Evaluation of the Good Behavior Game with a child with fetal alcohol syndrome in a small‐group context

We evaluated the Good Behavior Game (GBG) on levels of disruptive behavior of a 4‐year‐old boy with fetal alcohol syndrome during small‐group reading time. We also compared the effectiveness of and preference for choice of a reward to a surprise reward for winning the GBG. Results showed that the GBG was effective to decrease disruptive behavior to similar levels as peers in the group. We did not observe a difference in the effectiveness of the GBG with a choice of reward compared to a surprise reward, but the participant preferred having a choice of reward. We discuss the potential benefit of utilizing the GBG to reduce disruptive behavior during small‐group learning instruction for individual students with disabilities and to aid in the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms.     

Comparison of components of the Good Behavior Game in a preschool classroom

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is an effective intervention package for decreasing disruptive behavior in various populations and environments. There is, however, limited research evaluating the GBG with preschoolers. Furthermore, few studies have evaluated the effects of components of the GBG, and of those that have, most have done so only after exposure to the GBG package. We evaluated the effects (a) of the GBG on disruptive behavior of preschoolers during group instruction and (b) the major components of the GBG before and after implementation of the GBG package (c) at both the group and individual level. Results suggest that the GBG package was necessary for decreasing disruptive behavior. However, after exposure to the GBG, a response‐independent contingency was effective for maintaining low levels of disruptive behavior at both the group and individual level.     

Feasibility of and teacher preference for student‐led implementation of the good behavior game in early elementary classrooms

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a classwide group contingency shown to reduce disruptive student behavior. We examined the feasibility of training young students to lead the GBG in one first‐grade and three kindergarten classes. We also examined teacher preference for teacher‐led GBG, student‐led GBG, or no GBG using a concurrent chains procedure. We successfully trained students in all classes to lead the GBG, and the GBG reduced disruptive behavior regardless of who implemented it. Preference for who implemented the game varied across teachers. Results of this study suggest that students as young as kindergarten age can be trained to implement the GBG and that teacher preference should be taken into account when determining how classwide interventions are to be implemented.     

Effectiveness of a Universal,Interdependent Group Contingency Program on Children's Academic Achievement: A Countywide Evaluation

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a universal prevention program designed to increase academic engagement and to decrease disruptive behavior in elementary school-age children. Teachers and other school personnel use interdependent group contingencies to improve students’ behavior in the classroom. Previous research indicates the GBG is efficacious in reducing behavior problems; however, little research has examined its effects on academic achievement in real-world settings. In this study, the authors evaluated the PAX GBG, a commercially available version of the GBG, as it is typically administered in elementary schools. The authors examined standardized reading and mathematics scores across one academic year for 949 students enrolled in the GBG or comparison classrooms. Results showed significant but small effects of the GBG on reading and mathematics. Results were greatest for boys, children with lower achievement scores at baseline, and students from more economically disadvantaged school districts. School personnel may find the PAX GBG useful in improving children's behavior and academic skills.     

The Role of Friends’ Disruptive Behavior in the Development of Children’s Tobacco Experimentation: Results from a Preventive Intervention Study

Having friends who engage in disruptive behavior in childhood may be a risk factor for childhood tobacco experimentation. This study tested the role of friends’ disruptive behavior as a mediator of the effects of a classroom based intervention on children’s tobacco experimentation. 433 Children (52% males) were randomly assigned to the Good Behavior Game (GBG) intervention, a universal preventive intervention targeting disruptive behavior, and facilitating positive prosocial peer interactions. Friends’ disruptive behavior was assessed from age 7–10 years. Participants’ experimentation with tobacco was assessed annually from age 10–13. Reduced rates in tobacco experimentation and friends’ disruptive behavior were found among GBG children, as compared to controls. Support for friends’ disruptive behavior as a mediator in the link between intervention status and tobacco experimentation was found. These results remained after controlling for friends’ and parental smoking status, and child ADHD symptoms. The results support the role of friends’ disruptive behavior in preadolescents’ tobacco experimentation.     

