ABSTRACT
This chapter begins with a definition of a contingency contract, and a rationale for its use. It discusses two major forms of contingency contracting, parallel contracting and quid pro quo contracting. The chapter offers a critique of contingency contracting procedures, based on both conceptual and clinical considerations. It also discusses the formation of written change agreements in marital therapy. The chapter suggests that spouse-provided pleasant stimuli may not function as reinforcers in the literal sense of the term. It elucidates the theoretical and practical difficulties associated with good faith contracts, especially the difficulty of uncovering reinforcers. The chapter asserts that many of the pleasant spouse-provided stimuli used to consequate compliance are not really reinforcers at all, but may still have some role in maintaining behavior change through their cuing functions. The primary rationale for contingency contracting is that it restructures the relationship environment to create a milieu supportive of behavior change.
