There has been little research on the effects of the many procedural variables in applied group contingencies. In the present study, an individualized contingency and three group contingencies with different "responder" criteria (e.g., reward based on the group average, reward based on the work of a designated, low-achieving student, or reward based on the work of a randomly selected student) were applied to the academic work of primary grade children in a learning disabilities classroom. Group social interaction during each contingency was measured systematically. Although there were large individual differences in students' academic and social responses to the different contingencies, some consistent effects were observed. Two of the four low-achieving target students did their best academic work during the group contingency which focused on their performance as a designated responder. This type of contingency also produced high levels of positive social interaction in three of four groups of children observed.

Systematic desensitization was compared with two attention-placebo control treatments-one taken from Paul and one currently devised as an elaborate, highly impressive "therapeutic" experience-and no treatment. It was hypothesized that (a) fear reductions following desensitization would be no greater than those associated with an equally compelling placebo treatment and (6) fear and control measure changes following the previously used attention-placebo treatment would be less than those following desensitization and the present placebo control manipulations. Both hypotheses were supported, although support for the first was more consistent than for the second.

instructor, whilc 4 sections were taught by a prescriptive approach stressing preestablishcd learning prescriptions based upon diagnostic findings, use of reading laboratory materials and machines. and minimal conversation.Analyses of variance were used to compare the personalized and prescriptive groups on reading rate. vocabulary, comprehension, and reading interest before and after the course. Both groups showed significant gains on all four measures, and neither group showed greater gains than the other on any of the measures.Eighty-seven students from a psychology course who were concerned about their study habits were assigned to a no-contact control group, a no-treatment control group, a study skills advice group, or one of six study skills advice plus self-monitoring groups. The six combined-treatment groups experienced one of six forms of self-monitoring: high (informed) or low (uninformed) feedback, with no, low, or high levels of selfadministered consequences. The groups were compared on outcome measures (examination grades, an evaluation questionnaire, and the self-monitoring sheets) using chi square and t-tests.The combined-treatment groups improved their examination grades from pre-to posttreatment more than did the study skills advice group, which in turn did better than the control groups. The students who were uninformed about their study habits benefited more from self-monitoring than did the students who received detailed feedback about their study habits.--Department of Psychology, University of Missouri, Colw m bia.1976, 23 (July) pp. 316-321. 07 10-1 2 / SDA

No abstract