Effects of the Good Behavior Game on student and teacher behavior in an alternative school

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a classroom behavior management procedure that has been shown to be effective in reducing disruptive behavior across many settings and populations (Flower, McKenna, Bunuan, Muething, & Vega, 2014). We investigated the effects of the GBG on student and teacher behavior in two classrooms containing fourth‐ to eighth‐grade students in an alternative school for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Results indicated the GBG reduced disruption and increased the teacher's use of praise relative to reprimands. Social validity measures, collected from both teachers and students, indicated strong approval of the GBG.     

The Good Behavior Game in preschool classrooms: An evaluation of feedback

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a popular group contingency implemented to decrease disruptive behavior in classrooms. However, despite numerous replications of the GBG, there are few direct comparisons evaluating the effectiveness of specific components of the GBG. In the present study, we directly compared the type of feedback delivered during the GBG on the effectiveness of the GBG to reduce disruptive behavior in two preschool classrooms. Results showed that delivering vocal feedback (e.g., “raise your hand”) alone or in combination with visual feedback (i.e., hatch marks) was superior to no feedback or visual feedback alone during the GBG. These results suggest that different variations of the GBG are not equally effective and that a collection of effective procedural variations from which teachers can choose would be beneficial.     

Efficacy of teacher-implemented good behavior game despite low treatment integrity

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a well-documented group contingency designed to reduce disruptive behavior in classroom settings. However, few studies have evaluated the GBG with students who engage in severe problem behavior in alternative schools, and there are few demonstrations of training teachers in those settings to implement the GBG. In the current study, 3 teachers were trained to implement the GBG in a restrictive setting for students with histories of emotional and behavioral disorders and delinquency. The teachers used the GBG to produce substantial reductions in problem behavior despite low treatment integrity. Clinical implications and future directions for research are discussed.     

THE EFFECTS OF A GOOD-BEHAVIOR CONTRACT ON THE CLASSROOM BEHAVIORS OF SIXTH-GRADE STUDENTS1

The effects of a good-behavior contract on the on-task behavior, disruptive behavior, daily assignment completion, and weekly grades of four sixth-grade students were examined in a public school classroom. The contract consisted of presenting the students with a list of good conduct and assignment completion goals and a list of disruptive behaviors coupled with a list of rewards and penalties that could be earned. The rewards and penalties made use of existing facilities and classroom privileges. At the beginning of each morning work period, the teacher negotiated the good-behavior contract with each experimental subject. During the negotiations, the teacher emphasized student self-management and encouraged each student to earn a reward by achieving the good-conduct goals and completing the contract assignments. An isolated work area was provided to allow students the opportunity to remove themselves from their desks for a fixed period of 15 min. At the end of the work period, the teacher determined whether each student earned a choice of reward or penalty dependent on assignment completion and whether the teacher had observed disruptive behaviors. Thus, the contract permitted the student to negotiate the goal behaviors and contingencies with the teacher. Throughout the study, the students were in agreement with the teacher on whether a choice of reward or penalty had been earned. The contract was introduced for different children at different times, constituting a multiple-baseline analysis. On-task behavior and daily assignment completion increased, weekly grades were higher, and disruptive behavior decreased when the contract was in effect. Three contrast subjects were selected from the class as model students who consistently produced acceptable assignments and who did not engage in high rates of disruptive and/or off-task behaviors. When the contract was in effect for the experimental subjects, their performance compared favorably with the contrast subjects, who never received the daily contract. The results demonstrated that the contract was effective within the confines of the facilities and contingencies readily available in a public school classroom setting.     

Reward dominance among children with disruptive behavior disorders

Investigated was a deficit in avoidance learning in situations of competing rewards and punishments in boys with behavior disorders. This learning style has been found to differentiate adults with psychopathy and controls and has been labeled reward dominance. The present study investigated the reward dominance paradigm in a group of 9- to 13-year-old boys with disruptive behavior disorders (N=21) and a normal control group (N=22). Subjects played four computer games programmed to provide the subject with a steadily decreasing ratio of rewards to punishments. Although the groups did not differ initially on the number of trials played, significant group differences emerged when measures of anxiety were included in the analysis. That is, boys with disruptive behavior disorders played more trials (reward dominance) only when the effect of anxiety was controlled. These findings are consistent with Gray's biobehavioral theory of personality and are also consistent with research indicating that anxiety is an important marker for a distinct subgroup of children with behavior problems.     

