The Mystery Motivator intervention has been shown to increase prosocial behavior among school-age children by capitalizing on the anticipation afforded by reward concealment or randomization. Although numerous evaluations have supported the effectiveness of the Mystery Motivator, the overall status of this intervention is still unknown. The purpose of the current meta-analysis was to quantify the effects of the Mystery Motivator for improving behavior outcomes in school-age children and determine if participant, setting, and intervention components moderate intervention effects. A systematic review of academic databases was conducted that yielded a total of 24 studies. These studies were evaluated for methodological rigor and analyzed for effects using Tau-U. Results indicate a strong overall effect for this intervention (Tau-U = .77 (CI95 [.73 to .80]). The results discussed and practical issues are considered for future research on the use of the Mystery Motivator to promote the academic and social-emotional development of children and adolescents.
BrossL. A.TraversJ. C.HuffmanJ. M.DavisJ. L.MasonR. A. (2021). A meta-analysis of video modeling interventions to enhance job skills of autistic adolescents and adults. Autism in Adulthood, 3(4), 356–369. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2020.0038
4.
BrossartD. F.LairdV. C.ArmstrongT. W. (2018). Interpreting Kendall’s Tau and Tau-U for single-case experimental designs. Cogent Psychology, 5(1), Article 1518687. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2018.1518687
5.
*ClairE. B.BahrM. W.QuachH. L.LeDucJ. D. (2018). The positive plus program: Affirmative classroom management to improve student behavior. Behavioral Interventions, 33(3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1632
6.
*CollinsT. A.HawkinsR. O.FlowersE. M.KalraH. D.RichardJ.HaasL. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22091
7.
*CooganB. A.KehleT. J.BrayM. A.ChafouleasS. M. (2007). Group contingencies, randomization of reinforcers, and criteria for reinforcement, self-monitoring, and peer feedback on reducing inappropriate classroom behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), 540–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.22.4.540
8.
CosdenM.GannonC.HaringT. G. (1995). Teacher-control versus student-control over choice of task and reinforcement for students with severe behavior problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5(1), 11–27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41826859
9.
CoughlinC. (2012). Relative effects of delayed versus immediate reinforcement within an interdependent group-oriented contingency system [Unpublished dissertation]. University of Oregon.
10.
DavidM.MasonR. A.DavisJ. L.GregoriE.LeiQ.LoryC.WangD. (2023). School-based interventions targeting challenging behavior of adolescents with developmental disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 35(1), 17–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-022-09841-0
11.
*De Martini-ScullyD.BrayM. A.KehleT. J. (2000). A packaged intervention to reduce disruptive behaviors in general education students. Psychology in the Schools, 37(2), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(200003)37:2<149::AID-PITS6>3.0.CO;2-K
*EnnisC. R.BlaireK.-S.GeorgeH. (2016). An evaluation of group contingency interventions: The role of teacher preference. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 18(1), 17–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715577663
*FallonL.Collier-MeekM.KurtzK. (2019). Feasible coaching supports to promote classroom management in high need settings: An experimental single case design study. School Psychology Review, 48(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0135.V48-1
16.
FingerhutJ.XuX.MoeyaertM. (2021). Selecting the proper Tau-U measure for single case experimental designs: Development and application of a decision flow chart. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 15(3), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789539.2021.1937851
17.
FoxL.DunlapG.HemmeterM. L.JosephG. E.StrainP. S. (2009). The teaching pyramid: A model for the implementation of classroom practices within a program-wide approach to behavior support. Positive Behavior Supports and Interventions in Early Childhood Education, 12(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/15240750902774718
18.
FreemanJ.YellM. L.ShrinerJ. G.KatsiyannisA. (2019). Federal policy on improving outcomes for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Past, present, and future. Behavioral Disorders, 44(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742918814423
19.
GarwoodJ. D.PeltierC.SinclairT.EiselH.McKennaJ. W.VannestK. J. (2020). A quantitative synthesis of intervention research published in flagship EBD journals: 2010 to 2019. Behavioral Disorders, 47(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742920961341
20.
*GoldmanR. (2004). Randomized interdependent group contingencies on prosocial behaviors of juvenile delinquents [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hofstra University.
21.
