JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2019, 52, 386–393 NUMBER 2 (SPRING)

Reducing adolescent cell phone usage using an interdependent

group contingency
MEGAN E. JONES, R. ALLAN ALLDAY AND ASHANTE’ GIVENS
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

The purpose of this study was to test the effects of an interdependent group contingency on cell
phone usage in an alternative high school classroom. We used an ABAB reversal design to test
the effects of the contingency on the cell phone usage of the entire class and an individual stu-
dent. Results showed a reduction in the cell phone use of the class and the individual when the
group contingency was in effect, demonstrating a functional relation between the contingency
and student cell phone usage. These findings suggest that group contingencies may be effica-
cious for teachers to use within their classrooms to curb cell phone usage. Further study of this
intervention is warranted to determine its generality.
Key words: adolescents, cell phone usage, group contingency

The use of cell phones in public schools has
increased dramatically and may have both posi-
tive and negative aspects in the classroom set-
ting (Thomas & Orthober, 2011). On the plus
side, phone applications enable teachers to test
and poll students through text in order to allow
automatic grading and immediate feedback
(Thomas et al., 2011). On the other hand, stu-
dents can use cell phones to find test answers
on the Internet and also to share with other
students pictures of quizzes and tests (Thomas
et al., 2011). Similarly, instances of cyber bully-
ing can occur due to inappropriate cell phone
usage, which can perpetuate negative peer
interactions (from simple disagreements to
physical harm; Patchin & Hinduja, 2006).
Thomas et al. (2011) found that over 80%
of high school students text daily, and nearly
half of them admitted to texting hourly. Some
studies estimate that 64% of teenagers text dur-
ing class, even in schools that restrict cell phone
Megan Jones and R. Allan Allday, Department of
EDSRC, University of Kentucky; Ashante` Givens,
Department of EDP, University of Kentucky.
The authors would like to thank Dr. Brian Bottge for
his feedback on the manuscript.
Address correspondence to: Megan E. Jones, EDSRC,
University of Kentucky 40506-0001, Email: megan.
jones4@uky.edu
doi: 10.1002/jaba.538
© 2019 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
386
use (Kuznekoff & Titsworth, 2013). When stu-
dents are engaged in texting or unapproved
usage of their phone (e.g., Facebook, Twitter),
they are less likely to engage in learning activi-
ties or perform as well on exams (Junco & Cot-
ten, 2012; Kuznekoff & Titsworth, 2013;
Wood et al., 2012). As cell phone usage con-
tinues to increase, school personnel need to
know how to control it.
School policies on cell phone usage vary
widely (Obringer & Coffey, 2007), and little
has been written about the most effective
approaches for curbing inappropriate cell phone
use in the classroom. Group contingencies,
which are typically designed to administer a
consequence to a group based on the behavior
of the individuals within the group (Litow &
Pumroy, 1975), have been shown to be effec-
tive in managing a variety of challenging behav-
iors, such as disruptive behaviors, negative
social interactions, and poor academic perfor-
mance (Maggin, Johnson, Chafouleas,
Ruberto, & Berggren, 2012). Interdependent
group contingencies are those in which the
behavior of all students within a group must
meet or exceed a predetermined criteria, and
the reinforcer is delivered to all members of the
group (Groves, & Austin, 2017; Hirsch, Healy,
 REDUCING CELL PHONE USAGE
Judge, & Lloyd, 2016; Litow & Pum-
roy, 1975).
Research has shown that interdependent
group contingencies can be an effective way of
managing behavior with high-school-aged
populations. For example, studies have shown
that an interdependent group contingency is an
effective method for reducing challenging
behavior in a general education high school
classroom (e.g., Mitchell, Tingstrom, Dufrene,
Ford, & Sterling, 2015) and increasing aca-
demic engagement in high school inclusion
classrooms (e.g., Christ & Christ, 2006). Fur-
thermore, a meta-analysis of studies employing
group contingencies found up to a two-stan-
dard-deviation reduction in disruptive behav-
iors from baseline levels (Maggin,
Pustejovsky, & Johnson, 2017). The purpose
of this study was to determine if an interdepen-
dent group contingency could reduce the cell
phone usage of high school students enrolled in
an alternative high school.
