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.

An evaluation of interdependent and independent group contingencies during the good behavior game.

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) uses an interdependent group contingency to improve classroom behavior. Despite the wealth of research on the effectiveness of the GBG, some teachers may have concerns about their students' abilities to work in teams, particularly if they have a history of poor social skills. We used an alternating treatments design to compare the relative effectiveness of the GBG with interdependent and independent group contingencies in a classroom for children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Our results showed that both versions of the GBG reduced verbal disruptions, inappropriate sitting, and off-task behaviors for all children. However, the majority of children preferred the interdependent arrangement. We discuss how these results may promote more widespread use of the GBG with children with substantial behavioral challenges.

Validating trial-based functional analyses in mainstream primary school classrooms.

There is growing evidence to support the use of trial-based functional analyses, particularly in classroom settings. However, there currently are no evaluations of this procedure with typically developing children. Furthermore, it is possible that refinements may be needed to adapt trial-based analyses to mainstream classrooms. This study was designed to expand the trial-based functional analysis literature by implementing the procedure in 2 mainstream primary school classrooms and validating the analysis through comparison of multiple treatment options, including some that were not indicated by the functional analysis. We also extended the procedure by including a peer-attention condition and obtaining data from teachers regarding the feasibility of the procedures. For all participants, functional analysis results helped to identify effective treatments. Furthermore, relative effects among treatments were accurately predicted by the functional analysis outcomes. Teachers reported that they understood the logic of functional analysis and found both analysis and treatment procedures to be easy and effective.