Group contingencies are well established as methods for reducing disruptive classroom behaviors and increasing academic behaviors. However, their role in increasing prosocial behaviors has not yet been explored to the same extent. We conducted a systematic review of the single-case literature to synthesize the types of prosocial and antisocial behaviors targeted in school settings, the short-term and long-term behavioral contingencies used to target these behaviors, and the quality of the literature. We searched five databases for studies exploring the use of group contingencies to increase prosocial behaviors or decrease antisocial behaviors in children. Our narrative synthesis of the twenty-two included studies noted contingencies employed in these interventions consisted of either positive reinforcement or a combination of positive reinforcement and positive punishment. Of the 22 studies included for review, none met the What Works Clearinghouse Design Standards without reservations. Interobserver agreement and demonstration of effects over time were the most commonly unmet design standards. Future research should seek to encourage greater focus on both prosocial behavior and positive behavior change mechanisms. PROSPERO ID: CRD42022337025.

中文翻译：

---

针对学童亲社会和反社会行为的单案例群体应急干预措施的系统回顾和叙述综合

小组突发事件已被广泛认为是减少破坏性课堂行为和增加学术行为的方法。然而，它们在增加亲社会行为方面的作用尚未得到同等程度的探索。我们对单例文献进行了系统回顾，综合了学校环境中针对的亲社会和反社会行为的类型、针对这些行为的短期和长期行为意外事件以及文献的质量。我们搜索了五个数据库，寻找探索利用群体偶然事件来增加儿童亲社会行为或减少反社会行为的研究。我们对 22 项纳入研究的叙述综合指出，这些干预措施中采用的意外事件包括积极强化或积极强化和积极惩罚的组合。在纳入审查的 22 项研究中，没有一项毫无保留地符合 What Works Clearinghouse 设计标准。观察者间的一致性和随时间推移的效果展示是最常见的未满足的设计标准。未来的研究应该鼓励更多地关注亲社会行为和积极的行为改变机制。普洛斯彼罗 ID：CRD42022337025。