METHOD
Participants and Setting
A total of six students (three males and three
females) between the ages of 14 and 18 partici-
pated in the study. Student ethnic backgrounds
were varied and included Caucasian (two
females and two males) and African American
(one male and one female) individuals. One
student had an Individualized Education Pro-
gram for emotional/behavioral disorder, and
two students had active 504 Plans. These stu-
dents attended the same elective course in an
urban public alternative high school located in
the Southeast region of the United States. The
school consisted of approximately 170 students
with special learning and/or behavioral needs.
Nearly 30% of students received special educa-
tion services, and all students were considered
at-risk of dropping out of high school. Class
sizes ranged from 8 to 20 students. At the time
of the study, the alternative school had not
387
implemented a cell phone policy restricting stu-
dents from using phones; however, teachers
were encouraged to create their own classroom
policy. Anecdotally, teachers voiced concerns
about the high rate of noneducational cell
phone use.
The first author, a certified teacher with
5 years of experience, implemented the inter-
vention. She observed student cell phone usage
during three separate class sessions to determine
which students used their phones most often.
Then she observed the two students with the
highest usage for two additional sessions and
collected duration data on cell phone usage.
We selected Veronica, a 14-year-old Caucasian
female without an identified disability, as the
focus student for individual data collection
because she used her phone more than the
other students.
All sessions took place in the classroom dur-
ing the same elective class (Photography) on
Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, which was
scheduled for 90 min. Six students and one
teacher participated in the study. The class-
room was 2.4 m x 9.1 m and all students sat at
a rectangular table facing the whiteboard. Prior
to the intervention, a classroom cell phone pol-
icy did not exist. In order to manage excessive
cell phone use, classroom observers reported
that the teacher used verbal prompts in a non-
systematic manner to reduce cell phone usage
when the students’ technology use became
excessive or disrupted classroom learning.
Response Measurement and Interobserver
Agreement
Our operational definition for cell phone
usage included any student (a) touching/swiping
the screen to activate it, (b) looking at or con-
tinuing to manipulate the screen, or (c) using
two hands to manipulate the phone (texting).
For Veronica, we started the duration timer
when she touched or swiped the screen and
stopped the duration timer when she placed
388 MEGAN E. JONES et al.
the phone either in her pocket or purse, or
placed the phone with blank screen on her
desk. Veronica’s data were collected as duration
per occurrence and combined in a total dura-
tion for the class period, which is reported. The
teacher measured the duration of Veronica’s
cell phone use with the app Behavior Tracker
Pro. If any students removed their phones and
activated the clock feature (i.e., pushed the
power button), but did not meet any of the cri-
teria stated above, the action was not consid-
ered cell phone use.
Both the teacher and a secondary observer
measured class-wide cell phone usage with a
paper and pencil, 90-min, partial-interval
recording system. The data sheet included stu-
dents’ initials next to empty boxes, which were
marked “+” for “used phone” or “0” for “did
not use phone.” We calculated percentages of
cell phone usage by dividing the number of
students who used their phone by the number
of students present in the classroom. No more
than two students were absent during any ses-
sion. Students were allowed to go to the rest-
room during sessions on request. Students
made this request fewer than 10 times over the
course of the study.
We conducted classroom observations for
calculating interobserver agreement (IOA) on
21% of sessions (17% for baseline phases, 20%
and 29% for intervention phases). The teacher
trained a graduate student as a secondary
observer. To calculate IOA for Veronica, we
compared the total duration recorded by each
observer by dividing the shorter duration by
the longer duration and multiplying by 100.