GraffR. B.LibbyM. E.GreenG. (1998). The effects of reinforcer choice on rates of challenging behavior and free operant responding in individuals with severe disabilities. Behavioral Interventions, 13(4), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-078X(199811)13:4<249::AID-BIN19>3.0.CO;2-1
22.
HawkinsR. O.Musti-RaoS.HughesC.BerryL.McGuireS. (2009). Applying a randomized interdependent group contingency component to classwide peer tutoring for multiplication fact fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18(4), 300–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-009-9093-6
23.
*HoagH. (2006). Effects of mystery motivators vs. expected reinforcers on disruptive behavior in preschoolers [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hofstra University.
JensonW. R.RhodeG.ReavisH. K. (1994). The tough kid toolbox. Pacific Northwest Publishing.
26.
*JonesM.BoonR. T.ForeC.IIIBenderW. N. (2008). “Our mystery hero!” A group contingency intervention for reducing verbally disrespectful behaviors. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 15(2), 61–69. https://js.sagamorepub.com/index.php/ldmj/article/view/5393
27.
JonesR. R.WeinrottM. R.VaughtR. S. (1978). Effects of serial dependency on the agreement between visual and statistical inference. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(2), 277–283. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-277
28.
JullS. K. (2008). Emotional and behavioural difficulties (EBD). The special educational need justification exclusion. Journal of Research in Special Education Needs, 8(1), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.111/j.1471-3802-2008.00097.x
29.
*Kelshaw-LeveringK.Sterling-TurnerH. E.HenryJ. R.SkinnerC. H. (2000). Randomized interdependent group contingencies: Group reinforcement with a twist. Psychology in the Schools, 37(6), 523–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(200011)37:6<523::AID-PITS5>3.0.CO;2-W
30.
KorpershoekH.HarmsT.de BoerH.van KuijkM.DoolaardS. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom management programs on students’ academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Review of Education Research, 86(3), 643–680. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626799
31.
KowalewiczE. A.CoffeeG. (2014). Mystery motivator: A tier 1 classroom behavioral intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(2), 138–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000030
32.
*KraemerE. E.DaviesS. C.ArndtK. J.HunleyS. (2012). A comparison of the mystery motivator and the get ’em on task interventions for off-task behaviors. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20627
33.
KruskalW. H.WallisW. A. (1952). Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47, 583–621. https://doi.org/10.23307/2280779
34.
LamportM. A.GravesL.WardA. (2012). Special needs students in inclusive classrooms: The impact of social interaction on educational outcomes for learners with emotional and behavioral difficulties. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 5(1), 54–69. https://www.ejbss.com/recent.aspx
35.
*LaseckiK.OlympiaD.ClarkE.JensonW.HeathfieldL. T. (2008). Using behavioral interventions to assist children with type 1 diabetes manage blood glucose levels. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.3.389
36.
LiberatiA.AltmanD. G.TetzlaffJ.MulrowC.GøtzscheP. C.IoannidisJ. P.. . . MoherD. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), W65–W94. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136
37.
*LingS. M.BarnettD. W. (2013). Increasing preschool student engagement during group learning activities using a group contingency. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 33(3), 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/027112141348595
38.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage Publications.
39.
Lohrmann-O’RourkeS.BrowderD. M. (1998). Empirically based methods to assess the preferences of individuals with severe disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 103(2), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.1352/0895-8017(1998)103<0146:EBMTAT>2.0.CO;2
40.
LynchA.TheodoreL. A.BrayM.KehleT. J. (2009). A comparison of group-oriented contingencies and randomized reinforcers to improve homework completion and accuracy for students with disabilities. School Psychology Review, 38(3), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2009.12087816
41.
MadausM.KehleT.MadausJ.BrayM. (2003). Mystery motivator as an intervention to promote homework completion and accuracy. School Psychology International, 24(4), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343030244001
42.
MasonS. A.McGeeG. G.Farmer-DouganV.RisleyT. R. (1989). A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22(2), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1989.22-171
43.
*MausM. (2007). Interdependent group contingencies for reducing disruptive behavior in preschoolers with PDD-NOS [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hofstra University.
44.
*McKissickC.HawkinsR. O.LentzF. E.HailleyJ.McGuireS. (2010). Randomizing multiple contingency components to decrease disruptive behaviors and increase student engagement in an urban second-grade classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 47(9), 944–959. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20516
45.