Playing the long game: A multivariate multilevel non-linear growth curve model of long-term effects in a randomized trial of the Good Behavior Game

This cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) examined the impact of the Good Behavior Game (GBG) on children's developmental trajectories of disruptive behavior, concentration problems, and prosocial behavior from middle childhood (ages 6–7 years) to early adolescence (ages 10–11 years). Seventy-seven schools in England were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. Allocation was balanced by school size and the proportion of children eligible for free school meals. Children (N = 3084) ages 6–7 years at baseline were the target cohort. Outcome measures, assessed via the Teacher Observation of Child Adaptation Checklist, were taken prior to randomization (baseline – Time 1) and annually for the next 4 years (Time 2 to Time 5). During the 2-year main trial period (Time 1 to Time 3), teachers of this cohort in intervention schools implemented the GBG, whereas their counterparts in the control group continued their usual practice. A multivariate multilevel non-linear growth curve model indicated that the GBG reduced concentration problems over time. In addition, the model also revealed that the intervention improved prosocial behavior among at-risk children (e.g., those with elevated symptoms of conduct problems at Time 1, n = 485). No intervention effects were unequivocally found in relation to disruptive behavior. These findings are discussed in relation to the extant literature, strengths and limitations are noted, and practical and methodological implications are highlighted.     

Does the Good Behavior Game evoke negative peer pressure? Analyses in primary and secondary classrooms

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a classroom management system that employs an interdependent group contingency, whereby students work as a team to win the game. Although previous anecdotal data have suggested that this arrangement may promote prosocial behavior, teachers may have concerns about its fairness and potential to evoke negative peer interactions (especially toward students who break the rules). We evaluated disruptive behaviors and social interactions during the GBG in a secondary classroom for students with emotional and behavioral disorders, as well as in a primary classroom for students with mild developmental disabilities. Results indicate that the GBG reduced disruptive behaviors; further, negative peer interactions decreased and positive interactions increased when the game was being played. Social validity results indicate that the majority of students thought the interdependent group contingency was fair.     

DOES USE OF TANGIBLE REWARDS WITH INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN AFFECT PEER OBSERVERS?1

The common assumption that employing tangible rewards with individual children will have adverse effects upon peer observers was studied in the preschool setting. Multiple-subject, multiple-baseline procedures were applied to two classes of children, aged 3.5 to 6 yr. In each group, three consecutive children with low base rates of in-seat behavior received a verbal contingency and food rewards for sitting, while peers (with either low or high rates of in-seat behavior) received neither food nor teacher attention for sitting. Peer reactions measured were in-seat behavior, aggression, nonaggressive disruptive behavior, and complaints. The procedures neither decreased the in-seat behavior of peer observers, nor increased their aggressive or disruptive behavior. On the contrary, peers with low base rates of sitting initially displayed an abrupt, but temporary, increase in sitting. Moreover, although no compensatory attention was delivered, all children exhibited improved sitting by the end of the study. Complaints, which consisted mainly of requests for rewards, decreased in frequency with successive program phases, and within each phase. It is suggested that the class improvement in sitting behavior and the absence of negative effects on observers may be partially due to the high frequency of attention the teacher maintained for other desired behavior and the lack of attention to children's complaints.     

Stimulus presentation versus stimulus removal in the Good Behavior Game

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is an effective intervention to reduce disruptive behavior. The GBG typically involves immediate stimulus presentation (e.g.., delivery of a token) following disruptions; however, experimenters have also removed tokens contingent upon disruptions. In the present study, we compared the effects of the GBG-stimulus presentation (P) and GBG-stimulus removal (R) on levels of disruptions in a 2nd-grade general education classroom. In addition, we measured student prompts, teacher praise and correctives, and student and teacher preference. The GBG-P and GBG-R versions of the game were similarly effective in reducing disruptions. However, the teacher chose to implement the GBG-R and the majority of students reported a preference for the GBG-R.     