This resulted in a mean IOA of 95.1% (range,
82-100%). To calculate IOA for the class, we
conducted a point-by-point comparison of
individual phone usage. The total number of
agreements was divided by the total number of
agreements plus disagreements, and multiplied
by 100. IOA was 100% for class-wide cell
phone usage.
General Procedures
We employed a reversal design (ABAB) to
evaluate the effects of the interdependent group
contingency on cell phone usage. We deemed
this design appropriate given its use in evaluat-
ing group contingencies in previous studies
(e.g., Christ & Christ, 2006; Mitchell
et al., 2015).
During both baseline and intervention, the
teacher began class by greeting students as they
entered the room. All students sat at a rectan-
gular table with the teacher at the head of the
table. Prior to student arrival in the classroom,
the teacher ensured she had a clean data collec-
tion sheet in order to record phone usage. In
addition, the teacher activated the Behavior
Tracker Pro app to the necessary screen for
duration data collection. Observations were col-
lected in 29 consecutive class meetings exclud-
ing one day when school was not in session
(i.e., a holiday) and two school-related required
functions (e.g., field trip and pep rally). Data
collection began after the tardy bell rang and
ended either when the bell rang to dismiss stu-
dents to go home (baseline and intervention) or
when students earned their reward (interven-
tion only). During instruction in both condi-
tions, the teacher either sat at the table with
the students during group lectures or observed
students in the room as they practiced skills
delivered in the lesson.
Baseline procedures. During both baseline
phases, the teacher did not address cell phone
usage with students at the beginning of class.
The teacher collected data without interfering
with or interrupting the students’ normal cell
phone usage behaviors. Similar procedures were
used during the second phase of baseline. In
the first session in the return to baseline phase,
the teacher announced that the group contin-
gency would “not be used for a while.”
Intervention procedures. On the first day of
the intervention, the teacher explained the
interdependent group contingency. The teacher
 REDUCING CELL PHONE USAGE
also informed students that the class could earn
10 min of uninterrupted time on the phone at
the end of class if no one used his/her phone
during class. They were also told that if any
student used his/her phone during class, the
class would not earn the 10 min of time on the
phone. Each subsequent day of intervention, in
both intervention phases, the teacher would
remind students of the reward available at the
end of the period for not using their phones. If
no student accessed his/her cell phone during
intervention sessions, the teacher praised the
students (e.g., “You guys did not use your
phones, so you earned free time to use your
phones and talk”), and students received
10 min to use the phone at the end of class.
Data were not collected during the 10 min of
earned cell phone usage. If any student accessed
his/her cell phone during intervention sessions,
a verbal statement was issued such as, “Cell
phones were used during class, so we will con-
tinue class as normal today.” Students were
then required to complete their normal end of
class routine (i.e., help clean the room and put
away equipment) while the teacher continued
instruction and data collection.
Treatment fidelity. We assessed treatment
fidelity during the intervention conditions,
which was defined as the teacher (a) informing
students, after the tardy bell but before instruc-
tion, that they could earn 10 minutes of unin-
terrupted cell phone time at the end of class if
they did not use their phone during class, and
(b) allowing or not allowing 10 min of cell
phone time at the end of class based on the ses-
sion’s data. Treatment fidelity was assessed dur-
ing 23% of sessions during the intervention
conditions and reflected 100% fidelity.
Social validity. The teacher created a social
validity (Wolf, 1978) survey to examine stu-
dent perception of the intervention. The survey
consisted of three open-ended questions: What
did you think about not having your phones
during class time? Did you feel that you could
focus better during class without your phones?
389
What was your reaction when other students
caused the rest of the class to lose their
10 minutes of free time? After the final obser-
vation, the survey was administered vocally in a
group format to all participating students. The
teacher asked each question, one at a time, and
students responded vocally. Their responses
were transcribed by the teacher.
