GOOD BEHAVIOR GAME: EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUAL CONTINGENCIES FOR GROUP CONSEQUENCES ON DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR IN A CLASSROOM¹

Abstract

Out-of-seat and talking-out behaviors were studied in a regular fourth-grade class that included several "problem children". After baseline rates of the inappropriate behaviors were obtained, the class was divided into two teams "to play a game". Each out-of-seat and talking-out response by an individual child resulted in a mark being placed on the chalkboard, which meant a possible loss of privileges by all members of the student's team. In this manner a contingency was arranged for the inappropriate behavior of each child while the consequence (possible loss of privileges) of the child's behavior was shared by all members of this team as a group. The privileges were events which are available in almost every classroom, such as extra recess, first to line up for lunch, time for special projects, stars and name tags, as well as winning the game. The individual contingencies for the group consequences were successfully applied first during math period and then during reading period. The experimental analysis involved elements of both reversal and multiple baseline designs.

The Effects of Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) on Students’ Prosocial Classroom Behaviors

“…Perhaps the most widely examined educational interventions using this contingency is the Good Behavior Game (GBG; Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969). For example, Tingstrom, Sterling-Turner, and Wilczynski, (2006) provided a review of the GBG that included 27 replications (i.e., variations and adaptations) conducted between the years of 1969 and 2002.…”

“…Barrish et al (1969) divided a classroom of general education students into two teams. The researchers identified two disruptive behaviors (out-of-seat and talking out; notice the focus on negative behavior) for which a mark would be placed on the board against the offending team.…”

“…Within the group contingency literature several positive features have been documented (e.g., McLaughlin, 1974;Skinner, Cashwell, & Dunn, 1996;Skinner, Skinner, Skinner, & Cashwell, 1999). Researchers have reported the procedures to be time-saving, inexpensive, effective, easy to learn and implement, and easy to manage in a classroom setting (e.g., Barrish et al, 1969;Grandy et al, 1973;Harris & Sherman, 1973;Packard, 1970). For example, one teacher involved in classroom research stated that initially the program took time from her teaching, however, once she adapted to the data recording and delivering consequences, the results were well worth the sacrifice (McAllister, Stachowiak, Baer, & Conderman, 1969).…”

“…Since early in the group contingency literature several disadvantages (i.e., negative side effects) have been documented. First, some students may refuse to participate or find it reinforcing to sabotage the game (e.g., Barrish et al, 1969;Elliott et al, 1987). Additionally, researchers have documented student harassment while implementing group contingency interventions (e.g., Harris & Sherman, 1973).…”

“…Class-Wide Function-related Intervention Teams (CW-FIT) is a class-wide intervention similar to the GBG (Barrish et al, 1969) in that it includes an interdependent group-oriented contingency component. However, CW-FIT differs in several important ways from the GBG.…”