MintzC.WallaceM. D.NajdowskiA. C.AtchesonK.BoschA. (2007). Reinforcer identification and evaluation of choice within an educational setting. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16(4), 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-007-9045-y
46.
MooreL. A.WaguespackA.WickstromK. F.WittJ. C.GaydosG. R. (1994). Mystery motivator: An effective and time efficient intervention. School Psychology Review, 23(1), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1994.12085698
47.
*MottramA. M.BrayM. A.KehleT. J.BroudyM.JensonW. R. (2002). A classroom-based intervention to reduce disruptive behaviors. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1300/J008v19n011_05
48.
*MurphyK. A.TheodoreL. A.AloisoD.Alric-EdwardsJ. M.HughesT. L. (2007). Interdependent group contingency and mystery motivators to reduce preschool disruptive behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 44(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20205
49.
ParkerR. I.BrossartD. F.VannestK. J.LongJ. R.De-AlbaR. G.BaughF. G.SullivanJ. R. (2005). Effect sizes in single case research: How large is large?School Psychology Review, 34(1), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2005.12086279
50.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L.SauberS. B. (2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006
51.
PatallE. A.CooperH.WynnS. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 896–915. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019545
52.
*PokorskiE. A.BartonE. E.LedfordJ. R. (2019). Assessing the differential effects of known and mystery rewards in preschool-based group contingency. Journal of Early Intervention, 41(3), 256–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815119841088
53.
PopkinJ.SkinnerC. H. (2003). Enhancing academic performance in a classroom serving students with serious emotional disturbance: Interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected components. School Psychology Review, 32(2), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2003.12086199
ReinhardtD.TheodoreL. A.BrayM. A.KehleT. J. (2009). Improving homework accuracy: Interdependent group contingencies and randomized components. Psychology in the Schools, 46(5), 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20391
56.
RhodeG.JensenW.ReavisH. K. (1992). The tough kid book: Practical classroom management strategies. Sopris West.
57.
RobichauxN. M.GreshamF. M. (2014). Differential effects of the mystery motivator intervention using student-selected and mystery rewards. School Psychology Review, 43(3), 259–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2014.12087428
58.
*RobichauxN. M.GreshamF. M.VanDerHeydenA. M. (2013). Differential effects of the mystery motivator intervention using student-selected and mystery rewards. School Psychology Review, 43(3), 286–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2014.12087428
59.
*RobinsonK. E.SheridanS. M. (2000). Using the Mystery Motivator to improve child bedtime compliance. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 22(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1300/J019v22n01_03
SchalockR. L.LuckassonR.TasséM. J. (2021). Intellectual disability: Definition, diagnosis, classification, and systems of supports (12th ed.). American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
62.
SchoenfeldW. N.CummingW. W.HearstE. (1956). On the classification of reinforcement schedules. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 42(8), 563–570. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.42.8.56
63.
SolomonB. G. (2014). Violations of assumptions in school-based single-case data: Implications for the selection and interpretation of effect sizes. Behavior Modification, 38(4), 477–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445513510931
64.
*TheodoreL. A. (2002). A comparative study of group contingencies and randomized reinforcers to reduce disruptive classroom behavior [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Connecticut.
65.
*TheodoreL. A.BrayM. A.KehleT. J. (2001). Randomization of group contingencies and reinforcers to reduce classroom disruptive behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 39(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00068-1
66.
Van den NoortgateW.Lopzez-LopezJ. A.Marin-MartinezF.Sanchez-MecaJ. (2013). Three-level-meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 576–594. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0261-6
67.
WeinerR. K.SheridanS. M.JensonW. R. (1998). The effects of conjoint behavioral consultation and a structured homework program on math completion and accuracy in junior high students. School Psychology Quarterly, 13(4), 281–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088986
68.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). What Works Clearinghouse standards handbook (Version 4.1). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/handbooks
69.
WhitneyT.CooperJ. T.LingoA. S. (2018). Using a token economy combined with a mystery motivator for a student with autism exhibiting challenging behavior. Kentucky Teacher Educational Journal: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Kentucky Council for Exceptional Children, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.61611/2995-5904.1013
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