RESULTS
Figure 1 represents Veronica’s total duration
of cell phone usage per class. During the initial
baseline condition, Veronica used her cell
phone an average of 21.2 min (range,
7.5-41.1 min). The introduction of the group
contingency resulted in an immediate level and
trend change for Veronica. Her mean total
duration of cell phone use during the first
intervention condition was 0.95 min (range,
0-5.6 min. Four out of seven data points
(57%) were at 0 min. Withdrawing the group
contingency resulted in an immediate and
abrupt increase in cell phone usage for Veronica.
Her mean total duration increased to 39.2 min
(range, 24.3-60.8 min) and her usage was more
variable. Reinstating the group contingency had
an abrupt impact on her cell phone usage.
Veronica’s mean total duration decreased to
0.06 min (range, 0-0.3 min) in the second
intervention condition. During intervention,
Veronica was able to earn 10 min of uninter-
rupted cell phone time. Including these earned
minutes, Veronica’s cell phone use decreased
69% and 80% between baseline and interven-
tion conditions, respectively. Furthermore, there
were 100 percent nonoverlapping data (PND)
between each of the conditions for Veronica. All
missing data were due to absences in sessions
9, 10, 11, 21, 23, and 25.
Figure 2 represents the percentage of the
class using cell phones. The average percentage
of the class that used cell phones during the ini-
tial baseline was 88% (range, 75-100%). The
percentage of the class’s use of cell phones
390 MEGAN E. JONES et al.

Figure 1. Veronica’s total duration of cell phone usage, in minutes, per class session.

Figure 2. Percentage of students using cell phones in class.

dropped to an average of 16.5% (range,
0-50%) following implementation of the group
contingency. In 5 of 10 (50%) sessions there
were zero instances of usage. In other words,
students received the reinforcer in 50% of ses-
sions. Removing the group contingency
increased the percentage of the class using
their cell phones to 100% for each session.
There was 100 PND between the first inter-
vention condition and return to baseline condi-
tion. Reinstating the group contingency
resulted in an abrupt reduction in cell phone
usage, with six of the seven (83%) sessions with
zero instances of usage. There was one instance
in the second group contingency condition in
which Veronica used her phone, while the
 REDUCING CELL PHONE USAGE
remaining students did not use theirs. Students
received the reinforcer in 83% of sessions dur-
ing the second intervention condition. There
was 100 PND between this and the previous
condition.
Results of the survey revealed that all stu-
dents conveyed an unfavorable view of the
intervention because they could not access their
phones. Students reported that no other class
required such cell phone policies and that they
did not enjoy the restriction. All students
reported an increase in focus during the contin-
gency phases and they reported that the “free
time” with their phone was a powerful rein-
forcer. However, one student noted that, “We
do not like our phone taken away, but we are
able to focus better without our phone.” When
asked about their reactions when another stu-
dent caused the entire class to lose the 10 min
of free time, responses were mixed. Most of the
students noted a “frustration” with the peer
who used his/her phone and reported forming
an “intervention” group. This was described as
an informal discussion mediated by the stu-
dents in which the group discussed the need to
avoid using phones during class. They offered
to hold the phone of any student who felt it
was difficult to comply with the directions.
DISCUSSION
In this study, we examined the effects of an
interdependent group contingency on the cell
phone usage of a single classroom of high
school students within an alternative setting.
For this class, results showed that the group
contingency reduced student cell phone usage.
Results support previous studies showing that
group contingencies can be effective at chang-
ing student behavior (Christ & Christ, 2006;
Mitchell et al., 2015). Given the potential for
inappropriate use of cell phones in schools
(Kuznekoff & Titsworth, 2013), developing a
simple intervention that can curb this usage
would likely prove helpful.
391
The teacher in the current study reported
that a majority of participants used cell phones
regularly during instructional time prior to
intervention, which was a behavior she wanted
to abate. Group contingencies have proven
effective with students exhibiting similar unde-
sireable in-school behaviors (see reviews by Lit-
tle, Akin-Little, & O’Neill, 2015, and Maggin
et al., 2017). Group contingencies typically
involve establishing clear rules and delivering or
withholding reinforcers based on targeted
behavior (Cooper, Heron, & Heward., 2007).