Reward improves cancellation and restraint inhibition across childhood and adolescence

Inhibitory control allows for the regulation of thought and action and interacts with motivational variables, such as reward, to modify behavior adaptively as environments change. The authors examined the effects of reward on two distinct forms of inhibitory control, cancellation and restraint. Typically developing children and adolescents completed 2 versions of the stop signal task (cancellation and restraint) under 3 reward conditions (neutral, low reward, and high reward), where rewards were earned for successful inhibitory control. Rewards improved both cancellation and restraint inhibition, with similar effects of reward on each form of inhibitory control. Rewards did not alter the speed of response execution in either task, suggesting that rewards specifically altered inhibition processes without influencing processes related to response execution. Adolescents were faster and less variable than children when executing and inhibiting their responses. There were similar developmental effects of reward on the speed of inhibitory control, but group differences were found in terms of accuracy of inhibition in the restraint task. These results clarify how reward modulates two different forms of regulatory behavior in children and adolescents.     

An evaluation of the good behavior game in kindergarten classrooms

The good behavior game (GBG) is a classwide group contingency that involves dividing the class into two teams, creating simple rules, and arranging contingencies for breaking or following those rules. Five kindergarten teachers and classrooms participated in this evaluation of the GBG. Disruptive behavior markedly decreased in all five classrooms as a result of the intervention. This study extends the GBG literature by systematically replicating the effects of the GBG with the youngest group of students to date.     

Self-evaluation by adolescents in a psychiatric hospital school token program

Nine adolescent boys with a history of high rates of disruptive classroom behavior were selected from a psychiatric hospital school and placed in a remedial reading class after school in which various factors in a token reinforcement program involving self-evaluation were investigated. The effects of self-evaluation, in the form of a rating the students gave themselves about the appropriateness of their classroom behavior, were first assessed. While the students' ratings of their own behavior correlated highly with the teacher's ratings and evaluations made by independent observers, the self-evaluations did not lead to a reduction in disruptive behavior. A token reinforcement program, in which the teacher rated the students' level of appropriate behavior and in which the students traded earned rating points for prizes, clearly led to a reduction of disruptive behavior. When the students were given the opportunity to evaluate their own behavior and to receive rewards in exchange for the evaluation, they returned to their former rates of disruptive behavior.     

Children's affective,behavioral, and cognitive responses to social comparison

Relative outcomes in social commerce with peers are potent determinants of cognitions and behavior in young children. Although there has been considerable attention given to the behavioral consequences of social comparisons following the receipt of rewards, there has been less concern with cognitive or affective consequences. Additionally, little is known about the accrued effects of multiple social comparison experiences that may be consistent or inconsistent with one another. In the present study, young children received a constant level of reward but the amount they saw a peer receive was varied. There were two sequences of reward distribution, and in a given sequence children received either the same number of rewards as the peer (=), more (+), or fewer (?). In a 3 × 3 factorial design all possible combinations occurred. A negative inequality in reward distribution, no matter where it fell in a sequence, made children sad and inclined children to distribute fewer rewards to peers. When a sequence contained an initial experience of positive inequality, children decreased subsequent levels of self-reward. Experiencing a comparison that revealed a negative inequality in reward distribution also disrupted children's accuracy in appraising the overall distribution of rewards: even when an initial negative inequality was completely offset by an equivalent experience of positive inequality, children inaccurately concluded that they had received fewer rewards than their peers.     

基于价值的议程对学习时间分配影响的眼动研究

通过对比不同梯度下, 分值激发的议程与习惯性反应作用一致、不一致条件中, 优先选择项目和学习时间的差异, 考察基于价值的议程对学习时间分配的影响及其动态过程。结果发现：(1)等分值条件下, 汉语为母语被试存在从左到右的习惯性反应。(2)分值梯度对基于议程的学习时间分配的有效性具有调节作用。小分值梯度(1分、5分)激发的议程能够克服习惯性反应对学习时间分配的影响, 但不能使被试建立起优先学习高价值项目的议程; 大分值梯度(1分、10分)能够克服习惯性反应对学习时间分配影响, 且能够使被试建立起优先学习高价值项目的议程。(3)基于议程调节的学习时间分配在时程和阶段上具有动态性和情境特异性。