Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Groupthink01:34

Groupthink

44.1K
When in group settings, we are often influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors around us. Groupthink is another phenomenon of conformity where modification of the opinions of members in a group aligns with what they believe is the group consensus (Janis, 1972). In such situations, the group often takes action that individuals would not perform outside the group setting because groups make more extreme decisions than individuals do. Moreover, groupthink can hinder opposing trains of...
44.1K
Group Polarization01:01

Group Polarization

34.2K
Group polarization is the strengthening of an original group attitude following the discussion of views within a group (Teger & Pruitt, 1967). That is, if a group initially favors a viewpoint, after discussion the group consensus is likely a stronger endorsement of the viewpoint. Conversely, if the group was initially opposed to a viewpoint, group discussion would likely lead to stronger opposition.
34.2K
Group Design02:01

Group Design

8.9K
The most basic experimental design involves two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The two groups are designed to be the same except for one difference— experimental manipulation. The experimental group gets the experimental manipulation—that is, the treatment or variable being tested—and the control group does not. Since experimental manipulation is the only difference between the experimental and control groups, we can be sure that any differences between...
8.9K
Social Loafing01:37

Social Loafing

34.6K
Another way in which a group presence can affect performance is social loafing—the exertion of less effort by a person working together with a group. Social loafing occurs when our individual performance cannot be evaluated separately from the group. Thus, group performance declines on easy tasks (Karau & Williams, 1993). Essentially individual group members loaf and let other group members pick up the slack. Because each individual’s efforts cannot be evaluated,...
34.6K
In- and Out-Groups01:31

In- and Out-Groups

38.8K
People all belong to a gender, race, age, and social economic group. These groups provide a powerful source of our identity and self-esteem (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and serve as our in-groups. An in-group is a group that we identify with or see ourselves as belonging to.
38.8K
Statistical Significance01:50

Statistical Significance

20.1K
Once data is collected from both the experimental and the control groups, a statistical analysis is conducted to find out if there are meaningful differences between the two groups. A statistical analysis determines how likely any difference found is due to chance (and thus not meaningful). In psychology, group differences are considered meaningful, or significant, if the odds that these differences occurred by chance alone are 5 percent or less. Stated another way, if we repeated this...
20.1K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A review of visual analysis reporting procedures in the functional communication training literature.

School psychology (Washington, D.C.)·2024
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 3, 2025

Assessment of Cocaine-induced Behavioral Sensitization and Conditioned Place Preference in Mice
10:28

Assessment of Cocaine-induced Behavioral Sensitization and Conditioned Place Preference in Mice

Published on: February 18, 2016

17.0K

Using a Group Stimulus Preference Assessment to Design an Effective Group Contingency.

Amber S E Fluharty1, Lauren M LeJeune2, Mark D Samudre3

  • 1Anderson School District One, Anderson, SC USA.

Behavior Analysis in Practice
|January 10, 2025
PubMed
Summary

Group stimulus preference assessment (SPA) effectively increased student preparedness in special education. Preferred consequences led to higher engagement and motivation compared to less preferred ones.

Keywords:
Group contingencyMiddle schoolPreference assessmentSingle case designSpecial education

More Related Videos

Operant Procedures for Assessing Behavioral Flexibility in Rats
08:30

Operant Procedures for Assessing Behavioral Flexibility in Rats

Published on: February 15, 2015

20.8K
Modeling Verbal Behavior Deficits with the Stimulus Control Ratio Equation, SCoRE
06:57

Modeling Verbal Behavior Deficits with the Stimulus Control Ratio Equation, SCoRE

Published on: May 14, 2019

10.4K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 3, 2025

Assessment of Cocaine-induced Behavioral Sensitization and Conditioned Place Preference in Mice
10:28

Assessment of Cocaine-induced Behavioral Sensitization and Conditioned Place Preference in Mice

Published on: February 18, 2016

17.0K
Operant Procedures for Assessing Behavioral Flexibility in Rats
08:30

Operant Procedures for Assessing Behavioral Flexibility in Rats

Published on: February 15, 2015

20.8K
Modeling Verbal Behavior Deficits with the Stimulus Control Ratio Equation, SCoRE
06:57

Modeling Verbal Behavior Deficits with the Stimulus Control Ratio Equation, SCoRE

Published on: May 14, 2019

10.4K

Area of Science:

  • Special Education
  • Applied Behavior Analysis
  • Educational Psychology

Background:

  • Limited research exists on group stimulus preference assessment (SPA) procedures.
  • Understanding student preferences is crucial for effective educational interventions.
  • Group-based interventions require careful consideration of individual student needs.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To extend research on group stimulus preference assessment (SPA) procedures.
  • To identify preference hierarchies for students in a special education setting.
  • To evaluate the impact of preferred versus non-preferred consequences on student behavior.

Main Methods:

  • A paired stimulus group SPA was conducted in a middle school special education classroom with 20 students.
  • Preference hierarchies were established for each class.
  • Single-case designs validated results by comparing baseline to group contingency conditions using high-preferred (high-p) and low-preferred (low-p) consequences.

Main Results:

  • Both group contingency conditions improved student preparedness for class compared to baseline.
  • Consistently higher student preparedness was observed during high-p consequence sessions.
  • Academic performance (daily quiz scores) was similar across conditions, but students reported higher motivation and enjoyment during high-p sessions.

Conclusions:

  • Group SPA is a viable method for identifying preferences in special education settings.
  • Utilizing high-preferred consequences in group contingencies can enhance student preparedness and motivation.
  • Findings support the use of preference-based interventions to improve engagement in special education classrooms.