In this study, the teacher provided the rule that
if the whole class did not use cell phones dur-
ing the period, students would receive uninter-
rupted phone access for 10 min during “free
time.” The immediate changes observed during
the first sessions of the group contingency may
be attributable to rule-governed behavior. In
addition, this contingency arranged a whole-
interval differential reinforcement of other
behavior schedule at the group level, in that
reinforcement (i.e., free access to phone) was
available if the target behavior (i.e., looking at
or interreacting with phone) did not occur
throughout an interval. Level changes between
baseline and intervention suggest that having
uninterrupted access to “free time” on their
phone at the end of class served as a more pow-
erful reinforcer than having interrupted time
on their phone during class. Students reported
during the social validity survey that there was
a type of peer-driven contingency established
within the context of the intervention. This
peer contingency included students establishing
behavioral expectations amongst themselves
regarding phone usage. Gaining peer approval
and/or avoiding peer disapproval could have
been another variable that impacted the results
of the group contingency. The peer contin-
gency in combination with the teacher-
mediated access-to-phone contingency may
promote student self-monitoring of their own
behavior (Christ & Christ, 2006; Trevino-
Maack, Kamps, & Wills, 2015).
392 MEGAN E. JONES et al.
Groves and Austin (2018) noted, in their
social validty measure, that secondary students
positively responded to an interdependet group
contingency (i.e., Good Behavior Game). In
their study, the authors focused on earning or
losing points based on group behavior. A
majority of participants reported they enjoyed
the intervention and it improved their behavior
and teamwork. Results of the social validity in
the current study are somewhat contrary to
Groves and Austin. Students reported they did
not like the intervention. This could be because
highly valuable tangible reinforcers (i.e., cell
phones) were restricted, whereas Groves and
Austin did not have such a restriction. Students
in the current study reported they were able to
focus better during the intervention, which is
not contrary to Groves and Austin’s findings.
Furthermore, students engaged in a teamwork-
like behavior by implementing “intervention
groups” to encourage each other. This is a posi-
tive finding in that it was not teacher-initiated
but student-initiated.
There are a few limitations that merit men-
tion. First, the use of a 90-min partial interval
measure for the entire class was not as sensitive
to behavior change as a shorter interval might
have been. This type of data collection, while
practical for a classroom teacher to implement,
should be replaced in future studies with a
more rigorous method (e.g., interval recording
with 1-min or smaller intervals) in order to bet-
ter understand the precise effect of the inter-
vention. In addition, the partial interval
recording did not take into account the fre-
quency or duration of cell phone usage for the
entire class so a percentage reduction in use
cannot be determined for the class. Second, we
do not know if students used their cell phone
when they were in the restroom. Fewer than
10 instances of requests for restroom breaks
occurred across baseline and intervention
phases. When requested, students were given
less than 5 min to use the restroom and return
to class, but this may be an important
consideration to note in future studies. Third,
we did not require students to tell us if they
had their cell phones in class each day. Anec-
dotally, one student did not have access to his
phone for 2 days during the intervention phase
when his mom took his phone. Otherwise, all
students were observed to use their cell phones
during “free time” in the intervention phase as
the teacher observed cell phones in each stu-
dent’s hand or on the table. All students had
their phones on days when baseline was at
100% because they were observed using their
phone. On baseline days less than 100%, it is
unknown whether all students had their
phones. In future studies, these data should be
collected. Fourth, it is important to consider
that Veronica’s absences were clustered during
the treatment phase, as she was absent on five
occasions during intervention and one during
baseline. Future research should monitor
absences, tardiness, and restroom requests dur-
ing the intervention phase. If student absences
or tardiness increase due to withdrawing cell
phones it may prove more detrimental to the
student and may negatively affect student per-
formance. Finally, the social validity measure
indicated that students did not respond favor-
ably to the intervention. For further research
on this topic, it may be beneficial to extend the
intervention condition and allow students to
choose the intervention over time through pri-
vate notes instead of group discussion. Even if
a student prefers the intervention, it may be
difficult for the students to vocalize the prefer-
ence in front of peers; therefore, considering a
private social validity measure would be
prudent.
