, they will be reminded of the

reward, the expectations of the contingency, and be told they can try again tomorrow. The

mystery reinforcer condition will be identical to the known reinforcer condition with the

exception of the social story, the picture of the reinforcer will be a question mark so the students

will not know which reward they can earn, and a box decorated with question marks will contain

the picture of the mystery reward so it will remain out of view of the students until it is earned.

Data Collection

The students will be observed in their kindergarten classroom for 60 minute sessions

during the ELA center block. Frequency data will be collected during this study using

PLACHECK and a momentary time sampling data sheet to determine the percentage of intervals

the class was engaged in on task behavior. Intervals in which 80% or more of the students are

on-task will be scored positively and intervals with 79% or fewer of the students demonstrating

on-task behavior will be scored as negative. The percentage of intervals with students exhibiting

on task behavior will be calculated by dividing the number of sessions that were scored

positively by the total number of intervals observed, and that number will be multiplied by 100

to determine the percentage of on-task behavior for the session. This overall percentage for the

interval will be able to be compared between the baseline and the treatment conditions to
Running Head: Effects of Using Mystery vs. Known Rewards 11

determine if a mystery or a known reinforcer can increase on task behavior and if one

intervention is more effective.

Inter-observer Agreement

Reliability data will be collected by the researcher and the BCBA supervisor. Data will

be collected for at least 30% of randomly selected sessions during the experiment. Data will be

collected across all conditions. The inter-observer agreement will be calculated using an interval

by interval IOA where the percentage will be calculated by dividing the number of intervals that

were scored in agreement by the total number of intervals available and multiplying by 100. The

goal will be to score each condition with at least 90% reliability.

Procedural Integrity

Procedural integrity will be measured for at least 30% of randomly selected sessions across

conditions via video. Using a checklist, elements that are correct or incorrect will be score using

a checklist. Behaviors specific to conditions (such as reading the correct story, providing the

token and the reward at the end of the session) and behaviors that occur across conditions

(session length, providing verbal praise) will be assessed. Procedural integrity will be scored by

dividing the number correct by the total number of correct and incorrect and multiplying 100.

Social Validity

Social validity will be measured in two ways: (a) the ratings of the intervention by the classroom

teacher at the conclusion of the study, and (b) the rating of the intervention by the kindergarten

students. The teacher will be given a rating scale regarding the effects of the study on the

students’ behavior and the results of the study. The students will be given a rating scale that will

be read to them. Students will color a picture of a “thumbs up” or a “thumbs down” for each

question read.
Running Head: Effects of Using Mystery vs. Known Rewards 12

References

Collins, T. A., Hawkins, R. O., Flowers, E. M., Kalra, H.D., Richard, J., & Haas, L. E. (2018).

Behavior bingo: The effects of a culturally relevant group contingency intervention for

students with EBD. Psychology in the Schools, 55(1), 63-75.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Donaldson, J. M., Matter, A. L., & Wiskow, K. M. (2018). Feasibility of and teacher preference

for student-led implementation of the good behavior game in early elementary

classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51(1), 118-129.

Ennis, C. R., Blair, K. S. C., & George, H. P. (2016). An evaluation of group contingency

interventions: The role of teacher preference. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,

18, 17–28.

Flower, A., McKenna, J. W., Bunuan, R. L., Muething, C. S., & Vega, R. (2014). Effects of the

good behavior game on challenging behaviors in school settings. Review of Educational

Research, 84(4), 546–571.

Groves, E. A., & Austin, J. L. (2017). An evaluation of interdependent and independent group

contingencies during the good behavior game. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,

50(3), 552-566.

Kennedy, C. H. (2007). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston: Pearson

Education, Inc.
Running Head: Effects of Using Mystery vs. Known Rewards 13

Ling, S. M., & Barnett, D. W. (2013). Increasing preschool student engagement during group

learning activities using a group contingency. Topics in Early Childhood Special

Education, 33(3), 186–196. doi: 10.1177/0271121413484595

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(1), 53-63.

Payne, S., Dozier, C., Briggs, A., & Newquist, M. (2017). An analysis of group-oriented

contingencies and associated side effects in preschool children. Journal of Behavioral

Education, 26(1), 27-52.

Pokorski, E. A., Barton, E. E., & Ledford, J. R. (2019). Assessing the differential effects of

known and mystery rewards in a preschool-based group contingency. Journal of Early

Intervention, 42(3), 256-275.

Theodore, L., 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.

Wright, R. A., & McCurdy, B. L. (2011). Class-wide positive behavior support and group

contingencies: Examining a positive variation of the good behavior game. Journal of

Positive Behavior Interventions, 1–8. doi:10.1177/ 1098300711421008