Brief report: Compliance in the classroom: Using the „thumbs up”︁ procedure to increase student compliance to teacher requests

Abstract

This study assessed the effectiveness of a program designed to increase compliance with teacher commands in a regular 5th grade math class. A reversal design (A‐B‐B'‐A‐B') was employed. The teacher used a discriminative stimulus to signal the students as to the availability of an opportunity to earn a point towards a reinforcer. To receive the point the students were required to return the signal and initiate compliance. The entire class was involved in the program; however, data were recorded on two students, one identified by the teacher as noncompliant; the other served as a control. The results indicated that the program was effective in increasing initiation of compliance to teacher commands. However, serious questions were raised about the generalizability of such a program.

Applying behavioral theory to practice: an examination of the behavioral momentum metaphor

“…By reporting difficulty in gaining compliance to``don't'' commands, Ducharme and Worling (1994) echo the earlier findings of Johansson (1971) and Glass (1988). However, their solution, symmetrical requests (equivalent`d o'' commands substituted in place of``don't'' commands not being complied with), introduces still another potential confound to the mix.…”

Effects of Responding to a Name and Group Call on Preschoolers' Compliance

“…Atwater and Morris (1988) observed that group instructions increased substantially from preschool to first grade. The limited research that has described methods to improve compliance with groups of children often involves the implementation of complex classwide programs (e.g., Glass, Houlihan, Fatis, & Levine, 1993) or targets specific activities (e.g., transitions; Goetz, Ayala, Hatfield, Marshall, & Etzel, 1983). The design of procedures that incorporate individual and group instructions, are socially acceptable, and are implemented easily yet still are effective, may help to close the apparent research‐to‐practice gap.…”

Teachers’ Commands and Their Role in Preschool Classrooms

“…), or by specificity and feasibility (i.e., alpha or beta type). Although numerous researchers have hinted at commands falling into both categories of form and specificity (Elrod, 1987;Glass, 1988;Houlihan & Jones, 1990;Houlihan et al, 1994;Kuczynski & Kochanska, 1990b), Forehand and McMahon (1981) were the only researchers to formally identify commands by both their form and specificity/feasibility.…”

“…Reid (1978) and Patterson (1982) defined a command as a direct, reasonable, and clearly stated command in which the behavior expected to be performed is specifically stated. Throughout the literature, commands of this form have been referred to as "direct" commands (Elrod 1987;Forehand & McMahon, 1981;Houlihan et al, 1994;Kuczynski & Kochanska, 1990b;Kuczynski, Radke-Yarrow, & Kochanska, 1985), "do" commands (Houlihan & Jones, 1990;Kuczynski & Kochanska, 1990a;Neef, Shafer, Egel, Cataldo, & Parrish, 1983), "positive" commands (Glass, 1988), and "declaratives" (Atwater & Morris, 1988). These commands might include commands such as "clean up your toys" and "you need to go wash your hands.…”

“…Generally, "negative" commands refer to those commands which require an ongoing behavior to cease (Atwater & Morris, 1988;Glass, 1988), and may include commands containing "stop," "don't," "quit," etc. Researchers who have focused on specific types of "negative" commands have identified "don't" commands (Houlihan & Jones, 1990;Kuczynski & Kochanska, 1990a), "stop" commands, "rule statements" (Albin, O'Brien, & Horner, 1995), and "aversives or threats" (Forehand & McMahon, 1981;Glass, 1988;Patterson, 1982;Peed et al, 1977). Overall, the "negative" commands have been the most consistently identified and defined commands throughout the literature.…”