In this study we measured the behavior of
one class of students, as well as the detailed
behavior of one student in particular, who
showed relatively high levels of cell phone usage
in class. Future researchers should replicate this
study using multiple classrooms and additional
measures to better understand the generality of
these direct effects as well as the indirect effects.
 REDUCING CELL PHONE USAGE
An important additional direction for future
researchers would be to include measures of
task engagement, as measured through system-
atic observation and permanent product, when
phones are allowed versus when they are not
allowed in classrooms, to evaluate whether the
students’ reported increase in focus positively
affects educational objectives. In addition,
future researchers should develop and evaluate
procedures for reducing unapproved usage
(e.g., texting, social media) while simulta-
neously increasing approved usage (e.g., active
responding through live polling) and consider
evaluating the acceptability of this intervention
with students and the teachers implementing it
(Groves & Austin, 2018).
REFERENCES
Christ, T. J., & Christ, J. A. (2006). Application of an
interdependent group contingency mediated by an
automated feedback device: An intervention across
three high school classrooms. School Psychology
Review, 35, 78-90.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007).
Applied Behavior Analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
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, 552-566. https://doi.org/10.
1002/jaba.393
Groves, E. A. and Austin, J. L. (2018). Does the Good
Behavior Game evoke negative peer pressure? Ana-
lyses in primary and secondary classrooms. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jaba.513
Hirsch, S. E., Healy, S. , Judge, J. P., & Lloyd, J. W.
(2016). Effects of an interdependent group contin-
gency on engagement in physical education. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 975-979. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jaba.328
Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The rela-
tionship between multitasking and academic perfor-
mance. Computers & Education, 59, 505-514. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023
Kuznekoff, J. H., & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of
mobile phone usage on student learning. Communica-
tion Education, 62, 233-252. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03634523.2013.767917
Litow, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of
classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of
393
Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 341-347. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1975.8-341
Little, S. G., Akin-Little, A., & O’Neill, K. (2015). Group
contingency interventions with children – 1980-2010:
A meta-analysis. Behavior Modification, 39, 322-341.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445514554393
Maggin, D. M., Johnson, A. H., Chafouleas, S. M.,
Ruberto, L. M., & Berggren, M. (2012). A system-
atic evidence review of school-based group contin-
gency interventions for students with challenging
behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 625-654.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.06.001
Maggin, D. M., Pustejovsky, J. E., & Johnson, A. H.
(2017). A meta-analysis of school-based group con-
tingency interventions for students with challenging
behaviors: An update. Remedial and Special
Education, 38, 353-370. https://doi.10.
1177/0741932517716900
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. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-14-0063.1
Obringer, J. S., & Coffey, K. (2007). Cell phones in
American high schools: A national survey. The Jour-
nal of Technology Studies, 33, 41-47. https://doi.
org/10.21061/jots.v33i1.a.6
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond
the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 148-169. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1541204006286288
Thomas, K., & Orthober, C. (2011). Using text-
messaging in the secondary classroom. American Sec-
ondary Education, 39, 55-76.
Trevino-Maack, S. I., Kamps, D., & Wills, H. (2015).
A group contingency plus self-management interven-
tion targeting at-risk secondary students’ class-work
and active engagement. Remedial and Special
Education, 36, 347-360. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0741932514561865
Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: the case for subjec-
tive measurement or how applied behavior analysis is
finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
11, 203-214. http://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.
11-203
Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De
Pasquale, D., & Nosko, A. (2012). Examining the
impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on
real-time classroom learning. Computers & Education,
58, 365-374. https://doi.10.1016/j.compedu.2011.
08.029
Received July 6, 2017
Final acceptance April 12, 2018
Action Editor, Jeanne Donaldson